Camille Paglia is an ardent liberal democrat, but she concedes that big corporate news media -- except for Fox -- are biased in favor of liberal democrats and their world view.
==========================================
What is this morbid obsession that liberals have with Fox? It's as if Democrats, pampered and spoiled by so many decades of the mainstream media trumpeting the liberal agenda, are so shaky in their convictions that they cannot risk an encounter with opposing views. Democrats have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time and 98 percent of American humanities professors to do their bidding. But no, that's not enough -- every spark of dissent has to be extinguished with buckets of bile. But Fox is certainly disingenuous with its absurd "fair and balanced" motto. Oh, come on, give it up! Why can't Fox honestly admit its conservative agenda, as do major radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and simply argue that it represents a culturally necessary antidote to the omnipresent liberal line?
2007-03-14
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I know this won't get posted but here goes anyway..
The so-called "liberal" bias in the media is an out and out LIE.
The media, for the most part reflects the attitudes of white America and sometimes it's slanted to the left and at other times to the right.
Camille Paglia is no liberal Hue.
Where do you get this nonsense from?
Paglia made her name by being a contrarian. The proto feminist who attacks feminism.
It's the same game the black conservatives play.
Get yourself noticed by being a novelty. Going against the grain.
I was watching a film on PBS recently on the murder of Emmitt Till in Mississippi in 1955.
Of course his white murderers were acquitted by the redneck jury.
After the trial the two murderers were interviewed by ABC newsman Bill Monroe who treated these criminals as if THEY were the victims.
Monroe asked them "well you folks have been through a lot. I bet you're glad it's all over, aren't you?"
Monroe because the anchorman for ABC evening news during most of the 1970s.
Liberal bias in the media my ass.
Steve: I would really like this blog to stop assigning negative intentions to your ideological opponents. The intentions of the people, like me, who perceive a liberal new media bias is immaterial in assessing the validity of our claim.
That's the whole point.
There is NO validity to the claim.
correction:
Bill Monroe was Washington Bureau chief of NBC News during most of the 70s and early 80s as well as moderator of Meet the Press from 1975 to 1984.
I believe that evidence can address this question, but not your proclamations of any body's bias. I certainly agree with your ancient example of the cracker reporter who expressed sympathy for the Till murderers. But what about contemporary USA?
What evidence Paul?
And why did you censor my answer to your other thread on so-called "liberal" media bias?
1. I didn't "censor you"; you posted the same comment twice. I merely deleted the duplication.
2. What "evidence" am I providing? Not much, but that's more than you... which is why I'm not declaring that my perception is accurate. The only evidence that I've posted so far is a poll indicating that most Americans have this same perception, including a about a third (if I recall correctly) of self-identified "liberals".
The "evidence" you have provided so far constitutes a single case of a reporter sympathizing with a racist honkey murderer 30 years ago.
Hmmm, uptightsteve wants some proof, eh? How about this exerpt taken from an interview Hugh Hewitt did with Thomas Edsall, formerly with the WaPo and now with the New Republic:
"HH: I know, but national politics. Local politics is different. I think it’s in the selection of stories, stories not pursued. I mean, right now, the canard is oh, I covered the impeachment of Bill Clinton, liberal Democrats who are newsroom types tell me. I say, well, you have to. That’s a story you can’t…it’s like not seeing the iceberg, and taking the Titanic down. But in the agenda setting stuff…let me approach it this way. Is there any big name political reporter, and you know them all, Thomas Edsall. That’s why your book, Building Red America, is getting read left and right. Are there any of them who are conservative?
TE: Big name political reporter?
HH: Right.
TE: Jim Vandehei of the Washington Post.
HH: Think he’s voted for Republicans for president?
TE: Yes, I think he has. I don’t know, because he’s never told me. But I would think he has.
HH: And so, of those sorts…and he’s a very fine reporter.
TE: He is.
HH: He probably is a Republican. But given that number of reporters out there, is it ten to one Democrat to Republican? Twenty to one Democrat to Republican?
TE: It’s probably in the range of 15-25:1 Democrat."
Proof enough for you Steve?
Here's the text of the entire interview:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=2a63c078-2e33-46d8-b85a-a91a5257fca2
You can listen to it the interview here:
http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?ContentGuid=dc7fd12c-d189-4ab3-8fe6-18c5710beabd&RadioShowId=5
I'd suggest you check it out Steve. Edsall's a died-in-the-wool admitted liberal. If his admission of liberal bias in the media isn't enough proof for you then there's no point in trying to convince you further.
That you would deny an overall liberal bias in the mainstream media is simply laughable.
Post a Comment