I received an astute comment today from Bob Evans:
Liberal Bias, Anyone?
This was a side article on the front page of “The New York Times” editorial page yesterday:
” Percentage of daily newspapers endorsing Obama: 67.8
“Percentage of college newspapers endorsing Obama: 98.4
“Percentage of alternative weekly newspapers endorsing Obama: 100 ”” Do endorsements matter? We’re about to find out-although in a case like this, correlation certainly does not equal causation. Also, pretend for a moment that Obama wins a whopping 60& of the popular[...]Read the rest at the Oppinion blog at The New York Times. ”
The link address is: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, OS, but it was curious that I could’t find my post at the “Times” this morning. I scrolled through every post made in their “Caucus” thread last night before midnight. It seems to have been removed…unless it’s just me searching in the wrong section over there. The post recorded at 10:20 p.m. and I sat and proof-read it for the next minute or so. So, if it’s not still up on the Times message board, it is out there in cyberspace…its probably just me being tech. stupid.
But what do you think of the slanted editorializing?
I’m gonna start keeping a closer eye on that page. I liked the ‘pretend’ sceneario he begins to take us on at the end of the ‘teaser’ blurb.
The Obama campaign is being endorsed by newspapers because he raised more money than John McCain did. Obviously, the newspapers have been bribed with significant amounts of money, and with this bribe money, they’re going to be censoring every comment they possibly can.
Bob Evans tried to make a post there, yet the mods refuse to allow it to stand. Why that is, I can’t imagine. The man has never attacked other readers here, and has been very polite in his demeanor. So, it is highly obvious that his comments have been censored by the liberal media there. They cannot stand to be shown the Truth, as it would then expose them as the liars and non-objectivists they are.
The Old Media routinely censors ideas that run contrary to the establishment. Creation is tossed aside in favor of receiving bribe money from the National Academy of Sciences, in the name of Darwinism. ‘Global’ ‘warming’ allows for the left-wingers to run a scare campaign in the name of economic suppression. Instead of allowing Americans to decide their own fates on where they invest their money, the Media routinely supports socialized medicine, due to the blood money they receive from some Bureaucrat that’s busy trying to control OUR money. Islamofascism is given equal time, while Rush Limbaugh is slandered as a racist for noting racial gaps and the problems with illegal immigrants, as a sexist for noting the devastation women bring to the workforce, and as a homophobe by telling homosexuals that they need to repent in order to save themselves.
Newsbusters routinely points out the Leftist bias in the Old Media, and numerous studies confirm the Leftist leanings of our media, particularly the New York Times, yet the liberals refuse to admit that the media is biased towards them. In a way, you could say that this exposes several liberals as Commies, since you’d have to be REALLY left wing to be more left than the MSM.
The New York Times is run by the same idiots that tried to allow Islamofascists to run rampant on our streets. They conspired with Valerie Plame to weaken our national security. They also exposed President Bush’s wiretapping plan to the public, which weakened our national security and emboldened the terrorists. A rational person would think that, if one does nothing wrong, then they are not a criminal or terrorist, and they have nothing to worry about from Bush’s excellent plan to catch terrorists. Yet, according to the Left, we should immediately destroy all internal intelligence we have so that some masturbating Hippie won’t feel so disturbed.
Bob Evans’ persecution is nothing new. Hopefully, under a Palin Administration, he will be avenged. Under an Obama Administration, he would surely be shot, as an ‘enemy of the state’. Which do you think makes more sense?
It occurred to me in a dream that these guys will require a much closer degree of scrutiny in the days ahead. Maybe I can use this thread to do a kind-of typological analysis of the slanted editorializing that has been done on their pages in the two years leading up to the election.
Stanley Fish is an excellent example of liberal bias at the Times. As a man of letters, he has a flare for appearing to remain above the fray in his articles; at least to the casual observer. Upon closer examination, though, it becomes apparent that his ‘neutrality’ is feigned, particularly when he waxes philosophically on matters pertaining to religion. He has become a guru to the growing legions of liberal elitists being mass produced on our college campasses and by turn, within our culture.
Between March and June of 2007, Fish did a series of articles at his ” Think Again ” blog on the general topic of religion, including a three parter which was specifically on the subject of atheism. In the future, I’ll report back here with an analysis of those articles. For now, I’ll provide a glimpse into Fish’s perspectives on religion on the general question of: ” Is Religion Man-Made?
That is the title of Fish’s June 24, 2007 blog at ” Think Again “. This is the first sentense from that post: ” Sure it is. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens think that this fact about religion is enough to invalidate its claims. ” If that was intended to be interprited as a ‘tongue-in-cheek’ opener, then it was lost on me. You’ll have to go read the article yourself.
Where Fish really leaves his guard down, though, pertainent to the question of his journalistic “neutrality” can be seen in a response he gives to one of his bloggers. The blogger had suggested that the very question being asked undermines the divinity of God. Here’s Fish: ” No, it undermines the divinity of man, which is, after all, the entire point of religion: man is not devine, but mortal (capable of death ), and he is dependent upon a Creator who by definition cannot be contained within human categories of perception and description. ” How unsearchable are his Judgements and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor. ” ( Romans 11: 33-34 )
” It is no wonder, then “, Fish pontificates, ” that the attempts to contain him -in scriptures, in ceremonies, in prayer-are flawed, incomplete and forever inadequate. ” In other words, your vaunted heritage, beliefs and value systems be damned.
This is how Fish concludes the blog post: ” At various points Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens all testify to their admiration for Shakespeare, who, they seem to think, is more godly than God. They would do well to remember one of the bards most famous lines uttered by Hamlet: ” There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ”
Ha-Ha, Mr. Fish. Your a formidible foe but I will be watching you and others at the New York Times. I am happy to expose the roll you play in the disintegration of our once wholesome American culture.
By: Bob Evans-aka Metsguy on November 7, 2008
at 6:14 am
Under the general heading of: ” Media Bias “, It will be important to keep an eye on Chris Matthews as well. This is part of a post titled: ” Chris Matthews leg tingle goes to his head “, by Rick Moran over at the ” American Thinker ” blog. This blog post was written on November 8. The linc is available in the ” Friends of C4C ” menu to the right.
” It is a fine thing indeed when Chris Matthews ( and no doubt his entire, wretchedly biased network ) telegraphs just how he is going to cover the Obama Administration. ”
” Not content to being in the tank for the Democrat the entire campaign, now that Obama is ready to assume the position; spread eagle on the floor, prostrate in worship to the one and whatever he wants to do and where ever he wants to take us. ”
Moran posted the following discourse between Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough. Matthews is making a guest appearance on the ” Morning Joe ” program at MSNBC. The transcript is courtesy of: Mark Finklestein of ” Newsbusters ”
Chris Matthews: ” Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that–”.
Joe Scarborough: ” Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist! ”
Matthews: ” Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country. ”
[ Moran ]: Matthews wasn’t done with his odd new job description…an incredulous Scarborough kept pressing, astonished at such a complete 180 from Matthews repeated insistence during the Bush presidency that he had to hold the government accountable. ”
Scarborough: ” Your job is to make this presidency work? ”
Matthews: ” To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency. ”
[ Moran ]: ” Matthews will hardly be alone in that sentiment. Once Obama assumes office, the ” speaking truth to power ” line we’ve heard so often during the past eight years will be a thing of the past. ”
” Chris Matthews loves Obama so much he wants to be his slave. ”
It’s wonderful that Matthews is interested in helping “…this new presidency work,…” The question is whether he’ll do that as an objective broadcast journalist or as a mouthpiece for the Obama Administration. We’ll be watching and listening.
By: Bob Evans-aka Metsguy on November 9, 2008
at 3:33 pm