FYI On Liberal Bi

Even when you think you can't be amazed anymore by examples of liberal bias, along comes something like this… And yet it breaks down exactly as you would expect.


Read and post comments | Send to a friend


About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to FYI On Liberal Bi

  1. Waterbaby says:

    Further breakdown (possibly you already saw):1. Brown’s address was cut short on CNN after
    just seven minutes. 2. On MSNBC, Olbermann cut Brown’s mic and attacked him, talked about “teabaggers"
    and ran commercials. 3. CNN only ran 26% of Brown’s speech.4. MSNBC
    aired 37%. 5. Fox News Channel carried 100% of both speeches.Despicable, all of them except Fox. As a journalism graduate, way way back when journalism still had ethics and objectivity and none of this political agenda crap, I can say my skin crawls every time I hear or read some Voxer cite MSNBC, CNN and other state-run media as if they have credibility! Disgusting.

  2. TedWest says:

    My feelings are similar to yours but a little stronger in that I'd like to physically assault anyone who cites any liberal media.
    What's most striking about this example though is that from a liberal perspective, they would have to be absolutely blind not to recognize the problem here, even if Fox was excluded entirely.

  3. Waterbaby says:

    Be assured, I'm not without those physical urges like pounding their heads against the sidewalk until the objective and intelligent thought gets in. Alas, an exercise in futility. To your last comment, I agree. But remember, state-run media are NOT interested in such glaringly obvious "journalistic" shortcomings, the quality of reporting or anything even remotely resembling a standard. So you could post this graph as a billboard in their conference rooms and they'd turn and go right back to checking their schedules for Obama's next teleprompter speech.

  4. TedWest says:

    Actually, I was referring to the Snowys of this world, not the media itself. The common liberal would have to be criminally insane (as opposed to their usual level of insanity) not to recognize the point of that graph. And then if he does get the problem. then he's obligated to start questioning his other beliefs and assumptions.
    As I was writing this, my wife mentioned Sarah Palin as another example – one can take issue with her political positions, but anyone who doesn't think she's a fine and decent person, well, he just isn't one himself.

  5. Waterbaby says:

    Ah, well, the media (with rare exception like Fox) are no more objective, reasonable and rational and without agenda than the libs. Every day I thank god that Fox exists. As for: "And then if he does get the problem. then he's obligated to start questioning his other beliefs and assumptions." Rare that a lib has that capability. It does occur, I hear them on Rush time to time, but blindness is inherent in the liberals' thought process; just the way it is …….

  6. Oh, I thought this was about Chris Matthews being bi as in "bisexual". LOL

  7. Darcy says:

    In this particular case, unless you are registered to vote in Massachusetts, it doesn't matter who you are cheering for.

  8. TedWest says:

    I can't say I'm a big Fox fan because they are only what every news network should be. I'd like a true conservative network, but then there's the concern that they'd become a right-wing MSNBC. My main concern with Fox is that I don't want "fair and balanced" I want "fair and accurate." Under that doctrine, all the liberals on Fox would be gone.
    As for those rare liberals, you probably haven't seen my quest for a rational liberal. I've been looking for a decade, and I've given up.

  9. TedWest says:

    Do you remember back in the early days of the Internet when Chris Matthews was the most objective commentator on cable – something America network? It continued to be so during the Clinton impeachment (when I didn't get Fox). Now, I don't know how he can live with himself.

  10. His soul died with Tim Russert.

  11. TedWest says:

    That's a darn good observation. I hadn't considered that Russert was his idol, and now he's got nothin'.

  12. Didn't Matthews say that Saul Alinsky was his hero or mentor?

  13. Waterbaby says:

    You're welcome to prefer "fair and accurate. However, to adhere to fair and balanced *is* a core journalistic ethic and for that Fox must be respected and commended, even if your preference be otherwise. LOL, I hear ya about giving up the search for a rational lib! I live in western Washington state surrounded by libs and Dems. Believe you me, that's one in a number of reasons I'm lookin' for a way out!

  14. TedWest says:

    I'm with you in both principle and spirit with respect to "fair and balanced." My gripe is when Fox permits know falsehoods to be uttered without comment, much less correction.
    The only example I can think of offhand is the "Bush lied" mantra. I made that another of my quests, challenging liberals to prove he lied. I even offered a prize, though I cannot recall what it was now.
    Needless to say, no liberal ever succeeded – because they simply couldn't. I mean, if I couldn't prove he lied (I'm the world's biggest Bush hater), how could one of those miserable fools?
    But Fox allowed those sorts of assertions and it used to make me crazy. I realize that, often, accuracy cannot be known, but to allow known falsehoods and to even fail to demand actual proof, it seems to me, is not acceptable under the banner of "fair and balanced."

  15. Waterbaby says:

    I understand. But that's the difference between *impartial* reporting (letting the libs, for example, present themselves as total liars, basically letting the subjects present themselves as they are and will) and *investigative* reporting, which challenges and digs. Impartial and investigative reporting are altogether different animals and so in the spirit of impartial journalism, I can understand why Fox "stays out of it" – as they should.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s