’)
The crazy kids at Powerline pen another heck of a blog entry that leaves me wondering what is wrong with the world.
John Hinderaker (formerly Hindrocket, before they realized its kind of silly for grownups to have codenames) is a lawyer and a fellow at the right-wing Claremont Institute. So, I ask, as someone who didn’t finish college and whose experience with law consists only of regular viewings of Law & Order and Investigative Reports – why is he so stupid?
As life-long newspaper junkies, we take no pleasure in the industry’s current crisis. Apart from anything else, we web-based commenators need newspapers to produce the raw material for our commentary. But my sympathy for the Times, the Globe, the Chronicle, et al. is tempered by the knowledge that there is a path to solvency, which I think would likely succeed, but that they would never consider: stop being so liberal. Wouldn’t you think that with newspapers nearly everywhere sliding inexorably downhill, just one might consider whether its readers–or former readers–were trying to tell it something? Like, we’re not interested in supporting far-left nonsense?
Now, media is in a transition – we’re moving from the print/broadcast age to the interactive era. Newspapers are dying and television and radio are diversifying. Why does someone like John Hinderaker say something so dumb as equating the fall of traditional media to liberalism (not to mention that I question the liberal credentials of any newspaper that carries water for Judy Miller and regularly prints columns by David Brooks and John Tierney, and until recently William Safire)? Why must Hinderaker simply ignore the medium transition in progress instead of blaming it on “liberalism”. Based on this idiotic reasoning if the NY Times regularly published a column from Washington that performed fellatio on on the Bush administration their circulation would go through the roof, right? Oh wait, they do that already.
The Times is still, with all its many flaws, the most important newspaper in America. They’ve allowed themself to be led around by the Hinderakers of the world and as such have bowed down to the gods of he-said she-said journalism instead of doing what a paper should do: reporting. This is the fundamental difference between the right and left. The right wants Pravda, we want a real newspaper – even one that’s tough on our guys, as long as they objectively report the facts. The right wants their movement to be given tongue baths, and they’ll make inane stretches of logic to make sure they get that point across.
“Wouldn t you think that with newspapers nearly everywhere sliding inexorably downhill, just one might consider whether its readers or former readers were trying to tell it something?”
Funny how Assrocket doesn’t note how the Washington Times (circ. ~100,000) has never turned a profit; indeed, Rev Moon has sunk over $1bn into that particular propaganda-sheet.
The interesting thing is that the two con newspapers of note, the NY Post and the Washington Times, lose money like you wouldn’t believe. The NY Post is pretty popular, probably because it is 25c. The Moonie Times is read only by hard core wingnuts, and hasn’t made a dent in Washington Post circulation.
The press is overwhelmingly liberal and clearly biased that way in their output, but I’m not sure that moving away from mindless, politically correct liberalism, like LAT, SFC, WaPo, NYT espouses on a daily basis, would work with the newspaper format. The Powerline people are probably thinking in terms of Fox doing so well by providing mainstream news and reporting in contrast to the CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC etc NYC/Hollywood liberalism.
Dugger
Because there’s a whole organization dedicated to pointing out otherwise with these things called factual evidence (look it up, but I am sure it isn’t in the RNC playbook), but that’s my freaking day job.
The NY Post hasn’t been $.25 in a long, long, time. Whether or not the Post or the wash Times are losing, I don’t know.
The New York Post is certainly pushing the NY Daily News to the left, IMHO because the News was unable to compete.
To the point, OIliver’s reference to three conservatie columnists is telling. How would one descibe the remaining bajillion columnists?
If, indeed, the MSM is biased to the left, I don’t see why it should be such a sore point with liberals, who should be happy with that circumstance.
If it is not biased to the left, they should not be upset, but, rather (no pun intended) they should be presenting a veritable torrent of evidence that it is not so.
Oliver can’t seem to find more than one or two news stories a month to back up his claim that news is not liberally biased.
Why is that?
press is overwhelmingly liberal and clearly biased
Accepted as true by the wingnutosphere without a shred of evidence.
Oliver: You mean the “Bash O’Reilly, Limbaygh, Hannity & Colmes Show” newsletter.
Where’s the conservative bias in NYT, LAT, WaPo, CNNCNBCMSNBC, ABCCBSNBC?
Rather sparse, eh?
For contrast check out the MRC home page
“press is overwhelmingly liberal and clearly biased
Accepted as true by the wingnutosphere without a shred of evidence.”
There’s plenty of evidence out there. Every time it’s presented, however, you moonbats find some way to dismiss it.
“Because there s a whole organization dedicated to pointing out otherwise with these things called factual evidence (look it up, but I am sure it isn t in the RNC playbook), but that s my freaking day job.”
Do they do that for instances of left-wing bias, too?
No, of course not. That would defeat their raison d’etre.
Frankie says
The NY Post hasn t been $.25 in a long, long, time. Whether or not the Post or the wash Times are losing, I don t know. /frankie
http://www.nypost.com/
Right on the picture of the front page, it says “25cents”.
Frankie, do you ever get tired of being wrong?
Cue Frankie saying “Well by a long time I mean since this morning” or “Well I haven’t bought the paper so I don’t remember”.
Matthews falsely claimed that Dems don’t “care” about inflation; ignored appointments of “inflation tamers” Volcker, Greenspan
Wash. Post again downplayed ex-FEMA director Brown’s inexperience with disaster relief
Wash. Post editorial’s “broad look” at U.S. poverty falsely claimed Bush poverty increases started under Clinton
News outlets described Katrina probe as “bipartisan,” ignored that Democrats will be outnumbered and lack subpoena power
Try reading some time in between fanblogging for Condi.
Stupid is as stupid does. Hinderaker is not clinically stupid (i.e., he doesn’t necessarily have any biological reason for his stupidity), he is an idealogue. He is so enamored of his own philosophical horsesh-t that he betrays his God-given sense in order to maintain his grip on his belief system. You can see other examples of this phenomenon (sometimes known as ‘cognitive dissonance’) right here in the comments of the ubiquitous winger trolls. (It is the same phenomenon that saw otherwise capable and intelligent German generals allow a raving loon like Hitler to make suicidal war plans even when they knew the consequences.)
I believe the newspapers are failing because our society is becoming increasingly more willfully ignorant, and more disconnected from any objective reality. (For so long our educational system– primarily in the social sciences– has been so watered down by self-congratulatory ignorance that U.S citizens by and large are allergic to critical thinking and self-reflection.) This means the corporate media, having increasingly become barkers for ever-consolidating corporate interests, have been able to steadily increase their output of pap and propaganda and have all but ceased to perform their duty as the watchdogs of our representative democratic republic. It is a symbiotic cycle directed in a downward spiral.
People like Hinderaker are merely drooling and snapping because they are not happy with the slow hemorrhaging and want to see the swift disembowelment of our pretenses to democracy. Whether or not Hinderaker, or many of those who troll here, are actually high on their own supply or are merely relentless liars and propagandists is another question. Personally, I don’t care. The important thing is that they must be defeated or we can kiss our pretenses goodbye.
Where s the conservative bias in NYT, LAT, WaPo, CNNCNBCMSNBC, ABCCBSNBC?
Rather sparse, eh?
Frank;
Is there anyone who can say (with a straight face) that corporate america is a bastion of liberal ideology. latimes and wapo are the latest print media to lose their reportage autonomy. Now that everyone is rejoicing about NYTIMES supporting Judith Miller they can also rejoice over the recent financial reverses and downsizing at same.
It is a victory for truth and justice everywhere, that the final arbiter on social issues will rest with the bean counters .
We could argue libral vs conservative content for decades and not agree on what constitutes bias. I would happily take 50% of the mainstream media and let progressives have the other half. I believe you are organically incapable of seeing bias as I see it and I speck you feel the same way vice versa.
Dugger
Dugger;
I don’t beleive I (perhaps someone else has) impugned your objectivity.
