Monday, May 23, 2005

I heard the news today, oh boy....

Driving in this morning, the CBS Radio News gave a tidy display of how viciously partisan and biased they are in their reporting. Sure, coming from the people who brought us Dan Rather's "fake, but accurate" memos, it's to be expected, but that doesn't mean we should enjoy it.

Stories spun included:

  • Pat Tillman's family is unhappy that their son's death wasn't immediately reported as a friendly fire FUBAR. Moral of story: The military is bad.
  • Afghan Prez Kharzai is upset that we may've tortured and killed some people there 2-1/2 years ago as reported by the seditious NY Times. Moral of the story: The U.S. is bad and the press will make damn sure to keep digging up stories to reinforce this meme.
  • Filibuster issue, aka "the nuclear option" - talks are breaking down and those dastardly Republicans are trying to "circumvent the rules". Too bad that's a TOTAL LIE!!! The Democrats are the ones violating the Constitution by improperly using the filibuster to thwart an up-or-down vote because of their racist and sexist hatred of women and minorities that refuse to be enslaved to them.Moral of story: Republicans are bad. (Duh.)
  • The fraudulent Washington gubernatorial election in which the GOP candidate won not one but TWO tallies until the Dems were able to fabricate enough fake ballots to steal the election is heading for the courts. (The irony that the Dems who can't stop peddling the myth that Ohio was stolen, yet become Sgt. Schutlz about this, has been noted.) CBS reminds us that polls say that the people don't want this looked into and that it'll backfire on the GOP.Moral of story: Only Dems can steal elections.
The only piece of news that wasn't totally slanted (yet) was that the immoral Alternative Minimum Tax may actually get some attention from the Stupid Party. Where this will likely turn against conservatives (or anyone who believes that people should be allowed to keep their own damn money) is that the AMT was initially designed to soak the rich and despite it starting to burn more and more middle-class people, it's likely to be misreported by the liberal media as another "tax cut for the rich", despite the facts.

Is it any wonder that people are so distrustful of the press and willing to see them muzzled? More to come on this subject...

4 comments:

Your 'Bitch' said...

Follow the necessary logic to get to this laughable implication of treason. First, you must believe that the media is anti-military. Not just anti-military, but anti-American. Not just anti-American, but willing accomplices of the enemy, and thus, treasonous. Second, you must believe that defending the right of the those treasonous media types to report freely is also treasonous. It is, at its worst, an argument of treason by insinuation, and its absurdity is matched only by its offensiveness ... I reject all of this. The media is not, as an institution, anti-military. The media is, however, suspicious of the military establishment, and for good reasons. The Pentagon routinely lies to them. See Tillman, Pat. Or the Pentagon Papers. Or any hundreds of other similar events. At any rate, even if the press is suspicious of the military establishment, [this] is . . . confusing criticism of the Pentagon with criticism of the actual soldiers as well as the goals of the United States.
... So let's stop these generic attacks on the media. Media Slander is up, and they will document the actual atrocities. And while we are at it, can we conservatives please stop this laughable cult of victimology? We have the Presidency (for the second time in a row and the fifth time in the last seven elections). We control the Senate by a ten seat margin. We control the House by a larger margin. We have dismissed or dismantled virtually every institutional check in order to limit opposition debate and increase institutional control, regardless how short-sighted that might be. We are ramming through just about every judge we wanted, and are about to reload the Supreme Court with Antonin Scalia at the helm.

We may be a lot of things, but persecuted victims we are not. To assert otherwise is to engage in a self-defeating flight of fancy that should be met with nothing short of outright ridicule.

...Even if we do buy into the absurd supposition that the media is overtly hostile towards conservatives, I contend that their criticism would still be vital. An outside appraisal would be a good thing, particularly when you consider the self-referential and oft-delusional nature of our own manufactured media organs (National Review, for example) and the rest of the echo chamber that the right-wing blogosphere appears to be becoming. We are wasting out energy attacking what, in my mind, has been, overall, a pretty friendly media establishment as of late. And just for fun, you might ask Move-On or Media Matters how liberal they think the media is. The answer might surprise you. So, some perspective, please.

Dirk Belligerent said...

I'm sorry, but you've obviously been listening to the thru-the-looking glass delusions of professional liars like Randi Rhodes because to hear her tell it, liberals are cowering in cellers and attics while Dubya's Christian soldiers are pillaging the land.

Also, where are you getting this idea that the media isn't an active enemy of America? From the media themselves?!? Do you really think they'd openly admit that they're providing aid and comfort to our enemies and actively attempting to demoralize the public with their reporting choices?!?!? Of course they're going to play the martyr card! Otherwise, suckers like you wouldn't go around believing the rot you obviously do.

I was too busy - and frankly bored of the constant stream of hate coming from Newsweek that could be posted - to put up a slew of items about their Koran lies, but one piece I apparently should've came from Hugh Hewitt's interview with ABC News correspondent Terry Moran in which he said:

There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous. That's different from the media doing it's job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.

If you could prevent your knee from jerking for a moment and look further, you'll see that I'm no fan of the current controllers of the White House and Congress, but while they're stupid and useless, the Dems are pure, uncut fascist EVIL and must be exposed as the treasonous bastards that they are.

Past Dems like JFK would be tarred as right-wing extremists by today's unhinged and un-American socialist-fascist Democratic Party - the party of Michael Moore, Howard Dean, murderous Ted Kennedy and Klansman Robert Byrd.

Check out http://www.radiobs.net/mediaslander/ for some information that could help deprogram you from your current blindness about your pals in the media.

There's a very good reason the media is held in such low regard: They're biased and arrogant and for every phony Dan Rather and Newsweek libel, people know there's much more that's under the surface, like an iceberg.

Please keep reading. Maybe you'll learn something. I'll try to post more direct examples in the future.

Anonymous said...

You didn't read the guys comment before you responded, did you Dirk?
He even mentions Media Slander as a resourse. Sheesh.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Whoops! Yes, I did miss that. I wasn't on my usual computer (dial-up is teh suck) and was writing fast in the middle of other stuff. My bad. :o

However, the essence of my reply still stands: The media is an active opponent to many American interests and they try to shield themselves from their seditious activities by pretending to be trying to root out the scoundrels, yet just about everything they attack the current White House occupants for doing happened as bad (or worse) under the previous regime, yet they didn't seem to show the same level of interest in embarrassing them (and NO!, Lewinsky doesn't count as journalistic doggedness.)

As the UN Oil-For-Food scandal proves, opposition to the Iraq war was partially due to a lot of our supposed friends being paid off by Saddam. It's in the papers NOW, but people who learned to look elsewhere than the MSM knew about this nearly THREE YEARS AGO and knew this was what was motivating opposition hella more than any of the bogus reasons proffered at the time.

Bottom line: The media is extremely liberal and elitist and their resentment of the Red State, Jesus-freak, NASCAR-watching, domestic beer-guzzling inbreds of the Flyover and their inability to follow orders from headquarters to vote for their Annointed Phony War Hero has made them even more desperate to take down this Administration, no matter how many people have to die - in fact, the more the better to them.

It ain't them buying it, no matter what fantasy Eason Jordan et al may be having.