Oh my, Natalie…. were you alive and well during the Reagan years? I won’t even go there right now…but I strongly suggest that a good American history book with words such as ‘invasions,’ ‘air traffic controllers,’ ‘Iran- Contra.’ ‘death squads,’ and “reaganomics,’ should do for starters. Read and learn.
As to the liberal media (hysterical laughter interrupts) - here’s a good analysis of the media
coverage of the Edwards for Veep revelation:
WHAT IF KERRY HAD CHOSEN JESUS?
An Election Observation by TvNewsLIES.org
It took exactly one day for the media to focus more negative attention on John Edwards than they had
focused on Dick Cheney in 4 years.
* * * * *
After an entire day of relentless attacks on John Kerry’s choice for vice president, I tried to think of a single human being whom our biased media would not slam. Try as I might, I could not imagine a single soul who would have been acceptable to the media, and once again was hit with clear evidence that the media do not want John Kerry win the election. War and terror bring ratings. Bush and Cheney bring war and terror. Do the math.
Imagine for a moment that Jesus Christ actually had been on John Kerry’s short list of potential veeps. Imagine as well that He had been chosen for the job and had accepted the offer to be Kerry’s running mate. How much time would the media need to target Jesus with their venom? Think about what they might say…..
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/what_if_kerry_chose_jesus_.html
Posted by skipper7 on Jul 7, 2004 at 4:49 PM
My history books apparently have references different from yours. Mine talk about how standing up to an illegal strike sent a powerful message to enemies abroad that this wasn’t a president to be messed with.
Mine talk about deregulation and tax cuts that removed a choke hold on the American economy. Mine talk about inflation being reduced from 14% to 4%, about interest rates being reduced from 19% to 8%. Strangely, my books describe Reaganomics not as a bad thing for the poor and minorities, but a good thing. You might recognize yourself in this article:
http://michaelnovak.net/Module/Article/ArticleView.aspx?id=91
My books talk about communist expansionism being turned back around the world with the help of Margaret Thatcher, the Pope, and many brave souls in Europe. It talks about two, actually three landslide elections that made it clear that the majority of Americans understand and reject the idiocy of modern liberalism as embodied by McGovern, Carter, and Mondale.
Of course you always have your scandals, the arms to free fellow Americans, to finance the fight for democracy in Nicaragua, astrology by the first lady. But in another administration there was missile technology to China for campaign contributions, obsessions with pussy in the Whitehouse, travel-gate, file-gate, whitewater-gate, so it all kinda evens out.
It always amuses me how liberals try to deny that the press is in their corner. Of course I’m not talking about the opinion pages or the RNC, but the mainstream broadcast networks, the New York Times and all the other newspapers and news magazines that follow their lead.
In spite of the nation being in an economic disaster and our ability as a nation to prevail over communism in question, the New York Times thought it wise to endorse Jimmy Carter for reelection. What else needs be said?
Well, you could say that some 80 percent of journalists are democrats and vote for democrats. You could say that only 7 percent of journalists describe themselves as conservative, while anywhere from 30-60 percent of the population describe themselves as such.
You could cite how liberal think tanks and organizations are sought out for “mainstream opinions” on the topic of the day with no ideological designations deemed necesary, while occasionally a conservative source is quoted but always with the conservative label attached.
Your ridiculous notion that John Edwards was maligned by a “conservative” media is laughable. The TVnewslies article makes sweeping claims about Edwards getting savaged and Cheney getting a free pass. That may have been the case on talk radio or the RNC website, but the article never mentions any specifics, just leads us to believe that Dan Rather lead his newscast with: “John Edwards: Ambulance chaser or political lightweight with nice hair? You decide.”
Let’s be clear here. When we on the right complain about media bias, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT OPINION MEDIA. We’re talking about the “news”, the programs that don’t identify their agenda, the ones we assume are fair in their coverage.
These supposedly neutral parties have given Edwards red carpet treatment. Even conservative Joe Scarborough on MSNBC was praising Edwards for his positive message and scolded conservatives for trying to say he wasn’t experienced enough to be president, given the relative inexperience of then Governor Bush.
Don’t expect the “unbiased” media to do cover stories on the billions that are wasted settling with bloodsucking trial attorneys who turn around and give it to Democrats, raising the cost of everything we buy and do. But false allegations about Cheney’s supposed unethical connection with Haliburton, who’s expertise and efficiency work to LOWER the cost of producing energy and thereby driving DOWN the cost and raising the standard of living will be common fare.
Don’t expect conservative authors of books to be given full hours on 60 min. Unless of course, they are bashing Bush.
This being said, there has been some progress. The media has been exposed. More and more people are becoming aware of the unfair treatment given to fully half the nation, and there has been some effort at correction. More is needed.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 10, 2004 at 2:26 PM
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Ms. Cox, your shallow analysis on the press and it’s bias ignores the eight years of hateful venom directed at Reagan during his presidency and focuses on his funeral, when a little respect and deference is entirely appropriate. Also the late realization that Reagan was genuinely loved by a majority of their audience would tend to dampen the liberal press’s desire to express their true contempt.
He didn’t do much for democracy? American democracy was just fine. Reagan did more than any one man to help bring it to other parts of the world. What I can’t understand is why people like you on the left are generally so opposed to that.
