Posted on 09/16/2008 12:28:29 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
Folks, please excuse this vanity. It's my hope that my thoughts here will appeal to many of you, and more importantly, we can get some political mileage out of it, effecting change, if we came together on this.
Many of us have spent years on this forum watching the media march right into the tank for the DNC. Today it's no longer a secret to any thinking individual that the major media outlets have shed all pretenses of being fair and balanced. What FoxNews heralded years ago as something of a quasi marketing ploy, is now the sad unabashed reality. The media is not fair and balanced. It's simply another arm of the DNC.
While I do realize that FoxNews was right even then, today the media has become exponentially worse than they used to be even in the early 1990s.
What I would like to propose, is that every sound Conservative across this nation begin to refer to individual media outlets in this manner. Instead of referring to the New York Times, we begin to refer to them as the DNC's New York Times division. When we talk about the Los Angeles Times, we refer to them as the DNC's Los Angeles Times division. When we refer to ABC, we simply refer to them as the DNC's ABC Division. When we refer to Charlie Gibson and his affiliation with ABC, we simply reference Charlie Gibson, from the DNC's ABC Division. When we refer to CNN, we reference it as the DNC's CNN Division. When we reference PBS, we reference it as the DNC's PBS Division.
It's my premise we should never refer to these leftist media outlets without first tagging them as a division of the DNC. Why should we extend respect to them? Why should we reference them in a manner that they would like us to, as a bonified news organization? In truth, there's no valid reason why we should, and every reason not to. When we refer to them simply as ABC, we are lending them an air of legitimacy. IMO, those days should be behind us.
From now on, we should reference all leftist entities in this manner. If they clean up their act, we can talk about referencing them in another manner. Until then, they are the DNC's (insert name here) Division.
If this caught on, you would see folks on FoxNews referencing these outlets as the DNC's New York Times Division. You'd see Michelle Malkin and a lot of other Conservatives in the media telling it like it is for the first time. (Not that Michelle or they wouldn't agree with this, or haven't been frank about the true nature of the media. That's not the point.) If these outlets are going to shill for the DNC, it's time we started making them pay for it. Let their credibility take a hit every time we reference them.
The first phrase out of your mouth is " the DNC's", the second phrase is the name or initials of the institution, and the third part is "Division".
If we do it like this, they will be tagged first and foremost as shills for the DNC. Referencing them as a Division of the DNC is very powerful IMO. If we could get full compliance from our ranks, the media would be framed as never before, accurately across the board.
I wouldn't ask anyone to do this whose opinion didn't coincide with mine. It's my opinion that the media outlets act as a division of the DNC, and I plan on referring to them that way from here on out. If you share that thought, then you can express it because you do. We are not saying these entities are a division. We are saying that in our opinion they act like it, or function like it. We are not slandering them or trying to state they are being paid directly for what they are doing. We are merely expressing an opinion about what they are doing.
This could be used to describe universities and other entities as well. Those entities that are in the tank for the DNC and it's causes, should be outed.
It takes a little time, but it doesn't cost a dime.
Agree.
The media was miserable to Reagan in the eighties, and helped run Nixon out of office in the seventies, and trashed Goldwater in the sixties, and ruined McCarthy in the fifties. That’s when I was born.
This isn’t new. The difference is, we used to be all by ourselves figuring it out.
Those entities that are in the tank for the DNC and it's causes, should be outed.
They've already been outed and they've outed themselves. They didn't need any help from anybody in doing so either.
Your idea simply defines and clarifies them further.
Henceforth starting now and forever more I shall appropriately name these liberal rags by using DNC in front of their names.
Excellent idea ... however the average joe is soooo dumb, I’m afraid , instead of saying “DNC”, you’d have to say it out fully: Division of the DNC = Division of the Democrat National Committee. Really.
Luke, to a certain degree I agree. I still think it’s much more bold these days, despite there being clear evidence of it in the past. No matter what the full measure of the past was compared to today, we know what is taking place today and I think it’s time we let the media know the gig is up, them being able to shill without cost any longer.
Thanks for the comments.
Thank you.
Thanks for the comments PhilMan_36.
Thank you. Great.
Enough will know. The others can ask. You do have a point. LOL
now we’re trashing the media :)
You referenced the nineties. I agree to a point. The media lizards were always vulgar and biased, but they had people fooled during their witch hunts on McCarthy and Nixon. Theirs was the only voice ever heard in any debate. Reagan just blew them off. Rather, Moyers, and Donaldson were the chief pukes of that era. Jennings and Brokaw didn't seem quite as obnoxious then, but they made up for it later.
But to me, it was with their savaging of Dan Quayle and the hysterical defenses of Bill Clinton that we truly saw the national press corps lose any remaining pretense of objectivity.
They are nothing but partisans for the Dems. This is reality. We go through it every election. But at least we are all fighting the war side by side and armed very , very well with information. My best.
This could be posted in parenthesis in the actual head line at times, or could be posted in the space for “source.” (Depending on the view of JR and the mods.) Otherwise, each poster would need to remember to attribute it as a matter of routine.
Thanks for taking it in the spirit in which the suggestion was offered ... realistically, not too many people are even paying attention yet and are nutty like we are. E.g. instead of learning more about the frightening Lehman fiasco tonight, I watched Greta’s interview with the first dude. LOL
In my travels around NE, I’m seeing very few political bumper stickers ... FWIW, that may not be an accurate observation on the way things really are.
I agree with your comments there Luke. I could have laid off the comments that things are worse today, but I do think it’s time to take action. That’s the most important idea I want folks to come away with.
I appreciate the additional comments.
There may be some problems with sourcing in that manner, since John may have set up auto systems to ensure compliance with copyright guidelines. We would have to run that by him.
No problem. I understand what you mean about the masses not tuning in yet. Yes Gretta’s interview with Todd, I’m not sure I could have sat through that one. How was it?
I have a family member who is blowing off Obama this year, and he’s a die-hard Democrat. Of course there is John McCain to turn to. And that should tell us something, that they could vote for John being rabid Democrats.
I think that has something to do with you not seeing the typical bumper stickers supporting either candidate. Looks like a lot of folks may be getting the clothespin ready, this year.
A question came up when I expressed my thoughts on this subject. I’d like to run this by you.
I had this terrific idea (LOL), that we should refer to entities such as ABC as the DNC’s ABC Division. Newpapers would be referred to in the same manor. The New York Times would be referred to as the DNC’s New York Times Division.
I’m trying to label the media outlets for what they are.
If folks were to use these types of titles in the source area when posting articles, would it defeat your efforts to scan sources to ensure proper copyright guidelines were adhered to? Would it cause any other problems that you can think of? If it would cause problems, I would certainly want to do whatever it took to avoid it.
I’d appreciate it if you could let us know, so we don’t screw up the works.
See post 19.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.