Media Bias
A few months ago, I read a book entitled "Do as I Say (Not as I Do)...Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy." It's a short book and an interesting read for a Right-Wing extremist like me. It's full of red meat about the looney left.
But what really struck me about the book is not so much the hypocrisy of liberals. After all, hypocrisy thrives on both sides of the political spectrum. We've all heard of Dr. Laura's nude photos, Bill Bennett's gambling, and Rush Limbaugh's drug use.
Ahh, but that's the point. We've all heard about those issues. But why haven't we heard about these:
- Did you know Michael Moore owned stock in Halliburton, as well as defense contractors Honeywell, Boeing, and Loral? He's actually a part of the military-industrial complex.
- Did you know that Al Franken, in hiring or influencing the hiring of 112 people for his projects over the years, hired only one black? Who's the racist?
- Did you know that Ralph Nader, champion of the little guy, lives in a $2,000,000.00 home supposedly owned by his unemployed brother?
- Did you know that the advocate for labor, Barbara Streisand, consistently refuses to pay her laborers, enduring liens of $50,000.00 for unpaid contractors?
- Did you know that the great advocate of social justice, Nancy Pelosi, refuses to use union labor on her $25,000,000.00 Napa Valley vineyard?
I'll bet you didn't know those things. And why not? Because the press, while delighting over the foibles of the right, gives political cover to the liberals.
The fact is that these people are phonies. But the left-wing media understands that if their predilections for hypocrisy were generally known, they would lose all credibility with the general public. And if the spokespersons for the liberal ideas were proven to be fakes, the ideas themselves would lose credibility.
11 comments:
Did you also know that the courts have proved that the more intelligent you are are the more liberal you tend to be.
"The courts have proved" that, huh? Or maybe one group of lawyers convinced one judge of that? Or what in the hell are you even talking about?
No finding of "fact" in one case applies to any other. So no "courts" have "proved" any such thing, at least not with any sort of general application.
Melody said:
You seem angry. Angry that so-called "liberals" may actually understand capitalism. Just because a person is liberal and may agree with socialist ideas such as universal health care for all Americans, shouldn't mean that they are not allowed to work within the system in which we live. You are quick to call names, and I don't think its appropriate in civilized discussion. I recall that you recently called me "ignorant." If you recall, we learned about name calling in law school. It is called an ad hominen argument, meaning you attack the person instead of the belief or idea because you don't have a good legal argument. My advice to you is to learn to accept that this country is split 50/50. Not 60/40, not 70/30, but 50/50. Your opinion is not the end-all of political thought.
Your friend,
Melody
Melody:
First, sorry to delete and recast your post, but I do that when there are references to my name. As I have explained before, it is easy enough to find out who I am but I prefer to retain at least a semblance of anonymity.
Second, I don't think I called you "ignorant." I went back and found the post I think you are talking about, and that comment was, I believe, made by a different poster named "gman." I generally try not to insult the people who take the time to read what I write. And I agree with you about ad hominem attacks, although I have been known to make them once or twice! To say one is ignorant, however, is not necessarily such an attack, although with some connotations of the word it sure can be.
I am not angry that "liberals" understand capitalism. One thing that does anger me, though, and is the point of this post, is what I perceive to be a political bias in some of our institutions (academia, media) because I think this operates to make the public as a whole less informed. This is not to say that there are not good ideas on both sides of the aisle, but if the average person only hears one side of the story, it substantially reduces the likelihood of our society advancing 'the debate,' whatever the topic may be at a given moment.
So, given that premise, is it not fair to question why, in the glow of the success of Farenheit 911, no one in the NY Times, LA Times, ABC, CNN, etc., bothered to point out that Michael Moore owned stock in Halliburton? They didn't point it out because they wanted to protect his message. Now, whether you agree with the message is not the point; if the public sees that film and accepts Moore as credible, the public is, in essence, robbed of crucial facts upon which to evaluate the credibility of the statements he makes in the movie.
And yes, I am angry that some of the liberal elite (Hillary Clinton comes to mind) seem so willing to advocate a socialistic paradigm when it is clear she does not anticipate living in her own worker's paradise...well, at least not down here with the workers. Given the track record of socialism, communism, and Marxism, and the number of dead left in the wake, how can anyone advocate a move in that direction in good faith?
And, finally, I recognize that my opinion is not the end all of political thought. It's not even the beginning of political thought! It's just my opinion, one of many. Some agree, some don't. But the fact remains, this is my weblog, and I do get to control its content.
Again, I am sorry if I called you ignorant, but I don't think I did.
See you around.
GeeGuy: I don't quite buy it. None of the instances of hypocrisy you cite are nearly as blatant and ironic as the lapses of Limbaugh, Bennett and Dr. Ruth, and none nearly as funny.
Take Michael Moore, for instance. Were any other details given? Did he own tens of thousands of dollars worth of stock, which would be interesting, or just a few shares? I've heard of liberal activists who buy stock in corporations in order to be sent their annual reports and to allow them some voice, however small, in corporate affairs.
As for Streisand, so she's being sued by a contractor. That hardly proves she's a heartless millionaire. How do we know she's not being sued by sloppy or thieving contractors, which is, um, not unheard-of? And Nader living in a big house? That's like saying George Bush can't support the troops without himself fighting in Iraq. Al Franken? How many blacks applied? The Pelosi thing sounds like the most probable case of hypocrisy, but again, I'd need more facts.
On the other hand, we know Bennett lost millions gambling, we know Limbaugh was doing hillbilly heroin, and we know Dr. Ruth was photographed in her birthday suit. The press -- whether you want to call it liberal or not -- loves a smoking gun.
Actually, Ed, he owned at least 50 shares of Halliburton and sold them for a 15% profit. You're telling me that a photocopy of Michael Moore's IRS Schedule D showing shares of Halliburton stock, in light of all he says about the company, is not a smoking gun? And in Babs' case, it's not "a contractor," but contractors.
With all due respect, subjective observations about how blatent or ironic one form of hypocrisy is compared to another sounds like excuse making. To me, Al Franken lecturing white America about being racist when he can't find a way to hire any blacks is very blatent and ironic, as is Moore's ownership of stock in defense contractors.
But again, regardless of how interesting the two-faced actors might be, isn't it strange that the 'mainstream press' apparently only finds it interesting when the hypocrisy falls on the right?
GeeGuy: That's all I was wondering, whether any of the claims were documented. Moore's case does sound like one that should be subject to some attention, and scorn. The jury's still out on the other cases, unless damning documentation was included in the book.
Fair enough. Sorry to sound like a d*ckhead, Ed.
GeeGuy: No offense taken. I did some googling on Moore and see that even after the publication of the book and his tax returns, he simply brushes off the allegation as a right-wing fantasy. No surprise there. He's got a lot of skin, but it's pretty damned thin, and I think he figures it's all right to tell blatant lies, as long as he's doing The Right Thing, and of course he always believes he's doing that.
And what's with having to interpret those damned psychadelic letters before being able to post a comment? I'm getting old, you know, and it ain't getting any easier.
I didn't call Melody ignorant in that post. I said that she was ignorant of free market ecnomics, if I recall correctly. I would never call someone a name. It's not my style. I hate ad hominem attacks in either direction...
Apology accepted.
Post a Comment