Republicans Applauding Executions

Forum Index » Political Discussion
[Post New]09/14/2011 14:54
Anonymous
Aimee4 wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Aimee4 wrote:The right feels attacked on all of its beliefs. One of those beliefs is being for capital punishment for crimes that are heinous. So they are celebrating that a belief, a right, is being upheld. I know this sounds strange, but you have to understand the mindset. The right feels like their set of beliefs is constantly under attack.


Why on Earth do you think we don't understand this? Self-pitying feelings of victimization among the more reactionary members of the majority group are pretty much one of the defining characteristics of right-wing movements. Look at the Serbs during the Balkan wars: it wasn't enough that they were engaged in various genocidal purges, they were weeping about how they were misunderstood the whole time.

And the idea that the right-wing is under assault by the "liberal media" is one of the goofiest and least supported ideas in the last 50 years. There is no "liberal media". There's a pro-corporate media on the one hand, and a hyper-partisan right-wing media on the other. I think your issue is that sadly you make the category error of assuming if it's not the latter, it must be "liberal." Hell, there's exactly one channel that wing-nuts point to as being "liberal": MSNBC. And the jewel in that crown is a two-term ex-GOP congressman from Florida.


Then if there is no liberal media bias, why did Fox News cover the Edwards affair months before any other mainstream media outlet?

I certainly do not think Fox News is fair or balanced. I have no idea why anyone listens to anything Glenn Beck says. That said, to claim most other outlets are not left leaning is a joke.


I wouldn't bother. You're not going to convince anyone--"the liberal media is a myth" is the new talking point, and deviations from the narrative simply get no traction. We are all simply supposed to believe that despite the fact that journalists' political views skew well left of the general public, it has no impact on the slant of their coverage or on what they choose to cover.
[Post New]09/14/2011 14:58
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Aimee4 wrote:
Then if there is no liberal media bias, why did Fox News cover the Edwards affair months before any other mainstream media outlet?

I certainly do not think Fox News is fair or balanced. I have no idea why anyone listens to anything Glenn Beck says. That said, to claim most other outlets are not left leaning is a joke.


The source of the Edwards rumors was the National Enquirer. The article was very thinly sourced and there was another man claiming to be the father of the child. The question is not why other news outlets didn't cover the rumors, but why Fox did. Of course, we know why Fox did. Had the rumors been about a Republican, Fox wouldn't have covered the story. We know the reason for that as well.

The idea that there is a liberal media bias in this country is laughable. The suggestion that such a bias exists shows that you either don't understand the media or you don't understand liberalism. Consider the poster child of liberal media: MSNBC. This "liberal" network provides four uninterrupted hours of television every weekday to a show hosted by a former Republican Congressman who has made multiple recent financial donations to Republican candidates. But, it used to have a former sportscaster and currently has a lesbian on at night. So, it must be liberal.


[Post New]09/14/2011 14:59
Anonymous
jsteele wrote:

Veterans of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s unsuccessful 2010 primary challenge to Perry recalled being stunned at the way attacks bounced off the governor in a strongly conservative state gripped by tea party fever. Multiple former Hutchison advisers recalled asking a focus group about the charge that Perry may have presided over the execution of an innocent man — Cameron Todd Willingham — and got this response from a primary voter: “It takes balls to execute an innocent man.”



Yes, we should absolutely take the account of a Hutchison operative as an accurate representation of the views of Texas voters, Mr. Steele. They are obviously disinterested observers speaking only truth. And finding one person on the other side who says something indefensible is pretty easy to do, and proves nothing.
[Post New]09/14/2011 15:23
Anonymous
Aimee4 wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Aimee4 wrote:The right feels attacked on all of its beliefs. One of those beliefs is being for capital punishment for crimes that are heinous. So they are celebrating that a belief, a right, is being upheld. I know this sounds strange, but you have to understand the mindset. The right feels like their set of beliefs is constantly under attack.


Why on Earth do you think we don't understand this? Self-pitying feelings of victimization among the more reactionary members of the majority group are pretty much one of the defining characteristics of right-wing movements. Look at the Serbs during the Balkan wars: it wasn't enough that they were engaged in various genocidal purges, they were weeping about how they were misunderstood the whole time.

And the idea that the right-wing is under assault by the "liberal media" is one of the goofiest and least supported ideas in the last 50 years. There is no "liberal media". There's a pro-corporate media on the one hand, and a hyper-partisan right-wing media on the other. I think your issue is that sadly you make the category error of assuming if it's not the latter, it must be "liberal." Hell, there's exactly one channel that wing-nuts point to as being "liberal": MSNBC. And the jewel in that crown is a two-term ex-GOP congressman from Florida.


