I'm saying that the quotes are carefully selected (out of context, I may add) to promote an ideological agenda...that there is some kind of "liberal media conspiracy"....Originally Posted by BradshawsHairdresser
I'm saying that the MRC could serve an actual public service by making media better...but, they don't...they exist simply to demonize media so that people can be suckered into viewing outlets that are more ideologically in line with their beliefs, but no less skewed...
Yes. Unfortunately. It is sad.
Even if Bill Belichick was getting an atomic wedgie, his face would look exactly the same.
The quotes are selected, certainly...But out of context? Far and away, no.
Take, for instance, this quote from Washington Post "Book World" editor Marie Arana in a contribution to the Post's "daily in-house electronic critiques," as quoted by Post media reporter Howard Kurtz on October 3, 2005: "The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions....We're not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats." That's not out of context; that's the honest take of a media "insider" who knows what's going on.
Or this from former New York Times reporter Steve Roberts, on the CNN program Reliable Sources in March 2005: "I worked for the New York Times for 25 years. I could probably count on one hand, in the Washington bureau of the New York Times, people who would describe themselves as people of faith....I think one of the real built-in biases in the media is towards secularism....You want diversity in the newsroom, not because of some quota, but because you have to have diversity to cover the story well and cover all aspects of a society. And you don't have religious people making the decisions about where coverage is focused. And I think that's one of the faults."
Or this from longtime Washington Post political reporter Thomas Edsall in an October 8, 2009 essay for the Columbia Journalism Review: "The mainstream press is liberal....Since the civil rights and women's movements, the culture wars and Watergate, the press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of 'new' or 'creative' class members of the liberal elite — well-educated men and women who tend to favor abortion rights, women's rights, civil rights, and gay rights. In the main, they find such figures as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell beneath contempt....If reporters were the only ones allowed to vote, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins."
According to a 2014 survey of U.S. journalists conducted by the Indiana University School of Journalism, titled "Press Release: Survey finds U.S. journalists less satisfied, have less autonomy," four times as many journalists identify with the Democrat Party than with the Republican Party.
In 2008, Democrat Party candidates and campaign committees got 88 percent of the contributions by network executives, writers and reporters ([url]http://www.xmarks.com/site/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-Democrats-got-88-percent-of-TV-network-employee-campaign-contributions-101668063.html[/url]).
No matter what your leanings are, if you open your eyes it's pretty difficult NOT to see the liberal bias that exists in the media. I don't expect to change your mind, Slapper, because I think you're completely sold out to your political ideology. But hopefully someone who reads this will take the time to check things out.
Why should a business not be able to take action against an employee who has damaged the reputation of the company.
Sponsors have pulled out the players where about to boycott and next would of been the fans. Free speech only means free from the government taking legal action against you, It does not mean you can say whatever you want free of consequence.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks