Posted on 02/15/2005 9:21:13 AM PST by MisterRepublican
Washington, D.C. (CNSNews.com) - David Brock, a former investigative reporter for conservative publications before flipping his political ideology and writing a book titled, "Blinded by the Right," said Monday that the best way for liberals to expose the current conservative influence in the media is to show how conservatives are "simply willing to lie."
Brock is currently the president and CEO of Media Matters for America, a liberal media watchdog that takes on some of the biggest names in conservative media. In authoring the 2002 book, "Blinded by the Right, The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative," Brock not only distanced himself from the conservative movement, he disclosed his homosexuality.
Monday, he noted examples of how the "professional" or "mainstream media" are influenced by conservative talk radio, the Internet and think tanks. That influence, Brock said, will diminish as the conservative "lies" are exposed.
"The conservatives seem to be particularly vulnerable because the quality of their research is particularly low. There is typically self-interested money behind it and of course they are simply willing to lie," Brock told a group of interns at a luncheon at the Center for American Progress headquarters in Washington D.C.
Brock urged the young media activists to challenge what he views as the conservative media bias.
"I think that all of that has to be confronted in a systemic way. If you shine light on propaganda over time, it does cease to have an effect," Brock said. "Their words can be used against them. The fact that the claims that they make are often dubious can also be brought up in a very effective way," he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
There's a reason for that - among the leftist elite that dictates our politically correct mores, sodomites are now a very fashionable and influential minority.
However, just because one does not kowtow to the sensibilities of the self-styled leftist elite it does not mean that one is a "bigot" or causing offense to rational people.
If you think that having sex with someone else's digestive tract is a laudable activity, then any turn of phrase which does not automatically genuflect to such bizarre tastes will probably be considered offensive by egomaniacs who believe that their ill-considered opinions are normative moral laws.
But that's faggots for you.
One example ? Moron !
Mr. Sullivan has taken the position that legal sanction for sodomites pretending to marry each other is more important than our national security.
I think your hope is ill placed - Mr. Sullivan is ruled by his sexual proclivities, not intellect or patriotism.
What about Mike Drudge?
It has not so much to do with truth or bigotry, and more to do with decorum. DU is a site for bitter, crude losers, with very twisted and juvenile views of economics, social issues, and life in general. The F-word doesn't get deleted by moderators, but is instead celebrated as some sort of liberating liturgy. No profanity or epithet is too vile for inclusion in their discourse.
Use of the term “faggot” on this forum expresses a similar childish hostility that reflects poorly on the whole FR team. It brings us ever so slightly closer to the completely despicable social misfits that populate lefty sites like DU. It also gives them oxygen in their attempts to paint all on the right as bigots, fairly or not. Those that use the term and similar slurs only hurt the causes they attempt to further. They also reveal themselves as somewhat shallow and unable debate homosexual issues rationally. You get the impression that the person yelling “faggot” possibly has a secret; or at least hasn't cracked a book since "Cat In The Hat".
Drudge is not a conservative and I don't think he's ever claimed to be. Simply exposing Clinton as a philanderer is not synonymous with principled conservatism.
Fox News Channel "uses these conservative websites as kind of tip sheets to fill their content, their time on the air. The wall between that type of media and the mainstream media is just so porous today that you often see that it seeps through," he added.
Not only does he fail to cite any "lies," but I think this shows the real problem he has. These internet sites, among other sources, are letting out news that hasn't been vetted by mainstream media (like Dan Rather and, no doubt, Mr. Brock himself, at least in his own opinion). What really has him upset is the idea that the mainstream media is losing their role as gatekeeper. Funny... the liberals are all for free speech when it comes to pornography, but not when it comes to news? What Mr. Brock fails to realize is often what is "seeping" through is the truth.
What if you found out someone was from Canada, and you called them a junior cheese eating surrender monkey?
As for conservative gays, sure. I'm certain that there are more than we think hanging around. If David Brock is to be believed there was a whole circle of NY Republicans who were gayer monkies on nitrous.
He talks alot about lies and exposing them. But what lies have been exposed?
Excerpt
My publication, Frontpagemagazine.com, is the first conservative Web site that features a regular (daily) column by a gay journalist, Andrew Sullivan. In my estimation, Andrew Sullivan is one of the most intelligent and insightful conservative writers, regardless of sexual preference. At the same time, in "Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality" and "Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival," Andrew has written two of the most elegant, poignant and wise accounts of homosexuality and AIDS available.
[snip]
Therefore, it was something of a shock to me to see the following passage at the conclusion of a chapter titled "Out of the Closet" in "Blinded by the Right." In this chapter, with all the deceitfulness characteristic of Brock's work, the author attempts to justify his personal betrayal of former friends (via insinuation and gossip) by their alleged betrayal of him as a gay man.
If the French are frogs, then the French Canadians are toadies.
I'll buy that. So, do you Amish guys work your computer by lamplight, or what?
Here are a couple of (there are many!) good sources about David Brock. He's an interesting lad; whether he's a 'girly-man' or not I can't say. He IS a homosexual.
http://www.mrc.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2002/col20020322.asp
"David Brock's Bitter Little Book
by L. Brent Bozell III
March 22, 2002
"David Brock is a pathetic little man.
"At one time, Brock was the conquering hero of conservative journalism, piercing the propaganda veil that surrounded Anita Hill, the "Rosa Parks of sexual harassment." Then his investigative reporting exposed the ongoing lies about Bill Clinton's serial adultery, confirmed for Brock by the testimony of Clinton's security detail which participated in the deceit. His legend grew as the liberal media strained to ignore or dismiss every bit of evidence he compiled."
"The Unreal David Brock
"David Brock lied when he wrote about Anita Hill. He played it loose when he covered Bill Clinton. Then he misled us when he apologized for lying. What are we to make of his memories of Berkeley?"
BY WILL HARPER
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2002-05-15/news/feature.html
OK, you win. Derogatory terms are OK, you knuckledragging Neanderthal.
It seems to me that our thnk tanks and research are better than our popular spokesmen. Rush and Hannity repeated daily for 3 hours straight: "Only the rich pay taxes". Only when a Robert Reich challenges Hannity does he back pedal and say "well the non-rich pay a little, but not much." Then back pedals a little more "Well we're talking federal taxes." Then back pedals a little more "Well, we're talking income tax" Then back pedals a little more "Personal income tax." He is forced to backpedal so much that those listening for 3 hours question his credibility on other things.
But most don't listen 3 hours (sorry Sean). They don't even hear the qualifications that are only mentioned once while the mantra "only the rich pay taxes" is heard hundreds of times.
Every work person looks at his pay stub and sys "The Republicans say I don't pay taxes. So why is my net so much less than my gross? And I know my employer pays my taxes for me that aren't even shown in my gross. The Republicans are liars." Thus what could have been an even larger victory for Bush was reduced by some of the counter-productive lies by his friends.
Note: Rush and Hannity say many more true things than lies. And they are better spokespersons than I could be. But they are held to a higher standard.
"You expect more from Republicans. And you'd better get it." Swearingen of Standard Oil Company circa 1964.
"What if you found out someone was from Canada, and you called them a junior cheese eating surrender monkey?"
I'd call for a virtual standing ovation.
I wouldn't say that either Hannity or Rush lies. They have been mistaken from time to time. It is also true that when they talk about taxes, they generally refer to personal income taxes.
Precisely - you have no argument - you're not even able to recognize the difference between ethnic background and voluntary behavior.
But not to worry - you can probably still find work as a language policeman or something at a trendy nightclub somewhere.
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.