Posted on 12/26/2001 4:59:29 AM PST by PJ-Comix
Confronting liberal bias as it occurs. Last week when CNN's Aaron Brown set up an interview segment by tagging Shelby Steele as "a conservative," but simply describing Richard Cohen as "a columnist," Steele called him on it, forcing Brown to concede that Cohen is a liberal.
MRC analyst Ken Shepherd caught the incident which occurred on the December 18 NewsNight. Brown set up the segment on the 10pm EST show: "There was that remarkable meeting a few weeks back in the prison in Mazar-e Sharif of two young men -- and to some, two different cultures. Two different American cultures. CIA officer Mike Spann, a former Marine, a child of small-town Alabama, whose family said he always wanted to serve his country. And in that prison, before he was killed, he met John Walker, a 20-year-old from Marin County, California, fighting with the Taliban, whose parents sent him to an alternative school, supported his conversion to Islam, and allowed him to travel across the world to pursue his new religion. Some conservatives jumped on Walker, saying he is a product of cultural liberalism -- the California kind -- helping to turn an impressionable kid against his own country.
"Joining us from Salinas, California, one of those conservatives, Shelby Steele of the Hoover Institution. Mr. Steele wrote a provocative article the other day in the Wall Street Journal -- a column in the Journal. And here in New York, a columnist who thinks Mr. Steele is making an awfully broad generalization: Richard Cohen of the Washington Post. It's nice to have both of you here. Mr. Steele."
Steele protested: "First of all, let me interrupt you just a minute."
Brown: "Okay."
Steele queried: "Is Richard Cohen a liberal?"
Brown: "Yeah, Richard Cohen's a liberal. I think he would say that, wouldn't he?"
Steele: "Just wanted to make sure we were both-"
Cohen reluctantly admitted: "On this issue."
Brown: "On this issue. Okay. Everyone is now branded, I guess." Steele reasonably suggested: "Okay, great. If I'm going to be, everybody's going to be."
Brown proceeded to recall an earlier assessment by a conservative which many reporters did not appreciate: "Let me try and get, let me try and get a little control back. A few years back, Newt Gingrich blamed liberalism for Susan Smith's decision to kill her own children in South Carolina. And I think when some people hear the argument you're making they're thinking about that and that seemed a bit of a stretch then. Are they, are these different issues or is this the same thing?"
Steele has provided an excellent model for the new year for how conservative guests on TV shows can correct liberal bias on the fly. -- Brent Baker, trapped with unlabeled liberals in Taxachusetts
Actually, this is a true statement.
Except that the scientific worldview produces actual results (unlike most non-scientifically based worldviews) and can therefore be safely assumed to provide the best available explanation of reality.
It's nice that someone recognizes that science is a Western construct. For a while there I was thinking it was invented in Darkest Africa. :)
Yeah, unfortunately you're right about that.
Replace conservative with "neo-con" (as in "We're for smaller government: we'll only increase spending 5%; that's less than the 7% the Dems want") and that usually 'bout sums it up.
Amen. Just consider: how often does the media make references to "right-wing" as if no corresponding "left-wing" views exist in America? In their lexicon, there is: right-wing, extreme right-wing, conservative, moderate, independent, and liberal. There is no left in American politics, if you read their reports.
I woke up to two ridiculous front-page headlines in my local paper (Duluth, Minn News-Tribune) this morning:
"Analysts say tax increases are better option than spending cuts for economic stimulus"
and
"On anniversary, many Russians regret collapse of the Soviet Union"
I'd post the content of the articles, but I presume that most of you, like me, aren't interested in going beyond the headline.
Another trick is Brokaw's FLEECING OF AMERICA which he started, I believe, after the Republicans took control of the House and Senate. He would show some government action that is wasting millions of dollars and state it was passed by Congress. Failing to mention it was passed by Congress 10/20/30 years ago whent the Dems were in charge. Then he would show something the Republicans in Congress would want to do.
Sometimes it is subtle, sometimes it smacks you right across the face.
The media seldom criticizes what Tom Daschle says, they are too busy describing how he says it.
"Style Over Substance" from both sides of the camera is a serious disservice to truth, but that's what we get.
Liberal Guest=Looks of adulation beaming from Katie's adoring eyes.
Conservative Guest=Angry glares emanating from Katie's scowling face.
In all seriousnes, that would be a good combination Political Science/Psych project for a Conservative college student to undertake.
The muted video tapes can be shown to Psych majors who are simply asked, in their opinion, judging solely by Katie's facial expressions, if Katie is showing hostility, approval or neutrality. The subject matter must also be taken into account. For example, Katie might scowl when talking to a Liberal if they are both agreeing that George Bush is ruining the country. The Psych students will know nothing else about the subect of the study so it would be a "blind" study.
A Political Science student who also knows nothing of the purpose of the study is later instructed to state, "What is Katie discussing at this point of the tape". The study now is "double blind".
After the data is collected, the identity of the interviewed guests and the topic of conversation that illicited the facial reaction can be matched up with the facial expression answers to obtain the final results.
Anyone know any college students out there willing to do this little project? Armitage?
I absolutely think this is a TERRIFIC college project. Anybody out there connected with a college or university? Please read the project proposal by Polybius.
You are 100% correct. The hijacking of the term "liberal" and the hijacking of the Democrat Party by the Marxist Left is documented in Horowitz's book, Radical Son. I support your point about using terms. In this respect, John Kennedy was a Liberal, anti-communist American; Hillary Clinton is a Marxist. Let's call things as they are.
Only through Science and Technology, Western Civilization came to be the dominant culture of the world. 400 years ago, all cultures were more or less equally dominant.
"Neo-cons" are actually Democrats purged from that party when it was overrun by Marxists.
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.