politics - Articles - Zimbio

Oy Vey: Liberals Dominate Media Because They Want to "Change the World," Says WaPo Ombudsman

Sun, 17 Nov 2008 16:05:00 GMT

posted by damitajo1

Well, bless her heart (that's southern for "um, o.k."). By "her," I mean Deborah Howell, the Ombudsman for the Washington Post. After the presidential election, Howell released a study confirming the complaints of many readers who asserted that the Washington Post's election coverage favored Obama. Apparently, the newspaper wants to reassure its angry readers, because Howell has released yet another article on the subject of media bias.

Howell reports that customer dissatisfaction with the Washington Post has caused 900 people to cancel their subscriptions in the last 4 weeks (web traffic may have declined even more significantly, but Powell does not mention this). Powell also reiterates her prior conclusion that the newspaper has exhibited a "liberal bias." But Powell has an interesting explanation for this bias. Liberals (as opposed to conservatives) flock to media because of their commitment to social change. According to Powell: "Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world." Oy vey!

My (indignant) take:

Neither Liberals nor Conservatives Really Want Meaningful Change
Liberals do not want to "change" the world. Instead, they want to supplant conservatives in leadership positions and pass superficial and symbolic policies that look like "change" to people who cannot imagine more substantial reform. Progressives and the extreme rightwing are the true proponents of change -- even if their polar-opposite ideas are not rooted in pragmatism. Extreme leftist and rightwing agendas will not succeed because society's powerbrokers will not endorse them.

Liberals and conservatives are just on opposite sides of a vast middle conspiracy. They occupy the center-left and the center-right, and every four years they compete for power first by appealing to the extremes in their respective parties during the primaries and then running squarely to the center in the national election.

I do not see much in this election cycle that deviates from this script. Obama is picking up people daily from the Clinton administration -- and is seriously considering Hillary Clinton herself for a Cabinet position. That just does not strike me as some monumental "change" in society. It might represent a departure from Bush, but it is not a change from politics viewed with an historical lens. So far, the Obama administration looks a lot like the 1990s.

Liberals Can Present All Sides -- If They Try
Second, Howell's arguments imply that liberals cannot present all sides of an issue. I am a self-identified progressive, but I have tried to criticize liberals, conservatives, and progressives on this blog. Consequently, rightwingers, leftists, and moderates have favorably cited my arguments. In the few months that I have operated this blog, I have criticized both blacks and gays over Proposition 8. I have criticized the way McCain ran his campaign, but have also acknowledged that the media gave him a raw deal. I have embraced leftwing positions but have refused to demonize conservatives and uncritically accept liberals. Similarly, liberal journalists could explore all sides if they chose to do so. Apparently, they have not.

Journalists Are Not Principled Liberals, But Are Professionals Who Use Their Influence to Gain Access to Power and PopularityFinally, I doubt that many journalists are actually principled liberal. Instead, they are professionals (likely moderates) who cling to popular candidates and court individuals whom they believe will give them the most access to power. For example, just four years ago, the media stood by while the rightwing bashed Kerry, and four years prior to that, they helped conservatives construct a narrative that Gore was a pathological liar (or at least a gaffe machine). They also helped Republicans in their effort to slam Bill Clinton. In 2004 they concocted the "Dean Scream" because they preferred Kerry to Dean and saw the former as having a better chance to win and (thus) gain power. They preferred Reagan to Carter and Mondale, and they were literally "embedded" in the tanks during the Iraq War -- until public opinion turned on Bush and the war. This is not the behavior of a liberal media -- but rather the actions of a power-hungry profession that wants to consolidate and preserve its own power and influence. As a lawyer, I am pretty familiar with this drive.

Related Articles on Dissenting Justice:

2 Politico.Com Reporters Concede Media Biased, Blame McCain

ABC News Takes on Issue of Media Bias and Concludes: It Exists

Poll: 55% of Voters Believe Media More Biased Than in Past Elections

Washington Post Proclaims That "Sarah Palin Picks Ferraro as Favorite Vice President." Shocking -- Yes. Truthful -- No.

