| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > TV News Corner > Topic: Debate is OVER- Chris Matthews says Media LIBERAL! |
Topic: Debate is OVER- Chris Matthews says Media LIBERAL!
| Author | Message |
| chucho | Posted – 4/21/2008 1:04:13 PM | show profile Wow, if Chris Matthews says so, it must be true! PS: I've never said the media isn't liberal. I've said that liberalism engenders values that make journalists more willing to seek out opposing views while conservatism doesn't, which makes them bad journalists. Case in point: Gene Wengarten, that Pulitzer Prize winning self-avowed and unapologetic liberal reporter just listened to 24 hours of punditry simultaneously. It was an experiment where he had six televisions and two radio all blasting that hot air bloviating bullshit that conservatives tends to prefer over hard news. At one point, at 4 a.m., he turned up the telvisions all the way and he said he could hear the pundits inhaling and how desperate they sounded, gasping for air. You know what this card-carrying liberal said: he said he liked Rush Limbaugh, that he was the best of them all. He said Limbaugh was a master, and that he's actually self-depicating at times, and even sarcastic in funny ways. Like saying. And that Olberman and O'Reilly were equally idiots self-righteous douchebags. (I'm paraphrasing.) No conservative reporter could ever make such an objective observation. No way. They're not wired that way. No conservative would EVER say anything good about a liberal pundit. They live by the laws of the seventh-grade playground. That's why they make such terrible journalists. |
| chucho | Posted – 4/21/2008 1:08:21 PM | show profile That said: I will tell you that the US media is generally BOTH neo-liberal and conservative. That's what confuses conservatives: the neo liberalism part. Thomas Freedman is not a liberal, he's a neo-liberal. He expounds the magic of the free market and de-regulation just as much as any conservative Republican. It's the neo-liberals that want a Clinton in the White House. (The real liberals will simply reluctantly vote for whichever hawkish neo-liberal will win the Democratic nomination -- and yes, Obama, who said he would invade Pakistan, is a hawk.) I realize conservative have ahard time with nuance and "matters of grey", but that doesn't mean the world isn't complicated by such, well, dynamics. It just means the typical conservative will seek out only information that adheres to their simplistic world view. |
| thevertman | Posted – 4/21/2008 1:24:34 PM | show profile But according to yahoo's like the one above. ALL media in this world ever is liberal and Faux is 'fair and balanced' and shows no leaning to either side. Just like with everything else you say Frank you have no prove. |
| chucho | Posted – 4/21/2008 3:55:31 PM | show profile What you mean is *President* Barry Hussein -- I'm not a fan, but either one will make me happy because it piss people like you off. On the other hand. I'm conflicted. McCain will be bad for America. And about half of America deserves to feel the pain of their poor electoral decisions. A nice prolonged run on the banks would be pretty cool, since it's people like Frank voting for people like Phil Gramm that caused this mess in the first place, no to mention favorable tax policy for the wealthy, the war in Iraq and a few other messes. I kinda wish the conservatives would be forced to clean up these messes, but they don't seem capable of doing so. It took Clinton to balance the budget. Then Boooooosh screwed the pooch. |
| chucho | Posted – 4/23/2008 8:53:25 AM | show profile >> "McCain will be bad for America" How? << Phil Gramm. Here's what Ann Coulter said about the liting of the GlassStegall Act, which was spearheaded by Gramm, who is McCain's economic advisor. It's interesting how Coulter LOVED the repeal of the evil Roosevelt-era act which enabled the current sub-prime crisis: In a nutshell: the Steagall Act prohibited services of banks, insurance companies and brokerage houses to be merged under the same roof. This act would have prohibited the same financial institution to provide bad mortgage loans to consumers that cannot afford the terms, and then use their other tentacles to package these loans into bad securities and sell them to investors by insuring them using YET ANOTHER tentacle of the same financial services octopus that issued the bad loans in the first place. (Also, thanks to Reagan-era deregulation, the FDIC was prohibited from regulating the derivatives market (ie gambling on the ebb and flow of securities rather than buying the securities themselves). From an Anne Coulter column in 1999, right after the bill was passed. (Bill Clinton pater signed it into law.): " A bill shepherded through Congress last week by Sen. Phil Gramm (R.Tex.) repealed the depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, as well as portions of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. To give you an idea of what a monstrosity the GlassSteagall Act was, FDR called it "the most important and farreaching legislation ever enacted by the American Congress'" It was passed on the same day as the National Industrial Recovery Act-which itself was so "important and far reaching" that the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. The principal effect of the repealed law was to divide commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies-and to provide layers of government regulation for protection. The Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and the Comptroller of the Currency regulate all aspects of banking, including government-approved extortion. Ballistic Democrats The legal restrictions on banking mergers were lifted last week. The legal methods of extorting banks were not. Indeed, the bill repealing Glass-Steagall was almost derailed because of Gramm's proposed modifications to the extortion racquet. He demanded that the legal shakedowns be made public. This sent Democrats through the roof. " I hop that's a Conservative Approved(tm) and acceptable answer! |
| chucho | Posted – 4/23/2008 10:35:34 AM | show profile It's a very uncontroversial reason, considering the financial mess the republicans have got us in (with the help of NeoLiberal New Democrats). This is apart of a history. We can also recall that McCain co-opted David Boren's campign finance reform efforts in order to heal the damage caused by his Keating Five incident. Also: as much ado that was made about MCain's private life, the real controversy with his relationship with that lobbyist has nothing to do with his sex life and all to do with his efforts to push industry-backed reforms in the telecom sector that would be as bad for consumers as repealing a 70+ year-old Act that protected consumers from the kinds of things that cause Depressions. So, yeas, I find these important issues. Meanwhile you can continue to fixated on "Bittergate" if you think that's more relevant. I consider the health of the economy and consumer protection to be quite important issues. But what do I know: I'm just a child-molesting, racist, murder-supporting elitist liberal. |
