Posted on 12/11/2005 2:43:28 AM PST by starbase
The local liberal fish-wrap a few years ago had an article on a statewide crime bill that was recently passed. A key line that I caught, and always remembered is "Some say that it won't be as effective without an assault weapons ban". Of course, that's some others, not the author's or the paper's point of view. Right.
"They must do so because every invention, every achievement, every great building, new great city, and new wealth is a personal insult to them and their failure to achieve in a world that won't acknowledge their brilliance but instead rewards "ignorant buffoons" called businessmen."
Exactly! Anti-capitalists are essentially resentful, and they covet power and reknown because they are "superior."
Anti-capitalists, envious and greedy, want to subvert and overthrow established (and earned) capital power to OWN and/or control it for themselves.
One of my honest-intellectual heroes - Robert Nozick:
Source: Cato Institute
The media assault got a lot more coherent once Howard Dean was installed as the DNC Chair. I believe this is significant. Dean may seem like a putz, but I think he has had an effect (or his machinery has).
"The media assault got a lot more coherent once Howard Dean was installed as the DNC Chair."
Which representatives from the MEDIA establishment have become "more coherent"??? More objectively critical?
Katie Couric is going to CBS as a "news anchor" for $20 million/year!!! What in the hell is coherent about that?
Redistribution of wealth...I hope she bankrupts CBS.
“However, many poisonous seeds had already been sown and as the 1990's progressed the 1960's generation came into their own, and began taking over positions of responsibility. They are now dispersed throughout society. Many of them retain their anti-American hatreds and are in positions to act on them.”
The young radicals of the 60’s were financed supported and directed by foreign communists/socialists. They have become college professors, teachers, lawyers, politicians, clergy, news and entertainment media and the business world elite. They are “educating” and recruiting our young for their replacements.
Check out my home page.
Staged
Quagmire
Irrelevant
Occupied vote
Propaganda
Bush diversion
Wrong Vote, Wrong Time, Wrong Place
Voter intimidation by US military
Iraq illusion
Meaningless
Just watch for the ButMonkeys, "The Iraq vote is nice, but...."
1) Beginning in the 1820s, Martin Van Buren and other pols who were afraid that the declining political power of the slave states was going to result in either a) the north abolishing slavery, or b) the south secedeing because of slavery, set out to create a national political party that would elevate personal greed/job security over ideology (views on slavery). That party was called the Democrats. To "get out the vote," the Dems relied on a number of tactics, but for our purposes the most important was the creation of a "partisan press," whose sole job it was to get Dems elected. They ONLY covered Dem politicians (favorably). After a while, a rival press, run by the Whigs, started to do the same for the Whigs. Either way, neither press reported "news" but rather PARTISAN viewpoints. That was their reason for existing.
2) In the Civil War, the demand for real information and facts, coupled with the widespread use of the telegraph---which required an economy of words ("just the facts, ma'am")---led to a new journalism based mostly on facts, with "editorial" now pushed to the last page. Over a 20 year period, most papers in the country (which had previously been subsidized by the parties) started to increase circulation and drop their subsidies. To get bigger circulations, you had to be "fair and balanced" and not offend a large sement of your readers who might be either Republicans or Democrats. By 1910, journalists had adopted codes of ethics, reporting guidelines that insisted on MULTIPLE known sources, "getting both sides of the story," and basic fairness. Papers REPORTED, they didn't PREACH. (Again, you have a couple of exceptions, such as the Hearst papers). 3) This lasted until the 1960s, when for reasons not entirely known (or which I haven't yet proven) the journalists began a rapid shift to the left. I think this happened early, under JFK, NOT later, during Vietnam and Watergate. But either way, by 1975, the major media was decidedly leftist.
In the 1980s we started to enter a fourth era, not completed yet, in which the "new (conservative) media" has fought back and is now offering alternative interpretations of news. We are, in many ways, back to the 1830s, except that people today THINK that "news" is, well, news and not propaganda.
Bump to post #9...brilliant! The public "education" system in this country is the ROOT of most of the problems of this nature that we are currently experiencing in America. We need to regain control of our children from the socialists/communists that have infected our public schools, and we need to do it now!
I think the Democrats seemed to have totally missed what Alvin Toffler prophesized way back in 1979 in The Third Wave: as communications technologies improve, the hammerlock of control of communications by the mass media will come to an end. The rise of the public Internet since 1992 has totally borne that out, especially given how the New Media brought down powerful icons of the MSM like Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd at the New York Times, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes at CBS News, and Eason Jordan at CNN.
I hope commie katie falls flat on her face!
A good post. Pretty much the same way I feel about it.
Done and bookmarked.
It's not even about ratings. The MSM adheres to a recipe shown to produce declining ratings. Hollywood eschews more lucrative productions for those that embrace today's anti-American liberal culture. In short, ideology uber alles.
Divide and conquer..........
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.