Posted on 05/23/2004 7:55:14 PM PDT by aft_lizard
I'll be polite and not mention the opinion I hold of you.
I don't care to know him because I've found his posts to be offensive on numerous occasions. I believe he may be entirely pleasant to know in person, I'll leave that particular joy to you.
Seems like most reporters have learned to keep lying about their opinions. Moderates in journalism are just liberals who will not admit it.
A 'moderate' to them is left of Stalin. If such a label with not further clarification is allowed, the poll is worthless. How many voted for Gore? He was certainly not running on a 'moderate' platform.
BTTT!!!!!!
Found a response to this article posted on a liberal message board:
"While it is probably true that a majority/plurality of newsroom staffers are moderate to liberal, that may have to do with the fact that journalism is seen by some as a "vocation." Greedy republicans would rather be stockbrokers or real estate agents :-)
Also, the journalists are edu-ma-cated, which means they're demonstably smart enough to figure things out. Thus liberal to moderate.
On top of that -- and more importantly -- the info is meaningless. Because editorial policy is set and enforced by management, who are craven conservatives.
So the point, while likely true, means zip zilch nada. "
What do we have in this rebuttal, strawmen and hyberbole?
instead of asking 'which category do you fall into' they should have asked where they stand on issues.......abortion, firearms, vote for/against bush etc.
that would have established a clear line if somebody is moderate vs liberal. moderate is a term used by liberals, this would have proved it as such.
It continues to amuse me how they have no problem identifying bias at FOX but wont acknowledge biases at any of the lib outlets. In fact they can only see FOX as biased because everybody else in the media is monolithic in stories covered, angles explored, and spin applied.
You must think that was some devastating critique of my comment. You have clouded the issue by conflating my criticism of your (apparent) racism with my (non-existent) support for the liberal organization you meant to demean.
Irrelevantly, I would not support Arnold Schwarzenegger if I lived in California, because I do not support pro-abortion, anti-gun, non-tax-cutting politicians.
Back to the issue at hand, rather than an imagined issue, there are many ways to jeer at a liberal organization. Why choose to do so with a snide, stereotypical representation of a "black accent"? How could that technique have possibly added to your jab at Pew?
One of your apologists enlightened me by sharing the "rich vein" of history associated with the "phonemic genre." But in the examples he cited, there was some function to the use of accents. You still haven't answered my question about what the function of yours was.
That you don't have an answer -- or at least didn't in your last response -- suggests that the racism I identified is real, even if you don't acknowledge it.
It is becoming sadly obvious that nothing I could possibly say will ever dislodge you from your cherished conclusion that you instantly jumped to, and now you feel you must perpetually defend. So... this is the end, my FRiend!!!
How ironic, given that I engaged your "argument" and you failed to engage mine. The end, indeed.
Bump
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.