Patterico's Pontifications

2/23/2008

Welcome to the Way Media Treats Republicans, Ms. Clinton

Filed under: 2008 Election,Dog Trainer,General,Media Bias — Patterico @ 10:26 pm

DRJ noted how Hillary had some remarks today about Obama, the relentlessly positive candidate who recently sent out some negative attack mailers against Hillary. By taking exception to the attacks, Hillary is now being portrayed the same way as Republicans are portrayed when they defend themselves . . . she is being called an attacker by the L.A. Times (and pretty much the rest of the media as well). Here is from the L.A. Times story:

An angry Hillary Rodham Clinton scolded Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama today for campaign mailings that she described as false and shameful attacks on her record.

Clinton’s rhetorical blast, the most bellicose of her campaign, came 10 days before Ohio and Texas primaries that could doom her candidacy if she fails to stop her 11-contest losing streak.

What is she saying in the “rhetorical blast”? That Obama attacked her, and that the attack was unfair. Put aside the truth or falsity of the attacks, and just look at the language used by the media to describe the dynamic. Mr. Positivity sends out some mailers including accusations, like the one that says Hillary “was not with Ohio when our jobs were on the line.” Maybe he’s right, maybe he’s wrong — and I think pointing out differences on issues is legitimate . . . but it is undoubtedly negative campaigning, and the mailers are undoubtedly attacks, whether fair or not. Hillary thinks they are unfair, she defends herself — and suddenly she is the attack dog. Obama is allowed to portray himself as the guy who is attacked:

Obama waved off the sharp criticism in a hastily arranged news conference at Ohio State University Medical Center in Columbus.

We have been subject to constant attack from the Clinton campaign, except when we were down 20 points,” he said

The Deciders have decided who the winner should be, Hillary. And it ain’t you. They’re already writing your obituary.

Sucks, don’t it?

Welcome to our world. This is how Republicans get treated by Big Media every day.

I don’t feel sorry for you, Hillary. Not one bit.

81 Responses to “Welcome to the Way Media Treats Republicans, Ms. Clinton”

  1. I understand that the MSM doesn’t, and can’t possibly, “conspire” to square their positions before they engage in these consistent maneuvers.

    I know that it’s just a combination of prevalent attitudes in J-school and newsroom culture, the shared community of journalists through insider journals and conventions…

    But you know, the consequences are the same as if it were a conspiracy. The first casualty of journalism is the truth.

    Merovign (4744a2)

  2. Did you actually see the video of Hillary’s rant, what with “shame on you, Barack Obama”, “meet me in Ohio, let’s have a debate about your tactics”? Given the fact that the fliers in question were out there long ago, there’s no way of objectively seeing this as anything but rhetorical blast.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  3. Hillary’s biggest problem is Hillary. She can’t stop reinventing herself and say where she stands. The more people see her, the less they like her.

    The problem with the current campaign is that both democrat candidates are unqualified, inexperienced, big government socialists with Jimmy Carter-lite foreign policies.

    arch (dd7738)

  4. If O’Reilly were to make the following statement on his show (complete with pictures) would he be on Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” segment?

    Neither McCain nor Obama would be alone in their age bracket on the world stage. Mexican President Felipe Calderon is currently one of the youngest leaders. He’s 45-years-old. The Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, is one of the oldest. He’s 79. Hillary Clinton is closer in age to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. He’s 55. And to North Korea’s Kim Jung Il, who is 66.

    O’Reilly did not compare Hillary Clinton to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jung Il. That statement (complete with pictures) is from Friday night’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer! The media is going overboard with this type of blatant bias. If anyone on any network were to compare Obama to Kim Jung Il in any way they would be fired before the day was out!

    Blu Bastian (bedab8)

  5. Well said and right on point.

    Wade (29cab7)

  6. Come on. This is so transparent it’s pathethic. Hillary’s campaign was having to face a full Sunday news cycle on the topic of her “concession” and her imminent demise as a candidate. She needed to change the subject – like fast. For my money the McCain story may well have been part of that attempt, and seeing that fizzle, she’s left with nothing but to put her own anger and frustration on display.

    It won’t work. It’s not the MSM who’ve decided who they want to win, it’s the voters.

    Frank (7c10f7)

  7. Ah sweet sweet schadenfreude. About time she started getting a taste of her own personal medicine. ‘Nuff said.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  8. Here’s my prediction…
    Her “Shame on you Barack Obama” video will turn into Howard Dean ‘The Scream Part Two’.

    When Dean let out the screech, it was the mainstream media that played it over and over because they wanted him out of the race. Now that it’s Hillary’s turn to exit, and since she won’t do it gracefully, the media will have to push her out. And they will do it by playing this clip repetitively until the only image people have of her is what conservatives have known about her forever.

    She is a shrill angry woman. And she is toast.

    MagicalPat (32fc69)

  9. “It’s a vast right..er…left…er…uh…some kind of wing conspiracy against me” I would love to see Slick Willie come out and say there is a vast left wing conspiracy against Hildabeast.

    Sparky (ebee23)

  10. Hillary is stuck in a quagmire of trying to find her own (shrill) voice.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  11. Why is every criticism of every candidate called “negative?” A campaign HAS to criticize or we’d have something other than a democracy.

    Howard Veit (cc8b85)

  12. If you simply listened to Hillary’s “shame on you Obama” blast on the radio, you’d realize that a lot of men who heard that voice might think,”Why, she sounds like my first ex-wife or my first ex-mother in law”. Guys would drive a hundred miles out of their way to avoid that tone or style.

    I’m no fan of Hillary; in fact I’d drive a hundred miles out of my way to vote against her. But that shrill hectoring voice is a disability. And if by some chance she pulls it out and beats Obama, you can bet that that sound clip “shame on you Obama” will be played over and over again in September and October.

    Mike Myers (31af82)

  13. As for upcoming criticism, I relish how anyone might try and bring down the magic socialist. The media playbook is almost making this an EEO appointment.

    Vermont Neighbor (c6313b)

  14. Well, wait a minute. I think Obama is avoiding attacks because of his race. There is a lot about him that deserves review and discussion. He has gotten a free pass in my opinion. He should face a more critical review of his ties with Tony Rezko as well as his Muslim past. Come on, we have a right to know. It is one thing to elect a Muslim, but another to have it hidden from us. If he was an apostate Muslim, I doubt very seriously that any of the leaders from The Nation of Islam would be embracing him. In fact, they would be rejecting him, but they are not. Louis Farrakhan is embracing Obama and claims that they, The leaders of the Nation of Islam have “groomed” Obama. Farrakhan is a powerful leader. I hardly think he would lie. So, I think that the critical dial should be turned up on Obama and everything he is about should be discussed until we know who he really is. He doesn’t have much of a voting record and he hails from a very, very Muslim family. I for one, do not accept that those ties are broken, because he is not suffering the result of broken Muslim ties either from his family or members of his supposed previous Muslim faith. Come-on. It isn’t over and it should NOT be over until we know who we are putting in the most powerful office in the free world. Wake-up…report on Obama…please and don’t neglect your reporting when he starts to use his race card by claiming the attacks are “racist”. Just report…he deserves the same treatment as everyone running for office even if it comes in attack form. So be it…I’d say that is the territory so “get used to it”.

    Diana (2f5b88)

  15. Hillary has, at long last, been forced to come out of her closet….for the past few weeks we have been treated to the real Hillary. The screeching, demanding, demeaning, bemoaning female that has always been there. She is a 1960′s hippie turned yuppie and you can watch that ilk all day long on Code Pink, Move-on.org, the DailyKos, MyDD, Huffpo and every publication across the country. Spoiled, bratty children playing at being adult! It is unfortunate that if in power, the damage they will cause this country is unestimable.

    Sue (781bb3)

  16. I agree the Obama relationship with Nation of Islam should be looked at closer. .Debbie Schlussel has uncovered many Naion of Islam staff member on the Obama staff ..

    Dennis D (aacd7f)

  17. @ Sparky #9

    But the media has always had a rightwing bias. Every single one of them!

    Didn’t you know that?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  18. “This is how Republicans get treated by Big Media every day.”

    - Patterico

    Cry me a river, you “MSM”-whiners. The media’s got no ideological bias, because they’ve got no ideology. There goal is to make money, and they’ll do whatever nets them the most profit. Right now, Obama sells. Desperate Hillary Clinton sells. John McCain’s falsely accused pecker sells.

    Quit crying.

    Leviticus (e6ccd5)

  19. Hillary is on the attack. The news is just speaking the truth. How dare them.

    Psyberian (d18acc)

  20. The media’s got no ideological bias, because they’ve got no ideology. There goal is to make money, and they’ll do whatever nets them the most profit.

