Leftists hate ANY coverage of viewpoints other than their own
Left-leaning WaPo columnist Dionne is outraged that the media sometimes cover statements by Limbaugh and Gingrich. Taranto has some good remarks about that:
"E.J. Dionne, a liberal columnist for the Washington Post, makes a surprising acknowledgment: The news media are politically biased. This is both more and less surprising than you'd think, however, because of the direction in which he thinks they're biased:"A media environment that tilts to the right is obscuring what President Obama stands for and closing off political options that should be part of the public discussion.
Yes, you read that correctly: If you doubt that there is a conservative inclination in the media, consider which arguments you hear regularly and which you don't. When Rush Limbaugh sneezes or Newt Gingrich tweets, their views ricochet from the Internet to cable television and into the traditional media. It is remarkable how successful they are in setting what passes for the news agenda.
Just how risible this is, Dionne himself makes clear in the fourth paragraph, when he observes: "Democrats are complicit in building up Gingrich and Limbaugh as the main spokesmen for the Republican Party, since Obama polls so much better than either of them." Does this mean Democrats tilt to the right? Dionne doesn't say, but it seems clear to us that reporters largely see Gingrich and Limbaugh the same way Democrats do: as figures of contempt or even hatred.
Reader Greg Lindenberg observes of Dionne's argument: "This is like saying the Union controlled the Confederate media because all it talked about was the Yankees." It's reminiscent, too, of the old joke about the German Jew explaining to his friend why he prefers Der Stürmer over the local Yiddish paper: "This paper says we Jews control the media, the economy, the banks, the whole world. Your paper has nothing but bad news."
Source
16 comments:
How typical of Leftists to turn the topic around and make themselves the victims. This is another rabid attempt by the Left to take control of radio. (and their next target, the internet) Having "full control" of print and cable news is obviously not enough, since people are still able to hear differing views, something the left hates.
It seems to me that mr. dionne needs to be slapped upside the head. Multiple times.
No different than San Francisco, saying that Nancy Pelosi is not Far left wing, but in fact is a moderate.
So if your viewpoint is already Extreme Far Left, anyone to the right of you, is a conservative!
Mobius
"So if your viewpoint is already Extreme Far Left, anyone to the right of you, is a conservative!"
So if your viewpoint is already Extreme Far Right, anyone to the left of you, is a liberal!
"So if your viewpoint is already Extreme Far Right, anyone to the left of you, is a liberal!"
Case in point, those wackos that consider Hitler a socialist.
How far right do you have to be for HITLER to be left wing?
Actually, it was the National Socialist German Workers Party.
And have a look at that first word.
National. As in Nationalist. As in Right Wing.
Nice try though. I suggest actually reading up on them instead of just believing everything you read on the internet.
Also, have a look at the election results and see if they correlate with the Nazi's being a left wing party.
President Obummer is not a Nazi, he's a fascist, as are all leftists.
And yet he also locked up the communists and socialists in his own party and left the right wing elements in place.
Hardly a smart thing for a left wing guy to do.
And let's not forget that these bailouts were started by the REPUBLICANS. And last time I checked, they were conservatives, not socialists.
And have you considered what the situation in Germany was like in those days? It wasn't exactly a booming economy, I'll tell you that much, as you seem to have rose tinted glasses on.
Hey 3:21 PM,
"And let's not forget that these bailouts were started by the REPUBLICANS. And last time I checked, they were conservatives, not socialists."
---The republican bailouts where NOTHING compared to the financial abomination Obama has done. Bush did not give GM 2 bailouts plus the pork-infested trillion-dollar stimulus package.
"And have you considered what the situation in Germany was like in those days? It wasn't exactly a booming economy, I'll tell you that much, as you seem to have rose tinted glasses on."
---By the time Hitler was elected the worst of the depression was over, yet he still confiscated businesses from their rightful owners, and directed production towards military spending in violation of the treaty of Versailles. This was so serious that after the war Germany had to be divided in two in the hopes that she would never have the strength to bring a war against the world a third time.
In a way, Obama does have a few things in common with Hitler.
1. A media that adores him
2. Devoted followers willing to do his bidding without question
3. Increasing control of key industries in America (banking, automotive)
4. A willingness to put his people in danger in the name of principles (closing Guantanamo, prohibiting waterboarding, apologizing to the arabs for Bush's "mistakes")
I just hope I'm wrong, like Rush Limbaugh said, "I hope he fails" because God help us if Obama achieves his socialist utopia. Remember, socialists always demand collective sacrifices in the form of higher taxation, mandatory volunteering, reeducation, and worship of the state. So when it comes to all that, I hope he fails.
Well said Bobby!
Let's reword what he wrote and apply it to the previous 8 years.
"A media environment that tilts to the left is obscuring what President Bush stands for and closing off political options that should be part of the public discussion."
Does E.J. Dionne believe that?
Bobby said, "And let's not forget that these bailouts were started by the REPUBLICANS. And last time I checked, they were conservatives, not socialists."
Yes, we are aware of this. They abandoned their principles. Hence, one of the reasons for the Tea Parties. We are sick and tired of ALL the politicians only doing those things it takes to get reelected and not doing the things we put them in office for. Dems or Repubs.
How ironic, that after two years of campaign lies by both party's, and 110 days of presidential and congressional lies by the one party in control, it turns out that Ron Paul was right all along.
Socialist German Worker's Party and you do not see the leftist connection, how dumb can one person be?
"And yet he also locked up the communists and socialists in his own party and left the right wing elements in place.
Hardly a smart thing for a left wing guy to do."
There's no hatred quite like fraternal hatred, as John has pointed out many times. That's the kind of hatred Leftists reserve for their "heretics", those who once agreed with the leftist in all respects, until they came to so much as one difference of opinion. Then they go ballistic against each other.
As for the one emphasizing "National" in "National Socialist German Workers Party" thinking that somehow transforms all their Leftist attitudes into rightist attitudes, that's a non-sequitur. Those socialists happened to also be nationalistic on top of socialists. That does not change the fact that they were socialists, however. They were, however, not averse to trying to dominate others by force. Again, that's Leftist. Conservatism as the term has been understood since the early 20th century is the government leaving the people alone, exercising just enough power to maintain an orderly, harmonious society.
Post a Comment