Posted on 09/19/2002 11:46:45 PM PDT by SeenTheLight
Conservatives, Liberals, and Media Bias
Stephen Salovitz’s claim (Letters, Media Bias, 9/19/02) that conservatives “comprise a tiny fraction of America’s population,” is based on a liberal myth. In fact, it’s the other way around. Liberals comprise a tiny fraction of America’s population, while conservatives are the majority. Your average, mainstream American is politically conservative, a fact that liberals seem to be unaware of. The polls show that most Americans support President Bush, the War on Terrorism, and our country. This is in contrast to liberals, who belittle and insult our president at every turn, are constantly trying to undermine the war effort, and who are motivated by a hatred of this country and Western civilization in general. They are aided in these pursuits by the liberal media.
The overwhelming success of politically conservative radio, web sites, and books is a messy fact that liberals try their best to ignore. When forced to confront this reality, they usually resort to insulting mainstream Americans for their alleged stupidity and ignorance, rather than examining their own dwindling support base. Could it be that liberals are out of step with America in 2002? Most of them seem to be caught in a time warp that began in the 1960’s and continues to this day. They’re still fighting the Vietnam War, not the War on Terrorism, and this time around, they’re on the wrong side of history.
But liberals have been imbued with a false sense of their own power, because they do disproportionally fill the ranks of the American media. The “news” that they present to the American public is filtered through their own left-leaning politics. Conservatives are not bridling against “any criticism of Republicans in general and conservatives in particular,” as Salovitz would have us believe, but rather at the constant stream of unwarranted criticism and trivial, personal attacks. Mostly, conservatives are unrelenting in demanding journalistic objectivity, something that liberals, for their own self-serving reasons, don’t seem to care much about.
It’s obvious to anyone who's really looking, that the Democratic Party is the apple of the liberal media’s eye. During Clinton’s presidency and the subsequent impeachment scandal, the liberal press was forced to address the messy details of their hero’s personal habits. Still, they came up with excuses or deflected blame, anything to absolve their favorite president of his responsibilities to the country. But under a Republican administration, the whole tone of the daily news changes from one of adoration to attack. President Bush and his administration have responded admirably to the worst attack on U.S. soil in history, yet the best they receive from the liberal media is occasional, grudging respect.
Salovitz suggests that “if one wants to see real bias, one should read any conservative publication.” While “any conservative publication” is hardly specific, it is all too typical of the vague, name-calling that the left is famous for. The fact is that most liberals have never listened to a conservative radio program or read a book by a conservative author, yet they still feel emboldened to attack them.
In contrast, conservatives are almost obsessed with what liberals are thinking and their criticism is based on this constant scrutiny. It’s hard not to be consumed with liberals, if you’re a conservative, because their viewpoints are shoved in your face every time you open a daily newspaper or turn on the TV.
Salovitz accuses those illusive, conservative “media outlets” of being “filled with misrepresentations, distortions and complete fabrications.” Again, without any specific references, it’s hard to know exactly who or what he’s referring to. My experience has been that conservative media, such as it is, overwhelmingly relies on honesty, knowledge, and facts. Unlike their liberal peers, who rule the roost, conservatives have to back up their assertions with facts, because they will be called on it. But in the end, it’s reality that forms the basis for conservative thought. We don’t need to come up with lies and distortions, because the truth is on our side.
The Chronicle would be better served by ignoring Salovitz, who advises them to “resist the bullying tactics of conservatives,” and starting to listen to their critics. Then maybe they will achieve the “objectivity” that Salovitz seems to think they have now.
But liberals have been imbued with a false sense of their own power, because they do disproportionally fill the ranks of the American media.
It’s hard not to be consumed with liberals, if you’re a conservative, because their viewpoints are shoved in your face every time you open a daily newspaper or turn on the TV
By "media" the author means network TV and the country's largest newspapers - not all media.
The "media" survive because many people - presumably liberals - like what they read and hear from those sources. So his argument that liberals constitute a tiny fraction of the population is wrong - in case you didn't already know that from observing voting patterns.
There was a joke going around among conservatives, a few years back, that if the Democrats were to introduce a bill to Congress that required the beheading of all white males, Bob Dole, a.k.a. "the tax collector for the welfare state," would mount a huge campaign... to demand that it be phased in over a three-year period. Sadly, Dole's attitude of "absorb the evil slowly" is typical of most Americans who call themselves conservatives.
Conservatism, to these, is a preference for stability, rather than a political philosophy with hard edges. This sort of conservative is really more concerned with not allowing the status quo to change out from under him, than he is with enduring principles of right and wrong or the proper protections for liberty and justice.
Yes, "conservative" books, talk radio, and Internet sites dominate their respective spaces. But even so, the Left's agenda makes slow, steady gains. George W. Bush himself has helped to advance several Leftist ideas: prescription drugs for free, anticompetitive tariffs for several industries, a huge farm welfare bill. Yet Dubya is probably the most admired politician of our time after Ronald Reagan -- another conservative during whose tenure the Leviathan State made huge gains.
"Absorb the evil slowly" conservatism is entirely consistent with the political devolution of the United States since the beginning of the Progressive Era. A principled conservatism that demands, in Thomas Macaulay's words, "patience, respect for rights, and the strict observance of public faith" would never have accepted such things as the income tax, the profusion of unaccountable alphabet agencies, the welfare state, a court system that punishes private vices more harshly than murder, public schools controlled by a special interest group and used to spread propaganda, bureaucrats with job security to which no one else can aspire, and so forth. By contrast, the do-it-slowly conservative has often aided and abetted the Left in the steady erosion of American liberties.
The great task for the principled conservative in our time is to convert the "absorb the evil slowly" conservative to our own kind. It will not be easy. We have dwindled to a remnant. But there is no other course with long-range potential.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Except for the few pockets of liberal strongholds, Bush took the country by storm. Don't you just love the Bush Country map? I bet you do. :-)
The liberal media (network TV and the largest newspapers) distort the conservative message at every opportunity in order to persuade the voting public that the conservative positions in which they believe are owned by the liberal Democrats.
Clinton was a master at claiming ownership of conservative ideas and accomplishments of the conservative right when he found that the people of the country really wanted that. Surely you remember Clinton fighting a balanced budget tooth and nail until it was clear that the people of this country wanted it, and then it was his idea.
Years ago we had friends who always voted Democrat. We agreed with them on issues all the way down the line, but they had been led to believe the Democrats were the ones who believed the way they did. They finally realized they were voting for candidates who believed the opposite, and have been staunch Republicans ever since. This is happening all over the country now that the internet is making it possible to counter the lies of the Democrats and liberal media.
That's a 60-65% national voting bloc right there. I anticipate that Bush will win the trade union/farm states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, New Jersey) in 2004, and he'll have an easy electoral ride. California, New England and New York - they're completely hopeless. Bush shouldn't spend one dime or one hour in any of those places.
If you saw the Hannity & Colmes show from Dearborn, MI last night, you can see that there is an undercurrent of conservative, patriotic support among real people who aren't meticulously pre-screened like those phony "town meetings" that Koppel and CNN always put together. I'm optimistic about November. I think the GOP is going to pick up 3-4 net Senate Seats and about that many House seats as well.
Perhaps conservative in the sense that they want the status quo to remain unchanged, but hardly conservative in any political sense. In reality, there's probably only 10-15% on each side who have a very strong opinion as to proper governance. From the rest, you generally hear vague comments along the lines of, "He's done pretty well. The economy's good."
As to the polls, they told a different story under the Clinton Administration; they clearly ebb and flow depending on who's in power at a given time.
The overwhelming success of politically conservative radio, web sites, and books is a messy fact that liberals try their best to ignore.
Well, conservatives generally have greater access to the internet and talk radio, and have demonstrated a greater interest in getting news/commentary on a daily basis. These folks (us, really) do have counterparts - but these couterparts are generally only active at election time. If you ask me, as people become educated on politics, they see that conservative ideology has more to offer.
