Rathergate proves that CBS and the elite media ARE NOT LIBERAL!

Public Enquiry Project ^ | 9/21/04 | Adrian Spidle

[AdrianSpidle]

Ask Ralph Nader if the elite media are liberal. If you have any, ask your Lefty friends if the EM are liberal (Here in Massachusetts my friends are mainly lefties). They'll all answer, correctly, that the elite media is controlled by corporate interests and thus not liberal.

Well, how in the hell do you reconcile the obvious bias Dan Rather has so clumsily reaved with the EM being corporate controlled? Let me explain:

1 - The elite media is pro-Democrat and anti-Republican. This is very different from "liberal" or "lefty

2 - Big business is obviously also pro-Democrat. Why, do you ask, would big business be pro-Democrat? Well here's why:

3 - Big business is addicted to the corporate welfare that big government Democrats surreptitiously shower on them in return for contributions both legal and illegal, and, perhaps most importantly and most cynically:

4 - Big business wants big government to take over their responsibilities for employee health care and retirement funding. Can anyone familiar with the financials of the major American corporations not plainly see how much more money there would be for sleazy corporate managers to play with if they had no more line items for employee health care and employee retirement funding? If you need more evidence just read BUSINESS WEEK and FORTUNE magazines. They read like compilations of Democrat talking points.

5 - Listen my friends, in this modern world, the Democrats represent the RICH, mainly those who inherited their money or acquired it through advancing up the bureaucracies of big business, big education or big healthcare. These cynical and sometimes criminal types hope to buy social peace and/or assuage their guilt by giving a multitude of pittances to the great unwashed while making hardworking, productive citizens and small businessmen pay for it.

6 - Republicans represent the little guys who are willing to work hard to improve the lives of their families.

I hope this clears things up for you guys who might be having a little trouble figuring this all out. I simply followed my late and sainted father's admonition to "Follow the money" when things seem a bit confusing.

[RockinRight]

Interesting...

[js1138]

All government, regardless of party, tends towards greater control. Take your choice of rides, slow or fast.

[Always Right]

Corporations have little influence on the media. The media is a good ole boys network of liberals who refuse to associate with social conservatives. The liberal media pushes ideas such as hate crimes, abortion rights, global warming mania, gay rights, anti-school choice. Most items which the media has a strong bias for, coporations have no interest in. I can't buy into the corporate media BS that leftist spew.

[PfromHoGro]

"Listen my friends, in this modern world, the Democrats represent the RICH, mainly those who inherited their money or acquired it through advancing up the bureaucracies of big business, big education or big healthcare"

BINGO!!! And they alleviate their "affluenza" by feigning empathy for the poor downtrodden while installing policies the consequences of which stymie the advancement of others. Their ideals are suicidal to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They’ll get theirs’ though, come November, Bastards.

[EagleUSA]

I too cannot accept that the notion that the MSM is not LIBERAL, in general. All one needs to do is listen to rantings of all the talking heads, Rather, Jennings, Browkaw(one of the worst Libs), etc. On and off the media.

I agree with "follow the money" -- all the way to the top of the media giants. Liberalism every where you look.

I try to stay away from the MSM now -- it is so disgustingly biased FOR THE LEFT that thier news, much of it self-generated, is not worth the paper its printed on.

[skeeter]

Sounds right to me. There's nothing idealistic about the modern democratic party.

He's less right about what the republican party stands for, though. They're definitely less for the working guy than they were twenty years ago.

[midwyf]

I don't know how the idea that Big Business and the "rich" were the darlings of the Republicans got started. It has been obvious for a long time that those looking for handouts look to the Dums for it. Look at the corporate scandals that took hold during the Clinton years, look who the fat cats in congress are......all dumorats.
Farm and ranch country is almost always Republican, and they are among the poorest of the working class.

[Rutles4Ever]

I think it would be helpful to differentiate from the network honchos and the talking heads. I agree the Leslie Moonveses of the world fit your profile, but the editors and "talent" (using that word loosely) have socialist sympathies...

