The "Liberal" Media

There is bias from both sides. Dan Rather, Chris Matthews and Katie Couric, being some examples on the left, Charlie Rose, Gretchen Carlson, and Chris Wallace being more obvious examples on the right. Please note how I didn't include Keith Olbermann on the left and Sean Hannity on the right, as those are opinion columns, or parody skits like the Colbert Report. Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I’m counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will. ABC anchor Peter Jennings on CNN’s Larry King Live, April 10, 2002.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Great analogy. "Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are ‘conservative positions.’... New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column asking, Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?In other words, the columnist is wrestling with the notion that perhaps certain liberals tend to see liberal publications as being "normal reporting," and conservative publications as being conservative positions.This, of course, goes both ways. O'Reilly presents the O'Reilly Factor as being "The No Spin Zone," and FNC in general as being "Fair and Balanced," even though the overwhelming majority of viewpoints are identifiably conservative in nature.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

It depends on the program. I believe that on things like the nightly news of the four major networks, should strive for neutrality. Neutrality in reporting means just presenting the facts without injecting a spin.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I won't argue that point, whatsoever. Or this point. I just think it is in the best interest of all them to take a centrist view, except on opinion columns. But as Oni stated, and I don't disagree, the main focus is that they all are operating a business and the primary goal is to target as wide an audience as possible. The secondary goal, is to indoctrinate.Case in point, FOX does not mind featuring the "Family Guy," a blatantly leftist show (hilarious, nonetheless) because it has fantastic ratings.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Obama's estranged father was raised in a Muslim household, but renounced it early in life and became an atheist. Obama met his own father maybe three times in his entire life! In other words, his dad was a piece of shit because he's was a dead beat.One could make a stronger case about why Obama tends to be afrocentric when his own African father left him high and dry, or why he identifies strongly as being "black" when he was raised only by his white mother and grandmother, whom he uncerimoniously threw under the bus during the last election cycle as being "a typical white person" (whatever that means).There is no Muslim influence. That he bombs soveriegn nations like Pakistan, which the US is not at war with, makes an even stronger case for his disassociation with the Muslim world.Obama is a lot of things that people could legitimately criticize: Leftist, afrocentrist, etc, but Muslim doesn't seem to be one of them.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I use "bombing" colloquially. This was a surgical strike too, but it doesn't make it just.I also find it very ironic that when Bush was in office, damn near all democrats were critical of the war. Now that Obama is in office, there seems to be a strange silence on the issue of him taking up the Bush doctrine. I would really like to know why this is. I don't know why it is difficult for Faith to understand that Obama is not a muslim. He is many things, muslim not being one of them. All I care about is Trinity United is that it is a crazy church, with nut-jobs in it. Post that for Faith. What's more, Obama Sr, after leaving Barack's mother, went on to marry a Jewish woman which even further dispels the notion that he was intolerant Muslim. He was a derelict and abusive father, yes, but not a Muslim.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

No, I don't believe that is official US policy, but it does happen, as demonstrated by the video leak.The point is that the War on Terror is about as effective as the War on Drugs. While you make small gains, the overall prognosis is bleak.But that is an entirely other topic altogether. Historically I was not against the war in Afghanistan, but recently I have been questioning what it has produced and what it is intended to produce. What has been gained from it? If you can't answer that effectively, then you have to question whether it is an enormous waste of time and a waste of lives and a waste of money.At the very least, tell me what the objective is. What is the function of the war(s)? That's what has happened regardless. Iraq and Afghanistan are still, nearly a decade later, too inept to stand under their own recognizance, corruption is rampant, stealing elections, theft of US aid supposed to be going to their infrastructure stolen. And what has it produced? Do we have bin Laden? Is the Taliban going away? Is Al Qaeda going away? No, it's endless. Are our policies creating them faster than we can kill them?One has to question that. There is no solution to Afghanistan that Americans can figure out for Afghani's. We're criticized as being the nosy police of the world. So let the world deal with their affairs, and we will focus on guarding America from foreign incursion.The belief that we're somehow going to kill all the terrorists so that they'll never come back here is a naive fantasy. There is not a specific number of them, as they're being manufactured in madrassas, partly due to their religion, partly due to their customs, partly due to their lack of secular education, partly due to Western policies. The floodgate has been open. We will not live in the same safety we once had. Those days are now over, so we have to focus on better homeland security. It's not widely known, but even Barack corroborated it.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I don't disagree with that fundamentally -- that war is often a necessary human evil, but WWII was a vastly different animal. They were literally dealing with powers who aspired and had the means of global Aren't we going to have to do that regardless? Right, so we might as well save some lives and money while we're at it. I just don't see what it is actually accomplishing aside from satiating the need to retaliate. If a perceivable goal was established, I would have no qualms. If ever there was a justifiable war, it would be this one. I am not contending that. I am just questioning what has been gained by it and what the ultimate goal really is. Thank you for your service and sacrifice, sir.I have been in the military now for nearly ten years myself, so I am certainly not a conscientious objector. I believe in a strong and moral military. I even requested Afghanistan early in my career. I certainly never was opposed to it in the past, and I still may be sent there a year from now providing perimeter security for SEAL Team 3 and 5 during their raids. I will have no moral dilemma in killing someone who poses an imminent threat to my life or others. I am simply looking at it from a utilitarian perspective. Not being taken over in a clear quest for global domination. If that isn't grounds for war, I don't know what is. That is true, we know we are not doing that. The perception that the Afghan's have is that we are. As somebody who values personal freedoms I have a high respect for their rights. They plot for another attack, which they will do regardless. The can of worms has been open and I don't think you can close Pandora's Box once it has been opened, least of all through the threat of violence against people who are so brainwashed they view suicide as a means of offense. I do think that not fighting on two fronts will help, since the US and coalition forces can consolidate all of their resources to one front. I am just skeptical that these terrorists can be stamped out because there is not a specific number. These people are manufactured, and the more their media and religious figures can manipulate the coalition's intent, the more anger will draw the people on the fence in to fight.Long story short, I am not categorically stating that the war in Afghanistan is terrible, but I am stating some genuine concerns that I think need to be addressed without national pride blinding us.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston