Posted on 11/05/2011 2:33:32 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
Can’t we just understand that the media understands and are trying to make up for their previous poor reporting in these earlier cases. It is only coincidence that this happens to be a Republican Presidential Candidate [African-American] don’t you know. I’m sure that the next Democrat scandal will be somewhat well covered (as soon as it cannot be ignored!)
Do I need a /sarc tag?
Right - Newsweek was involved in a typical liberal MSM coverup and it’s only thanks to Drudge that we even know about it now. And regarding the slimy shyster Edwards it was only because a “tabloid” broke the story and not the “lamestream” press.
And don’t forget about the bastard Jesse fathered. Excuse me, I mean “love child.” We can’t use the real word when a euphemism sounds nicer.
I got the article from Brent Bozell’s site: http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011
It all goes back to the points Bernie Goldberg made in his book “Bias.” Among other things, the liberal media are so insulated and isolated from reality - only reading and talking among themselves - that they have no wider national frame of reference and have actually come to believe they are the real “mainstream” in American thought.
I think this may backfire because it’s too obvious a partisan hit piece using anonymous sources and unsubstantiated gossip. This seems to be the case because Cain has held his standing in all the polls.
Probably.Republicans (who are primary voters) are the ones least impressed with the unsourced attack on Cain. In the general election you need independents, too - but then, November 6, 2012 is a year away. That is time enough to make these charges old news indeed, absent any real beef. And even if there turns out to be something, time enough to place it in context of how little came of so much more substance in the case of Bill Clinton.
What story? All they have is headlines and vague allegations and it gets more than 10,000 hits on Google News search.
In early 1992, I had to get info on the Clinton scandals fro shortwave broadcasts, much like citizens in Iron Curtain countries. The internet was not yet available.
In early 1992, I had to get info on the Clinton scandals fro shortwave broadcasts, much like citizens in Iron Curtain countries. The internet was not yet available.
I for one do not watch TV news -even Fox. I get my news from the internet and radio. Why conservatives haven’t figured out a way to produce TV news is beyond me.
I agree. The liberal MSM news monopoly is gone. With Fox, the Internet, talk radio, and a million other news sources they are not only losing ratings but have ended up often making fools of themselves because of their their blatant biases. By the way, the Independents are leaving Obama apart from the scurrilous attacks on Cain. They clearly see he’s in over his head and has ruined the economy and the Obama spin machine isn’t feeding or employing families across the nation.
My analysis is that "objective" journalism is, in and of itself, anti conservative. You will say, "The truth should be conservative, because conservatives ask for no more." And you are right - but people who claim to be objective are not even trying to actually be objective. And I can prove it.First, it is obvious that journalists make their living by attracting attention, and they need to make money from their membership in an expensive wire service such as the Associated Press (or any other). This requires them to hype the value of the reports coming over the wire. Knowing that they can't afford not to claim that newswire journalism is objective, we can ignore the claims of objectivity as being self-interested. But it's worse than that.
The only way to even attempt to be objective is to start your analysis with an evaluation of what motives you have which might cloud your judgement on a given issue. You have to admit what having your own ox being gored would look like in the given case. But when you claim objectivity for yourself, that is precisely the opposite of declaring your own interest - it is claiming that you are above having an interest in any subject you might discuss. If you are claiming objectivity you are not even trying to be objective.
So you see, wire service journalism is not objective, but its business model demands that it claim to be objective - and that it denigrate anyone with a different perspective who attempts journalism.
But what perspective is "conservative," exactly? And why is the perspective of wire service journalism "liberal?" Journalism is essentially criticism and second guessing of the people who make the country work."It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena - From Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech at the SorbonneSocialism is simply the idea that the government should second guess the people who make the country work, and that politicians should control all economic activity "for the children." Journalism's influence is maximized by socialism, and "liberal" politicians have a natural propaganda wind at their back due to the self interest of journalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.