Tuesday, February 01, 2005

And The Winner For B.S. Question of the Week Is ...

"You know, isn‘t it amazing, Dr. Dobson — and you‘ve been following this for some time — that so many people get on the TV, these so-called unbiased reporters, and they have a world view that‘s shared by their friends on the Upper West Side of Manhattan or in West L.A. and Hollywood and they have no idea what goes on in between the two coasts?"

-- Joe Scarborough, Scarborough Country, Jan. 31

15 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, this quote, in and of itself, does not seem to portray anything other than what the vast majority of people between the two coasts feel about the media.

8:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which is why, I assume, JABBS exists.

Why do people (I doubt the majority) buy into the notion that the country is run by espresso-drinking, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, ACLU card-carrying, Harvard eggheads and Hollywood types? Because they are told that, over and over, by the right-wing of the media.

Just about every time Scarborough, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham or Coulter goes on the air, they resort to stereotyping, name calling of this type. They call Democrats "Socialists" and "femi-nazis." They talk about how Democrats "hate America," "support Saddam," want to "cut and run," want to give the French or the U.N. "veto power over our foreign policy," want "abortion on demand," so that they can "crush the skulls of babies," and support "welfare queens."

This made-up world is financially backed by the many conservative foundations and think tanks, which in turn are financed by Richard Mellon Scaife and a handful of family trusts.

Why is it necessary to shout "liberal media bias" and commit character assassination against the Democrats? Because if they don't continue to say that, they can't justify the need for their own presence. Even though conservative voices dominate talk radio, are featured prominently on the editorial pages of every major paper in the country, overwhelm all the talk on FOX News and CNBC and get more than their fair share of MSNBC and the Sunday talk shows, and even though the conservatives control the presidency, both Houses of Congress, a majority of governorships and local school boards, they want more.

They want compliance. And they will shove it down people's throats over and over how horrible the Democrats are, until, as Coulter says, "the Democrats aren't part of the debate." They want the debate to be between conservative and less-conservative Republicans.

So they preach about how they aren't given a fair shake, how they aren't heard, how they are dominated by the "liberal media."

And they're lying. And they know it.

10:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, I think the prior posts makes my original point for me. We in flyover country do not think that the world is run by Manhattan liberals, blah blah blah. We do, however, think that the NY Times, the broadcast news, and CNN are run by liberals. Ignoring the whole media bias, as that was not central to my point, what he was getting at is that those that create the news in what is considered the traditional media have little to no understanding of those outside of their own little enclaves. It is repeatedly shown by depictions and descriptions of the people between the coasts driving pickup trucks, waving confederate flags, bible beating fools, who when not chewing on a piece of hay, are chewing some tobacco. Whether or not the media is liberal does not really bother me much, since that is simply a matter of personal perspective, and there are ample critics from both sides. However, whether or not the media has an elitist attitude seems to be a subject that is beyond debate. They do not get the parts of the country between the coasts.

1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe I'm just dumb. I watch the news most nights. But I don't remember any stories designed to make derogaory comments about hay-chewing (or tobacco-chewing) pick-up driving Red-Staters.

I remember the story about the judge from Alabama who wanted the ten commandments in his offices, even thought that broke state and federal church-and-state laws. I know about South Carolina's efforts to keep flying the confederate flag. I've seen stories about Dr. James Dobson being offended by the We Are Family video, although he apparently confused that organization with a separate, simiilarly-named organization in denouncing the video.

I think those are both news stories, though. And I don't see how any of them were designed to look down upon Red Staters as a broad group.

I think, though, that a lot of Red Staters hear how they are being chastised by the "liberal elite," even though a) no such liberal elite exists, b) even if it did exist in some form, clearly it has been unsuccessful in shaping the national agenda, given how the GOP controls everything, c) hasn't been saying the nasty things about the rest of the country that have been ascribed to them.

Can you provide an example -- a transcript, a fact-laden anecdote -- of something Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw (who I'm pretty sure is a Republican), Peter Jennings or Aaron Brown has said on the air, or some story that they have shepherded in their roles as managing editors, that fits the description that Scarborough tosses out?

1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To put it simply: It's payback time for the liberals. For the last 30 years they've suceeded in turning deviant behavior (drug abuse, causual sex, gay rights, etc.) into social norms. And now, finally, the quiet majority of fair-minded citizens has grown disgusted and decided to fight back.

2:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone done a statistical survey on liberals vs. conservatives and drug abuse? I mean, Rush Limbaugh was a drug abuser -- does that make him a liberal?

Casual sex? Can you cite some survey saying that liberals have the market cornered on this?

What drivel.

Stop ingesting stereotypes from the Rush Limbaugh handbook of America. Open your eyes and consider, just consider, that you are being lied to by the conservative intelligentsia, including, as JABBS wrote, the "paid conservative propagandists" like Armstrong Williams and Megan Gallagher.

3:13 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

"We do, however, think that the NY Times, the broadcast news, and CNN are run by liberals. ... have little to no understanding of those outside of their own little enclaves."

I, for one, agree. If you want the point-of-view of the simple workingclass people who live in smalltown, USA you must go to the media that really knows what that is like.

