Replies

The sophomore's missive omits several crucial points:

There is an appetite for conservative sources of information because 80% or more of professional journalists vote Demo. Possibly more are Leftists. A palpable media bias to the Left creates a hole in news coverage that is filled by conservative commentary.

This is why attempts to start Leftist talk shows [Cuomo, Tom (Don't) Likas] have failed in the past, because there is already a saturation of that point of view in the media and entertainment -- although they portray themselves to be objective.

This is a key difference. Conservative talk show hosts make no pretense of being objective -- it is commmentary.

Thus, those of us who partake of Rush, FR and the like are AUGMENTING our diet of Left-wing dominated news coverage in an attempt to get complete coverage.

Criticism of FR is especially disingenous. We are certainly not using singular sources of information. It has the most diverse base of cited sources that I know of. Compare that to the limited sourcing found at DU. FR has a more diverse range of points-of-view while DU is a Leftist circle-jerk. Opposing points of view are simply not tolerated there at all. Here, a Leftist can stay if he/she can remain civil and on-topic.

The article is trying to posit a moral equivalency where there is none. There is no mirror image from one side to the other, because the positions are based upon fundamentally different [but not opposite] mindsets.

One of the biggest points she fails to mention is why we go to FR, or listen to Rush or read Ann.

We want the truth. The media lies to us, or distorts the truth in such a way that we don't know what is true and what is false. There is an underlying political agenda that
the media is trying to push through to unsuspecting viewers.

FR, Ann and Rush put it into perspective for people looking to the truth.

It is unfortunate that college kids are subjected to leftist ideology for four years.