Posted on 09/15/2006 1:46:00 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
This is my suggestion to Rush Limbaugh on critiqueing the arrogance of liberalism:
Your 9/14/06 rant about liberal "arrogance" was of course dead on . . BUT.Why can they be SO VERY arrogant? How can they get away with it? The DriveBy Media is "their willing accomplices," of course..But WHY?
Remember, Friedman pointed out a year or so ago that the media don't follow liberals but rather, LIBERALS FOLLOW THE MEDIA. Specifically, "objective" journalism - the DriveBy Media..
The DriveBy Media constitute an entity because although they are many organs - CBS, ABS, NBS, NYTimes BS, etc - it doesn't matter which one we see because they all say the same thing - as you have often said. BUT WHY?
ONE PARTICULAR BIAS THEY ALL SHARE. The DrivBy Media LUST after attention and respect. If they are listened to all over the country they can be more important than anything else.(in thier own minds at least). That's a self-fulfilling prophesy; if they are important they will be listened to, and if they are listened to they will be important.
THE PRESUMPTION THEY ALL SHARE IS THAT THEY ALL ARE IMPORTANT. But if THEY are to be important as mere talkers, the people in flyover country who make the country work - oil companies, Walmart, MacDonalds, Coca Cola, AND even POLICE AND THE MILITARY - are THE COMPETITION for importance (and for that matter YOU are, too).
The DriveBy Media is united in hostility and contempt for Flyowver Country because UNITED THEY STAND in competition with the people who actually DO things. It is the DriveBy Media and not liberal politicians who have motive and opportunity to trash everyone ELSE but the DriveBy Media and their sy! cophants.
DriveBy Media award their sycophants good PR, includi ng labels like "progressive" and "moderate" and (until they ran the word into the ground) "liberal." DriveBy Media assign only THEMSELVES the label "objective" - but then, any "liberal" can get a job in journalism and suddenly become "objective." A conservative, OTOH, can never do that.
That explains socialism - it is only second guessing of the people who DO things. And that is why Bill Clinton was such a quintessential liberal politician. He is wonderful at deflecting blame and second guessing others. But as president - as chief executive - he was a disaster BECAUSE HE COULDN'T TAKE RISK. Liberalism is all about stabbing those who take risk in the back, and all he knew how to do was to protect his own back. And leading - actually DOING instead of talking - exposes your back.
Journalism - its arrogance and its demand to be taken seriously as the important thing in politics - is the driving force behind liberalism. It is the liberal politicians who are the "willing accomplices" to the DriveBy Media.
Never looked at it that way. There is a lot of truth and substance in what you are saying...
narcassistic personnality disorder
Either way you choose to put it, they're despicable. Problem is, they don't even know it. Either that, or they're so hellbent on getting into office they simply don't care!
Interesting take.
That would be "narcisstic personality disorder".
Translation: Confidence
I was just gonna say that but you beat me to it. OK, I wasn't. Excellent perspective.
Basically, they haven't grown past the "LOOK AT ME!" stage, typically around thirteen.
Thanks, piytar.Rush has pointed out that if he didn't have his call screener filter them, "bias in the media" calls would so predominate his program that the program would become predictable and boring. The subject is usually the lens through which I critique threads on FR.
The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam SmithThat means that We are all more or less gullible; it is hard to be cautious enough when listening to tales about how people are looking out for your interest. So it's just plain silly to accept the teaching from high school that journalism is objective. Journalism says that journalism is objective. Wow! Isn't that wonderful of them! </sarcasm>. . . and just when we hoped that we were being cautious enough, we read,
Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklinand we realize that we have to look even harder.
Ping.
BTTT
Doesn't happen ... does it?
What about a journalists? Can you imagine a someone who thinks govenrment is too large, has too many employees, and thinks govermnent is best that governs least, saying, "I don't care much about government... Therefore I am going to become a Journalist."
Not very damned likely is it.
Jeff Christee was a disk jockey when the disk jockey businees went to hell. So he became a talk show host. He did not set out to be a journalist.
But nearly every person who set out to be a journalist is a government fan... Just like Sportscasters are sports fans.
Because they can, they do.
"How can they get away with it?"
Because they can, they do.
(i'm repeating myself, huh)
"The DriveBy Media is "their willing accomplices," of course..But WHY?"
According to their track record the question isn't "why", it's "why not".
Again, judging only by their behavior.
The "media" isn't anything, per se.
It's what those who compose it are and here in the United States that just so happens to be Liberal-Socialist.
And yes, the "No Conservatives Allowed" sign's out since it's a kind of *club*, so that's what the Republic gets.
So hows about ol' Rush use some of his quarter-billion to help change that little fact of life?
Questions, so many questions.
"Remember, Friedman pointed out a year or so ago that the media don't follow liberals but rather, LIBERALS FOLLOW THE MEDIA. Specifically, "objective" journalism - the DriveBy Media. The DriveBy Media constitute an entity because although they are many organs - CBS, ABS, NBS, NYTimes BS, etc - it doesn't matter which one we see because they all say the same thing - as you have often said. BUT WHY?"
They all say the same thing because they're all Liberal-Socialists. >doink!< {g}
What would any rational person expect to hear/see from [a] Liberal-Socialists?
"ONE PARTICULAR BIAS THEY ALL SHARE. The DrivBy Media LUST after attention and respect."
I disagree.
Whores couldn't care less about attaining "respect" from the "John", they want to be *paid*.
America's brand of Liberal-Socialist lusts after *power*, and power in the USA translates to money.
I know, I know Liberal-Socialists don't give a whit about money & certainly not their money. {g}
Right? { / sarc ~for those in Rio Linda}
"If they are listened to all over the country they can be more important than anything else.(in their own minds at least). That's a self-fulfilling prophesy; if they are important they will be listened to, and if they are listened to they will be important."
And therein lies the paradox, doesn't it.
It wouldn't matter what the Liberal-Socialists say IF "conservatives" didn't listen to 'em.
Would it?
As long as you've the lovable fuzzball's ear, perhaps you could ask him something I've wondered about for some time, now.
IF it weren't for Rush Limbaugh reading aloud on his nationally syndicated radio show reaching upwards of 20 million listeners the musings of Liberal-Socialist moon-bats -- be it a NYSlimes, SeeBS, whatever product -- would most of us ["conservatives"] ever know who they are, never mind care about what they had to say?
I don't think so.
Rush's listeners would be better served hearing what conservative pundits have to say.
And that's how it should be, don'tcha think?
I mean if the whole of the quisling media's controlled by Liberal-Socialists, which it most certainly is? ;^)
"Liberalism is all about stabbing those who take risk in the back..."
...period.
Using my 1968 Websters New World Dictionary. The state of being arrogant ie.
full of or due to unwarranted pride and self importance;overbearing: haughty
I saw on NewsMax, "this just in".(laughs) The New York Times has advised that the Pope apologise for his recent remarks. Arrogant is one of the kinder epithets for the New York Times. Happily they must create the odd conservative or two after every edition. That is if any of their readers THINK for themselves.
Lib's believe that any problem can be explianed on a bumper sticker and any solution fits on a bumper sticker.
They are not equipped to participate in detailed discussions that don't devolve into name calling.
Doesn't happen ... does it?
What about a journalists? Can you imagine a someone who thinks government is too large, has too many employees, and thinks govermnent is best that governs least, saying, "I don't care much about government... Therefore I am going to become a Journalist."
I give sportswriters a little more credit. Ronald Reagan was a sportscaster, for Pete's sake! And I think that sportswriters at least try to compete in athletics at least at the high school level before settling in to the niche of sports commentator.My point about journalists is that the typical journalist never even tries to produce goods or services before going into journalism. And that going into journalism is going into the criticism business. Journalism promotes itself by tearing down those who do.
It's like the old "Them as can, does. Them as can't, teaches." Only worse, in that "Them as criticizes" - journalists - never even tried to learn the oil business (or the paint business or the hamburger business or the low-cost retailing business or the military business) before presuming to know what a gallon of gasoline is "worth."
You say that journalists love government, and that is the origin of their "liberalism." I point out the anomaly that where government's rubber meets the road, government finally is police and the military - yet journalists hold both in contempt. Journalists are just as hard on a general as they are on a businessman. As far as journalism is concerned, police and military people are either ineffective or they are brutal - and like as not, both things at once.
No, I think my analysis works better. Journalists love themselves and their own sense of their own importance. That doesn't cause them to love the government - hundreds of billions spent in Iraq is loads of government - it makes journalists want to denigrate all of society. Government not excluded - certainly when a conservative is in office.
But the reason that journalists are eager to promote "liberals" is quite simple - liberals criticize everyone that journalists criticize. Quite simply, liberals toady up to journalists. And are rewarded with favorable labeling and favorable PR.
Liberals decide that nothing matters except PR, and act accordingly. Notice that some of the biggest liberals going are wealthy people - particularly old money wealthy. They don't have to be practical people because they can afford to buy off their mistakes. They are used to being able to step on your toe without consequence as long as they have "objective journalism" on their side. And they pay the money and the obsequiousness required to assure that.
Ronald Reagan used to say that it wasn't true that there were no simple answers. The answers may be simple (any problem, when solved, is simple). The answer just may not be easy.
The trouble is thatIt is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam SmithWay too many credulous people out there are voters. Not as many, fortunately, as are legally qualified to vote.
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.