Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Radio Clown Mark Levin Says "60 or 65 percent" Of Americans Identify Themselves As Conservatives. ... Uh, No.

On last night's rant, radio clown Mark Levin said that "60 or 65 percent" of Americans identify themselves as conservatives.

The man is simply delusional.

Harris has actually looked into this. In January, it released its latest poll on the subject, and found that 34 percent of Americans identified themselves as conservatives.

Harris has asked the question nearly every year since 1968. And if anything, the recent trendline is that there are fewer conservatives than in past years.

In 1995, 40 percent of Americans identified themselves as conservatives. The number has drifted down ever since.

It took me about 30 seconds to find these statistics. Just imagine what other "facts" Levin gets wrong in a typical rant.

45 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:34 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

What a long, obnoxious, pointless rant. Maybe just provide a link next time, doofus?

10:06 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Mark Levin said...
"If we don’t have the will to take out an enemy that struck the heart of America, then we will be doomed. That’s why we must win back these offices and take back power."


Thanks for posting that, Anonymous. In all that has been posted by libs here on this blog, I don't remember ever reading anything that convinced me that they had even the slightest clue as to the scope of the threat we are facing. If they did, I can't believe they would have fought this president so fiercely when all he is doing is trying to protect us.

In any case, for anyone who might want to get a glimpse into the heart of radical Islam, you should try to watch Glenn Beck's special, "Exposed: The Extremist Agenda", which will air on CNN Headline News tonight for the first time at 7:00 pm, 9:00 pm, and 12:00 midnight.

If you still don't get it, or you think this is "fearmongering", do yourself a favor and watch it, because this is something you have never seen before on our networks. It goes beyond the movie "Obsession".

Up till now, imo, our media has been criminally negligent in deliberately not showing us the truth about the dangers we face, not only as a nation, but as a civilization. I have no time to post today, but I hope you guys watch the special. We're all in this mess together.

10:09 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

At once, the language and tone in anonymous' reposted rant is friendly to the conservative viewpoint, and hostile to the liberal viewpoint.
It presents the biased, hateful, hostile conservative viewpoint of what liberals are, rather than the truth about liberals.

This is like Hitler's definition of Jews, and just as readily objectable and discardable.

As for Trinity's post, I take umbrage to the assumption "liberals" do not understand the Islamic extremist agenda, and need to watch a television special to educate themselves.

You want a (tongue-n-cheek) liberal definition of conservatives?
You conservatives seek out all the justification you can find to validate your paranoias and fears, and your yearning for uniform government mind control and eradication of individual liberties.

10:53 AM  
Blogger David R. Mark said...

top post removed for length

poster can re-post a link, please.

10:55 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

The MLFers apparently don't want to deal with the point -- Levin lied about a simple statistic.

Trinity, I asked you a question on the other Mark Levin post (the Santorum/Allen post). I'd love to hear your answer.

11:08 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

If they did, I can't believe they would have fought this president so fiercely when all he is doing is trying to protect us.

>>

This is such bullshit. Democrats understand what's at stake. That's why Democrats a) wanted Bush to dismantle Al Qaeda and capture Osama, and supported the war in Afghanistan wholeheartedly to serve that purpose, and b) initially were willing to give the administration a lot of rope to reign in Iraq, because we didn't want the proof to be in the form of a mushroom cloud, as Condi put it.

But we also recognize that the U.S. is a nation of laws. If you only follow the laws you like, that's not Democracy. Bush clearly didn't follow FISA, and rather than change the law via the Patriot Act, he chose to go around it. That's just not right. Democrats have no problem with tapping into conversations, and even getting the appropriate warrants after the fact, as the law allows. It's just ridiculous and false spin to suggest Democrats don't want to monitor terrorists actions.

And furthermore, and this is what is so disappointing, and led to JABBS writing about being ashamed of Bush and so on, is that while Bush has made it clear that we're not going out of our way to capture Osama, the RNC runs ads trying to scare us about Osama. That's just duplicitous shit. It's a big game, and you are all too willing to play it. Some of us have lifted the curtain, and we're tired of the Wizard pulling all those scary levers.