CNN and CBS Release Highly Misleading Polls Regarding VP Debate

New York Times to Hillary Clinton: "Call Off the Dogs"

Another Study Proves That 1+1=2, Or That the Media Love Obama, Hate McCain/Palin, and Who's Biden?

Ombudsman Concludes that the Washington Post Was In the Tank!

Delicate post-partisan consensus kept swaddled in cotton

Wed, 13 Nov 2008 17:12:00 GMT

posted by ollyonions
Advanced Nasa cushioning technology and a half-mile thick shroud of cotton have been deployed to protect an extremely delicate "post-partisan consensus" between Republicans and Democrats after the US election on 4 November. US citizens have been advised to tiptoe in their socks in a 20-mile exclusion zone around the fragile consensus, which is housed in an underground bunker, built on shock-proof springs in Washington DC. Raising seemingly straightforward issues — such as prosecuting Bush administration officials for illegal wire-tapping, torturing detainees and destroying evidence, or dropping Senator Joe Lieberman from the Democratic caucus for openly campaigning against Barack Obama — threaten this most delicate of agreements, pundits have warned. Despite Barack Obama winning a clear mandate as President and Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, suggestions that Republicans can finally go fuck themselves have been dismissed as highly dangerous to the precarious well-being of the race to the centre ground. "Ssshhhhh!" said House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid.

Subscribe in a reader

Jim DeMint on John McCain; “He Betrayed Republican Principles”

Sat, 16 Nov 2008 03:10:31 GMT

posted by mpinkeyes

Now that the campaign is over and the Republican turncoat, illegal alien amnesty granting, free speech infringing senator from Arizona has failed miserably Republicans are starting to turn on him. It is only fitting in my book considering he shit on conservatives for the last eight years and then wanted our vote even as he courted Democrats during the election.

Jim DeMint is the first high profile Republican to break the silence regarding John McCain.

“McCain, who is proponent of campaign finance reform that weakened party organizations and basically put George Soros in the driver’s seat,” DeMint said. “His proposal for amnesty for illegals. His support of global warming, cap-and-trade programs that will put another burden on our economy. And of course, his embrace of the bailout right before the election was probably the nail in our coffin this last election. And he has been an opponent of drilling in ANWR, at a time when energy is so important. It really didn’t fit the label, but he was our package.”

“Americans do prefer a traditional conservative government,” he said. “They just did not believe Republicans were going to give it to them.”

He is exactly right about this, John McCain is not a conservative and he didn’t campaign as a conservative. John McCain abandoned conservatives years ago and even during the campaign he was more interested in winning the votes of moderates and liberals than he was of shoring up the Republican base. He knew that conservatives had nowhere to go so he didn’t even bother to try to win them over. I saw one poll result that showed that 19% of people who consider themselves conservative voted for Obama. I know how hard that is to believe but it shows a fatal flaw that McCain made. He abandoned conservatives and them we he needed them the most conservatives abandoned him.

It is time for conservative Republicans to get back to their roots. It is time for Republicans to get back to smaller government and less spending, 180 degrees from the Bush administrations policies. If conservatives run as conservatives and not as liberals, as John McCain did, it is possible to start the ball in motion and take back our country. If Republicans continue to “re-brand” conservatism than we are doomed to fail and fail again.

John McCain is living proof of that.

Paul Broun Compares Barack Obama to Hitler

Mon, 11 Nov 2008 03:12:50 GMT

posted by mpinkeyes

President-elect Obama made some comments that recently showed up on youtube about creating a civilian national security force that has drawn the ire of people who are wondering what the hell he is talking about. This is more than a neighborhood watch program as he states it should be as equally funded as the military.

Paul Broun, a congressman from Georgia had this to say about Barack Obama’s plan:

“It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,” Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. “I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism.”

And he didn’t stop there:

“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun said. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

He then says that he is not actually comparing Barack Obama to Hitler, but warns that we had better watch our backs:

“We can’t be lulled into complacency,” Broun said. “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential.”

