"Why Bush's America hates the media": in two words... YOU'RE BIAS!!!
Posted on 11/12/2004 3:30:06 PM PST by SierraWasp
Why Bush's America hates the media
Commentary: Also, Time ponders the person of the year
By Jon Friedman, CBS.MarketWatch.com Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Nov. 12, 2004
NEW YORK (CBS.MW) -- If nothing else, President Bush's re-election underscores his supporters' profound hatred for anything that smacks of liberalism -- especially the non-Fox News media.
Take it from me. I know.
On Nov. 5, I wrote in this space that American pop-culture mavens could've easily recognized which way the political wind was blowing. I noted that "The Passion of the Christ" dwarfed the anti-Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11" at the box office. It's a good bet that the folks who flocked to Mel Gibson's epic, a favorite movie of devout Christians, voted for President Bush.
Then, in an attempt to poke fun at my own decidedly liberal, out-of-touch sentiments, I noted, tongue-in-cheek, that I couldn't understand how I had gotten the election so wrong! With a nod to my fellow blue-state provincials, I joked that I'd religiously read The New York Times and the New Yorker and watched CNN.
(For the record, I watch Fox News' "Fox and Friends" program, too.)
At the end of the column last week, I invited readers to give me their comments. I'll say this for the "Wal-Mart Republicans," as the column dubbed the Bush loyalists: They're a bunch of sore winners!
Unfortunately, most of the 100-plus liberal bashers who sent me e-mail messages missed my stab at self-deprecating humor.
They reminded me of a football player who, not content merely to celebrate his touchdown in the end zone, feels compelled to also engage in some trash talking and finger jabbing.
With all the subtlety of a punch in the face, many of you gleefully mocked my alleged ignorance. Clearly, the right wing's thrill of victory on Nov. 2 hasn't diminished its red-meat loathing of the liberal press. If anything, it has triggered an outpouring of we-told-you-so anger.
Here are a few examples from my e-mail in-box:
"The fact that you don't get that is just laughably telling," wrote a gentleman named Eric T. This caring response came from Todd D.: "If you want to understand why President Bush won by such a large amount, get outside your informational cocoon. And, when you go there, don't snort or hoot or chuckle about what idiots, morons or religious zealots we are." (Funny, I don't recall using those fightin' words -- or any other pejoratives even remotely like them -- to describe the Bush supporters. As a matter of fact, the only person I remember slamming, on purpose, in the last column was me.)
Stuart S. weighed in by saying: "You, sir, are clinging to a failed world view. You are on the wrong side of history and probably eternity as well."
Sandi C. added: "It is so sad to see someone who has access to the world market, and can influence so many people, be such a total stupid jerk. You don't have a clue about how most people live or what they think." Phil said: "I'm sure glad people like you are in the minority. At least you have the decency to admit you are a liberal, which most of your buddies can't do." (And I do admit it!)
John K. from Nebraska took the time to offer me a little unexpected advice: "Maybe you and your media elite friends in the blue states should petition to have the Northeast and the West Coast join Canada. We'd both be happier then. Whatever you do, don't move here." He took pains to add a postscript: "And -- by the way -- I do NOT shop at Wal-Mart."
At the very least, I wish the readers could get my name straight when they give me a raspberry. You know who you are, Kris S., who wrote: "Come on, Joe. How could you be so ignorant?"
Most of the readers told me to watch Fox News, the right wing's favorite TV operation. It has been notoriously sympathetic to the Bush White House's agenda.
Meanwhile, the so-called liberal media -- aka The New York Times -- made their point with some subtlety after the election. The Times' clever television critic Alessandra Stanley, discussing the acclaimed Fox comedy "Arrested Development," wrote on Nov. 6: "The jokes are sly and smart in a blue-state kind of way."
Have no fear, right wingers. Fox, your network of choice, isn't taking that sort of claptrap lying down.
On the Nov. 5 "O'Reilly Factor" program on Fox, viewers were asked "What influenced your vote?"
The answers offered:
Iraq?
Terrorism?
Economy?
Anti-Bush media?
I didn't stick around to hear the answer, but I'd kind of be surprised if the "anti-Bush media" finished out of the money.
As if the liberals out there weren't downcast enough, I had a thought. Taking the success of Fox News one step further, I wonder why the right wing hasn't mobilized yet and created a print version of that TV network.
Sure, there already are the well-right-of-center Washington Times and New York Post as well as a slew of magazines, Web sites and blogs preaching the gospel according to Cheney and Bush.
I wonder, though, if those media that claim to promote family values aren't getting too big for their britches.
ABC's newest show: 'Desperate Programmers'
Take, for example, the terrible decision by the ABC (DIS: news, chart, profile) affiliates that decided not to broadcast "Saving Private Ryan" on, of all days, Veterans Day. See full story.
They fretted that the violence and cursing in the movie would prompt a reprimand from the Federal Communications Commission, in the wake of the action taken against CBS following the Super Bowl halftime fiasco early this year. When singer Janet Jackson bared a breast on TV, some viewers were horrified and wrote angry letters to the network and the FCC. A hefty fine ultimately was leveled against CBS, owned by Viacom (VIAB: news, chart, profile) (VIA: news, chart, profile), which also holds a significant stake in MarketWatch.
Never mind that "Saving Private Ryan" amounted to director Steven Spielberg's salute to what NBC's Tom Brokaw aptly called the "greatest generation" of Americans, those who defeated the Nazis.
The right wing had better watch itself. Perhaps Bush's victory over John Kerry is going to their heads. Maybe it really is true that you're never more vulnerable than when you're on top.
Time's person of the year
On Tuesday, Time will host a media lunch to begin the countdown to the publication next month of its widely followed person-of-the-year issue.
The POY, as Time likes to call the designation in its typically snappy magazine-speak, is often a subject of controversy. Before Time's selection in 2001, I wrote that if Time had guts, it would name Osama bin Laden because he had had the biggest effect on our lives. Read archived column. (Instead, Time named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, but I came to realize that the magazine had justification -- and, as it turned out, guts, nevertheless. See column.)
A year ago, I wrote that Time should pick The American Soldier. See full story. A month later, the magazine did just that.
Pressing my luck, then, I'd choose as the 2004 POY The Bush Loyalists. Call the large bloc The Religious Right or identify it as The Revenge of the Red States or, as Media Web did last week, dub it The Wal-Mart Republicans.
By any name, and for better or worse, they've had the biggest impact on our lives in 2004.
Ill take that bet...$500 they do name him, you have $500 they dont. I want to win...
;)
Yes. But they'll never nominate him. Where can I find a larger pic of this amazing face? Want to frame it with Orwell's quote: we sleep soundly at night because rough men guard us against those who would trouble our sleep.
b.
Karl Rove would be my choice.
Has this idiot ever heard of the Washington Times?
That's my choice...great pictures. The meek Elmer Fudd who tromped the combined efforts of the DNC, Soros, Hollywood...the world. This is the guy who kicked YOUR BUTTS.
The Times Person of the Year should be Bill Clinton. He and his minions saved us from having John F'n Kerry as our president.
Person of the year WILL be George Bush.
If we're Wal-Mart Republicans, we ought to be taken out and flogged. Wal-Mart is the largest importer of Chinese goods, most of which could be made right here, giving people jobs. Mega-billions of dollars go to China through Wal-Mart. In the long run and maybe the short, very bad for our economy.
"Arafat is their person of the year."
Gets my vote. For the same reason that Pigguh Carter got the Nobel, and Ronald Reagan did not. TIME Magazine loves to sneer at America, same as the euro-effluent at Stockholm do.
"Why Bush's America hates the media": in two words... YOU'RE BIAS!!!
The exact quote from George Orwell is, "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
The soldier with the cigarette dangling from his lips, blood and grime on his face, is that rough man. Time magazine will likely choose ex-seminarian Michael Moore.
Nope, although I liked it. The POY is George W. Bush. No question about it.
Michael Moore for delivering us Bush for 4 more years.
I also thought it was a feeble protest, but done to protest the FCC's recent crackdown on broadcasters. (Let's see how those right wingers like it when we censor stuff they like)
Person of the Year ------- F R E E P E R S !
They will probably pick Soros the lion for making a valliant stand against the Christians.
Actually you and I are making the same bet. Those wastrels at Time can't connect with reality.
I agree with you. John O'Neill definitely!
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.