    Then explain why too many times the MSM makes editorial decsions that tick off half (or more) of their possible customer base, while readership steadily declines. The NYT stock, among others, is well on its way to junk-bond status.

    Go read our host’s “Dog Trainer” tagged posts, and tell me with a straight face there is no bias.

    You comment on this blog frequently, and claim there is no MSM bias when numerous examples of such are painstakingly documented here week after week.

    Give me a break.

    Paul (236e0e)

  21. Paul, if media bias is so bad, then how did republicans control the House, Senate and presidency for so many years recently? Their message is getting out there somehow, isn’t it?

    It’s one thing to cry foul when your party’s on the ropes; but a bit absurd when you’ve been winning most of the elections for eight or twelve years.

    Psyberian (d18acc)

  22. …if media bias is so bad, then how did republicans control the House, Senate and presidency for so many years recently?

    More voters were smart enough not to be swayed by it.

    B Moe (81fd3c)

  23. So where were they getting their information then Moe? Are you implying that there are people so convinced that the media is wrong that they just vote republican automatically without be informed? If so, that’s just sad.

    You do have a whole network – Fox News you know.

    Psyberian (d18acc)

  24. Of course lefties see no bias in the media. They agree with what the MSM says, how could there be bias?

    Merovign (4744a2)

  25. …without being informed.

    Psyberian (d18acc)

  26. The media’s got no ideological bias, because they’ve got no ideology.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  27. Paul, if media bias is so bad, then how did republicans control the House, Senate and presidency for so many years recently? Their message is getting out there somehow, isn’t it?

    C’mon, Psyberian, you’re smarter than this.

    How: Talk radio and alternative media.

    Like this blog.

    The Dems used to get away with biased and slanted stories presented in the media. Not anymore. (See Little Green Footballs vs. Dan Rather, Captain’s Quarters vs. the Canadian Government, Michelle Malkin vs. Eason Jordan, a mob vs. Scott Thomas Beauchamp. Need I say more?)

    The right, some independents and the left not afflicted with BDS is rejecting the Dead Tree Media. Why else do you think the main reason subscription rates are dropping is?

    This is why some Dems have suggested reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine and regulation of blog political content.

    Paul (236e0e)

  28. Yeah Merovign, the liberal media lied/misinformed us into war with Iraq. How’s that for liberal?

    Psyberian (d18acc)

  29. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Eactly the response I expected from you, Patrick, considering the yeoman’s work you’ve done here the past five years documenting the LAT specifically.

    Paul (236e0e)

  30. Yeah Merovign, the liberal media lied/misinformed us into war with Iraq.

    Psyberian, they were dragged in kicking and screaming.

    Or did you miss the 11-month “OVERNIGHT RUSH TO WAR!”

    Or the dozens of GRIM MILESTONE stories run by the AP (the Voice of God in print media) and picked up by nearly every paper in the country?

    Paul (236e0e)

  31. Poor Hillary – attacked for speaking truth to power. It is so confusing. Isn’t Hillary’s dissent the highest form of patriotism?

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  32. Paul, the main reason news subscriptions are dropping is the internet. You should know that. The internet is well, free. The paper’s not. See how that works?

    So you do admit that republicans have their own media channels, so to speak. Good, at least you realize that. It’s a good first step.

    Psyberian (d18acc)

  33. Patterico, I spot another double-bind.

    If the media is soft on Hillary, then that’s liberal bias, plain and simple.

    But if they’re rough on Hillary, “The deciders have decided who the winner should be,” etc.

    The media can’t win with you on this one, can they Patterico?

    Psyberian (d18acc)

  34. Psyberian #32,

    I didn’t realize the internet is free. Can you please contact my ISP about these annoying bills?

    DRJ (3eda28)

  35. Psyberian #33,

    You overlook that the MSM has largely given Obama a free pass. Competent journalists would be equally hard on McCain, Huckabee, Clinton and Obama.

    DRJ (3eda28)

  36. There can be no doubt of the liberal leanings of most members of the MSM. They are artifacts of the sixties, those who weren’t smart enough for med school or law school and journalism seemed like a fun job. I mean didn’t you see All the President’s Men? Journalists are condemned to a life of interacting with sucessful, wealthy people and they resent the fame and fortune that achievers receive. I worked as a reporter for three years after college. One day, after I caught myself hoping for a plane crash or something exciting to cover, I came back and sat and watched a crew of bricklayers work on a new wall near our station. When I’d left that morning it was about a foot tall and when I returned, it was over twelve feet high. I thought to myself, how gratifying is that? To be able to actually see what you’ve done. I spent my three years writing about what other people did. I didn’t really do anything. I was extremely jealous of those people. I think a lot of the MSM still are.

    JJK (568d60)

  37. DRJ, are you picking on my semantics? OK, to make a short story long for people reading on this blog who don’t understand that they pay for internet service but can surf to a web site for free: if you have the internet, you don’t have to pay to read the news on the internet. Well, actually that’s not quite true either. You have to pay for the electricity to use the computer that accesses the internet. Then there’s the price of the PC too, ya know. … I could go on… and on…

    Psyberian (d18acc)

  38. Paul, the main reason news subscriptions are dropping is the internet. You should know that. The internet is well, free. The paper’s not. See how that works?

    So the fact that people are turning away from newspaper subscriptions has absolutely nothing to do with content?

    Riiiiiiiight.

    Blaming defections on the internet is a good excuse, but that’s all it is.

    So you do admit that republicans have their own media channels, so to speak. Good, at least you realize that. It’s a good first step.

    Psyberian, show me anywhere I’ve made any such assertion.

    In fact, liberals in the 80s told conservatives to create their own media channels if they didn’t like the current ones. When they did, daring to be more successful, libs wanted to shut them down (Fairness Doctrine, reguation of blogs’ political content.)

    If the media is soft on Hillary, then that’s liberal bias, plain and simple.

    But if they’re rough on Hillary, “The deciders have decided who the winner should be,” etc.

    Psyberian, if they were simply asking tough questions of Hillary after all the slow-softballs-over-the-plate inquiries the’ve made of her since 1992, yours would be a valid point.

    But they’ve turned on her like a pack of sharks when one of their brethen is bleeding, using the same characterizations they’ve used on Republicans for decades.

    Paul (236e0e)

  39. Psyberian,

    I’m pointing out a flaw in your logic, not your semantics. The conventional wisdom was that radio would kill the printed medium, and TV would be the death knell of them all. Granted, each had to make adjustments to survive, but survive they did. If some parts of the MSM fail to survive the internet, it’s because they haven’t adjusted to the new market. It won’t be because the market is no longer there.

    DRJ (3eda28)

  40. You overlook that the MSM has largely given Obama a free pass. Competent journalists would be equally hard on McCain, Huckabee, Clinton and Obama.

    Dead on, DRJ.

    Paul (236e0e)

  41. My opinion is the MSM got tired of the Clintons’ bullying. Resentful of Hillary trying to control their message since 1992. Now that they have a viable alternative to “if you don’t like it, vote Republican” they’re giving her long overdue payback. I won’t call it pride or integrity. It’s the rat turning.

    nk (669aab)

  42. My ISP charges me every month also.

    SO Psyberian. Tell us how you get this “free” internet?

    Probably the same place Obama is going to get all that “free” healthcare, college tuition, and revampt military strength.

    papertiger (894e4f)

  43. 9 out 0f 10 journalisrs are liberal demacratic supporters thats why their liberal lying scoundrels

    krazy kagu (3e8790)

  44. Paul, the main reason news subscriptions are dropping is the internet. You should know that. The internet is well, free. The paper’s not. See how that works?

    How then would you explain declining viewers of network news? Television is free….

    Steverino (3cbef4)

  45. Reasoned or not, self-defense is now always an “attack” or a “smear”, according to the “audacious distortion of reality in order to reveal a higher truth” Prog lexicon.

    J. Peden (942e4f)

  46. This is how Republicans get treated by Big Media every day.

    Right. Which is why they’re still laughing about Gore’s invention of the internet eight years later, when they knew it was a distortion, and passing off Mr. 19% Approval’s lies about FISA as fact.

    fishbane (fbe4d4)

  47. Which is why they’re still laughing about Gore’s invention of the internet eight years later, when they knew it was a distortion, and passing off Mr. 19% Approval’s lies about FISA as fact.

    Fishbane – Who specifically in Big Media is laughing about Gore and the internet and specifically what lies are you talking about with respect to FISA and how are YOU certain that they are lies?

    No turd dropping without wiping.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  48. Hillary must be desperate. She’s resorting to sarcasm to “attack” Obama.

    DRJ (3eda28)

  49. Paul: granted that this is anecdotal, but … I used to subscribe to deadtree newspapers. Now I read the same papers online. This has nothing to do with content, and everything to do with convenience.

    Papertiger: you pay for the internet. But you don’t pay anything additional to use most websites. So the website is in essence free.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  50. Aphrael,

    I understand your point and I think that’s the point Psyberian was also making, but that perspective is a little one-sided. You are ignoring people like me, who subscribe to the same number of dead-tree newspapers as before but also read additional newspapers because of the convenience and cost-savings of reading them online. Even if I cancel all my subscriptions, I’m still reading more newspapers than ever before — and more newspapers profit from that because of their traffic-based revenue from online ads.

    Thus, instead of viewing it as an actual or potential loss of one newspaper subscription, I see it as a gain in readers for many newspapers that get new revenue from online ads.

    DRJ (3eda28)

  51. Howard: I’m OK with the word “negative” to describe ads that are, well, negative, but I take exception to those who use the phrase “negative advertisement” as though it’s a bad thing. Of course inaccurate advertisements are a bad thing, but accurately pointing out your opponent’s flaws is just as important a part of the game as accurately highlighting your own accomplishments. Conversely, misrepresenting one’s own accomplishments to run a “positive” campaign is no better than misrepresenting your opponent’s foibles to run a “negative” one.

    Leviticus: If you think MSM journalists are any less ideological than the rest us, then with all due respect, you’re rather dim. If you think McCain’s falsely accused pecker sells better now than it would have sold a few weeks ago when the Republican primary was still competitive, then with all due respect, you’re mildly retarded. Lest there be any misunderstandings in either case, let me assure you that no one is “whining” or “crying” about the fact that you are either rather dim or mildly retarded, respectively. Merely pointing out a fact Leviticus would rather not see pointed out does not “whining” or “crying” make.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  52. delayrocks:

    Who specifically in Big Media is laughing about Gore and the internet

    Try here, here, or here, all from this month.

    Amazing what 15 seconds with google can do – you should try it.

    specifically what lies are you talking about with respect to FISA and how are YOU certain that they are lies?

    Try just about anything Andy McCarthy says over at NRO. Variations of these claims (that warrant-less spying is a reaction to 9/11, when it began before then, and that foreign-foreign communications require warrants, to name just two false claims) have been repeated all over the place. I’ll leave the googling of this one as an exercise for you.

    fishbane (fbe4d4)

  53. Delayrocks, re: #47 – I seem to have hit the moderation queue, probably due to including links in response to your question. We’ll have to wait for our host to save it.

    fishbane (fbe4d4)

  54. I used to subscribe to deadtree newspapers. Now I read the same papers online. This has nothing to do with content, and everything to do with convenience.

    True, Aphrael, which is why I wrote “the main reason” and not “the reason.”

    I know some people have made similar choices, but to deny that that others chose not to subscribe anymore because of biased content is nonsense.

    My own anecdote: I know people that won’t allow the Star-Tribune in their homes because the content tends to make the New York Times look like National Review some days.

    Paul (236e0e)

  55. Papertiger: you pay for the internet. But you don’t pay anything additional to use most websites. So the website is in essence free.

    Most websites are “free” the same way television and AM-FM radio are “free”: paid for by the advertisers.

    Paul (236e0e)

  56. Fishbane – I’m very impressed by your Big Media sources. The Red Bluff Daily News is obviously a must read of the chattering classes as is that passing mention in the sports column of the Topeka Capital-Journal you linked. The third source was an on-line source you putz. You are freaking hilarious.

    Nice try on the FISA stuff as well. Somehow I didn’t think you’d be specific either. You are obviously not keeping up with Mike McConnell’s letters to Congress on the subject where he blows away your assertions. No need to google beyond reading his stuff. Stay away from Greenwald. He doesn’t know shit.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  57. fishbane,

    I’m thinking 15 seconds of Googling wasn’t enough. Those were some pretty sad links.

    Patterico (68e7bf)

  58. I was going to mock fishbane for those links, but I didn’t want to ruin the fun for daleyrocks.

    Paul (236e0e)

  59. Somehow, I knew you’d decide to attack based on smallness. Writing off CBS as an online source is a nice touch. Good job! No, nobody jokes about this stuff anymore.

    Relying on McConnell regarding FISA is like relying on Negroponte regarding torture.