Then if there is no liberal media bias, why did Fox News cover the Edwards affair months before any other mainstream media outlet?


Because real news outlets generally stay away from such tabloid journalism until they can nail down reputable sources. Since Fox is the de facto PR arm of the GOP, they're not generally beholden to such conventions. Now, let's take as an example an actual story: If there is no right-wing media bias, why did every major mainstream media outlet marginalize the protests leading up to the Iraq War, and by way of contrast, give endless breathless attention to Tea Party protests of literally *hundreds* of people?


I certainly do not think Fox News is fair or balanced. I have no idea why anyone listens to anything Glenn Beck says. That said, to claim most other outlets are not left leaning is a joke.


Left-leaning to you. For most right-wingers, everyone to the left of Rick Perry (including George W Bush) is left-leaning. A couple of decades ago, these folks would've been considered completely marginal characters. But they've gained a certain purchase on the minds of a small subset of American society. As they've moved far, far to the right, they assume "the media" will move with them to flatter their prejudices. The corporate/mainstream media fuels this misapprehension by reporting every issue as he-said/she-said--to the point where it no longer informs us, but merely flatters our preconceptions. What was once a matter of the viewer watching, learning, and recalibrating their worldview is now considered an assault on "my views." No one's ever wrong; it's "the media" that's out-of-whack. Anyway, to me, that's the most corrosive legacy of the 60s, the Baby Boom generation, and their general move to the right. They've kept all the narcissism of youth, but lost any of their idealism and empathy. You're left with fiercely know-nothing hippy libertarians.

As far as perception of "bias", to a polar bear, a Chicago winter is "warm". To most rational folks it's pretty damned chilly.

[Post New]09/14/2011 15:29
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Aimee4 wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Aimee4 wrote:The right feels attacked on all of its beliefs. One of those beliefs is being for capital punishment for crimes that are heinous. So they are celebrating that a belief, a right, is being upheld. I know this sounds strange, but you have to understand the mindset. The right feels like their set of beliefs is constantly under attack.


Why on Earth do you think we don't understand this? Self-pitying feelings of victimization among the more reactionary members of the majority group are pretty much one of the defining characteristics of right-wing movements. Look at the Serbs during the Balkan wars: it wasn't enough that they were engaged in various genocidal purges, they were weeping about how they were misunderstood the whole time.

And the idea that the right-wing is under assault by the "liberal media" is one of the goofiest and least supported ideas in the last 50 years. There is no "liberal media". There's a pro-corporate media on the one hand, and a hyper-partisan right-wing media on the other. I think your issue is that sadly you make the category error of assuming if it's not the latter, it must be "liberal." Hell, there's exactly one channel that wing-nuts point to as being "liberal": MSNBC. And the jewel in that crown is a two-term ex-GOP congressman from Florida.


Then if there is no liberal media bias, why did Fox News cover the Edwards affair months before any other mainstream media outlet?

I certainly do not think Fox News is fair or balanced. I have no idea why anyone listens to anything Glenn Beck says. That said, to claim most other outlets are not left leaning is a joke.


I wouldn't bother. You're not going to convince anyone--"the liberal media is a myth" is the new talking point, and deviations from the narrative simply get no traction. We are all simply supposed to believe that despite the fact that journalists' political views skew well left of the general public, it has no impact on the slant of their coverage or on what they choose to cover.


You're a poor deluded fool if you think that the owners of corporate media--and the editors who decide what to cover, and how--don't add a much greater slant to the coverage. It's my observation that generally speaking, journalists--like professors--tend to "skew well left" particularly on their areas of expertise, because they actually know things. And the greater one's expertise, the more likely one is to understand that there are no black-and-white answers.

Conservativism is largely based on ignorance and "gut-feeling". That's why things like "news" and "expertise" tend to have a "liberal bias." And why conservatives are largely absent from academia, where the quality of ones work is paramount, rather than the political correctness of one's opinions, and how nicely they manage to dovetail with the desires of wealthy patrons.
[Post New]09/14/2011 15:33
Anonymous
I was stunned at this week's GOP/Tea Party debate on CNN, when the moderator referred to Perry's remark about Ben Bernanke's "treasonous" actions and it seemed most of the audience broke out in enthusiastic applause.
[Post New]09/14/2011 15:36
Anonymous
jsteele wrote:
Aimee4 wrote:
Then if there is no liberal media bias, why did Fox News cover the Edwards affair months before any other mainstream media outlet?

I certainly do not think Fox News is fair or balanced. I have no idea why anyone listens to anything Glenn Beck says. That said, to claim most other outlets are not left leaning is a joke.


The source of the Edwards rumors was the National Enquirer. The article was very thinly sourced and there was another man claiming to be the father of the child. The question is not why other news outlets didn't cover the rumors, but why Fox did. Of course, we know why Fox did. Had the rumors been about a Republican, Fox wouldn't have covered the story. We know the reason for that as well.

The idea that there is a liberal media bias in this country is laughable. The suggestion that such a bias exists shows that you either don't understand the media or you don't understand liberalism. Consider the poster child of liberal media: MSNBC. This "liberal" network provides four uninterrupted hours of television every weekday to a show hosted by a former Republican Congressman who has made multiple recent financial donations to Republican candidates. But, it used to have a former sportscaster and currently has a lesbian on at night. So, it must be liberal.


Yep. Exceptio probat regulam. MSNBC has pretty much the only liberal voices on broadcast television today. Therefore, they must be liberal.
[Post New]09/14/2011 15:40
Anonymous
Aimee4 wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Aimee4 wrote:The right feels attacked on all of its beliefs. One of those beliefs is being for capital punishment for crimes that are heinous. So they are celebrating that a belief, a right, is being upheld. I know this sounds strange, but you have to understand the mindset. The right feels like their set of beliefs is constantly under attack.


Why on Earth do you think we don't understand this? Self-pitying feelings of victimization among the more reactionary members of the majority group are pretty much one of the defining characteristics of right-wing movements. Look at the Serbs during the Balkan wars: it wasn't enough that they were engaged in various genocidal purges, they were weeping about how they were misunderstood the whole time.

And the idea that the right-wing is under assault by the "liberal media" is one of the goofiest and least supported ideas in the last 50 years. There is no "liberal media". There's a pro-corporate media on the one hand, and a hyper-partisan right-wing media on the other. I think your issue is that sadly you make the category error of assuming if it's not the latter, it must be "liberal." Hell, there's exactly one channel that wing-nuts point to as being "liberal": MSNBC. And the jewel in that crown is a two-term ex-GOP congressman from Florida.


Then if there is no liberal media bias, why did Fox News cover the Edwards affair months before any other mainstream media outlet?

I certainly do not think Fox News is fair or balanced. I have no idea why anyone listens to anything Glenn Beck says. That said, to claim most other outlets are not left leaning is a joke.


The National Enquirer broke the Edwards affair story on Oct 10, 2007.

AP and the major news outlets covered the story and Edwards' public response by Oct 12. Your statement is factually incorrect.
[Post New]09/14/2011 15:46
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Aimee4 wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Aimee4 wrote:The right feels attacked on all of its beliefs. One of those beliefs is being for capital punishment for crimes that are heinous. So they are celebrating that a belief, a right, is being upheld. I know this sounds strange, but you have to understand the mindset. The right feels like their set of beliefs is constantly under attack.


Why on Earth do you think we don't understand this? Self-pitying feelings of victimization among the more reactionary members of the majority group are pretty much one of the defining characteristics of right-wing movements. Look at the Serbs during the Balkan wars: it wasn't enough that they were engaged in various genocidal purges, they were weeping about how they were misunderstood the whole time.

And the idea that the right-wing is under assault by the "liberal media" is one of the goofiest and least supported ideas in the last 50 years. There is no "liberal media". There's a pro-corporate media on the one hand, and a hyper-partisan right-wing media on the other. I think your issue is that sadly you make the category error of assuming if it's not the latter, it must be "liberal." Hell, there's exactly one channel that wing-nuts point to as being "liberal": MSNBC. And the jewel in that crown is a two-term ex-GOP congressman from Florida.


Then if there is no liberal media bias, why did Fox News cover the Edwards affair months before any other mainstream media outlet?

I certainly do not think Fox News is fair or balanced. I have no idea why anyone listens to anything Glenn Beck says. That said, to claim most other outlets are not left leaning is a joke.


The National Enquirer broke the Edwards affair story on Oct 10, 2007.

AP and the major news outlets covered the story and Edwards' public response by Oct 12. Your statement is factually incorrect.


And yet, this will in no way lead to a revision of PP's position. To the modern American "conservative" the point of a "fact" is to lend credence to what is already believed. If they don't serve this purpose, you discard them and find or make up another fact. By the way, this phenomenon neatly explains why right-wingers are not well represented in academia.
[Post New]09/14/2011 15:53
Aimee4
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:The National Enquirer broke the Edwards affair story on Oct 10, 2007.

AP and the major news outlets covered the story and Edwards' public response by Oct 12. Your statement is factually incorrect.


