Liberal Media... Yeah Right
La. Lawmaker accused of demanding bribes
As reported by the Associated Press:
Brett Pfeffer, 37, a former legislative director to Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting bribery of a public official and conspiracy. He could get 20 years in prison when sentenced March 31.
Here is another example of the (not so liberal) media reporting news. They are not just bashing rethuglicans for being corrupt.
I like (well really it bothers me but you know I'm being ironic) the way the wingnuts like T.M. and Mr. Right (you too Anna) and Stew cry and moan about the MSM (mainstream media) picking on Bush and the Republicans.
They say that the MS M is controlled by liberals who are just out to get Bush at any cost.
They never respond when I point out that the media is owned by, like, three mega-conglomerates. All of which are heavily involved in the Republican agenda. Rupert Murdoch... Clear Channel, just try to find anything other than Pacifica reporting news of substance. The AP gets it. Reuters does too.
The actual journalists and reporters are probably liberals because they are out there witnessing the results of the "Conservative" policies and are educated. But the ownership is not liberal at all. So stop the complaining about the mean ole media and face the fact that corruption is everywhere not just the Republicans (although they are currently the worst examples of corrupt politicians) look at the big picture and get over the blind loyalty to one party. Then we might be able to make a change.
We have more in common than we do differences. Not that Bush wants you to realize that. He wants us divided. That is one reason he picked Alito. He will divide US real good!
posted by Mistake Master @ 4:50 PM
8 Comments:
um, bro, hate to burst your bubble but:
Just for kicks I did a search on the following; nytimes.com, latimes.com, msn.com, cnn.com and google.com.
Guess the results? The only ones that found any mention of this were nytimes.com(link to reuters) and google(link to reuters).
Do you think the results would be the same for a rethuglican?
HELL NO, it'd be all over the place.
There's your bias.
Oh and as to the popularity of the right wing media, it came about because so many people were sick of the Dan Rather type viewpoint.
Denial of a left leaning media bias is an awfully blind way to go through life.
So I guess you are right and I needn't worry about th econcentration of media into the hands of a few ultra-rich Republicans. The liberal bias will overcome anything and only Rethuglican scandals will ever be reported so they will be the only ones that exist. Democrats will get a free pass on corruption and avarice because the liberal media refuses to report it.
So based on your results you can't accuse the NY Times of being a "liberal" news outlet anymore can you?
You'll just have to accept thier reporting as balanced and fair. Sorta like Fox.
I also never mentioned the "popularity of the right wing media". But since you bring it up I guess you can say the same thing about the popularity of the liberal media like Air America. People are just sick of hearing windbags and hypocrites like Limbaugh.
Oh Gawd, Air America. I would listen to that for sheer humor factor alone (until I began to verp).
Jerry Springer is a featured "talent". The same guy that has transvestite..., nevermind.
What a joke. What huge huge joke that station is*.
Anyway, how'd you make the rather prodigous leap to the conclusion that the NYTimes isn't liberal? Because they link to a story from reuters?
Sheesh. Well, I guess that's liberal thinking for ya. :)
Most reporters aren't liberal or biased - right?
Let's see....
- 9 white house correspondents survey voted for Clinton in 1992, while 2 voted for Bush
- 12 voted for Dukakis in 1988 - one for Bush
- 10 voted for Mondale in 1984 - zero for Reagan
- 8 voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980 - 2 for Reagan
Of course, none of these reporters could be biased at all in their reporting.......
Source: US News and World Report White House Reporter Kenneth Walsh
Another survey...
Of the 1400 members of the national media who were surveyed:
* 44% considered themselves Dems
* 16% Repubs
* 34% independents
* 89% voted for Clinton in 1992
* 7% voted for Bush in 1992
Freedom Forum sponsored poll, 1992
Interested in more?
OWNERSHIP is the key Stew. How many media outlets are there? What percentage of the owners are Democrats?
The correlation you make is like saying that all landscaping agencies are Mexican.
The vast majority of the media that gets out to your average consumer is biased against the liberals. The MSM is also know as the free press. Are you saying that you want to get rid of the free press?
OH!!!!! I almost forgot...
1992!
The data you are using is over ten years old. Get some facts that apply and get back to me.
Bro, if you think that I'm going to spend my time looking for current data, you'd be mistaken. Those were the first two that popped up. Research it yourself.
As to "Free Media", this stems from the NTSC signal that is freely broadcast over the FCC controlled airwaves. No, I do not wish to remove free press. I will however, laugh hysterically when the liberal camp bitches and moans because their perspective is being trounced in the "Free Market". That's capitalizm bro. Get used to it.
Oh and as to relevant, up to date facts. Check my post on Bob Woodruff. Poor guy.
"Bro, if you think that I'm going to spend my time looking for current data, you'd be mistaken. Those were the first two that popped up. Research it yourself."
That sounds a lot like someone who doesn't want to use any facts except those that support their position even if they are a decade old and no longer relevant.
Just like link between Saddam and 9/11 has no basis in fact, yet I bet Stew believes that Saddam was behind the attacks.
That sounds like the Bush administrations use of "Science" to deal with Gobal Warming and the way he came up with budgets for everything from the Iraq war to the perscription drug plan...
Facts are useless when you are dealing with the Neo-Con's.
Post a Comment
<< Home