SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (55471)3/5/2007 5:38:13 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
DAVID BERNSTEIN via Instapundit:
    If private companies had mismanaged outpatient care for 
veterans the way the V.A. system has, there would be
strong calls from all the usual quarters for a government
takeover, and proclamations of how we can't trust "greedy"
for-profit companies to take care of veterans. Funny how
this thought process doesn't seem to work in reverse,
except among "free market ideologues," who have been
criticizing the V.A. for years.
Plus, a look at the claim that people who don't believe in government do a bad job running it, with the unfortunate but not surprising conclusion that people who do believe in government also do a bad job running it . . .

UPDATE: More political contradictions on health care.
qando.net

ANOTHER UPDATE: Ouch.
corner.nationalreview.com

feeds.feedburner.com

volokh.com



To: Sully- who wrote (55471)3/6/2007 12:32:30 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
The "centrists" over at the "View from the Center" had plenty to say about Ann Coulter's most recent flap.

From: Dale Baker
Message 23337730
Message 23337075
Message 23337097
Message 23337118
Message 23337377

From: Iktomi
Message 23336935
Message 23337685
Message 23336998
Message 23337090
Message 23337109
Message 23337124

From: JohnM
Message 23336994

From: Suma
Message 23337516



To: Sully- who wrote (55471)3/7/2007 12:07:10 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 90947
 
Bias by Story Selection

By Brent Bozell III
Townhall.com Columnist
Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Most liberal media outlets can't be bothered to visit, let alone cover, the Conservative Political Action Conference every winter. But this year's event drew a large amount of publicity. CPAC hasn't been this notorious since reporter-fabricator Stephen Glass made up stories of wild sexual antics and drug use at CPAC hotel rooms and bathrooms 10 years ago for The New Republic.

The furor surrounded author and columnist Ann Coulter, who cracked that she would like to comment on John Edwards, but "you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" Coulter's joke was based on ABC's intense blitz recently to press "Grey's Anatomy" star Isaiah Washington into rehab after he used the new F-word at the Golden Globes. The word used to be coarse and insulting, but liberals are now elevating it into a profanity, which is odd, considering they're constantly desensitizing the culture to all the historic profanities.

But the most fascinating thing about this is how effectively it demonstrates how media outlets practice bias by story selection. Some stories are big. Some stories are small. Some stories are not only omitted, but smothered to death with a pillow. It all depends on who suffers.

Clearly, the Coulter joke story had newsworthy elements: the reaction of the Edwards presidential campaign and the negative reaction of organizing conservative bloggers are among them. But other stories that would balance out left and right, or Edwards and Coulter, are not being mentioned by our eternally calculating liberal media elite.

Let's start with Edwards, who hired two foul-mouthed feminist bloggers to attack some 250 million Americans who believe in God and the Bible. The feminists called them "Christofascists" and believers in woman-hating "mythology." How can our "objective" media highlight Ann Coulter and then say nothing about Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan? And how could they ignore Edwards' performance? First, rumors said Edwards fired them; then, he defended them and insisted their more hateful blogs would not appear on his Website; and then, they mysteriously quit on their own, or so we're supposed to believe.

Since then, Edwards has made the rounds of network television, yet ABC's Terry Moran, CBS's Bob Schieffer and NBC's Meredith Vieira completely skipped asking him about this scandal. As far as all these networks were concerned, there was no controversy.

Kudos to Wolf Blitzer on CNN, who was the only "mainstream" media interviewer who seemed to greet Edwards without talcum powder and a pacifier. That's not to say it was a grilling. He merely glanced over the controversy by asking Edwards what these employment choices said about his campaign and what lessons he learned. Edwards repeated his Pablum line that they promised to be good girls for him, but then departed for "personal reasons" because of the aggression of the "far right."

Edwards reacted to Coulter by saying, "I think it is important that we not reward hateful, selfish, childish behavior with attention." But the media would let you believe that Edwards never had "hateful, selfish, childish" people on his communications team that would render his anti-"hate" talk hypocritical.

Second, look at leftist talk-show host Bill Maher.
In the same weekend as CPAC, Maher grew upset on his HBO show that Arianna Huffington was such an enemy of free speech that she eliminated comments on her blog from people who regretted that an Afghan suicide bomber hadn't killed Vice President Cheney. "That's a funny joke," he said. "If this isn't China, shouldn't you be able to say that?" Maher wants to make the world safe for assassinate-our-top-leaders humor.

Maher then dug his ditch deeper. Even liberal Rep. Barney Frank wanted nothing to do with Maher's poison and tried to guide him back across the line of decency, noting that Maher's show selects which speech they're going to allow. Maher continued to defend the kill-Cheney commenters: "But I have no doubt that if Cheney was not in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow." Joe Scarborough joined Frank in trying to get him to denounce kill-Cheney speech, but Maher still wouldn't budge: "I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live."

So why isn't Maher side by side with Coulter -- no, trumping Coulter -- if the big story is outrageous remarks about top politicians? Most media outlets like CNN and The Washington Post poured outrage all over Coulter and didn't mention Maher's foot-in-mouth disease.

By selecting the story the liberals want reported, and ignoring the stories conservatives want reported, it's clear that the media elite aren't in the "news" business. They're in the liberal publicity business.


Lecturer, syndicated columnist, television commentator, debater, marketer, businessman, author, publisher and activist, L. Brent Bozell III, 51, is one of the most outspoken and effective national leaders in the conservative movement today.

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (55471)3/7/2007 3:56:40 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
Amanda Marcotte: Why The Same Rules That Apply To Ann Coulter , Don't Apply To Liberals

John Hawkins
Right Wing News

Boy, did the Edwards campaign miss out when Amanda Marcotte quit in a huff after catching flack for her anti-Christian rants. Here's her defense of the word "f*ggot" being used by her fellow ex-Edwards blogger at Shakespeare's Sister, something I pointed out earlier in the week:

<<< But Shakes’ quote is the best illustration that right-wingers are congenitally unable to consider context under any circumstances:
    Oh, and by the way, my favorite rationale for this 
decision [to study the Bible in public school]?
    “How can students understand Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Last 
Supper’ … if they don’t understand the reference from
which they came?” Johnson said.
    Uh, you know, Mike—I’m not so sure it’s a good idea for 
students to be studying that f*ggot anyway. You have a
thing or two to learn from Alabama, it seems.
That, my friends, is what’s known as sarcasm. What is offensive about a word is the sense in which it’s used.

Actually, I take it all back: Shakes was using the word to highlight how much conservatives hate gay people. Ann Coulter was using the word to highlight how much conservatives hate gay people. I guess there’s no difference in usage at all. >>>


See? Shakespeare's Sister was being sarcastic... er', as if Coulter wasn't? Moreover, Ann Coulter was showing how much, "conservatives hate gay people," by using the word f*ggot, but when Shakespeare's Sister used the same word, also in a sarcastic context, it doesn't show that liberals hate gay people...because she's a liberal.

After reading this post at Pandagon, the Edwards campaign is probably sending William Donahue a thank-you card for sparing them from seeing this sort of stupidity on their blog for the rest of the year.

rightwingnews.com

pandagon.net

rightwingnews.com