JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/11/but-but-evil-kkkorporate-media-is-right.html (12 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1225572114-598573  Britt at Sat, 01 Nov 2008 20:41:54 +0000

Yeah, I can always tell when someone is beyond saving when they think the media has a right wing bias.

jsid-1225575477-598576  Markadelphia at Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:37:57 +0000

A special dedication, then, just for you Britt.

From thebestpageintheuniverse.net

Whiny, bitching, cry-baby conservatives love to prattle on and on about the "liberal media." To be fair, except for FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, they're right.

I would also add in Karl Rove at Newsweek, Bill Kristol at the New York Times, Amy Holmes at CNN...should I go on?

We've been discussing the Malone thing on my blog


jsid-1225578514-598580  Linoge at Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:28:34 +0000

Bah. Beat you (but not Phelps) to it ;).

jsid-1225580563-598585  DirtCrashr at Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:02:43 +0000

You forgot KSFO in your comedy sketch - Low hanging fruit - maybe it's a San Francisco thing...

jsid-1225582131-598588  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:28:51 +0000

Apparently 2004 was a practice-run for 2008.


It didn't work in 2004 because they didn't try HARD ENOUGH!

jsid-1225583228-598589  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:47:08 +0000

To be fair, except for

TO BE FAIR (and honest), you'd then list the other side.

Funny you can enumerate all the supposed "right wing" press/pundits. But you can't and won't enumerate the "left wing".

To be fair, you'd do that. Then to be completely fair and honest, you'd list the current circulation numbers and viewers of both.
But you're not trying to be fair, or even honest. It's another one of your misdirections to try and sidetrack us, one that you'll run away from once your lies are exposed.
So your supposed "to be fair" is actually yet another lie, in all fairness. I'll try and contain my shock and awe.

jsid-1225588111-598593  Terry at Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:08:31 +0000

Thank God I don't have a television. Gave up the local newspaper years ago too. Look what damage the "major media" has caused to the minds of liberals and others who cannot weigh evidence.

jsid-1225588778-598591  Mastiff at Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:19:38 +0000


There are approximately 10,000 commercial stations, and 2,500 non-commerical stations, in the United States.

That you can actually fit the list of conservative stations in three lines of text is a strong counter to your thesis.

jsid-1225610813-598606  Britt at Sun, 02 Nov 2008 07:26:53 +0000

I used to read Maddox, a few years back during middle school. I read that piece when he posted it, and I knew he was full of it then. As Mastiff said, a paragraph against thousands is not evenly balanced.

By the way, I'm not calling for an equal number of Republicans and Democrats in the news. I'm calling for reporters and more importantly editors who are willing to report any story, no matter how much damage it does to (this year) Barack Obama. They have not done that, and that is why old media is dyng. I don't care if they roll their eyes while they report about Wright, Ayers, and Rezko. I don't care if they show the Khalidi tape prefaced with the Democratic party talking points, as long as they show it. The American people, once presented with the video, will make up their own minds.

The issue is that the incentive for most in journalism is "changing the world". That's why my mother (she cut her teeth on the McGovern campaign) went into the business: to use the power of the media to change things. The problem is that those who wish to use their position to change things are by definition not approaching things in an objective manner. I've often half-jokingly suggested that the sports journalists shut be put on the politics beat. They certainly couldn't be any more inane then the blowdried morons that pass for journalists these days.

Of course, that's better when there were intelligent and dedicated communist reporters covering up Stalin's crimes.

The point is Mark, that the charge of "corporate media" is quite silly. It rests on the assumption that corporations are right wing. Even if you never heard of George Soros or Warren Buffet, you could look at donation records and find that many large corporations donate to the Democratic Party. The reason for this is as corporations get larger, the executives realize they have more to lose, and so they lose that hard edged capitalist risk taking spirit. They become much more like a bureaucracy then a small business. Also, donations to the Dems get them on the list of "companies which are too big to fail" for the next bailout.

Another bit, just to head off the usual scoffing at right wing conspiracy theories. We don't think there is some vast media conspiracy. It's just that when your business is built on the mythos of muckrakers and Woodward and Bernstein, and you recruit from Northeastern Ivy League schools, then you are going to attract not just left wingers, but people who are out of touch to an alarming degree with mainstream America. My mother worked as the editor of the Richmond office of the Virginian Pilot for quite some time as an editor. It was February, and the General Assembly (oldest in the country!) was meeting. As I was sitting in her office, one of her reporters came in and said something along the lines of "Get this, the crazy gun nuts are out in front of the Capitol protesting the new gun control law. Why they let those rednecks in there is beyond me." Sure enough, you could look across the way and see citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights in support of their 2nd Amendment rights. The reporter then went to write his story. Now, the thing is that this remark rather carried, and provoked a discussion amongst the newsroom. And by discussion I mean about a third of the room was in favor of total disarmament and two thirds was ok with "letting hunters keep their guns with strict regulations". This, by the way, is considered a conservative newspaper. I can only imagine what the NYT is like. Obviously I knew for sure the editor wasn't keeping them in check. So where is the balance?

The answer is that there is none. The media is used to living in a little cocoon with no rays of light shining in. It's warm and dark and safe in there. The issue is the blogs have been ripping little pieces off, and the response of the old media is to shut their eyes and pretend nothing is happening.

jsid-1225632678-598608  Oldsmoblogger at Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:31:18 +0000

"I've often half-jokingly suggested that the sports journalists shut be put on the politics beat. They certainly couldn't be any more inane then the blowdried morons that pass for journalists these days."

Uh, yes they can...*cough*Olbermann*cough.

Sorry, Britt, couldn't resist. ;-)

jsid-1225638738-598616  Russell at Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:12:18 +0000

Marky used Maddox as a source!?

Holy crow, that's like using Yakov Smirnoff as a serious source for a discussion about the failings of Soviet Russia.

jsid-1225640050-598618  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:34:10 +0000



 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>