No, its not. National Enquirer reported it in Oct 2007, along with Huffington Post and New York. Edwards denied it. National Enquirer published a follow-up story in December 2007, that included a photograph of a visibly pregnant Hunter. These claims received little attention in the mainstream press. CBS News journalist Bob Schieffer stated "I believe that's a story that we will be avoiding, because it appears to me that there's absolutely nothing to it...This seems to be just sort of a staple of modern campaigns, that you got through at least one love child which turns out not to be a love child. And I think we can all do better than this one."

It wasn't until, yet again, the National Enquirer followed tips and photographed Edwards at Hunter's hotel in July 2008 that mainstream media started looking at it. A few days after National Enquirer broke the story, Fox picked it up. It was over a week before MSNBC did, and 2 weeks before CNN did.

Now, if it was Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, chances are it would have been followed by all outlets fairly quickly. Nothing is better than a family values guy slipping up on family values for news coverage.
[Post New]09/14/2011 15:58
Anonymous
Well, at least now we know what your standard is: unless all media outlets immediately adopt the journalistic standards of the National Enquirer when dealing with left-of-center (and only left-of-center) politicians, they are "liberal" by default.

[Post New]09/14/2011 16:00
Aimee4
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The National Enquirer broke the Edwards affair story on Oct 10, 2007.

AP and the major news outlets covered the story and Edwards' public response by Oct 12. Your statement is factually incorrect.


And yet, this will in no way lead to a revision of PP's position. To the modern American "conservative" the point of a "fact" is to lend credence to what is already believed. If they don't serve this purpose, you discard them and find or make up another fact. By the way, this phenomenon neatly explains why right-wingers are not well represented in academia.


Actually, I am correct. And I'm not a conservative. The behavior of the "liberals" on this thread is EXACTLY the behavior the conservatives complain about (or to use someone else words, "Self-pitying feelings of victimization") . There's been stereotyping of the conservative voter as a small minded redneck that does not believe in "facts" when presented.

I'm a liberal and I'm embarrassed by this type of stereotyping. I did not make up any facts, I've merely presented the republican arguement based on facts. For presenting the republican arguement, you've ASSUMED I am conservative and ASSUMED I don't know the facts. Research them yourselves. You are the one that will not look at facts and instead stick to name calling.
[Post New]09/14/2011 16:01
Anonymous
Now, if it was Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, chances are it would have been followed by all outlets fairly quickly.


More evidence of bias: If Hypothetical A were to happen, you can bet the Liberal Media would do Hypothetical B. Why, it's self-evident! Because they're so darned *liberal*!
[Post New]09/14/2011 16:03
Aimee4
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:Well, at least now we know what your standard is: unless all media outlets immediately adopt the journalistic standards of the National Enquirer when dealing with left-of-center (and only left-of-center) politicians, they are "liberal" by default.



So you tell me... if Rick Perry was photographed by National Enquirer at a hotel in the middle of the night with his one time alleged mistress, would CNN wait over 2 weeks to report it? I don't think so.
[Post New]09/14/2011 16:06
Anonymous
Aimee4 wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The National Enquirer broke the Edwards affair story on Oct 10, 2007.

AP and the major news outlets covered the story and Edwards' public response by Oct 12. Your statement is factually incorrect.


And yet, this will in no way lead to a revision of PP's position. To the modern American "conservative" the point of a "fact" is to lend credence to what is already believed. If they don't serve this purpose, you discard them and find or make up another fact. By the way, this phenomenon neatly explains why right-wingers are not well represented in academia.


Actually, I am correct. And I'm not a conservative. The behavior of the "liberals" on this thread is EXACTLY the behavior the conservatives complain about (or to use someone else words, "Self-pitying feelings of victimization") . There's been stereotyping of the conservative voter as a small minded redneck that does not believe in "facts" when presented.

I'm a liberal and I'm embarrassed by this type of stereotyping. I did not make up any facts, I've merely presented the republican arguement based on facts. For presenting the republican arguement, you've ASSUMED I am conservative and ASSUMED I don't know the facts. Research them yourselves. You are the one that will not look at facts and instead stick to name calling.


Classic concern trollery of the first order.

By the way, I'm no liberal either. I'm as red-meat a conservative as they come. I'd vote for Bachmann in the GOP primary, but I don't like how she's upstaging her husband, rather than being his help-meet. But even I have to admit after reading this thread that there's no evidence whatsoever for the charge of "liberal media". This is an anonymous forum, so I can be frank: There is no liberal media. The mainstream media largely adopts whichever framing that we tell it to. They bend over backwards to publish unsubstantiated hogwash alongside scientific evidence because they're afraid of not telling "our side". We've won. Let's enjoy it.
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: 

Search   Recent Topics   Hottest Topics