To the editor:
This is a response to Tom Shewmon's letter published Sept. 20:
Tom, Tom, Tom. What are we to do with you?
One hardly expects a strict adherence to the facts from anyone involved in politics, but I would hardly have thought that the most blatant of the Rove falsehoods, the "liberal media," would have got by a person of your intelligence. There are left-wing media outlets. There are right-wing media outlets. But the "mainstream media," like everything else of any size, are owned by corporations, which is to say, by Republicans. You could look it up.
These people are not interested in making Obama president. They are interested in making money. To this end they treat the presidential election exactly as they treat "American Idol" - to the great detriment of the process and its results.
The decline of the nation which you so bemoan started long before the Democrats finally got a one-vote toehold in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to get anything done. During G.W. Bush's first term, he vetoed no bills. Look and see what he has done since. The current administration is clearly culpable for our current economic disaster and for our loss of world respect. Even John McCain is running against the Republicans this year.
Walt Hull,
Lawrence
Comments
duplenty 5 years, 6 months ago
"You guys need to stop using so many facts to make your arguments."Um...what?!?! Where has Tom ever used a fact?"There is liberal media bias. There just is. "??? This is the type of argument you'd expect from a 5 year old.
kansas778 5 years, 6 months ago
Corey, I haven't said anything about whether the media is biased or not. I am simply criticising the claim that it is not biased because of corporate ownership. And regardless of the past, corporations are supporting Obama with their money, and if you can't explain that other than by saying that in the past they haven't, then you haven't explained it at all. The media can be as biased as it wants to be for all I care. Today people have a choice, network news and major newspapers aren't the sole place to find news. And people are choosing not to go to those sources more and more often these days.
Corey Williams 5 years, 6 months ago
kansas778 blah blah blah blah blahTwo of the three quotes I threw up signify the fact that you and Mr Shewmon are obviously lacking in cognitive abilities. Case in point, the link you threw up led to a "news" story that started with the line "For the past decade, corporations have showered Republicans with money and attention." And of course, Mr Shewmon's argument is "There is liberal media bias. There just is."But then again, it's probably something I've said before. The two of you are probably so far to the right that anything you don't agree with looks left wing to you.
kansas778 5 years, 6 months ago
Corey Williams, your evidence lacks any coherent argument that leads to a point. As such, your case is dismissed with the opportunity to resubmit your case with an argument alongside your facts.
Corey Williams 5 years, 6 months ago
"There is liberal media bias. There just is. Granted, alot of it lies within the area of commentary, but the hard news too.""I admit it : The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."William Kristol"I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage - all we could have asked. ... For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every republican on earth does that."Pat Buchanan"You know, I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office."George W. Bush, 1989
jonas_opines 5 years, 6 months ago
"I am pretty sure liberals don't know how to interpret facts since they seldom use them."Your one-sidedness is showing again, Satirical.
Satirical 5 years, 6 months ago
Tom, kansas778You guys need to stop using so many facts to make your arguments. I am pretty sure liberals don't know how to interpret facts since they seldom use them.Homer Simpson: "Facts:Pffft. You can prove anything even remotely true with facts."
kansas778 5 years, 6 months ago
Scott, sorry, but repeating another myth to support your myth is unconvincing. FTW:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121996098615981191.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox
scott3460 5 years, 6 months ago
"Wow, what a terrible LTE. Just because the networks are corporate that means they are republicans? Talk about a myth:."Networks are corporate, so they devote themselves to promoting progressive interests and objectives. Hmmmm, seems to me that is the more unlikely myth. That corporate interests would promote the interests of the party of business interests seems a great deal more reasonable.
Tom Shewmon 5 years, 6 months ago
It's a myth Walt?http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/most_voters_say_debate_moderators_are_biased
Satirical 5 years, 6 months ago
Walt,Even if we take all your premises as true, it does not lead to your conclusion. Even if all the media is owned by wealthy people does not mean they are Republican. Even if they are all Republican does not mean they are running the day to day operations and deciding how to report the news. The journalists, editors, and media personalities determine this how to report the news or what is "newsworthy." If all Republican's thought Fox News was not biased and all Democrats did, do you think objectively the Dems claim might be true (whether it is actually true or not doesn't matter)? Same thing goes for the MSM, most conservatives see the liberal bias in the MSM, but for some reason liberals want to keep defending the MSM to perpetuate this propaganda in order to get new recruits. If you are left (or right) and the news is reported that you think is exactly in the middle, you have to admit you have a skewed perspective and therefore could be wrong.Of course I am sure you will counter that you are really a centrist, but the facts are there fore everyone to see, Obama gets more coverage and is clearly criticized less by the MSM.
kansas778 5 years, 6 months ago
Wow, what a terrible LTE. Just because the networks are corporate that means they are republicans? Talk about a myth....
duplenty 5 years, 6 months ago
"The article just today:. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/sep/24: :.is so skewed and of course the leftists on this board won't/don't/can't see it-I wouldn't expect them to. And it is not as bad as many others on Palin, but you can see a negativity from the writer."Point out the bias. You can cut and paste, right?You won't, because you can't. And that would belie your little "liberal media" lie.
autie 5 years, 6 months ago
I'm just glad to hear the Fox News doesn't support either side or is biased in any way. Now I'm going out to polish my tin foil hat..I'm going to need it today.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago
"I would like to point you to look at the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act that was written into law in 1933 and then repealed by the Clinton administration in 1999."Sure, Clinton stupidly signed this repeal, but who was really behind it? Phil Gramm, who until very recently was McCain's chief economic adviser-- McCain has described him as an economic genius.
Tom Shewmon 5 years, 6 months ago
Actually, I find NPR to be more balanced than any of the CNN's, NBC's, NYT's, MSNBC's etc.It is common knowledge that NBC is now essentially an Obama campaign headquarters. They had to remove two of their election anchors for going over the top with their Obama infatuation and hatred for McCain/Palin.Fox News has no such claim laid to them. They do not campaign for anyone.I appreciate your rebuttal and feedback Walt, but I respectfully disagree with in the most robust manner. There is liberal media bias. There just is. Granted, alot of it lies within the area of commentary, but the hard news too.Just like when O'Reilly exposed Robert Wexler's residence scheme, Wexler's own community newspaper, who of course love Wexler would not cover it and got their back up over O'Reilly exposing the truth.The liberal press does not expose the disgusting SF mayor, Gavin Newsome, who thumbs his nose at federal law, ie, illegals and blocking Armed Forces recruitment efforts. O'Reilly does expose this.The article just today.... http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/sep... ....is so skewed and of course the leftists on this board won't/don't/can't see it----I wouldn't expect them to. And it is not as bad as many others on Palin, but you can see a negativity from the writer.And it just goes on and on.
jonas_opines 5 years, 6 months ago
Would we not be able to find three brief examples of rich Republicans, XD40?
SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years, 6 months ago
Mr. Hull must not listen to NPR. Talk about the far left media! And its funded by our tax dollars. Sad.
XD40 5 years, 6 months ago
Walt: You are sadly misinformed. The party of the rich is the Democrats. Three brief examples: Pelosi, Kerry, Soros. If you need a fourth: Warren Buffet. They own/controll the media.
rtwngr 5 years, 6 months ago
You are so quick to lay this debacle at the foot of the current administration and admittedly some culpability does lie there. I would like to point you to look at the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act that was written into law in 1933 and then repealed by the Clinton administration in 1999. This was a piece of legislation that separated banking institutions from brokerage/securities houses. Almost all of the leading economists currently believe if this law had still been on the books we would at least had some transparency in the market and could have seen this coming before we had a meltdown. Incidentally have you heard the number of campaign dollars that Barack Hussein Obama had received from Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG? Shocking.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.