Not to put too fine a point

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ColonelHaiku

True Classic
on it, but I think Jonah Goldberg makes a pretty good case here:

"Look, I am past exhausted talking about liberal media bias. It’s real, we all know it, and people who deny it aren’t even fooling themselves. But some things just have to be pointed out. This morning I watched the first 15 minutes of the Today Show. I don’t particularly love or even like the program, but I find it useful to see what the producers think is the big news of the day. And sometimes Chuck Todd is on, and I like him. If I sound defensive about watching the show it’s only because I am.


Anyway, the first ten minutes was about Gabby Giffords’ return to the House yesterday. I’m not sure it merited the full ten minutes or trumped the hard news that later followed, but it’s a great story and everyone is rooting for the lady, so I’m fine with it.


But think about this for a second. The Giffords shooting sent the media elite in this country into a bout of St. Vitus’s dance that would have warranted an army of exorcists in previous ages. Sarah Palin’s Facebook map was an evil totem that forced some guy to go on a shooting spree. The New York Times, the Washington Post, all three broadcast networks — particularly NBC whose senior foreign-affairs correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, devotes, by my rough reckoning, ten times as much air time to whining about Sarah Palin as she does about anything having to do with foreign affairs — flooded the zone with “Have you no shame” finger wagging. A memo went forth demanding that everyone at MSNBC get their dresses over their heads about the evil “tone” from the right. Media Matters went into overdrive working the interns 24/7 to “prove” that Republicans deliberately foment violence with their evil targets on their evil congressional maps.

Everyone “knew” the shooter was a tea partier. Except he wasn't..."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273444/hell-you-people-jonah-goldberg#
 
Yeah, great case....

who could possibly ask for a more astute diatribe about, exactly what? He already says we know there is liberal bias in the media, so if we all already know this what is the point?

The sheer evidence he brings to bear is eye watering. I'm just in awe. But I impress easily.
 
The point he's making seems to be that these liberal folks and politicians sound impotent. They spew violent words (with no fear of any consequences, because there are never any) at the people they dislike because they can't believe their own arguments are not winning the day. It seems to be a fairly common trait... one I've come across here on occasion.

They are sore losers and they've lost the argument.
 
Whatever,....

It's all just assertion and true if true in some cases and false if false in others. These broad denuciations are nothing new or interesting-there are equally old and uninteresting ones coming from the opposite direction. Its all just cartegorical invective masquerading as some legitimate gripe. Just a rhetorical food fight and nothing more.
 
There is no question that, generally speaking, those on the political "right" are held to a higher standard than those on the "left". Especially when it comes to certain issues.
 
There is no question....

in who's mind. Statements like this are just air. The Right talks to itself in these terms constantly. So there is no question for those who have no question but that ain't everyone.
 
Overwhelming evidence doesn't always convince everyone. I suppose citing that evidence could go along way towards deflating the "air" but I really didn't think that it was necessary.
 
Well, it would depend....

a lot on the quality of the evidence and the largely improbable chance that it would be coming from some remotely neutral source. Just any old evidence won't do in these matters and the fact is that just any old evidence is about all there is.
 
Well, Matthew

Jonah Goldberg was wrong about one thing... there are those who continue to fool themselves about the bias issue. :D
 
Sadly predictable...

The TP-influenced politicians that ran for election in November 2010 campaigned that they would do what they could to create a sea-change in the federal government, to reverse the insane levels of spending, and to promote and hold fast to the principles of limited government and enumerated powers of same. Many of them were elected. These folks were presented with proposals they thought came up short and they voted "no" on them.

In what sense can this completely understandable - and responsible - behavior by folks elected to effect change who, after all, were merely being true to campaign promises be equated to terrorism, or anything else? Those who oppose tax increases are terrorists? Desiring and working for meaningful (much needed) cuts in federal programs constitutes terror?

I sometimes read of the same sort of "vitriol" being employed by those to the right of center but seldom... make that never see examples of anything from politicians or media personalities/pundits provided. There's a story there.

Funny how these same folks can hardly bring themselves to describe true terrorists... e.g., Hamas... Hezbollah... AQ... etc. as "terrorists".
 
Hey, it's just words....

if you don't like living in a free speech society then I don't know what to tell you. Terrorist, socialist,blah,blah, blah.
Poor right wingers victimized by the big bad old liberals ....Your buddies got dissed-too bad, too bad,really too bad, what a crying shame; let's make it a case for rampant media bias (which rather makes one wonder how there could be media in a free society that isn't biased-but that is another question altogether). Who cares three days from now? Boy for a bunch of caribou killing, real meat eaters you right of right types are a pretty sensitive bunch. :bored::bored::bored: meh
 
Some people will excuse just about

any kind of behavior. I'm just pointing out what seems obvious... nothing to get your bloomers in a bunch about. :lol:
 
What's obvious?

And,yeah I will excuse(or tolerate) just about any kind of behavior that is speech(short of crying theater in a crowded fire)-sticks and stones, sticks and stones....
 
Let me publicly draw your attention to the following points from the house rules:

- Civility and respect is required at ALL times.
- After a warning, 3 strikes and you're out: banned for 1 week/1 month/for good.
- Respectful debate is allowed so long as it does not turn personal.
- Flame wars, threats and personal attacks will be treated harshly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top