Oh my, Natalie…. were you alive and well during the Reagan years? I won’t even go there right now…but I strongly suggest that a good American history book with words such as ‘invasions,’ ‘air traffic controllers,’ ‘Iran- Contra.’ ‘death squads,’ and “reaganomics,’ should do for starters. Read and learn.
As to the liberal media (hysterical laughter interrupts) - here’s a good analysis of the media
coverage of the Edwards for Veep revelation:
WHAT IF KERRY HAD CHOSEN JESUS?
An Election Observation by TvNewsLIES.org
It took exactly one day for the media to focus more negative attention on John Edwards than they had
focused on Dick Cheney in 4 years.
* * * * *
After an entire day of relentless attacks on John Kerry’s choice for vice president, I tried to think of a single human being whom our biased media would not slam. Try as I might, I could not imagine a single soul who would have been acceptable to the media, and once again was hit with clear evidence that the media do not want John Kerry win the election. War and terror bring ratings. Bush and Cheney bring war and terror. Do the math.
Imagine for a moment that Jesus Christ actually had been on John Kerry’s short list of potential veeps. Imagine as well that He had been chosen for the job and had accepted the offer to be Kerry’s running mate. How much time would the media need to target Jesus with their venom? Think about what they might say…..
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/what_if_kerry_chose_jesus_.html
My history books apparently have references different from yours. Mine talk about how standing up to an illegal strike sent a powerful message to enemies abroad that this wasn’t a president to be messed with.
Mine talk about deregulation and tax cuts that removed a choke hold on the American economy. Mine talk about inflation being reduced from 14% to 4%, about interest rates being reduced from 19% to 8%. Strangely, my books describe Reaganomics not as a bad thing for the poor and minorities, but a good thing. You might recognize yourself in this article:
http://michaelnovak.net/Module/Article/ArticleView.aspx?id=91
My books talk about communist expansionism being turned back around the world with the help of Margaret Thatcher, the Pope, and many brave souls in Europe. It talks about two, actually three landslide elections that made it clear that the majority of Americans understand and reject the idiocy of modern liberalism as embodied by McGovern, Carter, and Mondale.
Of course you always have your scandals, the arms to free fellow Americans, to finance the fight for democracy in Nicaragua, astrology by the first lady. But in another administration there was missile technology to China for campaign contributions, obsessions with pussy in the Whitehouse, travel-gate, file-gate, whitewater-gate, so it all kinda evens out.
It always amuses me how liberals try to deny that the press is in their corner. Of course I’m not talking about the opinion pages or the RNC, but the mainstream broadcast networks, the New York Times and all the other newspapers and news magazines that follow their lead.
In spite of the nation being in an economic disaster and our ability as a nation to prevail over communism in question, the New York Times thought it wise to endorse Jimmy Carter for reelection. What else needs be said?
Well, you could say that some 80 percent of journalists are democrats and vote for democrats. You could say that only 7 percent of journalists describe themselves as conservative, while anywhere from 30-60 percent of the population describe themselves as such.
You could cite how liberal think tanks and organizations are sought out for “mainstream opinions” on the topic of the day with no ideological designations deemed necesary, while occasionally a conservative source is quoted but always with the conservative label attached.
Your ridiculous notion that John Edwards was maligned by a “conservative” media is laughable. The TVnewslies article makes sweeping claims about Edwards getting savaged and Cheney getting a free pass. That may have been the case on talk radio or the RNC website, but the article never mentions any specifics, just leads us to believe that Dan Rather lead his newscast with: “John Edwards: Ambulance chaser or political lightweight with nice hair? You decide.”
Let’s be clear here. When we on the right complain about media bias, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT OPINION MEDIA. We’re talking about the “news”, the programs that don’t identify their agenda, the ones we assume are fair in their coverage.
These supposedly neutral parties have given Edwards red carpet treatment. Even conservative Joe Scarborough on MSNBC was praising Edwards for his positive message and scolded conservatives for trying to say he wasn’t experienced enough to be president, given the relative inexperience of then Governor Bush.
Don’t expect the “unbiased” media to do cover stories on the billions that are wasted settling with bloodsucking trial attorneys who turn around and give it to Democrats, raising the cost of everything we buy and do. But false allegations about Cheney’s supposed unethical connection with Haliburton, who’s expertise and efficiency work to LOWER the cost of producing energy and thereby driving DOWN the cost and raising the standard of living will be common fare.
Don’t expect conservative authors of books to be given full hours on 60 min. Unless of course, they are bashing Bush.
This being said, there has been some progress. The media has been exposed. More and more people are becoming aware of the unfair treatment given to fully half the nation, and there has been some effort at correction. More is needed.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. Imagine, history books that don’t mention financing death squads in Nicaragua, or the killing of thousands in Panama and Granada. Imagine not a word about Iran Contra and illegal constitutinal breaches. And, puleez, don’t tell me about ending Communism, which was in a free fall all its own. Reagan, may he rest in peace, did almost as little work as Bush, Jr. His vacation stretches rival Dubya’s and his conservative views were so hypocritica (though politicallly clever) coming from a labor leader who was a Democrat in his more lucid years.
register a new account »Posting Security