Michael Ken Nielsen brought the following video to my attention. (Don’t worry, it’s work safe…unless your boss is a Bush supporter, I suppose.)
So is it STILL too early to call it a Vietnam-like quagmire? Especially after McCain asserted that we might well be there for the next hundred years?
ttp://www.youtube.com/v/h5Vf4VbLfv8&hl=en”>
• 
Posted by Scavenger at March 25, 2008 12:14 PM
Pat Nolan speaks from his back side:
and Scavenger speaks from behind his keyboard:
far right, please
So really..where are the lefty talkers that you and your ilk do so go on about?
Can’t speak for all the ilk but even after eliminating some of the more questionable examples of “right wingers” (Chris Matthews??? Not liking Hillary doesn’t make you a right winger, does it?) we have:
Most of the ladies on The View
Jesse Jackson
Everyone at Air America
Arianna Huffington
Almost everyone at the Huffington post
Bill Maher
Katie Couric
Andy Rooney
Bill Moyers
Richard Cohen
Maureen Dowd
Al Hunt
Eric Alterman
Bill Press
Mark Shields
Nina Totenberg
And plenty more.
Of course, one can argue that none of them are liberal, assuming one defines liberal differently. I’ve seen some folks say that only Olberman is liberal and try to justify it by claiming that others fail the test by adhering to some non-liberal viewpoint. (they do not seem to see the irony in then labeling as
‘conservative” anyone who is not equally pure in their ideology but there you are).
I also point out that although I think it’s safe to say that the above people tilt left on most issues that is not meant as a criticism. It just cracks me up when someone with perfectly respectable liberal opinions feels obligated to pretend to be middle of the road, as though one has to be a complete knee jerk ideologue to qualify as a true liberal.
I was going to submit my own list but Bill beat me to it. I would like to add though:
NBC
ABC
CBS
PBS
BBC
CNN
MSNBC
Yes, yes, the entire world is against the poor, poor conservatives. If only they weren’t so picked on and victimized. Perhaps we should put them on the Endangered Species list…
Straw men, sadly, are in no such danger.
I’d challenge a few of your list, Bill, mostly because I think some of them don’t qualify as pundits per se. Jesse Jackson?
I’d also question Katie Couric (although I don’t really watch her enough to have any really clear idea).
A few of your others, while definitely left-leaning, are really print columnists rather than talking heads. I’d be fine with including them on the liberal side, but only if we also add on folks like David Brooks, William Kristol, etc. on the right.
Lastly, I’d also ask how many of them are really active these days. Bill Moyers is more or less retired at this point, for example (a huge pity, IMO) — and while maybe it’s just me, I can’t remember the last time I heard a peep from Bill Press.
TWL
Posted by: Patrick Calloway at March 25, 2008 06:29 PM
Yes, yes, the entire world is against the poor, poor conservatives. If only they weren’t so picked on and victimized. Perhaps we should put them on the Endangered Species list…
WOW! I dont recall claiming victim status. We were talking about Right and Left pundits and debating who has more and who is harder on certain Pres.
Its good to see you use your real name though.
Keep it up, mate 8)
Sorry Pat, I’ll cop to being in a really bad mood when I wrote that, and that whole “Woe is us, the whole evol Mainstream Media is biased against us, even though we’re the real majority of the world (just ask us)” tune that certain conservatives insist on playing in any discussion of this nature is a bit of a red flag for me. The interminably long political season this election year is wearing on me, I admit. I apologize for misinterpreting your post, but that’s how it hit me when I read it.
I disagree with your asessment that most of the major news orginizations of the world have a bias against conservatives, but YMMV (and obviously does… 😉
Sorry Bill, really wasn’t trying to erect any crow terrification devices. I tend to be flammable enough as it is, without adding straw to the mix…
I would like to add though:
Which apparently means to you that anybody but Fox News is a dirty stinking liberal.
And you have the gall to say you’re not claiming to be a victim?
I’ll put things differently: everybody but Fox News is at least sane and has an idea of what news really is, even if they aren’t perfect at giving it.
For all this bûllšhìŧ about the “liberal media”, nobody is giving Obama a free pass over his pastor. Nobody is giving Clinton a free pass over her comments about being in Kosovo.
And nobody gave Clinton a pass in his 8 years in office, contrary to the opinions of those on the right who have their heads stuck in the sand hoping nobody notices how willfully ignorant they are of what goes on around them.
