Just another snapshot of American politics

[devilsadvocate]

Just as an example, the complaints over the CNN debate. The complaint was that CNN's "liberal biased framing" was a deliberate attempt to portray them as gun toting, Bible thumping, gay bashing bigots.
The specifics are all over the Internet so I don't need to go deeper here. I suggest looking at right leaning sources if you wish to check for yourself.

I agree with you slightly about why the media isn't focused on McCain at this moment. We shall see in time if they do later, however it has long been an unspoken (to some degree) theory that McCains base is the press. I will add that this base has traditionally been the so called "liberal media" with the right leaning media not liking him much at all until he became the presumptive nominee. Now outlets like Fox are in love with him while the others just give him passes.

[j2k4]

Just as an example, the complaints over the CNN debate. The complaint was that CNN's "liberal biased framing" was a deliberate attempt to portray them as gun toting, Bible thumping, gay bashing bigots.
The specifics are all over the Internet so I don't need to go deeper here. I suggest looking at right leaning sources if you wish to check for yourself.

The difference being that, in the case of the Republicans, the candidate(s) made the complaint.

The Dems are being similarly defended, but by the media.

An important distinction.

You might be surprised that I do not read blogs at all.

I agree with you slightly about why the media isn't focused on McCain at this moment. We shall see in time if they do later, however it has long been an unspoken (to some degree) theory that McCains base is the press. I will add that this base has traditionally been the so called "liberal media" with the right leaning media not liking him much at all until he became the presumptive nominee. Now outlets like Fox are in love with him while the others just give him passes.

Unspoken?

Any media favor for McCain is because he's not conservative; the fact is, he's barely a Republican.

His status as a "maverick" is predicated on his long-standing flimsiness on basic conservative planks.

They love that he's swallowed the "global-warming is caused by man (read, the USA)" theory lock, stock, hook, line...well, you get my point.

BTW-

Could you take five seconds or so and list the roster of "right-wing media" in it's entirety?

[devilsadvocate]

The difference being that, in the case of the Republicans, the candidate(s) made the complaint.

Wouldn't that make the Republicans worse? The actual candidates complaining about "tough questions"

Looking back at what I wrote I'm sure it says "the republicans were whining", but in response to your claims of a difference it wasn't just the candidates.

The Dems are being similarly defended, but by the media.

An important distinction.

Maybe I'm experiencing a different media, but where and how so? If you mean some liberal talking head on certain channels then the same could be said of the conservative talking heads on any of the fox shows.

You might be surprised that I do not read blogs at all.

Why would you need to read blogs. I've seen you post articles from "conservatives" just go to the sources that carry them.

BTW-

Could you take five seconds or so and list the roster of "right-wing media" in it's entirety?

No.

But feel free to list the roster of the so called liberal media "in it's entirety".

Actually don't even try, A scene about "precious bodily fluids" has sprung to mind imagining you compiling the list.

[j2k4]

Wouldn't that make the Republicans worse? The actual candidates complaining about "tough questions"

I hate to hear any candidate complain about anything at all, relative to the treatment they get, but if you think the media taking up on behalf of a candidate doesn't reflect poorly on the candidate or the media, I don't quite know what to say.

Looking back at what I wrote I'm sure it says "the republicans were whining", but in response to your claims of a difference it wasn't just the candidates.

The Dems are being similarly defended, but by the media.

An important distinction.

Maybe I'm experiencing a different media, but where and how so? If you mean some liberal talking head on certain channels then the same could be said of the conservative talking heads on any of the fox shows.

Interesting that, while you give short shrift to claims of liberal media, you now refer to "some liberal talking head on certain channels" (plural), and "conservative talking heads on any of the fox shows" (singular, network-wise).

Liberal media vastly outnumber conservative media, as you are apparently aware, however subliminally.

You might be surprised that I do not read blogs at all.

Why would you need to read blogs. I've seen you post articles from "conservatives" just go to the sources that carry them.

Do you equate the opinion pieces of paid professional columnists (who have a monetary stake in the quality of their intellectual work-product) to bloggers?

BTW-

Could you take five seconds or so and list the roster of "right-wing media" in it's entirety?

No.

But feel free to list the roster of the so called liberal media "in it's entirety".

No trouble at all.

Outside Fox news, the Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and a good-sized chunk of talk radio, the major media in the US is completely and irrevocably liberal.

There you go.

[devilsadvocate]

@Blue insert#1

If you have any evidence that the candidates asked the media to do that for them you could have point. However you have not offered up any. Also the media did take up on behalf of the republicans.

@Blue insert#2

I said liberal talking heads on certain channels because there are only a few here and there. Those channels also have conservative talking heads.

I only singled out fox as an example because ALL fox shows are conservative talking heads, with token "weak liberals" that don't really counter anything. An entire channel, not just certain shows on the channel. I would add that it is an entire channel that seems dedicated to electing republicans.

@Blue insert#3

Liberal by what definition? That not every one of their hosts are conservatives?
So do you consider those you mentioned neutral/unbiased or biased in favor of conservatives?

[j2k4]

@Blue insert#1

If you have any evidence that the candidates asked the media to do that for them you could have point. However you have not offered up any. Also the media did take up on behalf of the republicans.

I never said any candidate "asked the media" to do anything for them; I said the liberal media has done it of their own accord for the Democrat candidates at different times, though much more, lately, for Obama.

This hasn't happened at all for McCain, i.e., it's fine to debate McCain's age (this would be ageism by any liberal definition; or maybe only Democrats can suffer thereby), but don't talk about Obama's middle name, his ears, his skin color, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his liberal voting record, his association with the terrorist Ayers, or what might laughably be referred to as his policies.

I said liberal talking heads on certain channels because there are only a few here and there. Those channels also have conservative talking heads.

Ah, but I though there were no liberal talking heads...

I only singled out fox as an example because ALL fox shows are conservative talking heads, with token "weak liberals" that don't really counter anything. An entire channel, not just certain shows on the channel. I would add that it is an entire channel that seems dedicated to electing republicans.

I would submit that Fox is the only network offering ANY conservative content, and the reason the liberals in attendance there sound weak is due to their proximity to "right" argument.

BTW-

I am most assuredly not a Republican; I am a Conservative.

Liberal by what definition? That not every one of their hosts are conservatives?
So do you consider those you mentioned neutral/unbiased or biased in favor of conservatives?

Liberal by my definition, of course.

As to your last, common sense and logic are my personal guideposts...insofar as these qualities accrue more often to those who speak from the right, I imagine you can suss my opinion.

I do not like argument guided by any sort of bias, which should not be confused with preference.

Some things make more sense than others, and I have found more sense, more often, on the right.

You mentioned earlier that I occasionally reproduce an opinion piece here and there - you may take it (when I do this) that I am largely in agreement with what I re-publish, unless otherwise noted.

I find it curious that others don't do the same too often, nor do any demonstrate any ongoing affinity for the views of others, especially in light of the ideological torches they carry.

Anyway...

[devilsadvocate]

I never said any candidate "asked the media" to do anything for them; I said the liberal media has done it of their own accord for the Democrat candidates at different times, though much more, lately, for Obama.

Well that would only be a bad reflection on the media, not the democratic candidates you say had nothing to do with it. How does it reflect badly on the candidates? My point is that complaining themselves is worse for the republican candidates.

This hasn't happened at all for McCain, i.e., it's fine to debate McCain's age (this would be ageism by any liberal definition; or maybe only Democrats can suffer thereby), but don't talk about Obama's middle name, his ears, his skin color, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his liberal voting record, his association with the terrorist Ayers, or what might laughably be referred to as his policies.

With Obama, perhaps the media didn't get the memo that they are defending him because the subjects you mentioned have been wall to wall non stop coverage even on the outlets you claim are liberal. Can you seriously not be satisfied?
As we both agreed McCain has been getting an easy ride thus far so what defending are you suggesting he is missing out on? McCain has equal associations, Pastor Hagee and his close friendship with the man that spent a few years in jail for the Watergate break in and who suggested aiming at federal agent's heads because they wear body armor, G Gordon Liddy. Yet the media easy ride has been silent on this. So where is the liberal bias and championing of Obama?

Personally I think it would do a disservice to the selection process if they did go after McCain in the same way, but I hate all this irrelevant guilt but association politics and think the media has done the country a disservice linking Obama to not only people he has met, but people who have met the people he met.

For me McCain's daily changing stance on the issues make it hard to know for sure where he stands any more. That's where I think the media needs to hold candidates to the fire.

Ah, but I though there were no liberal talking heads...

Why would you think that when you assert that the media is liberal?

I would submit that Fox is the only network offering ANY conservative content, and the reason the liberals in attendance there sound weak is due to their proximity to "right" argument.

Glenn Beck, ,Tucker carlson, Joe Scarborough ...................................

And I call them weak liberals by the same type of argument you use to say McCain isn't a conservative and barely a republican.

BTW-

I am most assuredly not a Republican; I am a Conservative.

How very nice for you, Not sure why it matters.

Liberal by my definition, of course.

As to your last, common sense and logic are my personal guideposts...insofar as these qualities accrue more often to those who speak from the right, I imagine you can suss my opinion.

I do not like argument guided by any sort of bias, which should not be confused with preference.

Some things make more sense than others, and I have found more sense, more often, on the right.

You mentioned earlier that I occasionally reproduce an opinion piece here and there - you may take it (when I do this) that I am largely in agreement with what I re-publish, unless otherwise noted.

I find it curious that others don't do the same too often, nor do any demonstrate any ongoing affinity for the views of others, especially in light of the ideological torches they carry.

Anyway...

To me that reads that you consider them biased in favor of conservatives. (wouldn't a straight answer make you seem less evasive?) You Favor these sources yet do not like arguments guided by bias. Isn't preference a definition of bias?

Perhaps others don't post articles and say "what he said" because they prefer to write what they think in their own words.

[j2k4]

Well that would only be a bad reflection on the media, not the democratic candidates you say had nothing to do with it. How does it reflect badly on the candidates? My point is that complaining themselves is worse for the republican candidates.

This thread is getting messy.

Anyway, the fact the media weighs-in on behalf of the Dem candidates doesn't give you pause, doesn't leave you questioning the "why" of it?

That they dwell unendingly on Wright, et.al., but fail to pronounce, preferring instead to to empathize over the "unfairness" of it all?

This hasn't happened at all for McCain, i.e., it's fine to debate McCain's age (this would be ageism by any liberal definition; or maybe only Democrats can suffer thereby), but don't talk about Obama's middle name, his ears, his skin color, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his liberal voting record, his association with the terrorist Ayers, or what might laughably be referred to as his policies.

With Obama, perhaps the media didn't get the memo that they are defending him because the subjects you mentioned have been wall to wall non stop coverage even on the outlets you claim are liberal. Can you seriously not be satisfied?
As we both agreed McCain has been getting an easy ride thus far so what defending are you suggesting he is missing out on? McCain has equal associations, Pastor Hagee and his close friendship with the man that spent a few years in jail for the Watergate break in and who suggested aiming at federal agent's heads because they wear body armor, G Gordon Liddy. Yet the media easy ride has been silent on this. So where is the liberal bias and championing of Obama?

As I have alluded, the media is keeping it's powder dry re: McCain.

You'll hear more about Liddy and whomever else pops up in due course.

BTW-

Did you notice Hagee apologized, and that he did so without reference to "context" or any other such silliness?

Personally I think it would do a disservice to the selection process if they did go after McCain in the same way, but I hate all this irrelevant guilt but association politics and think the media has done the country a disservice linking Obama to not only people he has met, but people who have met the people he met.

I agree, to the extent it is true, but that is the way of the world these days.

As an alternative, however, would you prefer candidates to emerge as finished products from some sort machine, with only a printout of his/her ideological slate and a nice paint-job to differentiate them?

Baggage is a fact of life, and, in fact, airport security often identifies terrorists by rooting about in theirs.

Better safe than sorry, I say.

For me McCain's daily changing stance on the issues make it hard to know for sure where he stands any more. That's where I think the media needs to hold candidates to the fire.

What daily changes are you referring to?

Ah, but I though there were no liberal talking heads...

Why would you think that when you assert that the media is liberal?

I was referring to your previous post, wherein you expressed your disbelief over the fact.

I would submit that Fox is the only network offering ANY conservative content, and the reason the liberals in attendance there sound weak is due to their proximity to "right" argument.

Glenn Beck, ,Tucker carlson, Joe Scarborough

We have a difference of opinion, here.

I will settle for stating the liberal presence on whichever Fox show you choose is well in excess of the conservative presence on any other show on any other network.

...................................

And I call them weak liberals by the same type of argument you use to say McCain isn't a conservative and barely a republican.

Liberals who aren't liberals?

Like...oh, let's see...Mort Kondracke?

Or Alan Colmes?

(I will concede that Colmes is awfully weak.)

BTW-

I am most assuredly not a Republican; I am a Conservative.

How very nice for you, Not sure why it matters.

It matters that I am not a Republican, wouldn't you agree?

How do you define yourself, politically?

Please don't say moderate.

Liberal by my definition, of course.

As to your last, common sense and logic are my personal guideposts...insofar as these qualities accrue more often to those who speak from the right, I imagine you can suss my opinion.

I do not like argument guided by any sort of bias, which should not be confused with preference.

Some things make more sense than others, and I have found more sense, more often, on the right.

You mentioned earlier that I occasionally reproduce an opinion piece here and there - you may take it (when I do this) that I am largely in agreement with what I re-publish, unless otherwise noted.

I find it curious that others don't do the same too often, nor do any demonstrate any ongoing affinity for the views of others, especially in light of the ideological torches they carry.

Anyway...

To me that reads that you consider them biased in favor of conservatives. (wouldn't a straight answer make you seem less evasive?) You Favor these sources yet do not like arguments guided by bias. Isn't preference a definition of bias?

To me, bias carries the stigma of willful ignorance.

If you've paid any attention to my modus operandi, you've noticed I don't claim those I quote are anything but conservative (preference-wise); this, as opposed to others in the liberal press (journalism proper, if you will) who claim "mainstream" status.

Perhaps others don't post articles and say "what he said" because they prefer to write what they think in their own words.

As an aside, how would you characterize the partisanship of, say, Chris Matthews, or Keith Olbermann, and what would have to say (therefore) about MSNBC?

[devilsadvocate]

Well that would only be a bad reflection on the media, not the democratic candidates you say had nothing to do with it. How does it reflect badly on the candidates? My point is that complaining themselves is worse for the republican candidates.

This thread is getting messy.

Anyway, the fact the media weighs-in on behalf of the Dem candidates doesn't give you pause, doesn't leave you questioning the "why" of it?

As I said if you were talking about the media and your premise was correct then you may have had a point, but your point was that it reflects badly on the candidates and you have yet to say why when you openly say they had nothing to do with it. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, It appears you like to spread the blame.

That they dwell unendingly on Wright, et.al., but fail to pronounce, preferring instead to to empathize over the "unfairness" of it all?

Again I must be watching a different media because apart from a few rare "guests" All I've seen is the repeating of the "bad stuff"



With Obama, perhaps the media didn't get the memo that they are defending him because the subjects you mentioned have been wall to wall non stop coverage even on the outlets you claim are liberal. Can you seriously not be satisfied?
As we both agreed McCain has been getting an easy ride thus far so what defending are you suggesting he is missing out on? McCain has equal associations, Pastor Hagee and his close friendship with the man that spent a few years in jail for the Watergate break in and who suggested aiming at federal agent's heads because they wear body armor, G Gordon Liddy. Yet the media easy ride has been silent on this. So where is the liberal bias and championing of Obama?

As I have alluded, the media is keeping it's powder dry re: McCain.

You'll hear more about Liddy and whomever else pops up in due course.

BTW-

Did you notice Hagee apologized, and that he did so without reference to "context" or any other such silliness?

He apologized to one group, the catholics. You notice he has made no such apology to those that lost all in Katrina for example. I can only guess the focused apology may be politically motivated because those he apologized to would be part of the republican base and would therefore have been a problem for McCain. The Katrina victims wouldn't have been a political problem for McCain because they would be more likely democratic voters. If he made the same apology to the Katrina victims much of the republican base would not be happy, because to them saying God damns American over foreign policy is wrong but god damns America because of homosexuals is correct. The thing is, it is important to remember that it was Hagee saying those things, NOT McCain

Wright makes no such politically expedient apology. Perhaps because he feels he has nothing to apologize for, perhaps because he knows any apology would never be accepted, Who knows? The thing is, it is important to remember that it was Wright saying those things, NOT Obama


Obama and McCain are candidates, Wright and Hagee are not.

Personally I think it would do a disservice to the selection process if they did go after McCain in the same way, but I hate all this irrelevant guilt but association politics and think the media has done the country a disservice linking Obama to not only people he has met, but people who have met the people he met.

I agree, to the extent it is true, but that is the way of the world these days.

As an alternative, however, would you prefer candidates to emerge as finished products from some sort machine, with only a printout of his/her ideological slate and a nice paint-job to differentiate them?

Baggage is a fact of life, and, in fact, airport security often identifies terrorists by rooting about in theirs.

Better safe than sorry, I say.

For me McCain's daily changing stance on the issues make it hard to know for sure where he stands any more. That's where I think the media needs to hold candidates to the fire.

What daily changes are you referring to?

Apparently your preference in media has shielded you from this.

Ah, but I though there were no liberal talking heads...

Why would you think that when you assert that the media is liberal?

I was referring to your previous post, wherein you expressed your disbelief over the fact.

Disbelief in what? I was the one that used the term "liberal talking heads". Was that unclear?
There is some liberal bias, just as there is some conservative bias. In my opinion most are objective. You appear to categorize the objective ones in with the liberals because they don't have a conservative bias and only spout conservative viewpoints. Either with us or against us

I would submit that Fox is the only network offering ANY conservative content, and the reason the liberals in attendance there sound weak is due to their proximity to "right" argument.

Glenn Beck, ,Tucker carlson, Joe Scarborough

We have a difference of opinion, here.

I will settle for stating the liberal presence on whichever Fox show you choose is well in excess of the conservative presence on any other show on any other network.

...................................

And I call them weak liberals by the same type of argument you use to say McCain isn't a conservative and barely a republican.

Liberals who aren't liberals?

Like...oh, let's see...Mort Kondracke?

Or Alan Colmes?

(I will concede that Colmes is awfully weak.)

BTW-

I am most assuredly not a Republican; I am a Conservative.

How very nice for you, Not sure why it matters.

It matters that I am not a Republican, wouldn't you agree?

How do you define yourself, politically?

Please don't say moderate.

Same reply I gave to you stating your category, not sure why it matters. Other than the possibility that such a proclamation might indicate a closed mind.

Liberal by my definition, of course.

As to your last, common sense and logic are my personal guideposts...insofar as these qualities accrue more often to those who speak from the right, I imagine you can suss my opinion.

I do not like argument guided by any sort of bias, which should not be confused with preference.

Some things make more sense than others, and I have found more sense, more often, on the right.

You mentioned earlier that I occasionally reproduce an opinion piece here and there - you may take it (when I do this) that I am largely in agreement with what I re-publish, unless otherwise noted.

I find it curious that others don't do the same too often, nor do any demonstrate any ongoing affinity for the views of others, especially in light of the ideological torches they carry.

Anyway...

To me that reads that you consider them biased in favor of conservatives. (wouldn't a straight answer make you seem less evasive?) You Favor these sources yet do not like arguments guided by bias. Isn't preference a definition of bias?

To me, bias carries the stigma of willful ignorance.

If you've paid any attention to my modus operandi, you've noticed I don't claim those I quote are anything but conservative (preference-wise); this, as opposed to others in the liberal press (journalism proper, if you will) who claim "mainstream" status.

Perhaps others don't post articles and say "what he said" because they prefer to write what they think in their own words.

As an aside, how would you characterize the partisanship of, say, Chris Matthews, or Keith Olbermann, and what would have to say (therefore) about MSNBC?

Mathews is quite non partisan, he's more excited by political tactics than party, He is disliked by the left and right equally.
Olbermann definitely doesn't like the republicans and I suspect he isn't keen on Bill Oreily.

From reading your statements on the media you come across as someone that has a predetermined opinion and looks for media that confirms it rather than challenges.

[j2k4]

I was sincerely put out at the prospect of stitching anew on this thread...until I found this-

As an aside, how would you characterize the partisanship of, say, Chris Matthews, or Keith Olbermann, and what would have to say (therefore) about MSNBC?
Mathews is quite non partisan, he's more excited by political tactics than party...

Words fail me.

From reading your statements on the media you come across as someone that has a predetermined opinion and looks for media that confirms it rather than challenges.

A few suppositions can be made here-

1. You are not quite as familiar with conservatives or conservatism as you think.

2. You are quite a bit younger than I am.

3. You are irrevocably and irretreivably liberal (though you have rather studiously avoided any sort of label).

4. Your study of media bias is not too serious.

5. You really don't have the slightest familiarity with me.

I have more, but...

Tell me how many of those are wrong.

BTW-

I'm installing my vLite concoction, so I will attend here when I can, as I have to use my laptop.