dgibson
New member
Read the book Bias by Goldberg (click here) for another good look...he's a media liberal who calls the liberal media biased.
Git your facts straight!
- Thread starter Wally Dog
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
dgibson, are you serious? Goldbergs book lacks a lot of credibility.
Read closely his chapter on "liberal hate speech", in particular the quote from John Chancelor, thats the best he can come up with to say the media is liberally biased???...come on he isnt really serious is he?
I mean, of all the hours of liberal media, thats one of his classic examples?
Sorry for being a skeptic, but it would be great if he'd research what he writes...
Read closely his chapter on "liberal hate speech", in particular the quote from John Chancelor, thats the best he can come up with to say the media is liberally biased???...come on he isnt really serious is he?
I mean, of all the hours of liberal media, thats one of his classic examples?
Sorry for being a skeptic, but it would be great if he'd research what he writes...
dgibson
New member
I agree that there are a few weak spots in it. But considering his background I was surprised that he went as far as he did.
I don't know what to tell you, other than I've seen it happen often, which is a lame argument. Mars' links are good, too. Like I said, the largest offense is in what they don't say, and how can you prove something that doesn't exist?
I do know that the liberals don't think the media is biased; they think just the opposite. Remember Al Gore's "liberal network" project? That was supposed to be in direct opposition to the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and O'Reilleys. The funny thing is that no one really complained on the left until Fox News took a less-liberal bent; then suddenly they all cried foul. Even Rush Limbaugh (With Talent On Loan From God? ) didn't seem to bother them too much until then.
Fascinating.
I don't know what to tell you, other than I've seen it happen often, which is a lame argument. Mars' links are good, too. Like I said, the largest offense is in what they don't say, and how can you prove something that doesn't exist?
I do know that the liberals don't think the media is biased; they think just the opposite. Remember Al Gore's "liberal network" project? That was supposed to be in direct opposition to the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and O'Reilleys. The funny thing is that no one really complained on the left until Fox News took a less-liberal bent; then suddenly they all cried foul. Even Rush Limbaugh (With Talent On Loan From God?
) didn't seem to bother them too much until then.Fascinating.
dgibson
New member
Here's another good link concerning the media/gun issue...click here. Another controversial observation, as they all are.
cjcj
New member
We just had a couple from Sedona AZ murdered this morning, it happened in rolling hills sedona, a million dollar subdivision, I say if illegals did it! you will hardly hear about it, if its some white guys their picture will be plastered all over the news for days. if its an illegal they will hardly or not at all mention that fact! they were running an enviromental consulting biz. out of their sedona home and were beaten to death[man and his wife] both of their cars were stolen [probably on the way to mexico] a new BMW convertable and an acura. Can`t wait to see how the press handles it.
[ 02-19-2004, 18:16: Message edited by: cjcj ]
[ 02-19-2004, 18:16: Message edited by: cjcj ]
Erik in AK
New member
Anne Coulter is often unfairly labeled a harpy by the libs because she is (1) articulate and informed (2) firm in her beliefs, and (3) overly tall for a woman however, her book "SLANDER" is a well reasoned, thoroughly researched, heavily footnoted treatise on how the Liberal controlled media uses the supposed "impartiality" of the news as a means of promoting its own agenda.
I recommend it to all.
I recommend it to all.
Erik in AK
New member
Dude...that is some of the lamest waffling I've ever read.
I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways. The media is not fairly divided. Yes, there are conservative media outlets but they are far outnumbered. The media is run by liberals. Period.
Liberals are idealogical elitists by nature and therefore VERY Machiavellian in their tactics. They are the worst sort of self-styled Aristocracy(leadership by the superior)
Liberal's policy decisions are dictated by polls because liberals care primarily about winning politically, about Power. The "goal" is more about the tactics of being and staying popular than about any strategy for being effective. They generally achieve this by pandering to the public's baser instincts and vices. Liberals say you have the right to party and do whatever feels good while conservatives remind you to clean up after yourself. Conservatives are like, a drag, ya know. Liberals are cool and liberals are fun. Liberals have long understood the political reality that people are sheep and can be baited, nudged, herded or stampeded as the need arises.
Liberals are superb propagandists. How come?
They control the news media (get the ones who pay attention)
They control entertainment (get the ones who don't)
They control academia (get 'em while they're young)
They control medicine (get 'em when they're old)
The current crop of liberals who run the Democratic Party hate this president not for his ideas or even his actions. They hate him because he has what they want, because his party is in power.
I'm not a lawyer so I'm not interested in playing the semantics game and this is NOT an attack on you Buzz. My guess is your politics are generally to the left of mine and thats fine. Are you a liberal? I don't know, maybe? More importantly, I don't care, I just like to jaw about politics(and hunting).
To all: the fact that we can come to this board and opine is what makes this the greatest nation. So bring it...but don't bring it weak. Make me think. Change my mind.
JoseCuervo
New member
CJ,
I will have to trust you as to what is legal and what is illegal in Gay Marriages. I have never been interested in them, but it seems like you have some sort of "closet" interest in the topic.
But I don't think the Mayor will be arrested, as it is not a crime what he is doing. It is a Civil matter, and there are a number of lawsuits filed, and they have been reported on. Again, I have no idea where you get your news, but you must selectively skip those articles.
I will have to trust you as to what is legal and what is illegal in Gay Marriages. I have never been interested in them, but it seems like you have some sort of "closet" interest in the topic.
But I don't think the Mayor will be arrested, as it is not a crime what he is doing. It is a Civil matter, and there are a number of lawsuits filed, and they have been reported on. Again, I have no idea where you get your news, but you must selectively skip those articles.
dgibson
New member
Being inspired by our little discussion, I decided to feel out our current news director regarding outdoors-related topics (his predecessors have always flatly refused to cover these items). Keep in mind that this is the Evansville, IN market, just barely across the river from Kentucky and home to thousands of sportsmen of all flavors. The majority of the area is rural.
First, I offered him information about Bassmaster University, which is being presented this weekend at a local college. It includes Denny Brauer and other fishing celebs. His response:
Well, that was positive enough, so I then threw out two upcoming NWTF banquets, historically well-attended and proven moneymakers for conservation. Here's his repsonse to that one:
I have now lost all of my new found idealism and will sink back into the pit of apathy from whence I came.
First, I offered him information about Bassmaster University, which is being presented this weekend at a local college. It includes Denny Brauer and other fishing celebs. His response:
He agreed to put it in the weekend show unless something more important bumped it.
Well, that was positive enough, so I then threw out two upcoming NWTF banquets, historically well-attended and proven moneymakers for conservation. Here's his repsonse to that one:
So much for that. I suppose some might argue that he really does mean to work his way up to "other outdoorsy stuff," but I know a blowoff when I see it. The fact that a very large part of his viewership would be interested in stories like these doesn't bother him. That's apparently not the segment he'd like to get his numbers from.
I have now lost all of my new found idealism and will sink back into the pit of apathy from whence I came.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Erik,
I read slander, by Coulter, she's a little short on facts in that book, and long on Slander alright.
How can you take her serious, and how can you feel sorry for her when people think she's a bitch when she says things like:
Christie Whitman is a "birdbrain".
Katie Couric is an "airhead".
Slander??? Yep, the book is full of it.
Oh, and half-wit Jim Jeffords, she rails him for getting into Yale because of his social class?
Then turns around and uses Dubyas graduation from Yale as a way to defend him when the public recognizes he may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I dont think just the libs should be harping on Coulter, and frankly, if her and her book is the best that the conservatives can come up with, the party is heading to the toilet.
She is not articulate, she does poor research, and the reason people dont take her serious...is because her and her book are both a joke.
I read a lot and its not just the wild-assed claims Coulter makes that really turned me off in this book. Its how she says she wants to clean up the media, make it fair and balanced, but then uses nothing but slander, half-truths and outright lies to futher her conservative agenda.
Rush Limbaugh in a woman suit, but the book is entertaining.
I read slander, by Coulter, she's a little short on facts in that book, and long on Slander alright.
How can you take her serious, and how can you feel sorry for her when people think she's a bitch when she says things like:
Christie Whitman is a "birdbrain".
Katie Couric is an "airhead".
Slander??? Yep, the book is full of it.
Oh, and half-wit Jim Jeffords, she rails him for getting into Yale because of his social class?
Then turns around and uses Dubyas graduation from Yale as a way to defend him when the public recognizes he may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I dont think just the libs should be harping on Coulter, and frankly, if her and her book is the best that the conservatives can come up with, the party is heading to the toilet.
She is not articulate, she does poor research, and the reason people dont take her serious...is because her and her book are both a joke.
I read a lot and its not just the wild-assed claims Coulter makes that really turned me off in this book. Its how she says she wants to clean up the media, make it fair and balanced, but then uses nothing but slander, half-truths and outright lies to futher her conservative agenda.
Rush Limbaugh in a woman suit, but the book is entertaining.
MarlandS
New member
Geez , I just threw up with that vision.
BuzzH
Well-known member
How do I put this and still sound sensitive...Coulter hasnt exactly avoided the ugly stick...
Sorry about that Marland, I guess I should provide a barf-bag next time.
I shouldnt, but I will, I just cant help it. From the mouth of Ann Coulter in her article "this is war" (in reference to dealing with 9-11) she says, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
I just cant help but almost feel sorry for someone who would hack out a sentence and statement like that. Kill their leaders? Sure, Invade their country? if its justified, Convert them to Christianity? HUH? I think articulate Ann is a little off her rocker...
Sorry about that Marland, I guess I should provide a barf-bag next time.
I shouldnt, but I will, I just cant help it. From the mouth of Ann Coulter in her article "this is war" (in reference to dealing with 9-11) she says, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
I just cant help but almost feel sorry for someone who would hack out a sentence and statement like that. Kill their leaders? Sure, Invade their country? if its justified, Convert them to Christianity? HUH? I think articulate Ann is a little off her rocker...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Erik,
Check this out, its worth a read. Ann cant even get along with HER side. Oh yeah, articulate ann in all her glory.
L’Affaire Coulter
Goodbye to all that.
By Jonah Goldberg, NRO Editor
October 3, 2001 2:20 p.m.
ear Readers,
As many of you may have heard, we've dropped Ann Coulter's column from NRO. This has sparked varying amounts of protest, support, and, most of all, curiosity from our readers. We owe you an explanation.
Of course, we would explain our decision to Ann, but the reality is that she's called the shots from the get-go. It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around.
This is what happened.
In the wake of her invade-and-Christianize-them column, Coulter wrote a long, rambling rant of a response to her critics that was barely coherent. She's a smart and funny person, but this was Ann at her worst — emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as "judgment."
Running this "piece" would have been an embarrassment to Ann, and to NRO. Rich Lowry pointed this out to her in an e-mail (I was returning from my honeymoon). She wrote back an angry response, defending herself from the charge that she hates Muslims and wants to convert them at gunpoint.
But this was not the point. It was NEVER the point. The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought. Ann didn't fail as a person — as all her critics on the Left say — she failed as WRITER, which for us is almost as bad.
Rich wrote her another e-mail, engaging her on this point, and asking her — in more diplomatic terms — to approach the whole controversy not as a PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit on Geraldo, but as a careful writer.
No response.
Instead, she apparently proceeded to run around town bad-mouthing NR and its employees. Then she showed up on TV and, in an attempt to ingratiate herself with fellow martyr Bill Maher, said we were "censoring" her.
By this point, it was clear she wasn't interested in continuing the relationship.
What publication on earth would continue a relationship with a writer who would refuse to discuss her work with her editors? What publication would continue to publish a writer who attacked it on TV? What publication would continue to publish a writer who lied about it — on TV and to a Washington Post reporter?
And, finally, what CONSERVATIVE publication would continue to publish a writer who doesn't even know the meaning of the word "censorship"?
So let me be clear: We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty.
What's Ann's take on all this? Well, she told the Washington Post yesterday that she loves it, because she's gotten lots of great publicity. That pretty much sums Ann up.
On the Sean Hannity show yesterday, however, apparently embarrassed by her admission to the Post, she actually tried to deny that she has sought publicity in this whole matter. Well, then, Ann, why did you complain of being "censored" on national TV? Why did you brag to the Post about all the PR?
Listening to Ann legalistically dodge around trying to explain all this would have made Bill Clinton blush.
Ann also told the Post that we only paid her $5 a month for her work (would that it were so!). Either this is a deliberate lie, or Ann needs to call her accountant because someone's been skimming her checks.
Many readers have asked, why did we run the original column in which Ann declared we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" — if we didn't like it?
Well, to be honest, it was a mistake. It stemmed from the fact this was a supposedly pre-edited syndicated column, coming in when NRO was operating with one phone line and in general chaos. Our bad.
Now as far as Ann's charges go, I must say it's hard to defend against them, because they either constitute publicity-minded name-calling, like calling us "girly-boys" — or they're so much absurd bombast.
For example:
Ann — a self-described "constitutional lawyer" — volunteered on Politically Incorrect that our "censoring" of her column was tantamount to "repealing the First Amendment." Apparently, in Ann's mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny, and so any editorial decision she dislikes must be a travesty.
She sniffed to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that "Every once in awhile they'll [National Review] throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications." I take personal offense to this charge. She's accusing us of betraying a friend for publicity, when in fact it was the other way around.
And, lastly, this "Joan of Arc battling the forces of political correctness" act doesn't wash. In the same 20 days in which Ann says — over and over and over again — that NR has succumbed to "PC hysteria," we've run pieces celebrating every PC shibboleth and bogeyman.
Paul Johnson has criticized Islam as an imperial religion. William F. Buckley himself has called, essentially, for a holy war. Rich Lowry wants to bring back the Shah, and I've written that Western Civilization has every right to wave the giant foam "We're Number 1!" finger as high as it wants.
The only difference between what we've run and what Ann considers so bravely iconoclastic on her part, is that we've run articles that accord persuasion higher value than shock value. It's true: Ann is fearless, in person and in her writing. But fearlessness isn't an excuse for crappy writing or crappier behavior.
To be honest, even though there's a lot more that could be said, I have no desire to get any deeper into this because, like with a Fellini movie, the deeper you get, the less sense Ann makes.
We're delighted that FrontPageMagazine has, with remarkable bravery, picked up Ann's column, presumably for only $5 a month. They'll be getting more than what they're paying for, I'm sure.
— Jonah Goldberg
Check this out, its worth a read. Ann cant even get along with HER side. Oh yeah, articulate ann in all her glory.
L’Affaire Coulter
Goodbye to all that.
By Jonah Goldberg, NRO Editor
October 3, 2001 2:20 p.m.
ear Readers,
As many of you may have heard, we've dropped Ann Coulter's column from NRO. This has sparked varying amounts of protest, support, and, most of all, curiosity from our readers. We owe you an explanation.
Of course, we would explain our decision to Ann, but the reality is that she's called the shots from the get-go. It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around.
This is what happened.
In the wake of her invade-and-Christianize-them column, Coulter wrote a long, rambling rant of a response to her critics that was barely coherent. She's a smart and funny person, but this was Ann at her worst — emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as "judgment."
Running this "piece" would have been an embarrassment to Ann, and to NRO. Rich Lowry pointed this out to her in an e-mail (I was returning from my honeymoon). She wrote back an angry response, defending herself from the charge that she hates Muslims and wants to convert them at gunpoint.
But this was not the point. It was NEVER the point. The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought. Ann didn't fail as a person — as all her critics on the Left say — she failed as WRITER, which for us is almost as bad.
Rich wrote her another e-mail, engaging her on this point, and asking her — in more diplomatic terms — to approach the whole controversy not as a PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit on Geraldo, but as a careful writer.
No response.
Instead, she apparently proceeded to run around town bad-mouthing NR and its employees. Then she showed up on TV and, in an attempt to ingratiate herself with fellow martyr Bill Maher, said we were "censoring" her.
By this point, it was clear she wasn't interested in continuing the relationship.
What publication on earth would continue a relationship with a writer who would refuse to discuss her work with her editors? What publication would continue to publish a writer who attacked it on TV? What publication would continue to publish a writer who lied about it — on TV and to a Washington Post reporter?
And, finally, what CONSERVATIVE publication would continue to publish a writer who doesn't even know the meaning of the word "censorship"?
So let me be clear: We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty.
What's Ann's take on all this? Well, she told the Washington Post yesterday that she loves it, because she's gotten lots of great publicity. That pretty much sums Ann up.
On the Sean Hannity show yesterday, however, apparently embarrassed by her admission to the Post, she actually tried to deny that she has sought publicity in this whole matter. Well, then, Ann, why did you complain of being "censored" on national TV? Why did you brag to the Post about all the PR?
Listening to Ann legalistically dodge around trying to explain all this would have made Bill Clinton blush.
Ann also told the Post that we only paid her $5 a month for her work (would that it were so!). Either this is a deliberate lie, or Ann needs to call her accountant because someone's been skimming her checks.
Many readers have asked, why did we run the original column in which Ann declared we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" — if we didn't like it?
Well, to be honest, it was a mistake. It stemmed from the fact this was a supposedly pre-edited syndicated column, coming in when NRO was operating with one phone line and in general chaos. Our bad.
Now as far as Ann's charges go, I must say it's hard to defend against them, because they either constitute publicity-minded name-calling, like calling us "girly-boys" — or they're so much absurd bombast.
For example:
Ann — a self-described "constitutional lawyer" — volunteered on Politically Incorrect that our "censoring" of her column was tantamount to "repealing the First Amendment." Apparently, in Ann's mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny, and so any editorial decision she dislikes must be a travesty.
She sniffed to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that "Every once in awhile they'll [National Review] throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications." I take personal offense to this charge. She's accusing us of betraying a friend for publicity, when in fact it was the other way around.
And, lastly, this "Joan of Arc battling the forces of political correctness" act doesn't wash. In the same 20 days in which Ann says — over and over and over again — that NR has succumbed to "PC hysteria," we've run pieces celebrating every PC shibboleth and bogeyman.
Paul Johnson has criticized Islam as an imperial religion. William F. Buckley himself has called, essentially, for a holy war. Rich Lowry wants to bring back the Shah, and I've written that Western Civilization has every right to wave the giant foam "We're Number 1!" finger as high as it wants.
The only difference between what we've run and what Ann considers so bravely iconoclastic on her part, is that we've run articles that accord persuasion higher value than shock value. It's true: Ann is fearless, in person and in her writing. But fearlessness isn't an excuse for crappy writing or crappier behavior.
To be honest, even though there's a lot more that could be said, I have no desire to get any deeper into this because, like with a Fellini movie, the deeper you get, the less sense Ann makes.
We're delighted that FrontPageMagazine has, with remarkable bravery, picked up Ann's column, presumably for only $5 a month. They'll be getting more than what they're paying for, I'm sure.
— Jonah Goldberg
MarlandS
New member
This example is why when I posted my two links I tried real hard to stay away from reporters with whistle blower type books. The Stossel link is different in my mind since it was from ABC's own site and admitted to a bias in the media. It adds credibility to it IMHO
dgibson
New member
Yes, sir.
MarlandS
New member
What the hell would you know anyway D? You are only in the industry and have been forever.
cjcj
New member
Gunner the point i`m trying to make is not about gays, it`s about enforcment of the law, The mayor of San Francisco is breaking state law [correct me if wrong] and if he is breaking the law why is he not being arrested? If the law is wrong then change it , until then enforce it.
Similar threads