That leaves Eric Alterman — pinko-bedwetter — and Nina Totenberg, who is obviously a lesbian for demonstrating any curiosity over that humorless lying-to-the-FBI feminazi, Anita Hill.
Posted by Patrick Calloway at March 25, 2008 09:37 PM
Sorry Pat, I’ll cop to being in a really bad mood when I wrote that, and that whole “Woe is us, the whole evol Mainstream Media is biased against us, even though we’re the real majority of the world (just ask us)” tune that certain conservatives insist on playing in any discussion of this nature is a bit of a red flag for me. The interminably long political season this election year is wearing on me, I admit. I apologize for misinterpreting your post, but that’s how it hit me when I read it.
Thats cool Patrick, Today was a real kick in the @ss at work and didnt do much for my mood either.
No hard feelings.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at March 25, 2008 10:07 PM
I would like to add though:
Which apparently means to you that anybody but Fox News is a dirty stinking liberal.
Nope, “I would like to add though:” means pretty much “I would like to add though:” It doesnt even rhyme with “dirty stinking liberal” wait if you say it over and over enough it kind of does rhyme.
oops my bad…..
And you have the gall to say you’re not claiming to be a victim?
yes thats me, Always “not the victim”
or
Which apparently means to you that anybody who doesnt denounce Fox news must be a dirty stinking conservative but I wouldnt put words in your mouth.
I’ll put things differently: everybody but Fox News is at least sane and has an idea of what news really is, even if they aren’t perfect at giving it.
How dare you trash my Fox news!!! Whats next? Rush Limbaughs a doo doo head?
But they gave such delicious relief during the Mark Foley page-scandal by labeling him a democrat. How can you not love Fox News?
Posted by: Mike at March 25, 2008 11:30 PM
But they gave such delicious relief during the Mark Foley page-scandal by labeling him a democrat. How can you not love Fox News?
I didnt see that, which is weird, because apparently thats the only news I watch.
Who did the labeling? I have a feeling it was Sean Hannity.
I was wondering when someone was going to bring Ann Coulter up.
I’d challenge a few of your list, Bill, mostly because I think some of them don’t qualify as pundits per se. Jesse Jackson?
I expected that. Like I said, it depends on one’s definition of liberal or even left.
My own perception is that too many liberals, in an attempt to make their plight seem more lonely than it is, sometimes go to extremes to disqualify people who are obviously and sometimes even proudly liberal. Some good examples have been presented above. It would be too easy to take Mike’s post as a typical example but even at my most partisan I would not pretend to hold him up as a typical example of left of center thinking (please keep my generosity in mind the next time some right wing tardspaz spouts off here, ok?).
Craig, on the other hand, is worth responding to. When he says “For all this bûllšhìŧ about the “liberal media”, nobody is giving Obama a free pass over his pastor. Nobody is giving Clinton a free pass over her comments about being in Kosovo.” I’m left to wonder what exactly it would take to qualify as liberal–a 100% across the board determination to suppress every bit of bad news about liberals? A refusal to acknowledge stories that cast a liberal in a bad light? Suppression of any information that might hurt the politicians who favor liberal ideas? That wouldn’t make them liberal journalists. They wouldn’t be journalists at all.
Hillary said a whopper and CBS news even had video footage that showed it to be a lie. What, they should have sat on it? Failure to do so means they have a conservative bias? Do you, Craig, feel that you have to defend all liberals all the time, right or wrong? Not from what I’ve heard from you–yet I would not put your liberal bona fides in question for that.
(this would also mean that Fox News wouldn’t be conservative, since one can find times that they have reported bad news about conservatives. If I said “Fox news, conservative??? They didn’t give Larry Craig a free pass!” I don’t think that would fly.)
Anyway, back to Tim. I’d list Jesse as a pundit, sure. He gets on more talk shows than most elected politicians, even hosted a show for 8 years on CNN (Both Sides with Jesse Jackson).
Bill Press has both a radio show and a newspaper column. I saw him on TV recentlym not sure where–I tyhink it was something about Hillary (and I can’t remember if he was for her or Obama. Pretty safe to say he wasn’t for McCain 🙂
I’d include Katie Couric for my perception that she tosses mostly softballs to her favorites and only gets tough with conservatives. I think Matt Laurer is just as liberal but more likely to be equally tough to both sides. I know she is liberal on a number of issues–can anyone tell me a position Ms Couric has that does not fall on the left side of the equation?
I guess some of the names listed are more print than TV though I don’t think any of them have ever turned down a chance to appear. The only one I haven’t seen recently is Alterman, which is just as well–for a guy who pulls no punches in print he came off very nervous on the few TV appearances I saw.
For the first day of Fox’s coverage, they appended the D for democrat to Mark Foley’s name. Were you under the impression their conservative line-up was due to some kind of fidelity to the truth?
What complaints do you have against Ann Coulter, and why don’t you hold them against her pimps at Fox News?
Posted by: Mike at March 25, 2008 11:53 PM
For the first day of Fox’s coverage, they appended the D for democrat to Mark Foley’s name. Were you under the impression their conservative line-up was due to some kind of fidelity to the truth?
Nope, simply just wanted to know if someone mouthed the words “Democrat Mark Foley” It would have made a good sound bite for somebody.
What complaints do you have against Ann Coulter, and why don’t you hold them against her pimps at Fox News?
No complaints but just thought she would have factored into the “whos most evil” list earlier
thats all.
Believe it or not, not all republicans like her. I still think her whole persona is a bit of a shitck.
Now Michael Savage is a whole different story, that guy is nuts.
Do you, Craig, feel that you have to defend all liberals all the time, right or wrong?
No, but as I said, it’s bûllšhìŧ to think that anybody outside of Fox News is merely projecting “liberal bias”.
But what’s apparent is that conservatives expect such stories that go against their candidates and their side to be suppressed or not covered because, perish the thought, NBC and CBS and, yes, even Fox News, are in it for the ratings more than for any perceived bias.
Fox News gets pinned as the news network of the right because they are exactly that. They may hide behind the moniker of “fair and balanced”, but they are anything but. Fox News lately has even gone so far as to allow bias to seem into their commentary of Democrats because Dems are refusing to appear on their shows… I can’t imagine why they would do that. Can you?
But just because Fox News bends its knee to the Altar of the Right-wing doesn’t mean everybody else in news is doing the same for the Left.
Actually, I’d say a bigger problem with Fox News is that it’s not a news network. The same goes for most of what’s on MSNBC and a lot of CNN and/or Headline News these days.
It’s not news, it’s gossip or opinion shows. And some of it is nothing more than tabloid garbage like Nancy Grace.
As a whole, the media is not out to report the news, they want to make it. Which makes the argument of “liberal bias” a rather pathetic one to keep falling back upon, as the right is so quick to do.
Thank you for literally disqualifying nothing I’ve said. It’s a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I say.
I would have thought covering stories on and raising money against various cancers might have qualified. Who knew not wanting cancer was radical?
Now there’s an idea for a $2.99/minute chatline: Deviants infiltrating and subverting your wholesome political party are waiting for your call. 1-800-Pink-Scare
I’m left to wonder what exactly it would take to qualify as liberal–a 100% across the board determination to suppress every bit of bad news about liberals?
I’d say in order for there to be “liberal bias” it would take a real reluctance to report any bad news about liberals, and even then trying to spin it so that it doesn’t look so bad. That would be coupled with a bloodthirsty desire to smear conservatives every time they have an opportunity to do so.
Basically liberal versions of FNC, the New York Post, etc.
“For all this bûllšhìŧ about the “liberal media”, nobody is giving Obama a free pass over his pastor.”
Don’t catch Countdown on MSNBC too much, huh?
Because MSNBC ghettoizes their money-making liberal markets to Keith Olbermann, they didn’t put Dr Tucker Carlson on life support with their conservative affirmative action? I don’t think so.
I’m left to wonder what exactly it would take to qualify as liberal–a 100% across the board determination to suppress every bit of bad news about liberals? A refusal to acknowledge stories that cast a liberal in a bad light? Suppression of any information that might hurt the politicians who favor liberal ideas? That wouldn’t make them liberal journalists. They wouldn’t be journalists at all.
Thanks for implicitly acknowledging that most of Fox News doesn’t practice journalism. 🙂
A real answer to your question is that there’s a difference between “being liberal” and “reporting with a liberal bias.” Having talking heads who happen to lean in one direction or another does not, in my opinion, reflect such a bias. Having ALL of your talking heads, or 90+% of them, lean in the same direction would reflect such a bias — and when it leaks from the commentary into the reporting (such as in the examples Rob Brown gave above), then that’s having a bias and letting it seriously get in the way of your job.
That’s why I think a lot of the complaints about the “liberal media” are hogwash. Sure, some of the pundits lean left, but it’s very hard to find a news outlet that routinely reports the news in a left-wing-spinning kind of way. For every time you’ve got the NYT running a questionable story about McCain, for instance (which I didn’t support), you’ve got someone like Judith Miller beating the war drums and presenting false information as factual. That, to me, does not mean it’s skewing one direction or another — it means that it’s not perfect.
Anyway, back to Tim. I’d list Jesse as a pundit, sure. He gets on more talk shows than most elected politicians, even hosted a show for 8 years on CNN (Both Sides with Jesse Jackson).
Fair enough; I’d forgotten about the show he’d hosted. Also fair enough on Bill Press; apparently I need to watch more television. (Or not.)
TWL
Rob, the question I was answering was who could be considered liberal. Now as to whether or not any of the people listed are guilty of bias, that’s a different question and one far more difficult to answer–it’s often a matter of perception. Simply being tough on a conservative, especially when they deserve it, does not make one guilty of liberal bias. That’s why i find it amusing when lazier pontificates claim that so and so can’t be considered liberal because look at how they reported on Bill Clinton’s problems (as though the definition of “liberal” equals “willing to accept anything the Clintons dish out, no questions asked”.
I’m surprised at the lengths that some liberals will go to not admit to being liberal or to list others as being liberal. Evidentially being against cancer is a conservative position–who knew? Me, I’d say that’s something that any reasonable person would support, regardless of political persuasion but for some politics is everything. Not enough hugs from momma during the cavity prone years, that’s my guess.
“Both Sides with Jesse Jackson” left the air with the Clinton administration. I’m glad you’ll feel holding republicans to Fox News 8 years after they’re go off the air is fair game.
Oh, but wait:
You flip-flop portraying Katie Couric as reasonable or unreasonable as it serves your agenda of the minute. Thank you for contradicting yourself, underscoring all you have against me is your Need™ to bully me.
So saying Katie is liberal equals calling her “unreasonable” in your book? Interesting. I don’t think the terms are interchangeable but that’s a personal call.
Aww, Mike, I really don’t mean to bully you. I know you’ve had it tough and the affront of having people who dare to think differently from you must be a constant source of angst. Since, as PAD pointed out, you are probably incapable of even understanding when you get things wrong, I promise not to respond to you any more in this thread since it will only hurt your feelings and serve no purpose.
Thank you for disqualifying Katie Couric as evidence of a liberal bias in media, and thank you for admitting all you have against me is your need to bully me. Again, it’s a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I say.
Don’t catch Countdown on MSNBC too much, huh?
Hmm, did something remove the rest of my post?
Get back on topic. How secure is Iraq after the surge? The Brits pulled out of Basra, wasn’t it? This left the militia in control, not the Iraqi government. The Kurds in the north are pretty much self rule. So, what is the real accomplishment? I am a card carrying Democrat so I say these next things with hesitation. I believe those who seek control in Iraq are waiting to see either how our elections go or what they can do to screw it up. I have a bad feeling about what may come. My question to everyone here: Do any of you really want to vote for any of these idiots running for president? McCain is confused, Hillary lies and Obama is obscure at best on his policy answers. I wish Powell was running, but GW messed that up when he should have listened to Powell. Where have you gone Teddy?
As far as a liberal bias in the media, nobody watches CNN and CNBC. The nightly news are a reporting joke. The morning shows care more about Britney and LiLo than Dafur or Iraq unless George and Bono are doing a charity. Rush, Sean and Mark comment on their “news.” I honestly prefer Savage. He may be nutty at times, but at least he is honest. He doesn’t hide his true personality.
I have another question regarding Rev. Wright: Was Obama lying when he said he never before heard his preacher speak these things? I think he was.
Concerning Rev. Wright, Christopher Bird (a.k.a. Mightygodking) says this:
“Jeremiah Wright occasionally says passionate things. He is a preacher. Preachers do not speak in gentle, conciliatory tones all that often; it is not a job that requires one hundred percent temperance, after all. But accusing Jeremiah Wright of being a racist based on one ten-second snippet of video taken out of context from a twenty-minute sermon, claiming that said ten seconds is representative of twenty years of preaching? (Bear in mind the church is one of the largest mixed-race churches in America, so if Jeremiah Wright is a racist then a lot of his flock are self-hating whiteys.) Lest we forget, he’s also a former decorated Marine. If occasionally he gets pìššëd øff at America for treating black people poorly – well, tough. Black people are officially allowed to have complex feelings about America. They get permission. Deal with it.”
I agree wholeheartedly.