>>>>>

In any case, for anyone who might want to get a glimpse into the heart of radical Islam, you should try to watch Glenn Beck's special, "Exposed: The Extremist Agenda", which will air on CNN Headline News tonight for the first time at 7:00 pm, 9:00 pm, and 12:00 midnight.

>>

Right. We should also listen to objective Glenn Beck.

When you start listening to objective Keith Olbermann and objective Al Franken, then we can talk.

What bullshit. I mean, there are times when it's just too much. If you agree with the fringe right, you're a true American. Everyone else wants to adopt a terrorist. Can't we move beyond these gross stereotypes?

11:15 AM  
Anonymous CornerPerro said...

The definition of conservative is such a broad definition, that's why especially at some so-called fair and unbiased political surveys online, that are meant to tell you where you stand.

They keep expanding the definition so they can try to convince more and more people that they are conservative.

11:24 AM  
Anonymous gratuitous said...

Oh, we're all conservatives, didn't you know?

If you think the Bush administration was wrong for squandering $500 billion on Afghanistan and Iraq, that makes you a conservative.

If you support the troops (whatever that means, and it's pretty meaningless), that makes you a conservative.

If you don't think every pregnant woman should run out and have an abortion right this second, that makes you a conservative.

Try it yourself! It's easy and fun. Sort of like Jeff Foxworthy's "You might be a redneck" series.

11:24 AM  
Anonymous maxrandb said...

The fact that this loser has a national radio show is further evidence that talk-radio has either "jumped the shark", or "gone through the looking glass".

Damn. All you need to do now is rant about liberals and Democrats for 2-3 hours, insult peoples intelligence, and suck elephant dick, and you too can have a radio show.

I weep for my country.

11:24 AM  
Anonymous kentuck said...

But what percent of Republicans are conservative in name only?
That should be the question.

11:24 AM  
Anonymous EST said...

I don't doubt this number. As a matter of fact, I think the number is actually higher than this by at least 5-10 points.

Definitions are the real problem. Conservative is not the opposite of liberal, at least in a political sense.

F'rinstance, I am a bleeding heart liberal-against the death penalty, for helping those in distress, and for almost all of the things that define the most liberal/progressive person I know.

Yet I am conservative. I don't waste money on frivolous things. I do not and have never messed around on my wife. This house and grounds that I live in is totally paid for; we live very frugally; our vehicles are pretty old but serviceable and well cared for. I don't care for change but when it's obvious that change is coming, I embrace it willingly, even happily.

I suspect there are many like me. I voted straight democratic, even the races that I was not particularly familiar with, on the strength of their willingness to call themselves democrats in a time when that is not terribly popular.

11:25 AM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said...
Mark Levin said...
"If we don’t have the will to take out an enemy that struck the heart of America, then we will be doomed. That’s why we must win back these offices and take back power."

In all that has been posted by libs here on this blog, I don't remember ever reading anything that convinced me that they had even the slightest clue as to the scope of the threat we are facing. If they did, I can't believe they would have fought this president so fiercely when all he is doing is trying to protect us.

Trinity this is absolutly the worse bullshit I have ever heard or read. You repukes kept saying over and over and over that the sky is falling but all I see or hear any you repukes do is rant and rave that the sky is falling. You guys talk with forked tongues because I see no patriotic actions from any of you guys or gals. If we are ever atttacked in mass( which I doubt) by any of these enemies you want us to be afraid of I hope I am standing in the midst of a horde of liberals because they are the only ones that I could depend on to fight back with me. Yea, I can just imagine Levin and the rest of his supporters hollering out, go get'em you cowards while they run for the hills.

I heard this same thing about communism while I was growing up, including watching all of the "sky is falling" movies, instructions on how to build shelters, the practicing in schools for a bombing raid and all of the stories how they would come into our homes and take all of the kids to convert us to communism.

Hell, how afraid do you want us to be Trinity?

Some of reasons the world hates us so much is our war mongering posture, our big bully posture , our hate everybody posture by the repukes and the foreign policies of this adminstration.

5:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

gratuitous
You think we squandered money in Afghanistan? Is this Cindy Sheeham? Just goes to show you, you libs dont get it.

You dont know what supporting the troops means, which is par for the course with your stalinists.

What a great world this would be if you would all just die.
Painfully I might add.

5:50 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

anonymous, why do you hate america?

