Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (46249)	7/21/1999 3:55:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I gave you my views of liberal and conservative in a post which I wrote before I got to this post, so will wait for your responses to my descriptions. I don't, however, agree with you about the flabby centrism. I do, as I said in another post, agree that many classic liberal positions have become conservative positions. I will, however, disagree on your suggestion that "Liberals" are tolerant. Many liberals are highly intolerant. They are intolerant of what they view as the religious right (and in many cases of religious believers at all) -- this we can see right here on this thread; a high degree of intolerance by people here I believe would-self define as liberal. They are intolerant of affirmative action opponents, of pro-lifers, of 2nd amendment advocates, etc. When it comes to the college campus, it is generally the conservative speakers who are either prevented from coming to campus by student protests (usually by students who would self-define as liberal or radical), or are shouted down rather than listened to -- there is a strong bias that these people should not even be allowed to present their views. What tolerance means to many liberals is "tolerance of views and people that I approve of or agree with." Or course, that isn't tolerance at all.

To: jbe who wrote (46249)	7/22/1999 2:05:00 AM
From: Krowbar	Respond to of 108807

Good stuff Joan. What you said. Del

To: jbe who wrote (46249)	7/22/1999 11:06:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Well, now, Time came. Let's see whether it has any liberal bias. Of course there's no bias in devoting 37 pages to JFK Jr. and the Kennedy legacy. Or to calling Jr. America's Prince. That's not a fact -- as I recall we did away with the monarchy -- so it's an opinion. Not, I think, one shared by persons of all persuasions. I rather suspect that few conservatives would call him a Prince. A bit of bias there. And a healthy dose of bias in the treatment of JFK and the whole Kennedy clan -- one wonders whether Reagan will receive such accolades when he dies, or the Bush family, which has a higher percentage of successful politicians than the Kennedys, when one of the Bush sons dies. You want to guess? The next story is on HMOs -- the subtitle is "Time sorts out what makes sense and what doesn't." Huh? What make sense is an opinion, not reporting. The article says that the Senate "had managed to do only what it seems to do best these days -- tee up rhetoric for the presidential race." So that's an opportunity to set forth the candiates' positions, right? Hmm, the only candidate quoted is Al Gore. The democratic front-runner. Clinton is also mentioned. No mention of what Bush or any Republican candidate might have to say about the issue. I would have thought that a balanced presentation woud have included quotes from candidates of both major parties. Time disagrees. On to the next story, on Taiwan. Titled "Playing with Fire." Well, now, in general I would venture that liberals support the one China fiction (Clinton certainly does), while most conservatives follow the Helm position that Taiwan should be free from Commie control and we should say bluntly that we support a free Taiwan. So what is the focus of the story? Not "Taiwan makes bold bid for freedom." But "Taiwan's President can't resist a good spark, but Asia is no place for nationalist pyromania." Now, is that a statement of fact or an editorial opinion? The article is about 1/4 news and 3/4 opinion, and the opinion is firmly in the Clinton camp, that Lee shouldn't be rocking the boat. (Never mind that if the Minutemen hadn't rocked the boat we would still be part of England.) Onward. Next story: "Love at first wonk." About Clinton and Barak. Who's quoted in the first paragraph of the story? James Carville. Surely a nice objective, neutral figure. And of course there is a contrary view from the other side, right? Uh, wrong. Clinton is quoted, Albright is quoted, Presidential aides are quoted. Nary a word is heard from the conservative side of the issue. The A-word (remember appeasement?) isn't mentioned. Nice balanced story. Not. Passing over sports, which I hope are still mostly nonpolitical, we come to a story on Television. The headline: "The vast Whiteland." subtitle: "Do not adjust your set. It's the big four networks' fall schedule that needs its color contrast fixed." Well, now, that's an opinion if I ever heard one. The story is about what they call "the most Caucasian fall lineup in years." Is the story balanced and factual, simply stating the nature of the controversy and letting the viewer decide whether a few more white and a few fewer black actors on TV is good, bad, or a non-event? Nope. Not on your tintype. The article assumes that this is a bad thing, and goes on to excoriate the network executives, at one point even claiming they "essentially imply [that white viewers] are retrograde racists." Spokespersons for the NAACP and National Council of La Raza are quoted; where is the spokesman for white organizations? That would be balanced, but that isn't Time's way. It is, or course, a basically liberal position even to count, let alone care about, the race of people in a profession. So there are more black players in the NBA and more white actors on TV. So what? I don't demand that the NBA be required to hire more white players, and I don't demand that the networks be required to hire more black actors. Time clearly takes a blatently liberal approach to this story. I could go on, but why? All one has to do is look at the magazine to prove my point. In all the articles I looked at, numerous liberal spokespersons are quoted, but not a single conservative spokesman. That's balance? Point made. In spades.