Conservative Bias in the Media

Mama, are you agreeing with the guys? I agree. There are fanatical groups in every camp. And some people carry matters so far, it's would be comical if it weren't so painful.

Amen.

Of course, a pertinent question here is, do you cede the existence of reasonable conservatives, or is any non-left position a "right-wing fanatic's" position?

Go pick a fight with someone else, you bore me . . .

Interesting that you think I was picking a fight. I thought I was agreeing with you, and asking a question I think goes to the heart of some of the problems found in these discussions.

But whatever...

Are all extremeists looney?
How about we all concede that extremist, no matter whether left or right, are looney candidates.

Extremists are usually formed because they have failed to persuade others to their positions and failed to succeed in achieving their goals.

Does it make any difference if the goal justifies the means when the goal is desireable and justified for the common good?

Is it possible that only social failures become extremists? I wonder?

---BumbleBeeBoogie

was Eugene V. Debbs an extremist?

Satan incarnate . . . AND he ate mayonnaise on his fries . . .

Here is what I find interesting. We can all agree that both sides have their "lunatic fringe",and we can all agree that there is a bias in the media.It may be a liberal or conservative,but that bias does exist.
What I dont understand is why all the crying about it.I will say again that a journalist/reporter is NOT supposed to allow their own personal opinions to color their reporting.
A reporter is only supposed to report what they see and hear,like the old town crier,without any opinion about it.

A columnist/commentator (Rush Limbaugh,Sean Hannity,James Carville,etc) is allowed to give their opinion.That is their basic job.
It seems to me that to many of you are confusing the two jobs.

I see so many of you saying that Rush is the voice of the right,and you assume that he represents the views of everybody on the right.
He doesnt,he represents his own views.
Now,there are people that agree with all or part of what he says,but they also know he is giving his own opinions.James Carville does the exact same thing on the side of the left.
If we can remember that they are commentators,and not journalists,that might help eliminate some of the perceived "bias" we are talking about.

Dys
Dys, you rascal, I don't consider Debs an extremist, albeit he was determined to establish a labor movement. I consider extremists not to reflect mainstream values. Debs reflected a huge mainstream value in his day.

Political extremists usually use tactics to make things so bad and wide-spread life-threatening attacks to create such terrible living conditions that the public gives in to their demands.

Debs and his constituents didn't engage in those types of tactics.

BumbleBeeBoogie

Lola - surely you jest? And, setanta, in Belgium eating mayonnaise on fries is what you do. Eugene Debs was a socialist - which is beginning to look better as some words regain lost meanings.

What an interesting question, bumblebee. One that I and many of my woman friends have pondered for a long time. Depends, of course, on your meaning of social failure and extremist.

I think one has to draw a line between passionate defense of ideals and non-listening extremists. And wife-beaters are social misfits.

MJ, i eat mayo on my fries as well, which is how i know Debs is a satanist.

Two Belgians were on vacation, and wanted to visit London. When they got to the French border, they saw the sign which read: "Pas de Calais." So they turned around and went home.

BBB - The problem is that your mainstream thinker may be my extremist (or vice versa). (This is the point I was hoping to explore with Setanta. )

Perhaps it would be better if we were all to try to leave off labeling anyone as "extremist", "fanatic", etc. and work to discuss--citing and acknowledging facts when available--the proposals, programs, statements, institutions, etc.. Surely that would make for a far more meaningful dialog.

Setanta - that is so bad it's good. Mayonnaise on fries is a personal abomination to me. Ony salt.

Thanks, Ma . . . although your taste in fried tubers obviously suffers from a lack of sophistication, allow me to comment that i nevertheless find your posts to be . . . what were we talking about?

scipio? Mussels in Brussels are sublime.

Actually, it started off with bias in the media. And I wondered where the little black dressed Ann Coulter was, and what happened to the lovely Miss Noonan?

It strikes me, too, that the bitingly funny Maureen Dowd was as biased when it came to writing about the Clintons as she is about the Bushes - so that's a draw. And that when a story escapes its captors, it can't be denied. Which is what's beginning to happen now with a lot of stories coming out about Iraq. Turns out a lot of the "embedment" thing was just another planned joke - which could be construed as trying to execute bias.

I may be wrong in this, but this is as i recall it:

"The truth is the first casualty in war." -- Friedrich II of Prussia

and more germaine to such discussions as these:

"Always forgive your enemies--nothing annoys them so much."

-- Oscar Wilde

Quotes can be abused as to their relevance to a discussion, but i thought you'd enjoy these, Ma.

"A gentleman is any man who wouldn't hit a woman with his hat on."--Fred Allen (1894-1956)

Well, that depends--why does she have his hat on?

LOL... You know, I thought the same thing when I read that quote!

The best columnists/commentators like Maureen Dowd and Molly Ivins are quick to make scathing remarks about liars and cheats whether on the right or on the left. They might have a certain bias, but their honesty can always be counted on to expose any scoundrel in politics.

And yes, socialism is beginning to look better and better now that we are faced with looming fascism.