« Living the Role | Main | A: Because That's Where the Donuts Were »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Gotta give you credit Tom, you take a liberal rag callnig Cindy McCain an elitist and turn it into another rant against Republicans because you "image" them doing the same thing.

Having driven most of the state of Arizona at one time or another, I have to agree with her. Except some of the small planes I've been on out there scared the bejeezus out of me. But it beat the hell out of the 10 hour drive from border to border (south to north).

Let me explain this in really clear language: Cindy McCain, who is enormously wealthy, says that the only way to get around Arizona is a small private airplane. This is ridiculous, as regular people generally drive from place to place. Small private aircraft aren't a realistic possibility.

Had, say, Teresa Kerry said this kind of thing, the right-wing media would have gone ballistic. As a result of that, the "controversy" over her remarks would have made the cable talk shows and even the evening newscasts. After days of argument, the conclusion everyone would reach is that Teresa Kerry is an elitist disconnected from real life and, thus, Democrats are elitists disconnected from real life.

When Cindy McCain says it, the Rush Limbaughs and Matt Drudges of the world are silent. The left has no equivalent of Rush and Drudge, and thus McCain's remarks are largely un-noted, there is no controversy for the nets to report on, the whole thing dies in minutes instead of hanging around for days.

If you think about this, you will note that -- theoretically -- exactly the same comments in exactly the same context get two distinct reactions, depending on who makes the comments. The Democrat gets pounded by the media, the Republican doesn't.

Now, given this, how can any reasonable person say the media give liberals a free ride?

This has nothing to do with whether McCain's airplane in a good business decision. It seems to me it is. It has nothing to do with whether I hate Republicans, which I don't. It has to do with clear thought processes and engaging with the world as it is, rather than the world as we imagine it to be.

What color are the trees in your world?

Right, Tom, because when Republicans misspeak, the news media are silent about it or brush it off as the person being "exhausted" (e.g., Dan Quayle), but when Democrats misspeak (e.g., Barack Obama's comment about America's 57 states), said person is relentlessly teased for his ignorance.

Right, Tom, because when Republican policies in Iraq reduce violence there, when the news from Iraq gets better, reporting about Iraq increases.

Right, Tom, because when a black stripper/prostitute/drug addict falsely accuses white college boys of gang rape, the accused are lionized by the press as virtual saints and the accuser is forced into hiding for her immoral personal life and outrageous, unfounded accusations.

Boy, that right wing media bias!

I'm not getting dragged into this, Squid, except for your first paragraph, which reads:

Right, Tom, because when Republicans misspeak, the news media are silent about it or brush it off as the person being "exhausted" (e.g., Dan Quayle), but when Democrats misspeak (e.g., Barack Obama's comment about America's 57 states), said person is relentlessly teased for his ignorance.

Dan Quayle left office 16 years ago. Since then, the media environment has changed considerably. Among the changes: the Internet. If the best argument you can make is that liberals were supreme before a recent communications revolution, that's a pretty weak argument.

Second, not even you can believe that Obama's statement that there are 57 states was anything but a simple slip of the tongue. Clearly, it's not something he really believes. You don't really think we should spend a lot of time worrying about obviously irrelevant slips of the tongue. If we did, the last seven years would have been nothing but an argument about George W. Bush's inability to pronounce "nuclear."

The point is that conservatives have the ability to force things onto the news agenda that liberals don't. It happens all the time -- now, in the current world, not in some world that existed 20 years ago.

Obama's statement was clearly a slip, and it got the coverage it deserved: minor, and soon dropped.

I brought up Quayle's excruciatingly well-documented slips because that coverage speaks to the long-standing liberal agenda of the news media, which is massively biased towards Democrats and the left.

What else? Way back in June '08, 69% of all press coverage of Obama was positive--even with his slur against the "bitter" Americans who "cling to guns and religion," even with Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright in the spotlight. In contrast, less than half of McCain's June '08 coverage (that is, when he or any other Republican got any coverage at all) was positive. Still think there's a conservative bias to the news media?

I'm not sure why you decided to ignore that the news media covered Iraq less as the news from Iraq got better. It's a documented fact. (I had to cut the link to get the software to accept this post.)

On the other hand, I can understand why you don't care to deal with the mainstream press' ignoring of the epidemic of black-on-white crime; anything that portrays designated minorities in an unfavorable light can be incendiary. Even so, is it not telling that at the same time the news media are ignoring black-on-white crime, they sensationalize the 100% fabricated fairy tales about white-on-black crime, like the Duke NON-rape case, or Tawana Braley?

So forgive me if I don't see the same bias you do.

The news media dropped Iraq coverage for the same reason the TV news doesn't cover a lack of murders. The saying local news is, "If it bleeds, it leads."

The nets do plenty of analytical pieces, which get dull for reporters so they do them only when they have to, not every day like you would evidently prefer. They also do lots of pieces on tinsmiths re-opening their shops and other features. I don't think there's been any real dearth of coverage.

The most interesting period was the middle, when the media got bored and the coverage minimized but the violence level was still high. Part of that was, I think, sheer boredom, but part was also a reaction against the Vietnam "scoreboard" coverage of who'd killed how many of which.

That's not liberal media bias. That's the nature of the news business.

So if the conservatives allegedly have the power to force their agenda into the mainstream news, then why were they unable to force the networks to cover the good news from Iraq?

Here's the link that shows how Iraq coverage declined as the situation there improved.

Nothing to say about the first, second, and third links in my comment above, all of which show blatant media bias in favor of Democrats? Your blog, your choice--but they do contradict your assertions otherwise.

It's not my responsibility to reply to everything people link to. It is especially not my responsibility to reply to every you link to.

If it helps you to maintain your apparently fragile mental balance, you may assume that the comments I decline to reply to are comments that I have no reply to. Conclude, if you like, that I am intimidated by your vast and incontrovertible intellect.

I think no such thing. Neither my ego nor my mental balance are particularly fragile, but thank you for your concern.

I just wonder how you can maintain your position that the mainstream news media are biased to the right, in spite of the fact-based, non-anectdotal evidence those links provide. It's because I have faith in your intellectual honesty that I press the point.

Then again, I know how unpleasant it can be to have to give up cherished beliefs; I can only imagine how hard it might be if one were forced into that position by someone one does not care for.

The comments to this entry are closed.