Yes you are comparing him to Hitler. I have called the soon to be president a Marxist, socialist, totalitarian, un-American, anti-semite, and many, many other names. But I would never compare him to Hitler. Stalin maybe, but not Hitler. How dare you campare a United States president to Hitler, you should be ashamed of yourself, uh wait a minute……

Just when I thought that I might be willing to defend Obama on this I remembered this:

And I started to ask myself why should I condemn Broun and defend Obama when this is the type of defamation that President Bush was subjected to? How many of the people who believe that Bush=Hitler are now outraged by the congressman’s remarks? I would guess that most of them are.

How many Bush haters who have called Bush the world’s leading terrorist will now have the audacity (of hope) to complain about this?

I will not defend Obama from this attack, but I also will not defend Broun either, however because of the treatment that Bush has recieved over the last eight years, neither will I condemn Broun.

If it was fair to compare Bush to Hitler than it must be okay to compare Obama to Hitler. Fair is fair.

I keep hearing on the television that it is time to get behind Barack Obama, that it is time to unite, yet these pictures above show how the current president was treated. There was no call for unity then, was there?

I am having trouble with the notion that we are supposed to unite behind this new president when the same people that tell us to unite are the ones who tried to divide us over the years. Why should I listen to the people who created such offensive pictures of the president now that their guy is in office?

The left had no thought of unification when they were in the minority, they spent eight years trying to destroy President Bush and the Republicans but now that they are in the majority we Republicans are just supposed to acquiesce to their every whim?

I am sorry but I am just having trouble trying to justify why I should get behind the same people who created such horrific images of President Bush.

I can’t bring myself to so it.

President-Elect Obama

Tue, 5 Nov 2008 03:53:41 GMT

posted by mpinkeyes

The American people went to the polls today and the voices of the American people were heard. Loud and clear. This was not just a victory for Barack Obama and the Democrats, this was a mandate.

Truth be told the results tonight are not surprising, only those holding out unrealistic hopes still believed that Barack Obama would not be elected as the next president of the United States. Because the results were so predictable I had plenty of time to brace myself for this, I accepted the results long ago.

John McCain was a horrible candidate from the beginning. I apologize for the whole state of New Hampshire to all conservatives out there because if it was not for my state John McCain would never have been the nominee in the first place. The man that stopped President Bush from appointing conservative judges, and the man that supported giving amnesty to illegal aliens should never have been the Republican nominee in the first place.

Because I readied myself for the impending left hand turn the country was ready to take, I began to look at small victories in a tough year for Republicans. These goals were the election of Jeb Bradley in New Hampshire, the re-election of John Sununu in New Hampshire, and stopping the Democrats from achieving a 60 vote super majority.

For the most part those victories alluded me also, Jeb Bradley lost as did Sununu. The only victory that can be claimed by Republicans is the fact that they held off the senate 60 vote super majority.

The American people have rejected Republicans all across the country, the country has turned not just left but hard left, and as the country moves in this direction it is time to look at the reasons why.

The reason is obvious and can be summed up simply; George W Bush. George W Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative” in 2000, but what conservative agenda has he pursued and won? Nothing. George Bush grew the government and spent more money than any previous Democrat president. George W Bush put Republicans behind the eight ball, he has single-handedly set the Republican party back at least twenty years.

I have defended this man for almost two years on this blog through thick and thin, I ignored the fact that he never saw a spending bill that he didn’t like. I started to turn on him during the illegal alien amnesty bill. His claim that there are jobs that Americans won’t do is insulting. Americans will do whatever it takes to take care of their families. I came back to him, where else could I go?

But then President Bush socialized the economy, the mortgage industry, and the banks. That is when he lost me for good, he started America down the path to socialism that Barack Obama will continue and for that I will never forgive him.

The end result of George W Bush’s presidency is Barack Obama’s presidency. The results will be devastating.

Where do conservatives go from here? I have no idea. We must regroup and refocus, we must get back to true conservative ideals, something that George W Bush forgot somewhere along the line. It is going to be a long uphill battle, but it is a battle that must be fought.

It is up to the people to rebuild the party that George W Bush destroyed.

Tonight is Barack Obama’s night, but tomorrow the fight resumes. And I pledge to treat President Obama with the same respect that the left has treated President Bush.