But perhaps you could address; Is there anyone who can say (with a straight face) that corporate america is a bastion of liberal ideology.
Liberal bias from ledger- rats and bottom- line bumpkins? Please
I don’t think Hindyhoo has any idea how stupid, and revealing, this is, even granting the premise that the NYT is liberal. If that is true, it’s true because the people at the New York Times believe that they are correct. Hindwhatsis, I guess, thinks that the Times should write stuff that they don’t think is true, because…that’s what newspapers do, right?
In other words, he thinks all newspapers are just whores anyway. This has always been the underlying assumption of right-wing press criticism: if I controlled a newspaper, I’d fill it full of convenient lies, so that’s what the current media must be doing.
Good post, Don, the wingnuts see everything as spin, so when the truth contradicts the spin, that must mean that the truth-teller is “biased”.
Actually, everyone interested in “bias in the media” should watch the film “Manufacturing Consent”.
This shows you that in no way can agenda-setting media in anyway ever be liberal, at least economically, if not socially also. It is even more true today than 15 years ago when it was made.
Semant,
I impugn my objectivity.
As to corporate America and liberal bias, I think you verge on a common mistake the left and center sometimes make. Which is that since they are big business corporations, ipso facto, they must be conservative.
First of all there are many active liberal, even progressive businesses: Ben and Jerry’s, Progressive Ins., etc.
Second – businesses sell products to the public. It was once said by a guy named Ilych that a capitalist would sell you the rope to hang himself (with). True. Businesses are tuned in to marketing and marketing is tuned into popular culture which is dominated by music, Hollywood and Big Media – which are dominated by leftists. Look who the “idiots” are in commercials 9 times out of 10: white males.
Third. Businesses are run for the most part by college graduates. Even if they are more conservative business majors, their background is the university – a hotbed of monolithic leftist thought.
I’ve had this discussion with progressives before. Often they will agree with some or all of the above but indicate that whats going on is only businesses “letting out a little rope”; that they would really never let anything serioulsy leftist happen. That is another area to discuss.
Dugger
a hotbed of monolithic leftist thought
Dugger;
Are you a product of our university system?
Dugger;
We never finished our discussion from 9/9 (John Edwards) as to how the driving force behind business decsions is influenced by political opinions and attitudes. If you are talking about typical ‘entertainment’ businesses, it is true that sometimes the ‘liberal’ or ‘independent’ or even ‘rebel’ persona is a an influence, depending on the market.
However, major newspapers and broadcast media are not in the ‘counter-culture’ mode. They are businessmen and I assure you, the board of directors are interested in the stock price and share growth, that is all.
Your conclusion, based on the fact that most businesses are run by college graduates, is that business decsions made by those college graduates is unduly influenced by the ruling hierarchy of Universities. Such professors, as liberals,e are driven by socialist ideology. You don’t give much credit to students for independent thought. Your example of Ben and Jerrys must rank as one ot the all- time greats for “the exception to the rule”
see past post referred to above;
There are two ways to make more money; Money at work(investment0 and people at work(labor force) Labor is the necessary ingredient for investment to grow. This symbiotic relationship has always been good news/bad news
for both the ownership and labor class. The ownership class is obligated by way of self-interest to maximize profit and minimize expense. It is neither evil or benevolent. It is amoral. If it is necessary to create hardship for the labor class, sobeit. The labor class learns it s own self-interest lesson from management/ownership. They seek to work less and be paid more. They recognize that the energy they spend to create wealth for their employer is the captial for industrial growth.
The governments role in all of this is to referee the playing field and keep the game fair. In turn, the worker, who has medical care, vacation and sick days, and a living wage that will open doors of opportunity for his children remains healthy and more productive for the employer.
The government facilitated the growth of industry in this country with the enactment of labor laws that kept business healthier than it would otherwise have been left to it s own counter-productive labor practices.
Government created wealth that was shared (redistributed?)
pdeynmsk ljcnrmi hezqniy xwdyhv medx wprvije wftepnlzk