|
| BIASED - NOT BIASED - BIASED (Part 1 of 2) |
| Friday, January 14, 2005 |
| Remember the old joke: When is a door not a door?
Its fascinating when faced with the truth, the ADMITTEDLY liberal biased media tries to engage in word games and obfuscation to justify the bias, or call it something that it isn't.
Joe Scarborough on MSNBC asked Hugh Downs this question:
"Is there a liberal bias in the media or is the bias towards getting the story first and getting the highest ratings, therefore, making the most money?"
To which Hugh replied:
"Well, I think the latter, by far. And, of course, when the word liberal came to be a pejorative word, you began to wonder, you have to say that the press doesn't want to be thought of as merely liberal. But people tend to be more liberated in their thought when they are closer to events and know a little more about what the background of what's happening. So, I suppose, in that respect, there is a liberal, if you want to call it a bias. The press is a little more in touch with what's happening."
(Emphasis added by Snipet)
Not only does Hugh admit bias(which is a borderline propensity toward deception--lying), but he bestows sainthood on journalists for it. In Hugh's world, Dan Rather's presentation of false information (which he STILL maintains is "accurate in content") would have been justified because he is MORE IN TOUCH with what President Bush did 30 years ago than the rest of us. Dan's "liberated" thought; therefore, must give him creative license to assign any value, meaning or context to a story, which in the end you can "call bias" if you want to.
IT DOESN'T END HERE, THOUGH, FOLKS!
James Taranto highlighted the Downs comment in his "Best of the Web" column Thursday for OpinionJournal.com ( http://www.opinionjournal.com/best )
"So you see, it's not that journalists are biased, it's just that they know more than everyone else and thus are 'more liberated in their thought'! Don't you feel silly for thinking they were arrogant elitists?"
Taranto, evidently is soft in the head or can't understand English.
Conservatives generally see through this and dismiss it; however, if I were a liberal I would be THOROUGHLY OUTRAGED at the liberal media, its bias and failure to report the factual truth.
MY QUESTION FOR LIBERALS WOULD BE: DO YOU ENJOY BEING MANIPULATED AND LIED TO, EVEN WHEN IT FITS YOUR PARADIGM?
So, when is a door not a door? The truth is that it's always a door, even when its ajar.
|
posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/14/2005 02:32:00 PM   |
|
| 3 Comments: |
-
Da Snip strikes again. I hadn't heard the Hugh Downs quote.
I guess we need to "liberate" our thought.
-
Jack, are you outraged by Fox News? I'm still not sure how conservatives feel justified in describing a liberal media bias as though Fox News, The Washington Times, The New York Post, Sinclair, Rush, Savage, The Weekly Standard, The National Review, The Economist, Bill O'Reilly, The Wall Street Journal, Ann Coulter, American Spectator, Drudge, etc., aren't a part of the media. It seems disingenuous to me; but I guess people will believe anything they hear often enough.
-
Good observation, Vicar! And Lefty...you're sooo cute :)
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
Da Snip strikes again. I hadn't heard the Hugh Downs quote.
I guess we need to "liberate" our thought.