    Come to think of it…

    fishbane (fbe4d4)

  60. Writing off CBS as an online source is a nice touch.

    Fishbane, you linked to Cybercast News Service, CNS–not Columbia Broadcasting Service, CBS.

    Nice try.

    Paul (236e0e)

  61. Wow, you have to be really bored and petty to obsess over trivialities. You know something, every bunch of crackpot whines about how the media is against them, you know, “it’s all those jews are conspiring against us” thing.

    jakealope (6dbd8e)

  62. Jakealope,

    I enjoy trivialities. That probably explains why I read your comment.

    DRJ (3eda28)

  63. There’s the zinger!

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  64. Fishbane’s imagination get’s the best of him once again!

    daleyrocks (906622)

  65. Hahaha… someone who can’t tell the difference between CBS and Cybercast News Service, trying to lecture everyone else here about the news media.

    Too funny!

    Shad (8a933a)

  66. “This is how Republicans get treated by Big Media every day” Poor republicans maybe Rush or Hannity can help out. Geesh, you really got to be kidding, I hope. Weh… JM

    Manson48 (f19dd6)

  67. What’s really sad is that after Clinton loses, the same media that chose to report such biased stories against her will scold itself for being so biased. I hope Obama is ready for the Republican attack machine because this time he’ll be running against another man and the media won’t be able to so convincingly portray McCain with such negative imagery as too emotional, an attacker,too feminine, or not feminine enough.

    C.P (c08027)

  68. Poor republicans maybe Rush or Hannity can help out. Geesh, you really got to be kidding, I hope. Weh… JM

    If the liberals in Big Media actually wrote and broadcast objective journalism the last 35 years, there wouldn’t be a Rush or a Hannity…at least nowhere as big. So your side can thank yourselves.

    Heh.

    Paul (236e0e)

  69. “Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.”

    -Patterico

    A Han Solo would say, “Laugh it up, fuzzball”.

    Watch Fox. Read the Wall Street Journal. Hell, come to Albuquerque and read The Journal.

    Then put on your thinking cap and realize that “MSM” media coverage sank Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004.
    After all … he yelled? Who gives a fuck, again?

    Just because the LA Times has a liberal slant doesn’t mean that you can conclude the same about “Media” in its aggregate.

    I just finished reading The Boys On the Bus. The author said that most reporters were liberals (Cue crowing).

    You know what else he said? He said that those same reporters compensated for their liberal leanings by being harder on Democrats than Republicans…

    Leviticus (43095b)

  70. If the liberals in Big Media actually wrote and broadcast objective journalism the last 35 years, there wouldn’t be a Rush or a Hannity…at least nowhere as big. So your side can thank yourselves.

    Heh.

    First, I’m not a liberal nor a Democrat for that matter. I’m always amazed at how narrow minded people are when it comes to politics. I just find it hilarious that hard core conservative republicans cry like little babies about the media, especially with rabid mouthpieces like “Oxy-Rush” and “How bout them alterboys – Catholic posterchild Hannity”…weh, weh, weh…
    Hey, we have some diapers that need changin to the right… JM

    Manson48 (f19dd6)

  71. Manson48 writes this:

    First, I’m not a liberal nor a Democrat for that matter. I’m always amazed at how narrow minded people are when it comes to politics.

    Then writes this:

    I just find it hilarious that hard core conservative republicans cry like little babies about the media, especially with rabid mouthpieces like “Oxy-Rush” and “How bout them alterboys – Catholic posterchild Hannity”…weh, weh, weh…
    Hey, we have some diapers that need changin to the right… JM

    …and expects us to believe the first statement is true.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Paul (213adb)

  72. Watch Fox. Read the Wall Street Journal. Hell, come to Albuquerque and read The Journal.

    Then put on your thinking cap and realize that “MSM” media coverage sank Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004.
    After all … he yelled? Who gives a fuck, again?

    Just because the LA Times has a liberal slant doesn’t mean that you can conclude the same about “Media” in its aggregate.

    Funny how you left out CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, the Voice of God Associated Press…

    Nice choreographed routine, Levi.

    Learn that from watching “Dancing With the Stars?”

    Paul (213adb)

  73. Manson48 writes this:

    First, I’m not a liberal nor a Democrat for that matter. I’m always amazed at how narrow minded people are when it comes to politics.

    Then writes this:

    I just find it hilarious that hard core conservative republicans cry like little babies about the media, especially with rabid mouthpieces like “Oxy-Rush” and “How bout them alterboys – Catholic posterchild Hannity”…weh, weh, weh…
    Hey, we have some diapers that need changin to the right… JM

    …and expects us to believe the first statement is true.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Because I dislike Rush and Hannity, I’m a liberal? No wonder a negro and a tomgirl are kicking your asses. I don’t like the religious right because they talk to imaginary people for one thing. However, I also think political correctness is a disease. I’m a true blue sexist/racist American and I won’t pussy foot around folks from Vermont with gender confusion. Why is it always far right or far left with you fanatics? Ever hear of a little word called moderate?

    For all the fonts you rejects waste, you would think you could spit some common sense onto a page. I can tell you this, Rush and Hannity are Jerry Springer mouth traps, trailer trash orators, and one reason conservatism is wasting away. As for Hillary and Obama? Absolute disgraces to America’s historic trials and tribulations. Liberal Democrats have proven exactly why we need to rid this country of their infectious cancer.

    It’s quite funny really, because the liberals call me names too, and you know what? I won’t cry about it, I won’t blame the media either. I’ll tell everyone of you misguided rejects, that America doesn’t need your stupidity or your petty sibling rivalries. America needs some common sense and alot less fanatical crybabies. JM

    Manson48 (f19dd6)

  74. Comment by Manson48 — 2/25/2008

    Ooooooo!

    Hit a nerve, I did!

    Paul (213adb)

  75. All of Manson48′s comments….
    Yes, yep, yes….well I disagree with the “you misguided rejects” part of the last quote.

    Whining about the “Liberal Media” is a tactic.

    People tried the same tactic on Rupert Murdoch and he pretty much said it….”its all subjective”.

    One person’s “softball” question is another person’s information. “Objective” reporting for one guy is unsubstantiated innuendo for someone else.

    Go to any “liberal” site and they are all in a tizzy over the “conservative bias” in the media.

    The FUNNIEST times are when both “liberal” and “conservative” sites are bitching about the SAME guy as being “biased”. Haw Haw

    EdWood (c2268a)

  76. Whining about the “Liberal Media” is a tactic.

    So is accusing one’s opponent of “whining.” It’s much easier than refuting his statement on the merits.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  77. Xrlq you make my point exactly. That is the tactic: to whine about the liberal media in order to try and lend one’s own arguments more credibility, even if you are refuting a statement on its merits. Why not just refute the arguement? Why whine?
    Accusing the other “side” of getting more media and one’s own “side” of not getting enough is a tactic that everyone uses now. It’s like pulling out the race card.

    By the By
    The liberal media statement has been refuted, ad nauseum (summed up in “what liberal media” then, in rebuttal, right back at em with “oh, THAT liberal media”). So I’ll go with R. Murdoch.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  78. I tend to not pay attention to people that are unwilling to admit that the media is predominantly liberal.

    JD (75f5c3)

  79. I pay attention to people who think the media is “liberal” (or “conservative” for that matter) I just don’t include that particular whine into my decision on whether what they have to say has any merit.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  80. That is the tactic: to whine about the liberal media in order to try and lend one’s own arguments more credibility, even if you are refuting a statement on its merits. Why not just refute the arguement? Why whine?

    That question assumes a fact not in evidence. Unless you can show that someone is whining, as opposed to merely pointing out a fact you’d rather not see pointed out, your accusation is worthless.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  81. ok ok “whining” is a stand in for…um um oh, squeaking on like a whinging hinge in the wind about the “liberal” media and how it does…uh.. stuff…. stuff like..I dunno what it is supposed to be doing again? Destroying civilization? …Oh yeah..blinding us all.. blinding us to.. “THE TRUTH”!!. Yes, THE TRUTH.. that only the pure and honest, uncorruptable “real conservatives” know and try to pass down to the rest of us lesser beings. Yah. Right.

    Patterico catches people making things up. That seems like a good thing. That is putting out proof that in the lofty halls of Journalism there is laziness, sloppyness, even bias if an article insinuates things that aren’t true.

    The subjective part is on the LAST word in that list. Bias is in the eye of the beholder and it seems to me (in my biased opinion) that “liberal bias” (or conservative, which one hears more and more now) is too often being substituted for “dishonest”. Its a sloppy, biased way of saying “I disagree”…or “I want a different outcome” or “I got nothin’ but I don’t like your ideology”.

    Keep spanking sloppy journalists with facts but change the record..its broken.

    EdWood (c2268a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2928 secs.