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.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6941)	6/4/2000 7:57:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

Whenever the cliche about "the liberal press" comes up in conservative circles, I have to recall with some amusement that in real left circles, it is taken as an absolute article of faith that the mainstream media is totally controlled by big first-world corporate capitalists, and is totally unsympathetic to the left. A natural thing, I suppose: ideologues of any stripe tend to see the world according to their own prejudice, and assume that anyone who doesn't share there views is at best biased, at worst a full-fledged member of The Evil Conspiracy. It almost makes one sympathetic toward the mainstream media. I've been feeling that way about the IMF and the World Bank lately as well, though they've never been among my most admired institutions. I just can't help feeling that anyone who is simultaneously and constantly attacked by extremists on both sides has to be doing something right.

To: Lane3 who wrote (6941)	6/4/2000 9:35:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9127

Karen, just for the record. I never wrote off the whole of mainstream press as a "diatribe". However, I do believe the fascination and belief some have that they have a corner on objectivity, thoughtfulness, and organized logic is humorous. It's also interesting to see you elected to attack Dan Quayle personally without engaging in the point upon which I used his name as an example. I've read Hillary's book "It takes a village" and she makes Dan Quayle look like a deep thinking intellectual. Have you read her book? I've also read "Earth in the Balance" by Al Gore. And extreme positions, filled with rhetoric, and unorganized logic fill up the pages. But I would never call her stupid, or him devoid of a one good point in his entire life for those beliefs. The extreme biased reporting today in the mainstream press toward the left in America, is obvious to anyone willing to look at the issue objectively. That doesn't mean I believe they don't provide thoughtful analysis at times. Or that each and every story is a biased diatribe. Discourse will improve when one-by-one people allow themselves to be tolerant of other views and stop labelling and name calling people they disagree with. Ann Coulter or Pat Buchannen aren't stupid because they disagree with you and Hillary. And Dan Quayle isn't a person without a good point in his entire life. I doubt whether you know him well enough to make such a statement. That's the kind of discourse we've become accustomed to hearing these days. Saying Dan Quayle is a pin-head (or words to that effect) and others are stupid is looked at by some as intellectually clever. To me, it demonstrates a biased non-objective way of thinking. I don't agree with very much Pat Buchannen says, but I would never infer him to be stupid for the positions he takes. The same goes with Anne Coulter and her article. Michael