How Wide the Divide: Liberal vs. Conservative "News"

[_Droopy]

And way to show you're not giving into simple reductionist thinking, by asserting I'm to be equated with Droopy. I'm sure you meant that as an insult, but I know you don't really believe that. You're still upset that I've managed to do something you haven't; I can allow myself to be persuaded by the evidence, and actually change my mind. I'm still confident this pisses you off.

That's life.

As Graham's megalithic narcissism and his need to point out how overwhelmingly smart he is rises again from the icy, churning depths of his tortured psyche, even E. gets a taste of the Wreck of the Kevin Fitzgraham. Like his soulmate, Lenin, the slightest deviation from his orthodox dogmas, bigoted shibboleths, and emotional commitments to key beliefs brings on a tsunami of invective and feverish, defensive intellectual grandstanding that, once it rolls onshore, uproots everything in its path.

Eventually he'll turn on Bokovoy and other of his fair weather friends as well when he realizes that, beyond a few arcane points of contention between the Church, its defenders, and its liberal, secularist critics, they will not follow him beyond a certain point in the project of criticism, doubt, and calumny against the Church to which they all belong.

[_Droopy]

I also have to say I find it interesting that E is trying to equate Kevin and I as somehow similar. No two minds or temperaments could be farther apart, but this is just yet another indication of E's longstanding difficulties in staying coupled to the external reality in which he is embedded - a difficult encountered by many on the Left, among Mahr libertarians, and anti-Mormon critics alike.

[_EAllusion]

So what if it was a conservative who busted the story? It was also NBC who busted the story on the drones memo. I guess that means NBC can no longer be considered biased or liberal? What exactly is your point, and how does it pertain to the point I was making? There is a huge divide between liberal news outlets, which operate more like fact checkers than anything else, and the Right Wing outlets, which operate as propaganda machines.

You're now being way too forgiving on liberal news outlets. The Huffington Post's Science/Medicine sections border on wall-to-wall pseudoscience. It's more complex than that. As far as my point goes, which I rather explicitly described upthread, I am saying that "conservative media" isn't a monolith. It is not one entity with one set of traits. Rather, it's a collection of subcultures of varying quality when it comes to newsreporting. Libertarian media, which is conservative, is much better than WND. It's no coincidence that every single awful conservative news outlet you mention is specifically associated with the religious right. The thing is they are not the entire right. I'm using the fact that a libertarian journalist broke the story to point out the splintered nature of what it means to be a conservative or liberal. Your target is more narrow than you seem to realize or need for polemical purposes.

[_EAllusion]

I also have to say I find it interesting that E is trying to equate Kevin and I as somehow similar. No two minds or temperaments could be farther apart, but this is just yet another indication of E's longstanding difficulties in staying coupled to the external reality in which he is embedded - a difficult encountered by many on the Left, among Mahr libertarians, and anti-Mormon critics alike.

Bill Maher isn't a libertarian and we share very little agreement politically.

You and Kevin, however, share the same black and white thinking, nasty disposition, tendency to parrot partisan talking points, and inability to follow an argument if it veers off stereotypical tracks.

[_Gadianton]

It is not one entity with one set of traits. Rather, it's a collection of subcultures of

shouldn't this be obvious to people though? How is it possible that the world is divided up into exactly two groups, one that is right on everything and the other wrong on everything, what are the odds such a situation could happen?

[_moksha]

Altering truth to meet their position has been a very effective tool for the Fox Advocacy Group.

[_Kevin Graham]

You're now being way too forgiving on liberal news outlets. The Huffington Post's Science/Medicine sections border on wall-to-wall pseudoscience.

So what? The Huffington post allows a wide variety of bloggers to post there, but I don't see Ariana Huffington becoming dogmatic about any of this stuff. Who gives a rats ass about some blogger's view of alternative medicine? If this is really the best example you have to equate the left and right media schemes, then all I can do at this point is laugh my ass off.

I am saying that "conservative media" isn't a monolith. It is not one entity with one set of traits.

Give me a break. Why don't you go ahead and point to one wing of the conservative media that has a shred of credibility. Just one.

Libertarian media, which is conservative, is much better than WND

Libertarian media... such as? You know I've heard from quite a number of Libertarians lately that it is a sin to equate them with the Right Wing. And here you are saying they're essentially the same. The only Libertarian voice in the media that comes to mind now is Herman Cain. The joke of jokes, who is now a regular at FOX. As far as your beloved CATO goes, it is pretty much beholden to Right Wing strong arm known as the Koch Brothers, for which Weigel is an apologist.

It's no coincidence that every single awful conservative news outlet you mention is specifically associated with the religious right. The thing is they are not the entire right

So name me a Libertarian media outlet that's worth listening to.

I'm using the fact that a libertarian journalist broke the story to point out the splintered nature of what it means to be a conservative or liberal. Your target is more narrow than you seem to realize or need for polemical purposes.

I've tried it both ways. I hear Libertarians shriek at the accusation of being conservative and then there are people like you who disagree. In my view Libertarian is just something an embarrassed Conservative claims to be in order to explain away why he is so different from the rest of the Right Wing. After George Bush's embarrassment of a Republican administration, people have more an incentive to cling to "Libertarian," now more than ever.

Ultimately, you haven't even begun to refute the premise of this thread. The fact is the Right Wing media clings to any rumor, murmur, hiccup or imagined conspiracy that it can in order to fabricate news stories that fit their predetermined narrative. If you can show me any similar examples from MSNBC then please do so. Subgenius tried it, but he had to dig back ten years ago to find a couple of ambiguous examples that ended up not supporting his attempted spin. Whereas we see this kind of crap coming from FOX and Heritage on a weekly, sometimes daily basis. If MSNBC were only interested in competing with FOX by making up crap as they go along, then they would have hired ignorant talk radio gurus instead of knowledgeable people with advanced degrees. There is a difference in the way they discuss the issues on their shows, and the way those same issues are addressed on FOX. If you can't admit that, then shame on you.

[_EAllusion]

So what? The Huffington post allows a wide variety of bloggers to post there, but I don't see Ariana Huffington becoming dogmatic about any of this stuff. Who gives a rats ass about some blogger's view of alternative medicine? If this is really the best example you have to equate the left and right media schemes, then all I can do at this point is laugh my ass off.

The Huffington Post is the single biggest liberal newsource online. It's the equivalent of several sources you name, like WND, only bigger. The Huffington Post is completely infatuated with new age woo because of Ariana Huffington, not in spite of her. It is simply a pervasive aspect of that newssource. Pointing out that it's a major source of pseudoscience contradicts your assertion that the explicitly liberal media acts primarily as fact checkers.

Libertarian media... such as?

David Weigel is a contributing editor to Reason, so how about that?

You know I've heard from quite a number of Libertarians lately that it is a sin to equate them with the Right Wing. And here you are saying they're essentially the same. The only Libertarian voice in the media that comes to mind now is Herman Cain.

Herman Cain isn't libertarian.

The joke of jokes, who is now a regular at FOX. As far as your beloved CATO goes, it is pretty much beholden to Right Wing strong arm known as the Koch Brothers, for which Weigel is an apologist.

Is this an argument? All I see is the exact liberal equivalent of a Droopy type screeching "Soros!" and thinking they've made a point. One of the two Koch brothers is more libertarian, and they've heavily funded a variety of both more traditionally conservative and libertarian sources. What's your point? CATO isn't libertarian because it was until recently strongly associated with a Koch brother? Is that what you are trying to say?

my view Libertarian is just something an embarrassed Conservative claims to be in order to explain away why he is so different from the rest of the Right Wing. After George Bush's embarrassment of a Republican administration, people have more an incentive to cling to "Libertarian," now more than ever.

Are you asserting here that libertarians don't really exist? Radley Balko, currently of the Huffington Post, is just pretending to hold the views he does because he's embarrassed of his real, diametrically opposed views? I am not as socially liberal as I say I am because I'm ashamed of my George Bush-like views? You've entered severe tin-foil hat territory. I think it reaffirms my assertion that you suffering from black and white thinking. The idea that political outlook that describes millions of people is a complete mirage to you because you have a hard time accepting that people don't fit into the super-categories of conservative or liberal. One wonders how you deal with all the other subtypes of conservatives, as they aren't always in agreement. Is it that you are incapable of reasoning with anything other that crude stereotypes?

[_Kevin Graham]

The Huffington Post is the single biggest liberal newsource online. It's the equivalent of several sources you name, like WND, only bigger. The Huffington Post is completely infatuated with new age woo because of Ariana Huffington, not in spite of her. It is simply a pervasive aspect of that newssource. Pointing out that it's a major source of pseudoscience contradicts your assertion that the explicitly liberal media acts primarily as fact checkers.

I never really considered the Huffngton Post to be a media outlet. It seems to be nothing more than a glorified blog, very much like Drudge. When I think of media outelts, I'm referring specifically to those that broadcast over the airwaves. Any moron can operate a blog and call his posts "news" reporting. I've seen a couple of references to alternative medicine that has you in fits, but it is hardly a dominant aspect of HP. I mean you'd really have to go digging for that stuff if you want to find it. They rarely appear on the front page along with the other three dozen stories. I would know, as I check the HP every day. But in any event, this is hardly an impressive sample of Liberal media showing contempt for legitimate journalism, which was my point about Right Wing media in general.

David Weigel is a contributing editor to Reason, so how about that?

Never heard of it until now. But one click took me to the front page where some idiot named Ron Bailey is acting as an apologist for corporate monsters in the GMO business. Googling his name I discover he is also critical of claims that human behavior contributed to global warming. What were you saying again?

Herman Cain isn't libertarian.

Oh but of course he isn't. I mean that would prove detrimental to your entire argument now wouldn't it? Nevermind the fact that he blathers this "I'm a Libertarian" nonsense relentlessly day in and day out on both the radio and television. A few weeks ago I got into an argument with a Libertarian who claimed Herman Cain wasn't really a Republican when I used him to prove there was little difference between the two parties! And here you are trying to argue differences by claiming Cain is not really a Libertarian! You Libertarian folks are a trip.

Is this an argument? All I see is the exact liberal equivalent of a Droopy type screeching "Soros!" and thinking they've made a point.

Please show me how Soros has invested so much money in Liberal think tanks, and funded so many Liberal causes in the guise of "grass roots," that he used that influence to oust people who didn't toe the party line (As Koch did with CATO).

One of the two Koch brothers is more libertarian, and they've heavily funded a variety of both more traditionally conservative and libertarian sources. What's your point? CATO isn't libertarian because it was until recently strongly associated with a Koch brother? Is that what you are trying to say?

No, I'm saying you're attempt to distinguish one from the other is useless. You can only do so on superficial grounds. As it is, we see self proclaimed, dogmatic Libertarians, run for office as Republicans. You never see a Libertarian run as a Liberal. Gee, wonder why that is? In my experience with you folks, the best I can tell is that a Libertarian is essentially a less religious Republican who believes pot should be legalized. But that's beside the point really.

Are you asserting here that libertarians don't really exist?

Sure they do, but for the purposes of this discussion, your attempt to use the supposed integrity and virtues of "Libertarian" media, to prove one cannot generalize about Right Wing media, is pretty funny.

I think it reaffirms my assertion that you suffering from black and white thinking. The idea that political outlook that describes millions of people is a complete mirage to you because you have a hard time accepting that people don't fit into the super-categories of conservative or liberal.

LOL! You're the one who insisted "Libertarian media" be included in the RIght Wing media I was alluding to.

[_EAllusion]

r

. Any moron can operate a blog and call his posts "news" reporting. I've seen a couple of references to alternative medicine that has you in fits, but it is hardly a dominant aspect of HP. I mean you'd really have to go digging for that stuff if you want to find it. They rarely appear on the front page along with the other three dozen stories.

You listed news sources as examples of the right-wing media's failure that are similar in structure and style to the HuffPo. Heck, Brietbart helped set up the HuffPo before replicating aspects of it in his own news aggregation site.

If you contradict yourself and now only count broadcast media, AirAmerica, which is just as much leftwing media as conservative radio personalities are rightwing media, is far from being mere fact-checking journalism. Progressive radio's worst, Randi Rhodes for instance, are pretty close to the Rush Limbaughs of the world.

Never heard of it until now. But one click took me to the front page where some idiot named Ron Bailey is acting as an apologist for corporate monsters in the GMO business.

Reason is the libertarian equivalent of the New Republic or The Nation. You basically are saying you simply aren't familiar with libertarians.

GMO's is an area where stereotypically liberal sources often get it wrong and tend to egregiously mislead on the science. The Huffington Post is an example of a source notorious for that. So case in point. I read the Bailey article and it's pretty much right, so I'm not sure what you are complaining about.

Googling his name I discover he is also critical of claims that human behavior contributed to global warming. What were you saying again?

Google better. Bailey used to be a global warming skeptic. That was embarrassing, though it no longer is the case. I don't know why you think you can refute the sum total of millions of words of commentary because one person associated with Reason once held a wrong view, but apparently that's all you need. Meanwhile, the approximate left-wing equivalent of global warming denalism actually is anti-GMO hysteria, which in addition to showing up on some popular liberal haunts, appears to be something you're into yourself. In summary, awesome.

Nevermind the fact that he blathers this "I'm a Libertarian" nonsense relentlessly day in and day out on both the radio and television.

He doesn't hold the socially liberal views that define libertarianism. He is an example of a more traditional conservative attempting to trade on the libertarian label to seem more hip.

Please show me how Soros has invested so much money in Liberal think tanks, and funded so many Liberal causes in the guise of "grass roots," that he used that influence to oust people who didn't toe the party line (As Koch did with CATO).

Koch was ousted from CATO.

Soros is a major donor to liberal causes, which inevitably wields influence. He was a major contributor to the Center for American Progress. ThinkProgress, which you often cite, derives from that. But that misses the point, as this isn't rising to a level beyond ad hominem or genetic fallacy.

You never see a Libertarian run as a Liberal. Gee, wonder why that is?

They're not liberal? Some liberals are more libertarian than others. Obama initially ran as fairly libertarian friendly until he 180'ed on almost all of that. Libertarians are a type of conservative and have more sway in conservative circles. Consequently, they are more associated with mainstream Republican tickets than Democrats.

Sure they do, but for the purposes of this discussion, your attempt to use the supposed integrity and virtues of "Libertarian" media, to prove one cannot generalize about Right Wing media, is pretty funny.

I gave a single example. I think right-wing media is quite diverse. Commentary and WND are quite different things. Aldaily and Brietbart are both conservative news aggregators, but they're incredibly different in tone and reliability. I am arguing that your categories are too simplistic. I started out by pointing out that the journalist at Slate named for calling out the conservative media is part of the conservative media, just a different sector.