DeMediacratic Nation
DeMediacratic Nation
Not just another great blog I came across! This blog is documenting the deeping liberal bias in the US. The blogger is also taking time to really promote Project 2,996, which is wonderful. Better yet, he or she is putting money where their mouth is by actually participating this Sept. 11.
Well, another blog to add to my routine!
More later.
Lindsey
~ Oh, and if you'd like to debate whether or not there is a liberal bias in the US media today, bring it on!
posted by russelllindsey @ 12:10:00 PM
3 Comments:
It always seems odd to me: you put a conservative in front tube and make them watch any of the news or any of the talk shows, and they say it has a liberal bias.
You put a liberal in front of the tube and make them watch the exact same news and talk shows, and they say it has a conservative bias.
Most of the time, I just chalk all that up to the 'news-as-entertainment' situation we seem to have. We have a sensational and lazy media who focus more on getting the story out than getting the story correct. These stories are usually fed to them by some leaker or pundit or organization that has a specific agenda, and because the news is more reactive than proactive to such information, their reports take on the bias of the information handed to them.
But maybe even that is too simplistic.
What I think is really going on is that serious conservative/liberal ideolouges have their own 'narrative' as to what is 'really' going on in this country. Once someone on either side buys into a narrative over reality, their mind begins to close and they only listen to their particular side's 'echo box.' What happens with news and media, at that point, is that anything that fits with the viewer's 'narrative' gets glossed over. Anything that refutes the viewer's 'narrative' becomes an outrageous example of bias.
Hey, thanks for visiting and thanks for linking.
I agree with what Patrick has to say on the subject of "bias," I do however, disagree with it all being down to "their own narrative" (oh, that's a surprise!).
When CNN.com has an article about the storm of retribution heaped upon Joe Wilson for daring to "tell it like it is," the msm/CNN will invariably skip over any questionability on the side of Wilson; yet there are/were all sorts of questions and statements that didn't jibe. This is but one, tired, small example, but it happens.
Whatever happened to sharing the facts instead of "telling it like it is," or rather "telling it like they see it."
There is alot more to this subject than either myself or Patrick could cover, at least in a short period of time; which is often the reason for preaching to the choir. I often find that the degree of cynism from the Left for it's own country goes beyond the pale and does not allow for much agreement between the two (thousand? ) sides.
By the way - I've added you to my blogroll as well.
Alot of long comments back and forth...you may find at some point that you would rather spend more time on posts. My guess is you spend more time commenting back than on your posts themselves. Whoa, I'm not saying you shouldn't.....
Thanks for thinking my blog is alright, it's been more difficult lately with the 2,996 tribute coming up - it tends to weigh on my mind, which makes little of what I see going on out there matter at the moment. In that sense I'll be glad when they're finally posted on the 11th.
I have a feeling there will be a wide range of how the 2,996 posts will look/read; hopefully the majority will be able to avoid discussion of the act on 9/11 and that it won't be too nasty. There's always room for idiocy.
I bounced around using the resources suggested at the site - and then took a breath and contacted Jill's family; I don't know that that is the way to go, but it worked out in my instance. I just want to be able to tell more about her than what is on-line right now.
I rushed a letter out to her family, because I figured if I dragged my feet that I would realize I was imposing and would not send anything. I wasn't sure if I really would be imposing or if I just felt that way, so I went for it. That evening I wished that I hadn't sent the letter and felt like quite the heal, but it was too late. Anyway, I received a very nice response back and much more info than I could ever really use.
I'm certainly not a pro at this and my post still has yet to be completed. Bottomline is that I don't want it tooooooo toooo long, otherwise people that didn't know her might not read it, but I do want more about her life in it.
I also set up a separate site for the whole post - one that is going to be just Jill and none of my political BS.
One more thing with regard to "WWWIII" give Norman Podhoretz's essay a look - I split the link up so it would fit. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/
articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14681) It is his belief that we are in the midst of WWIV - I tend to agree. The dictionary definition of war is adhered to too tightly by those that do not want to recognize that we are in one now, but with a slightly, dare I say "nuanced," definition. The people that say cite the fact that we are not rationing gas/fuel and doing all that homefront thing is because, for one thing, we're not there yet (hopefully we won't be).
Post a Comment
<< Home