Wallace picked up on an article by Ben Stein. All of you know Ben, you just may not know his name. Any movie you’ve seen in the last dozen years or so with a monotone high school teacher featured his talents. He is also one of the best stock analysts around, and even had his own televison show at one time.
I can’t say more than Ben, or better. His article is a fine follow-up to my own post earlier this week.
Big Trunk tells us the DNC is not happy when their own tactics are turned against them. They claim the ad is full of lies, yet tell their own in the threat letter to television stations in hopes of getting them to back down.
I don’t remember when they threatened lawsuits against theaters for showing Michael Moore’s “documentary.”
And Glenn has more, plus some comments.
Neal Boortz covers the subtlety of bias today:
Bozell uses CNN’s Judy Woodruff as an example.
- March 3, 1998. Woodruff reports that “lawyers for the conservative group Judicial Watch” had some questions about Bill Clinton and FBI files.
- July 10, 2002. Woodruff, reporting on the lawsuit against Cheney, says “The reviews of President Bush’s speech on that subject [corporate responsibility] were still coming in today as a watchdog group said that it was suing Vice President Dick Cheney.”
Clever, don’t you think? When Judicial Watch sues Clinton, it’s a “conservative group.” When it sues Cheney, it’s a “watchdog group.”
I don’t think having a media that’s biased is bad. As long as people understand that it is, and there are options for information. Hearst built his castle on bias.
But to accuse FoxNews of bias without even mentioning all the others is telling. I don’t believe they are, personally. They probably fall on the right/left line about the same place I do. Brit Hume is the best of all anchors on television. He is conservative. But he is open about when his conservative views do the talking. Most of the time, they don’t. He hosts a program which includes Mara Liassen and Juan Williams, among others, who generally operate from NPR studios and lean heavily left. What is great is that the group actually has an intellectual discussion, not a screaming debate. When things get heated, which is very seldom, Hume tones everyone back down so a discussion returns.
I have pretty much stopped watching television news. When I do watch, I pay attention to Hume, and Shepard Smith. Him I like because of his approach and attitude. And his occasional gaffe. I also see Neil Cavuto from time to time. There is no anchor more honest and sincere than he is. But his forte (“fort”, as I heard an NPR reporter pronounce it the other morning) is business. He, like Hume, has guests from all backgrounds, and maintains a civil discourse.
All other news programs have become political programs. Every story must have a political angle whether it be Michael Jackson’s legal problems or what is happening in Iraq. I don’t care what bias might exist. I just want to know what’s happening. I don’t need analysis from some pundit during a newscast. Save that for another show.
I love stuff like this. Celebrities of all stripe feel they have something important to say, and have a venue for doing so. Of course, they consider themselves to be just plain ol’ workin’ folk, so their opinion should resonate. They are so accustomed to having people hang on their every word, they sincerely believe they have the answers.
In an unprecedented series of concerts in nine swing states, more than 20 musical acts – including Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam and the Dixie Chicks – will perform fund-raising concerts one month before the Nov. 2 election in an effort to unseat President Bush.
Now, I don’t doubt their sincerity. I’m sure they believe in this cause. But let’s think about how celebrities support a cause just a second.
They donate money, of which they have plenty, or they supply their name and perform. A simple donation doesn’t get them much in return except a tax break and a letter from some organizer–maybe a photo op or two. But putting on a performance–man, that’s the best. They receive adulation from their fans, which is their primary reason for doing what they do, they get some kind of tax break for their effort, and the get lots of publicity. It just doesn’t get any better than that.
This is not intellectual honesty. These are folks who have much more spare time than any of us, and could really get involved and work at this if they were sincere about helping. Sincerity of belief seldom translates to commitment for any of us, and especially not with this group. How many are actually putting in time at a phone bank to support their candidate? Do any of them go door to door to hand out literature? Is there one of them willing to put his name on the line and run for office?
Ben Afleck is doing far more than any of these folks, and all he does is ride around in style with the Kerry campaign.
I hope Bush wins in a landslide this year simply because it would make some of these folks shake their heads and wonder where their influence went. “Shut up and Sing” is a current book title, and I think it says it all. All I would add is, “Or actually do something.”
When I went to Officer Training School, I was 30 years old and an E6. That made me one of the oldest Officer Trainees (OT) and one of the most experienced. During the second half of the school, my roomate was another old guy, and we had a young running buddy who became our OT Squadron Commander. My roomie was in charge of our flight, and I was in charge of the “kids” in the class behind ours.
One of the wonderful aspects of OTS is the experience of Peer Evaluations, or “Peer Spears.” These are anonymous, and intended to give the evaluee some idea of his strengths and weaknesses as perceived by others in the flight. I wrote mine by hand, but some wanted desperately to keep their identity hidden and spent nights typing (remember typewriters?) every one.
We were each called to the office individually to be given our review by the officer in charge, our Flight Commander. I sat down and read through all of mine and he asked, “Any surprises in there?” I knew what he meant. “I guess I could be a little less demanding.”
He grinned. “Good point. But I’d rather have someone overbearing than some limp-wristed leader.”
I went back to our classroom to send the next person down, and tried to figure out how to react when I walked in. I opened the door, sent the next victim to visit the captain, then slammed my fist on the table in the center of the room. “I want to know who said I was overbearing!” And I stared at every person, one by one. A few of the younger guys were a bit shaken by my approach. My roommate slowly raised his hand. Our young buddy followed suit. When they did that, I had to smile, and soon everyone in the room had their hand in the air. I apologized, and promised to try and do better in the future.
My boys all felt I was pretty authoritarian when they were young. And a lot of people see me as a right wing nut job. So, I took the Political Compass survey. You will all be pleased to learn I am almost dead center on the Authoritarian/Libertarian (Social) and Left/Right (Economic) axes. On a scale of 1-10, I am at +2.32 (authoritarian) and +1.2 (right).
So there!
I know you’ve all read John Ray’s monograph on leftism. C’mon, you know you must have. I asked you to do so some time ago.
He just posted THEORIES OF RIGHTISM. It is also lengthy, and I haven’t been through the whole thing…yet. Like all his work, it is amply documented and referenced. Just a quick taste of his thesis:
My submission is that what modern-day Rightists of the English-speaking world are can be traced right back to the invaders (Angles and Saxons) from coastal Germany who overran Romano-Celtic Britannia around 1500 years ago and made it into England. They brought with them a very decentralized, consultative, largely tribal system of government that was very different from the Oriental despotisms that had ruled the civilized world for most of human history up to that time. And they liked their decentralized, consultative system very much. So much so that the system just kept on keeping on in England, century after century, despite many vicissitudes. Only the 20th century really shook it. So conservatism in English-origin countries is simply Anglo-Saxon traditional values.
Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law, or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty? –Teddy Kennedy
I think he should ask Sandy Berger.
Powered by WordPress