[xkaydet65]

Far too many people quickly associate Corporate with Consrvative. Corporations are about centralizing power and modern liberal dogma emphasizes the same cetralization of power. If you look at the social democratic governments of Europe you see clear evidence of cooperation between corps and gov'ts. In fact the corps are the powers behind the continued centralization under the European Union.

In the U.S. most new jobs are created by small businesses. I don't feel this is the case in Europe. Gov't imposed work rules, vacations, medical benefits, and safety regs while growing nuisances to small business here in America, are Himalaya sized impediments to small business in the EU.The same would be true for Japan.In my reading it seems the only growing economic player that may not be going in this direction is India, but I could be wrong.

All in all the idea of modern Liberal dogma being in opposition to Corporate growth is wrong. The opposite is the case and the danger to Liberty.

[JWinNC]

"They'll all answer, correctly, that the elite media is controlled by corporate interests and thus not liberal."

This premise is faulty so any conclusions that follow from it are faulty.

JWinNC

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Republican Party is the party of the middle class. That shows up plainly in the fact that in 2000 Bush won everywhere except in the poor districts of the inner city where you will find poor and minorities and in the toney suburbs.

The rich can afford to pay high taxes, and those who advocate such - e.g., Warren Buffet - do so as a form of conspicuous consumption. They are buying PR for themselves - seperating themselves from the middle class which is really hurt by high taxes.

[Always Right]

This premise is faulty so any conclusions that follow from it are faulty.

I totally agree.

[ConservativeBamaFan]

If not liberal, perhaps STUPID would be better.

[Phantom Lord]

All government, regardless of party, tends towards greater control. Take your choice of rides, slow or fast.

Several years ago I heard someone say, "Democrats are a run away train heading to socialism. Republicans are the breakmen just slowing the ride."

[3AngelaD]

Nice Thorstein Veblen salute. And great insight.

[js1138]

I prefer Milton Friedman's analysis. Instead of getting all emotional over government spending, simply think of your income being spent by yourself or by government. What percentage are you willing to have spent by government.

It's a practical question. Obviously, national defense and police are authorized by the constitution. After that it's a matter of politics.

I personally would like to see a constitutional ammendment that limits government spending to a fixed percentage of GDP.

[FourtySeven]

1 - The elite media is pro-Democrat and anti-Republican. This is very different from "liberal" or "lefty

It is very different than "liberal", but not "leftist". Unfortunately in this country, the classical (and actually correct) definition of "liberal" has been subverted by the leftists. Technically speaking, the founding fathers were "liberals", as they believed in the values of individual liberty, expression, and responsibility. Unfortunately, the leftists (as they are rightly called) have hijacked this term, as they wish to paint themselves as some "champion for the little guy" or the "downtrodden", when in reality, they support a leftist agenda, i.e, communism, socialism, etc.

This practice has become so commonplace that the term "liberal" as it's used today has become synonymous with "leftist", for better or worse. Thus, I would disagree with your point #1, for the simple reason that it's not true, realistically speaking. Put another way, being "pro Democrat" is very much being "liberal" and/or "lefty", at least in the common vernacular.

[tahiti]

"Gov't imposed work rules, vacations, medical benefits, and safety regs..."

Amendment V

"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

Such government imposed taking of private property (money) from the owners of corporations (stockholders) is blatantly and unambigously unconstitutional.

The CEO's and other corporate managers, who are the caretakers of the stockholders property, why are they not filing federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of such laws and regulations?

Why are the stockholders, in other words, the owners of corporations, not demanding that the caretakers of their property protect their property from being taken by government for public use without just compensation?

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

4 - Big business wants big government to take over their responsibilities for employee health care and retirement funding.

Businesses understand that's there no free lunch, they just hope that government take over simplifies the rules, for them. Less differiation in the market place, companies don't need to pay attention to these matters to attract and retain employees.