Yesterday, I was putting a link on a post — I think it was this one — and I ran across a comment that made me think, "Whatever happened to weldon VII?"
Not that there’s any connection, but he seems to have disappeared shortly before the appearance of penultimo macfarland. And both of them have a penchant for alleging — despite all the evidence to the contrary — that I only criticize Republicans.
Must be a coincidence…
OK, I think this is fixed now. Sorry about the trouble. I thought I had successfully saved it before I lost my Web connection at the coffee shop at the beach — lost it for about the fifth time that session, that is — but apparently had not.
See if you can leave a comment now…
No, Mr. Warthen, neither Cousin Weldon nor I thinks you “only criticize Republicans.”
But we are quite sure that you, like most TV journalists these days, didn’t put the “only” where it would have meant what you intended.
I mean, if you “only criticize Republicans,” you’ll die of thirst or starve to death eventually.
If you criticize only Republicans, however, you’ll fall right into line with the rest of the mainstream media.
Yes, Mr. Warthen, this post works just dandy now.
Cousin Weldon thanks you for noticing his absence, but tells me that he said goodbye when he left, so you should have known what happened to him.
He got mad about something you did. I remember him using the phrase “communist sympathizer.”
No matter. He won’t be causing you any more trouble. We keep him chained to the bed like that geology professor at USC from your and Cousin Weldon’s time there used to keep his son at home.
Don’t worry, though. We feed him twice a week and talk to him just like he was a normal person.
I find it fasinating after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, fist bumping, Michelle’s comment about respecting America and a host of other trivial, utterly non-issues that the MSM simply salivated over for weeks that folks can still say the MSM has a liberal slant. Seems like McCain is the only one getting a free ride this election year.
Bud, There is no ” slant ” to it. To say they have a slant is to imply that they come down on the right side sometimes. The facts speak for themselves. You will read thousands of pages on the evils of smoking. How many pages have you read on the evils of abortion? How many times has the State wrote positive stories on the second or tenth amendment? How many times do you read stories calling for tax cuts or deporting illegals? I could go on and on and on but I have to leave room on the blog for you or Brad to explain through tortured reasoning why I am wrong. To say that the media isn’t liberal is to say that the earth is flat.
The right has it’s own dedicated TV Network – FOX. They also own Clear Channel which basically serves to broadcast 24/7 all the right-wing talking points, mostly half-truths, distortions and outright lies. Even NBC, CBS and ABC fell in lockstep with the Bush Adminstration in the run-up to the Iraq War debacle. No one dared to mention that there was plenty of evidence to suggest Iraq had no WMD. As for the 10th ammendment, did anyone in the media ever mention that the 10th ammendment should have allow California to permit medicinal marijuana? But the Bush henchmen were allowed to force the people of California to disallow this. And the MSM barely mentioned this.
Liberal media bias. Hah! The media is largely a tool for the neocon agenda. Only little ole Air America and a few internet websites dissent. Even so the democrats should do well in the congressional elections and have a shot at the White House. Liberal bias, what a crock.
This may seem like an oddly pedantic point to seize upon out of all that, but are you sure you’re using the term "neocon" correctly there, bud?
Think for a moment what the term means. I have acknowledged that in some ways, the term describes some of my views (at least, I think I did here once; I just now failed to find the link, though). But those views of my that could accurately be termed "neocon" are most assuredly not shared by most of the MSM…
So perhaps you meant something else there.
Brad, I don’t see you as a neocon. From what I can gather you’re an old fashioned, some what stick-in-the-mud conservative. But at least you can state (usually) cogent reasons why you take a stand on a given position (as opposed to some out there. I suspect that you and Herb probably agree with each other more than disagree. And Bud, surely Fake/Fixed/False News is, shall we say, some kind of ‘conservative’ (if you call Bush and his crew conservative, and I don’t) but many of the news services are not quite so Bush kissers as all that. Of course, there’s no one to speak of doing hard reporting anymore (with the exception of Christine Amanpour)so they don’t really know what’s going on, and therefore have to trust what the government says. Ouch! That sounds deadly dangerous!
Let’s see: All the network anchors accompanied Obama across the ocean, but none of them went with McCain. I’d call that a liberal slant.
In fact, so many columnists amongst the MSM have gushed so much about Obama they should be considered campaign workers.
Obama’s picture has appeared in the Washington Post 12 times for every seven times McCain’s picture has during the campaign, and even the Post’s publisher has called that excessive.
John Edwards’ love child has yet to grace the pages of the New York Times, but when two unnamed sources said McCain might have had an affair with a lobbyist, that made the Times’ front page.
In fact, the MSM is so much in bed with the Democrats, so much in love with Obama, stuck on him as much as The State is hooked on Spurrier and his band of Plundering Pullets, so juch so that they’ve become literally corrupt, ignoring the facts to further their preconceived notions of what they hope Obama is.
Meanwhile, the liberals here are so obsessed with labels they’re arguing who’s a neocon and who isn’t, that old McCarthy sin, only communists were his target.
Nevertheless, there’s the admission that “there’s no one to speak of doing hard reporting anymore … so they don’t really know what’s going on …”
Why no hard reporting? Because anything past a cursory examination of Pelosi, Reid and the MSM’s cultural heroes shows the cupboard absolutely bare, and they couldn’t stand that.
The fact that the news anchors didn’t go with McCain on his numerous trips to the colony of Iraq is hardly a big deal. He’s spent so much time there it doesn’t qualify as big news. But McCain has certainly been covered and in glowing terms at that. His claim as an independent maverick continues to go unchallenged by the media even though his credentials as a far right wing hack are indisputable.
I would just like to see one story, just one describing McCain’s Keating 5 days. Given his recent association with Phil Gramm that’s really big news and something the press routinely ignores. The voters need to hear the truth, but the conservative MSM is unlikely to go there. Now that would be some good hard-reporting.
I’d like to see exhaustive coverage on both candidates and everyone touching both campaigns.
But that won’t happen. The cell phone-computer has killed what journalism the failure of our public school system left gasping for breath.
From what I understand, the people who read newspapers are actually considered senile relics by those too young to remember the days when the truth moved fast and almost free.