6:45 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Dave G. said...
anonymous, why do you hate america?

Yea, Dave I hope the Repukes do not hate me as much as they hate the troops and America or maybe say, I hope they do not "love" me as much as they love the troops and America!?!

8:01 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"This is such bullshit. Democrats understand what's at stake."


Are you sure, rob?

whoop4467 said...
"I heard this same thing about communism while I was growing up, including watching all of the "sky is falling" movies, instructions on how to build shelters, the practicing in schools for a bombing raid and all of the stories how they would come into our homes and take all of the kids to convert us to communism.

Hell, how afraid do you want us to be Trinity?


I repeat, some of you are indeed clueless. I rest my case.

11:43 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

"I repeat, some of you are indeed clueless. I rest my case."

Trinity, stop insulting everyone's intelligence, including your own.
I think Whoop brings up a very good analogy. I too grew up during the sixties' Communism scare, likely implemented in part to keep the U.S. engaged in Vietnam. Today the exploitation from the Republicans may very well be to keep the U.S. saddled in an equally frivolous endeavor in Iraq.
Don't give me that lessons learned from 9-11 crap. We certainly learned a lot from 9-11 on exactly how NOT to conduct foreign affairs following such an attack.

7:59 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Trinity, one person does not represent the entirety of a political ideology. If that were the case, we could conclude that every conservative was a homicidal, xenophobic, anti-women, anti-gay lunatic, based on the ravings of anonymous.

How about we skip over the hyperbole and stay on topic?

11:10 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

In case you didn't notice, rob, I did indeed qualify my statement with the word "some". And if you are making the claim that these people are few and far between, I disagree with you strongly.

As far as Whoop's analogy, I might point out that "Mutually Assured Destruction" doesn't work with Islamist extremists who have an apocalyptic view of the world. They are saying "Bring it on!"

11:54 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Trinity, I'm saying to you that I can have a conversation with you. And some others here can, too.

But when any of us stray into hyperbole-land, it all goes to pot.

'Nuff said?

12:16 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said...As far as Whoop's analogy, I might point out that "Mutually Assured Destruction" doesn't work with Islamist extremists who have an apocalyptic view of the world. They are saying "Bring it on!"

Bush, Bush's followers and the christian right are also ones that have an apocalyptic view of the world. Bush is the one that started the he-man statement of "bring it on". If you, Bush and his followers could assure the total destruction of the earth right now it would be done because there is the thought that the second coming would occur. So with your desire for the end to come why are you so afraid of it?

As I have said repeatedly, I know there are many people that would like to destroy us sooner than later and has been that way for my whole life. The best way to keep our citizens viligent and prepared for any extremist act is for the government to speak about it in an open, honest, factual, and clear manner. Continueing to frighten the citizens through "fearmongering" techniques and to continue the rhetoric that the sky is falling is not the way to endear rational thought about the problem! Tell us what is being done to stop the potential of a successfull extremist attack. Telling me that the President can wire-tap any phone, listen to any converstaion, read any e-mail without the oversight of another branch of government made up of trusted and honest elected officials is not an accepted way in our form of republic that is governed by our constitution and our laws! What about the 9/11 commission recommendations that would help alleviate some of the citizens's fears?

I still say the repukes are using the "terrorist" attack of 9/11 and aftermath of the terror felt by all Americans to continue using "fearmomgering" and "the sky is falling" techniques to gain votes from many citizens. In addition, repukes use emotional issues like abortion, gays and gay marriage to keep a certain group of voters from ever thinking about any legislation that affects their economic well being and other aspects of their life.

5:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here ye, Here ye, All Delusional Republicans.
Most of us are just too busy trying to create a better life for our families to be bothered with your unfounded, vauge, paranoid bullshit about Mideastern ghouls vying to invade our homes and convert us all us to Islam.
So you want to do something to best prevent another 9-11? Work to get our troops out of Iraq. Now!
Help us find a competent president who will work towards gaining U.S. respect in the world, not more hatred.

Otherwise, go kiss Bush and Cheney's yellow-streaked, chicken-hawk asses. Go buy yourself some duct tape and gas masks. Dig yourself a bomb shelter in your backyard. Be sure to take a radio glued only to radio stations that play Levin and Limbaugh.
Lock yourself inside and stay there.

10:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And I can assure you inside your bomb shelter you will never have to confront another homosexual ever again.

10:24 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
"And I can assure you inside your bomb shelter you will never have to confront another homosexual ever again."


God help you. You're a freakin' asshole.

1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And down there you also will not only be free to indulge in your terrorism fantasies and religion-based death wishes.
But you also will not be able to any longer make attempts at imposing your paranoid, twisted beliefs and secret
desires to eradicate America's freedoms and to install a dictatorship government upon the rest of us peace- and freedom-loving people.

2:17 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark said...
"top post removed for length

poster can re-post a link, please."


Thank you, David. Here it is...

http://marklevinfan.com/?p=1681

2:37 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

So did any one here watch the Glenn Beck CNN Headline News Special?

thewaronterrible said...
"As for Trinity's post, I take umbrage to the assumption "liberals" do not understand the Islamic extremist agenda, and need to watch a television special to educate themselves."


Well, you shouldn't "take umbrage" twot. I thoroughly understand the threat we're facing, and although I didn't feel that I, personally, really NEEDED to see the program, nonetheless, I was interested in watching rare clips of what is being shown on Middle Eastern television.

It's important to be aware of the duplicity of leaders such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who say one thing when speaking in front of the U.N., and when being interviewed by Anderson Cooper, and quite another when back home, addressing his own people. You shouldn't take a suggestion to watch the CNN special as some sort of personal insult.

If anyone is interested, I think CNN Headline News is going to re-air the program on Sunday night.

2:52 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
" Right. We should also listen to objective Glenn Beck.


Rob, this is a documentary. Also, Beck states right up front that he is not a journalist. He also states right up front that he is a conservative, and everything he does and says must be seen through that prism.

Glenn also states that it is not a balanced look at Islam. We've already seen the PC side of the story. This is the "other" side. The purpose of the program is to expose the agenda of radical Islam to those of us who as yet, have not come to terms with it, and that encompasses a vast number of people in this country.

Also, I would point out that you will be seeing glimpses into radical Islam that "journalists" have not previously been permitted to show us. And yes, you read that correctly. Until Glenn fought to air this show, networks have not allowed such footage to be seen on American television. That in itself, should give you cause for concern.

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"When you start listening to objective Keith Olbermann and objective Al Franken, then we can talk."


Where is the comparison, rob? Olbermann, who btw, I actually have watched on occasion, presents his views as though he is an objective journalist without an agenda. I've never heard him give a disclaimer stating that he is a liberal, with very liberal views that are bound to influence the way he presents the "news". That in itself makes him a less honest person than Glenn Beck, who makes no secret which way he leans politically. Olbermann should stick to sports, which, at least from what my husband says, he is pretty good at.

3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

maxrandb said...
"The fact that this loser has a national radio show is further evidence that talk-radio has either "jumped the shark", or "gone through the looking glass"."


Actually, maxrandb, Glenn Beck is NOT a loser. He's an EX-loser, as well as a recovering alcoholic and a self-described EX-scumbag.

Today he is another person entirely. A decent family man who, like most of us, cares a lot about the country that our kids and grandkids, God willing, are going to grow up in.

Another way to describe Beck is that he is an American success story.

7:38 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

The above post is mine.

7:38 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
Here ye, Here ye, All Delusional Republicans.
Most of us are just too busy trying to create a better life for our families to be bothered with your unfounded, vauge, paranoid bullshit about Mideastern ghouls vying to invade our homes and convert us all us to Islam.


We're ALL busy working for our families, dufus. That doesn't mean you should stick your head up your ass and ignore what is happening in the world.

7:43 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

You'd have to be an idiot to not understand that Olbermann is a liberal. He doesn't have to put a disclaimer at the beginning of his show to say as much. His commentary runs to the liberal side, just as Beck's runs to the conservative side. The real dishoenst ones are the idiots on Fox who do the "fair and balanced" nonsense when they're clearly favoring the conservative agenda.

Olbermann's the only one who is really doing any commentary that questions the current administration in a provocative and straightforward manner, which the rest of the sychophants out there pretend nothing is wrong, including Glenn Beck, a dirtbag of the highest order.