But liberals have been imbued with a false sense of their own power, because they do disproportionally fill the ranks of the American media. The “news” that they present to the American public is filtered through their own left-leaning politics. [snip] It’s obvious to anyone who's really looking, that the Democratic Party is the apple of the liberal media’s eye.
No argument there.
Go to any board of elections in the united sates ask for any bellwether precinct. Check the demographic of the democrats and Republicans. Democrats will be mostly blue collar, "c" student high-school graduates or less. If you ask them to name a book they have read, they will tell you they do not read books. If you ask if they watch any of the Sunday political shows, they will say no. Most will not even know that such shows exist. If you ask them to name elected officials they can not name very many. Perhaps the president and maybe a governor.
Ask them who makes the laws in the United states and the will say the President. Ask them the penalty for breaking and entering or armed robbery and they will know.
Ask them if they have ever listened to talk radio,and they will ask you why Oprah does not have a radio show? They will tell you that is a damned Republican conspiracy that keeps Oprah off the radio.
The Left is made up of several groups. The rich monied people. The worlds richest people are Democrats. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Johnny Allen to name three of the richest men in the world are all liberals. The major business executives are Democrats. The head of GE, the worlds largest corporation, is a Democrat. The head of Merrill Lynch the worlds largest wall street investment firm is a Democrat. The head of the Ford mother company is a Democrat. The Rockefeller's, as in Rich as Rockefeller, are Democrats. One is a Democrat Senator from West VA. The very old Rich families like the Vanderbilt's are Democrats. Most of the Rich are Democrats. That is why the Democrats needed soft money and the Republicans don't. The second group of liberals are the teachers, college professors, and public employees. That is natural. Those that make their living from government would tend to be in favor of government. They like government for the same reason brothel owners are in favor of prostitution.
The next group is the media. People go into the media for the same reason sportscasters go into sportscasting. People go into the media to cover government. People go into sports reporting to cover sports. Both do it because they love what they cover. That is why they do it. Those attracted to the media love government the same way the guys that cover the Yankees love baseball.
The final group of Democrats are the poor, uneducated, and stupid. They are the majority of Democrats. They love the Democrats because they believe the Government is on their side. They believe it because the other groups that make up the Democrat party tell them to believe it. Five hundred years ago they believed that the King was really sacreficing for them. They were loyal subjects. Five hundred years ago Monica Lewinskys Dad would have been proud that the king chose his daughter to satisfy some of his sex needs. Only the kings have changed, the subjects not at all as Monica's Dad proved. Five hundred or a thosuand years ago they would have been certain that the King would have given them a better standard of living if only other powerful and Evil kings would let him. If you want to know how to describe the marjority of those on the left... the world surf comes to mind. But things are changing. Even a bad leftist education allows people to think a bit. Those bowing to the king while begging for alms decrease with time. Democrats as they always have need a new wave of imported surfs to maintain a majority of surfs. But things are changing. The sons and daugters of surfs are often non surfs. It is a disquieting thing for the Terry McAuliffes of the world.
But the Republicans have a very daunting task. Their goal is to turn all surfs into wealthy upper middle class. The Democrats are right. The Republicans are for the rich. To win they have to make a large majority rich. The problem is the super rich go of to become demcrat kings. The Repubican Rockeller first generations become second generantion noblemen. So the Republicans keep trying to make a majority wealty. The Democrats have to keep a solid majority poor. That is why they pass rules and regulations on the rich and powerful for the benefit of the poor. Actually only those trying to start up can't handle the rules and regulations. The already rich can always handle them. That keeps the ruling democrats small the the surf democrats large. Kings are always infavor of only a limited number of noblemen. That is why as the Kennedys like to say, you have to be born a Kennedy or marry one. There is no other way to get invited to the Kennedy Compound.
