The New York Times And "Liberal Fairness"
Clay
by David Limbaugh
Friday, July 25, 2008
I don't know which troubles me more: the liberal media's fawning over
Barack Obama or the great number of people who are buying into his
mystique so uncritically. But what bothers me more than either of
these is the arrogance of the liberal press, which sadly is typical of
so many liberals.
The media's deification of Obama is largely responsible for the
perception that Obama is superhuman. Their coverage of his European
tour -- the most breathtakingly presumptuous junket we've witnessed in
American politics in ages -- is but the latest example.
How anyone can fall for the media's Obama rock star charade, given his
repeated demonstrations of unfitness for the presidency, is a subject
better suited for psychoanalysts.
But we can chalk up the media's irrational exuberance to their
eagerness to have someone of like mind -- someone sufficiently
socialistic and appeasement-oriented -- back in the Oval Office. With
their insane aversion for President Bush and their craving for
undefined change, it's hardly surprising they're blind to Obama's
increasingly obvious flaws.
What's more difficult to stomach is their reckless obliviousness to
their own close-mindedness, intolerance, unreasonableness and conceit
-- and their mistaken projection of these attributes onto their
conservative opponents.
Contrary to liberal-spawned conventional wisdom, it is not
conservatives who are selective enemies of free expression, agents of
intolerance or threatened by opposing views, which they are confident
can be slain in the marketplace of ideas. It is not conservatives who
dominate academia or who see it as their mission not just to instruct
in their disciplines but also to engage in worldview indoctrination.
It is not conservatives who, behind the mask of protecting "victims,"
censor political and religious speech on campus and in the public
square.
It is not conservatives who, having lost in the talk radio marketplace
of ideas, are pushing to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine to suppress
political viewpoints they find objectionable. And it is not
conservative newspaper editors who -- masquerading as objective, high-
minded journalists -- exhibit the stunning audacity to refuse
publication of an op-ed by the presidential candidate they oppose,
after having published one from the one they endorse.
This brings me to the major source of my angst: The New York Times'
rejection of Sen. McCain's op-ed in response to the one it published
the previous week by Sen. Obama on his plan for Iraq.
Honestly, when I first heard reports about this, I thought they were
in jest -- lampooning the Times' liberal bias. But I was quite wrong.
David Shipley, the Times' op-ed editor, sent an e-mail to McCain's
staff rejecting the piece and offering suggestions on how to tailor it
for resubmission. "I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as
currently written. … Let me suggest an approach."
Just savor the dripping condescension. But it gets worse. Shipley
said: "The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new
information; … he went into detail about his own plans. It would be
terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator
Obama's piece." It would have to "articulate, in concrete terms, how
Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq … lay out a clear plan for
achieving victory -- with troop levels, timetables and measures for
compelling the Iraqis to cooperate."
In other words, it would have to use liberalspeak and "mirror" the
messiah's. I'm almost speechless.
Liberal commentators, in defending the Times' position, are just as
congenitally incapable of seeing this issue clearly. One such clarity-
challenged defender argued it was reasonable for the Times to demand
that McCain address the issues it raised.
That wholly misses the point. McCain is not a pundit in training
submitting an opinion piece for publication, but the presumptive
Republican presidential nominee presenting his side of the case. Sheer
fairness alone would mandate that the Times run McCain's piece
uncensored, as it did his opponent's.
Those saying the Times has an absolute right to reject McCain's work
embarrass themselves. This is not about the Times' rights, but the
propriety and fairness in their editorial decisions, the mindset
leading them to those decisions and their inability to see their own
mind-numbing bias in the process.
The left supports campaign finance reform, the Fairness Doctrine and
other policies allegedly aimed at ensuring that both sides of the
political argument be aired. But it's a colossal fraud.
The Times' rejection of McCain's piece is a case study in how liberals
apply these principles. They don't believe in both sides presenting
their viewpoints, but in controlling the nature and scope of the
discussion.
Can you imagine what would be in store for political speech in this
country if liberals resumed regulatory control of the airways?
I can and am horrified at the prospect; and you should be, too.
-----------
-C-
zzpat
> by David Limbaugh
> Friday, July 25, 2008
>
> I don't know which troubles me more: the liberal media's fawning over
> Barack Obama or the great number of people who are buying into his
> mystique so uncritically. But what bothers me more than either of
> these is the arrogance of the liberal press, which sadly is typical of
> so many liberals.
>
Translation: Conservative argument-bitch if he doesn't travel to Europe
and the Middle East, bitch if he does travel to Europe and the Middle East.
--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/
Impeach Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, that's understandle, since in 1950s the idiots presupposed
that
internet was thier intelllectual from the maases od opinions.
But, then computer virus and other assorted hacker shennanigans
crumbled their dreams. So the network idiots are now where back
where
they started in 1920, except they got talk radio on the internet
now.
Sal Video
"Clay" <clayo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:b74ac930-f07b-4aad...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Clay
> Clay wrote:
> > by David Limbaugh
> > Friday, July 25, 2008
>
> > I don't know which troubles me more: the liberal media's fawning over
> > Barack Obama or the great number of people who are buying into his
> > mystique so uncritically. But what bothers me more than either of
> > these is the arrogance of the liberal press, which sadly is typical of
> > so many liberals.
>
> Translation: Conservative argument-bitch if he doesn't travel to Europe
> and the Middle East, bitch if he does travel to Europe and the Middle East.
David is bitching... many Conservatives are.
I'm not... no need.
1) With this week, it's now PROOF POSITIVE that MSM is unfair,
unbalanced, biased & corrupt. I've known this for at least two
decades... going back to Grenada in the 80's.
2) When Obama becomes POTUS, he will be my POTUS. This is completely
different than the juvenile leftists who pout and stamp their hooves
if they don't get what they want.
Now... leftists will know and understand what it feels like to have
all three chambers... and still cannot get anything done.
It's gonna be a blast.
-C-
Clay
On Jul 25, 2:13 pm, "MikeC" was almost right... hell, he's a brain-
dead liberal <LOL>:
...
> "Clay" <clays0nl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c5c1b5e9-1ac1-415a...@1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> 1) With this week, it's now PROOF POSITIVE that MSM is unfair,
> unbalanced, biased & corrupt. I've known this for at least two
> decades... going back to Grenada in the 80's.
>
> ==============================================
> You're absolutely right. What CBS did to cover for McCain's mistake in that
> interview was galling.
Right network.
Wrong story.
You're a little slow on the uptake, aincha?
Too fucking funny.
-C-
Clay
it <LOL>:
...
> Second string Limbaugh. How much lower does it get?
His "second string" makes you look like a navel on an earthworm.
Too fucking funny.
-C-