11:00 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Olbermann considers himself to be objective, when he clearly is not. Sort of like the rest of the MSM who, although they vote mostly Democrat, would rather die before admitting they have a liberal bias.

Everyone has a bias. You can't accuse Fox of having a conservative bias, unless you also admit to the MSM having a liberal bias, and I've yet to heard a lib admit to that.

Glenn Beck has pulled himself out of the gutter, gotten off alcolhol and drugs, and become a responsible and successful individual. I thought you libs are supposed to be compassionate, caring people who applaud and rejoice when a fellow-human being overcomes their private demons.

Of course, I'm just jerking your chain. I'm well aware that not all liberals are worthy of the reputation they think they possess regarding compassion. Talk is cheap. You've got to walk the walk in order to have credibility on an issue. You clearly have none.

1:20 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

You can't accuse Fox of having a conservative bias, unless you also admit to the MSM having a liberal bias, and I've yet to heard a lib admit to that.

I'm not going to get into all of my thoughts here, but I'll keep them short.

--Journalists on an individual level lean more to the left than the right. Agreed.

--On an institutional level, journalists, and the "MSM" try their damnest to be objective, and to call it like it is. They're not always perfect and in many cases, not even close. But most of their failures are often due to either A) sloppiness B) misreading an issue or laziness or C) being too easy a mark for some hack whispering in their ear.

Fox, meanwhile, intentionally presents a conservative case as if it's a balanced one. That's the difference. And the way most major media organizations have moved to the right anyway, such as CNN, the NYT and MSNBC, there's barely any weight to the whole "The MSM is liberal" nonsense. The more I hear complaints from conservatives, the more it just sounds like whining that conservatives don't want the truth to be told.


Glenn Beck has pulled himself out of the gutter, gotten off alcolhol and drugs, and become a responsible and successful individual. I thought you libs are supposed to be compassionate, caring people who applaud and rejoice when a fellow-human being overcomes their private demons.

I'm happy he's overcome his private demons. Good for him. This does not mean that he isn't, on some levels, an a**hole.

You've got to walk the walk in order to have credibility on an issue. You clearly have none.

I still don't get your need to resort to viciousness at every turn. You could debate an issue with me but instead, you'd rather get personal. You don't know me, or anything about me, really. So try to debate the issue, or buzz off.

1:46 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"--On an institutional level, journalists, and the "MSM" try their damnest to be objective, and to call it like it is. They're not always perfect and in many cases, not even close. But most of their failures are often due to either A) sloppiness B) misreading an issue or laziness or C) being too easy a mark for some hack whispering in their ear.


What a bunch of lame excuses. No offense, but you are delusional if you truly believe that.

MSM has a problem being objective because they are a bunch of liberal elitists who all share the same worldview, and so most always agree with one another, and think that their view is the "correct" one, and that their thinking represents the "center".

They believe people to the right of what they believe are extremists, because they mistakingly think they are in the center. If they would accept the fact that they are way on the left, they might more easily understand that when someone like FNC comes along with a more conservative view than they have, they are just that. More right of center.

Why is it all right for MSM to be left of center yet not all right for FNC to be right of center? The only reason people like you think FNC is so biased, is because for most of your life you've been exposed only to one side, and that's the liberal side.

And yes, it's true that most journalists do try their best to be objective. I'm not saying they are all biased on purpose. What I am saying is that they simply cannot help themselves, because they are blind to it.

Dave G. said...
"I still don't get your need to resort to viciousness at every turn. You could debate an issue with me but instead, you'd rather get personal. You don't know me, or anything about me, really. So try to debate the issue, or buzz off."


LOL Buzz off? Listen, when you can manage to debate without using all sorts of insulting language about conservatives, then I'll respond in kind. I feed off of your posts, in case you haven't noticed. We've discussed this before. I'm civil and pleasant to whomever is civil and pleasant to me. You be nice. I'll be nice.

Dave G. said...
"I'm happy he's overcome his private demons. Good for him. This does not mean that he isn't, on some levels, an a**hole."


Some people think you're an asshole too. Some people think I am. So what? As far as you being so insulted that I said you don't demonstrate compassion, too bad. I'm just calling them how I see them.

And you didn't say you thought Beck was an asshole, btw. You attacked him personally by saying he is a "dirtbag of the highest order", which is not true. If you do not like ad hominems, I'd suggest that you not use quite so many yourself. :)

6:57 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Well, you've once again demonstrated you know very little about journalism at all. That's fine.

9:37 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

The only reason people like you think FNC is so biased, is because for most of your life you've been exposed only to one side, and that's the liberal side.

Errr, no...it's because they are biased.

10:50 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Well, you've once again demonstrated you know very little about journalism at all. That's fine."


Right. I know nothing, you know everything. Fine.

Then how about taking the word of someone who knows a lot about journalism? Someone who worked for CBS for thirty years? Here's an interview that Geoff Metcalf does with Bernie Goldberg if you'd care to read it.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/qa/25707.html

Oh, and before you respond, make sure to first go to one of your leftist sources like Huffington News or The Daily Howler, etc., so you can get some ideas on how to attack and marginalize Bernie Goldberg.

1:53 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Sometimes I wonder if you're not sitting at that computer screen twirling a Snidely Whiplash mustache when you write "how to marginalize blah blah blah hardeharhar...."

I don't have anything to marginalize him with other than what I know, which is that he's got some conservative views. But it doesn't matter. Conservatives inherently believe the media is and always will be stacked against them no matter how far the likes of CNN and others bend over to be nicer to them than Democrats, no matter how fawning hte press coverage of Pres. Bush was for the first 2 to 3 years of his presidency was. And it all sounds like a bunch of whining, really. I need real examples of biased media coverage, so give me a few if you like. You can start with the Dan Rather/Bush National Guard thing, which I'll freely admit was (as well as a combo of the other things I mentioned, sloppiness, laziness, and being so convinced of a story without checking the true evidence).

6:36 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Sometimes I wonder if you're not sitting at that computer screen twirling a Snidely Whiplash mustache when you write "how to marginalize blah blah blah hardeharhar...."


lol Dave G. That was pretty funny. So you DO have a sense of humor after all! ;)

I don't have anything to marginalize him with other than what I know, which is that he's got some conservative views.

Really? And what might they be? Seriously. I'm just curious. What are his conservative views?

I read his book, "Bias" when it first came out, but I can't say that I remember his political affiliation. I thought he may have been a Democrat, but I'd have to re-read the book to be sure. I could be wrong. I do know that just about all of his friends at the time were liberal Democrats.

"Bias" would be a good place to start if you are interested in finding out why so many people feel that the MSM slants way to the left. You don't have to even buy the book. Check it out at the library, read it, and then tell me what you think of it.

If you like, you can recommend some book that you want ME to read, and I'll read that one. How about it? Sound fair?

And now I'd better go trim and wax my mustache. rofl ;)

10:59 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

I just know he did the "100 people who are screwing up America" thing, and that list included maybe 2 to 4 conservatives, one of whom was the dude who shot that abortion doctor. So let's say I don't know that I trust his views, exactly.

As for your offer, it's sweet. I read mostly fiction, though. I will read that article posted above, and comment at some point. Fair enough?

10:24 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David G. said...
"As for your offer, it's sweet. I read mostly fiction, though. I will read that article posted above, and comment at some point. Fair enough?"


Sure. I thought it was a decent enough interview that dealt with the basic problem. BTW, here's a link to the editorial that Goldberg wrote back in 1996 that started the whole thing...

http://tinyurl.com/lmks7

Also, Goldberg describes himself as an "old-fashioned liberal".

2:16 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Ok, I'm reading that article. I'll dissect what I think are relevant/irrelevant points, going forward. All quotes in ital are Goldberg.

The old argument that the networks and other "media elites" have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore.

Um, ok, so he's just stating it's a fact, when it needs to be quantified. Since it's 2006, this would need to be revised. But he starts off by saying it's a fact when there are many studies that have shown -- at least now -- the # of conservative v. liberal guests on network and cable news (not counting fox, even) runs to the conservative side.

But where was the identification of the Brookings Institution as "a liberal think tank"? Might that influence Mr. Gale's take on the flat tax?

He's wrong already. Brookings is a centrist think tank, and at least at the time, was run by Republicans; the new director is an old Clinton hand, Strobe Talbott, but still, Goldberg is already distorting.

He then goes on to blast this particular news report - which may very well be a sloppy, poorly-reported piece of junk, as much TV news is. But I'm still not getting his point other than this particular news report.

Part of the problem is that most reporters and editors--television and print--are total dunces when it comes to the economy.
Unverifiable information. If by "most" he's included anyone who works for every podunk paper in the country, he's probably right. The more senior and experienced you are, the more you know. And after 15 years where the stock market and economy were at any given moment the #1 or #2 obsession among the media, it's no longer germane. But I'll grant him this, even if it's bogus.

Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton's health care plan "wacky"? Can you imagine any editor allowing it?

Is he serious? He's nuts, isnt he? Al Gore gives a fiery speech about global warming - or about the President - and commentators feel free to say he's "off his meds." So that's nuts.


Anyway -- Trinity, I'm not sure if this was the exact editorial you meant to post to (it's from 2002). If not, repost another URL and I'll have a go again.


NOW, ON TO THE GEOFF METCALF INTERVIEW.

What we call liberal bias is a cultural bias. The cultural bias is that these guys overwhelmingly live in Manhattan and Washington, D.C.

Q: And they socialize with most of the people they are covering.


Three points.

1. The vast majority of the types who live in D.C. end up not really seeing the forest from the trees. I agree there. But this doesn't necessarily always manifest itself in a liberal bias. I'll point you to the way reporters chuckled like mad at Bush's dumb joke a few years ago where he did the "Whoops, no WMD under there!" bit, which is ridiculously insulting. The way they whooped and hollared at the "funny" Rumsfeld conferences where he'd snigger at all of them. the lack of tough questions asked the president for 2-3 years of his first term. They do indeed get too close to their sources and lose all perspective. But there are plenty of examples I can give you where this manifests in a conservative bias (Judith Miller's IRaq stories, the idiot writer who allowed the admin. to smear Paul O'Neill anonymously when he left), instead of just a liberal one.

2. I will argue that reporters probably have a liberal bent when it comes to 3 issues - gay rights, abortion and gun control. But an issue like the economy, tort reform, or geopolitics is so wide, so diffuse, and the paper goes through so many editors that such a bias by a reporter would naturally be cut out of it, if it exists at all.

3. I don't remember my third point. Onward...

Meaning I'm a liberal the way liberals used to be

Ugh. Shut up. Stop congratulating yourself. He's a fool.

The buzz is crazy on this book, and it's just been out like 10 minutes.

More flatulent self-congratulation. His book has buzz, therefore it means he's right. So explain the "OJ did it" book sales to me.

Fox News, which I think is frankly doing a better job than anybody of at least attempting to be fair and balanced, is getting marginalized by the effete mainstream as being some kind of wacko right-wing extreme.

A: Exactly. And they need to do that because, otherwise, they have a real problem.


Bonkers. Off his rocker. Sorry, but this is a conservative viewpoint. They present more conservative views than liberal, far more. They marginalize John Kerry by saying he "looks French." They identify Mark Foley not once but twice as a Democrat. Sorry. This is bullcrap pure and simple.


That's precisely my point. I have no problem when they identify conservatives as conservatives. I think that's good. But they never identify those guys as liberals – the ones you just mentioned.

that's fair. And should be addressed. Call Ted Kennedy a liberal and call George Bush a conservative. I'm fine with that.

Then you got 500 channels and the Internet and talk radio, so they figure, it's just fractionalized. What are we supposed to do about that?

thing is, that IS the reason. Things are fragmented now. Olbermann's show is gaining tons of viewers. He's a liberal. Fox has been losing viewers of late. Each of them has nowhere near the viewers of the nightly newscasts.


And you don't have to become conservative to take on Fox. You do have to become more down the middle to take on Fox.

I don't see that at all. What the networks and others have to do better is call the shots as they see them and call people on their BS. Fox is good at yelling and screaming. But their viewership frequently drops anytime there's a real news even going on (the elections, Katrina) because they're just not equipped for it. If it doesn't fit into their worldview, they kind of sink. Shepherd Smith did a great job with Katrina while Hannity sat there and flailed and tried to find a way to say the people there deserved it or it wasn't the president's fault, or something.

3:40 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:40 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares