October 18, 2009
Look in the mirror
Where to even fucking start?
Yeah.
I'll forgo the history lesson that Weisberg is obviously ignoring here in order to point out that his colleagues have been carrying water for the Democrat party for decades now. Oh, I'm sure he'd deny that, seeing as how he wouldn't dare to participate in a "politicized media" of the "Australian-British-continental" sort that he scorns, but here's the thing, Jacob...
Conduct an informal poll of your co-workers there at Newsweek. Ask them who they voted for last November. Or in November, 2004. Or in November, 2000. Or...you get the idea.
No, you don't? Why am I not the least bit surprised?
(h/t)
What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in many other countries that do have a free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.There is a kind of willful blindness among these MSM jagoffs that is just incredible. Just marvel at that paragraph for a moment. It was written by a guy, who, we're told at the end of the piece, is the author of The Bush Tragedy. Which is a truly fair and balanced look at our last president, I'm sure.
Yeah.
I'll forgo the history lesson that Weisberg is obviously ignoring here in order to point out that his colleagues have been carrying water for the Democrat party for decades now. Oh, I'm sure he'd deny that, seeing as how he wouldn't dare to participate in a "politicized media" of the "Australian-British-continental" sort that he scorns, but here's the thing, Jacob...
Conduct an informal poll of your co-workers there at Newsweek. Ask them who they voted for last November. Or in November, 2004. Or in November, 2000. Or...you get the idea.
No, you don't? Why am I not the least bit surprised?
(h/t)
Posted by: Sean M. at
04:09 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.
1
With 100 to 1 odds against them, Fox News manages to attain the No. 1 cable rating in every time slot every day. Seems to me America votes every day as to what is "American" and what is "un-American". As the rest of the trailing news media cheer on the socialization of America, Fox News manages to tell us what's happening, while the losers willingly succumb to their eventual take-over by the State, Mr. Weisberg included. Guess who will whine the most when the takeover occurs?
Posted by: dfbaskwill at October 18, 2009 09:10 AM (ympAm)
2
and notice they are trying to set up the meme that the other outlets' biases are the fault of FNC, excluding the last 50 years of broadcast news.
Also, regarding the White House and FNC, I won't link directly to the NYT, but this is interesting.
Also, regarding the White House and FNC, I won't link directly to the NYT, but this is interesting.
Posted by: eddiebear at October 18, 2009 10:12 AM (JiuBx)
3
Along these same lines, Mark Steyn commenting on David Frum (link to NRO, not the cockjuggling thundercunt David Frum ...my new-to-me favorite epithet courtesy of Blade3 via alex' in a recent DPUD thread).
Posted by: davis,br at October 18, 2009 12:05 PM (uCShA)
4
This guy does realize that for most of the first part of our nation's history, newspapers existed for the purpose of supporting one political party or the other? And sometimes, as in the case during the Hearst-Pulitzer wars, created the news themselves. (Both Hearst and Pulitzer wanted the U.S. to go to war with Spain, so invented some sensational stories that led to the Spanish-American War. I'm not sure when newspapers officially became impartial, but I'd guess it was during World War I, when dissent was officially not patriotic. But if anything, the idea of "fair and balanced" news (even if desirable), runs counter to most of American political history. The only time the news media has been considered impartial was from about 1930ish to around 1980 (when, I think, conservatives started rebelling against the MSM) was during the period that the liberal establishment essentially controlled Washington. (The Democrats had a pretty firm control of Congress all that time, and the GOP only had the White House for 16 of those years, and neither Ike, Nixon, nor Ford could really be considered really strong conservatives). But the ideal of an ideologically independent press hasn't really been a reality for the majority of our nation's history.
Posted by: Daniel Ruwe at October 18, 2009 11:03 PM (uQ4Oe)
Posted by: Very Nice Bag at December 09, 2010 01:39 AM (f0Vft)
6
Keep posting stuff like this I really like it
car stereos
Posted by: car stereo at February 25, 2011 01:41 AM (IioMA)
Posted by: http://mobileinthebox.com at February 26, 2011 02:05 AM (IioMA)
23kb generated in 0.0443 seconds; 68 queries returned 166 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