If you want to know why the super rich are Democrats, you don't understand why Kings found it so helpful in maintaining power to pretend to be looking out for the best interest of the surfs.
The surfs can't understand how a big shot leftist leader can be caught using undocumented illegals to watch their kids. Or fail to pay Social Secuity benefits for their employees. They would not have understood why the King did not obey the same rules they do. After all, the King said he ws just like them and they believe him...don't you?
Second. The same is true of conservatives.
Third. The balance of power between the two constantly shifts, depending on issues and candidates. There's also Lord Acton's famous dictim to consider "Power Corrupts..."
Fourth. Common Tator's description of liberals is hardly objective or fair. I can return the favor by characterizing most conservatives as "petit bourgeois...with emphasis on the petty". Be clear that this is not how I would describe conservatives...or liberals.
It's on my homepage. :^)
The liberal media (network TV and the largest newspapers) distort the conservative message at every opportunity in order to persuade the voting public that the conservative positions in which they believe are owned by the liberal Democrats. Clinton was a master at claiming ownership of conservative ideas and accomplishments of the conservative right when he found that the people of the country really wanted that. Surely you remember Clinton fighting a balanced budget tooth and nail until it was clear that the people of this country wanted it, and then it was his idea. Years ago we had friends who always voted Democrat. We agreed with them on issues all the way down the line, but they had been led to believe the Democrats were the ones who believed the way they did. They finally realized they were voting for candidates who believed the opposite, and have been staunch Republicans ever since. This is happening all over the country now that the internet is making it possible to counter the lies of the Democrats and liberal media.
Talk radio, Fox News, then the internet. We're starting to make a dent. We still need to take more ground in the schools and universities, we need at least one movie studio, and more television channels. As far as media goes, I believe there is a huge market for conservative-based movies. Seems like almost every movie we see has a liberal theme to it.
A very good article by Michael Kelly, editor of the Atlantic
One would presume that “the latter” according to Michael Kelly are the Republicans. He says we are the ones who don’t accept the fact that the world has changed? Compare Bush’s statements about the threat to not only our citizens on our own soil and the entire western world to Daschle’s unending questions about a compelling reason to attack the main hotbed of terrorism. Daschle is the one who hasn’t changed the rhetoric. He employs the same old Democrat partisan spin that whatever the Republicans believe is right and necessary is wrong and must be attacked... to heck with national security. I would love to see one Democrat say that we are in grave danger and something decisive needs to be done.
Finally, and most important, the spectacular implosion of the telecom bubble and the related collapse of the media-synergy bubble, combined with the related nightmare on Wall Street, have naturally resurrected one of the oldest and most popular conversations in American politics. We are back in the beloved land of Powerful Interests giving The People a right royal screwing, aided and abetted by a government of Corrupt Politicians that those Interests have bought with their Ill-Gotten Gains.
[snip]
You cannot blame the Democrats for wanting to stick with a script, and an ending, like that one, and you cannot blame them for seeing in the present moment dramatic potential of the highest order. WorldCom! Enron! Five trillion dollars in paper wealth wiped out in less than two years! On the watch of "The MBA President"! Now, there's a Whore of Babylon you can get your teeth into.
“On the watch of the MBA president???” Oh, please. The cooking of the books began well before Bush took office, and Clinton is the one who set the precedent that responsibility for actions could be subverted by delay and spin. The economy under Clinton was one big bubble that had to burst. He got out just in time. It was headed south before Bush was elected.
Michael Kelly is just one more liberal media spinmeister.
Did you see the survey of college propfessors the other day? Of those who would give their party affiliation, school after school showed an almost solid Democrat line-up. These are the ones who teach (indoctrinate) our children.
I know what it's like. I went to a small Christian school in the 60's and listened to the most socialistic, atheistic bunk for 2 years. Then my father pulled me out of it because he wasn't going to pay private school tuition to have me indoctrinated. I didn't want to leave because I had friends, and tried to convince my dad that I wasn't being influenced. I was to a certain degree though... the propaganda was just too pervasive.
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.