Which is why I only ever listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Rupert Murdoch. None of whom are super-rich, work/live in New York City or L.A., and errr... nevermind.

3:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You could start here ...
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=8971
for some statistics about how the "red states" are sooo much more moral than the liberal "blue states". With morals like that I wonder what they do for sins? Oh, that would be lynching people who are different than themselves.

3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom Brokaw is a republican????????????

4:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am trying to decide if i am a liberal or not. i definitely lean left when it comes to social issues, particularly abortion. Where I have the most difficulty is figuring out where i stand on foreign policy. I pretty much know what i like and dislike about Bush and the neo conservatives. What I cannot figure out is the liberal position on iraq, the war on terror and the like, other than vague platitudes. Someone enlighten me because I hope that the two sides are not so far apart.... i am curious about the basic liberal position on what to do in iraq right now, what to do about terror states such as iran syria and n korea, and groups like al qaeda, hezbollah and hamas/PLO.

4:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll just throw out that I have voted Democrat for president since 1988, but have voted Republican in senate and house races, because, after careful consideration, I thought the Democrat in those races was a poor choice.

It's okay to be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, or a social liberal and a hawk on defense. That's how I feel, and no one has tried to ostracize me. We Democrats don't march lockstep, and our leaders don't act like Hastert or DeLay (or Bush) and kick out those who are "disloyal" (showing independent thought).

That might actually be a negative for the party, because the GOP noisemakers like Rush capitalize on the fact that not all Democrats agree on everything. Folks like Ann Coulter say we're "disorganized" and that we're "in-fighting." I think we become stronger when we try to find common ground, but recognize our differences.

4:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you in general. I am a social lliberal and fiscal conservative, if those labels mean anything anymore. I am clearly more hawkish on defense than many on the far left. BUt not crazy on defense either. I just cant figure out the message the dems are trying to send.

Unfortunately, one of the byproducts of disagreement in one party as a norm while the other falls lockstep in many cases is that in a national race, like a presidential one, the lockstep party plays to win and the other doesnt seem to have a straight position. It seems the candidate has to cater to very disparate views which makes life difficult. And currently, there is a mini war going on in the democratic party as to how to have that meeting of the minds. The liberal far left is winning right now which scares people like me. I cannot stand the thought of a party run by people like ted kennedy or those with his views. I believe the dems need to get behind a platform that can win without sacrificing the overall principles they have. If people within the party are so far apart as to those principles, the dems are in for a long road as an opposition party.

You watch, the republicans will make a determination sometime in about two years as to whether they need a centrist or a right wing conservative to win the next election. and they will get behind whichever candidate can get them to the white house. they play to win first and put some of their differences second. the dems need to do that as well.

5:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Absolutely.

Furthermore, the GOP can use the disparate positions with the Democratic party to their advantage by taking the least palatable and suggesting it's mainstream. So the Dems position on Iraq is to "cut and run" and on defense its to give "France veto power" and so on.

I think officially, the Dems position on Iraq is that Bush didn't tell them the whole truth, and that they wanted a more measured approach, rather than fight first and ask questions later. The Dems argued that Osama, not Saddam, was our biggest problem, and questioned whether Bush was using 9/11 as an excuse to go after Iraq. Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill, if you believe them, spelled that much out along the way.
The Dems are pro-Israel, but support a Palestinian state under the right scenario. I think the Dems generally supported Bush's "roadmap" when it was first announced, but like a lot of other things, didn't think Bush did a good job following up on it. While no one suggested Arafat was worthy anymore of being a part of the process -- after he balked at the Clinton-brokered peace plan -- the ignore-the-situation plan executed by Bush was wrong-headed too.

5:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree but again, the position on iraq, war on terror... every time i ask a liberal democrat, they tell me what they WOULD HAVE done, not what they will do now. without arguing the merits of bushs case to go into iraq (whether he lied to america, was lied to or whatever), no intelligent person is going to listen to a position about what they would do with 20-20 hindsight. I would have bought Google yesterday and sold it today and retired.

I want to know an articulated position for what to do now, and into the future about the war in iraq, and the rest of the terror issues. Maybe they arent that different from Bush at this point. Maybe that is why they appear silent, except for the far left who dont agree on much but want the troops home now.

What is the story from the democrat side?

5:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the official position now on Iraq is to actually increase our troop load, to get the violence under control and then to ease out of the country as the Iraqi soldiers and police are trained.

The Democrats believe that Bush has screwed up the training, and that finding a neutral site -- such as a U.S. base -- would allow for a greater number of Iraqis to be trained. A very small number of Iraqis have completed training as police.

The Democrats think Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary, shouldn't be trusted with any more contracts, and that by giving some of the workload to Iraqi companies, Iraq's unemployment rate would drop, incomes would rise, and life might return to normal.

Part of the problem, again, is that the GOP controls the presidency and both houses of Congress. The Dems need to build coaltions with liberal and moderate Republicans if they want to get anything accomplished. And I doubt they want to look like a bunch of whiners on the Sunday talk shows, so unfortunately, they're not being proactive in changing U.S. policy. The only voices you are hearing are the whiners, but I don't know if there's anything that can be reasonably done to change that.

6:18 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares