K. Rove the CIA Leak?

[Alaska Darin]

Note: for some reason the above won't quote correctly.

375947[/snapback]

Because there are two "close quotes" and only one "open quote".

[Buckey]

If Rove goes to prison, he may also change his views on gay marriage.  I bet he quickly marries the biggest con in the joint or he will have a full dance card. 

373816[/snapback]

 

"Squeal like a pig"

[Buckey]

You miss my point. The entire situation involving the CIA outing is a non-event in the grand sceme of things. Surely, the reporters weren't naive enough to expect it would go for a lot of big play. Fight the battles worth fighting.

374966[/snapback]

 

You have got to be kidding.

Think about it.

[Alaska Darin]

You have got to be kidding.

Think about it.

375986[/snapback]

He does. Everyday. And you should thank your lucky stars that he's in the box instead of your amazingly ignorant ass. It really doesn't matter what moniker you post under (Jeff Gordon/Juliann/Buckey), you're still pretty much the same mouthbreather.

[Chilly]

Fox *is* part of the mainstream media and so if the Wall Street Journal, but they are basically the only two representatives, in TV and print respectively, for conservatives in the mainstream.  The rest that you named are columnists, bloggers, and radio hosts - all of whom are easy to miss if you aren't looking for them.  The establishment - almost every TV news outlet as well as NYT, Boston Globe, Washington Times, LA Times, etc. - is firmly liberal.

Also omitted: any and all stories about progress/success RE: the GWOT.  You have to go out of your way to find that information (or be lucky enough to know someone like BiB).

 

Of *course* NYT, Boston Globe, Washington Post, LA Times, etc are going to be firmly liberal. They are all in Democratic Metropolitan areas. The newspapers witht he most resources will be the ones that best spread their paper and have the best resources to cover the news. Guess where they come from? Big metropolitan areas with big readership. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

 

However, the Dallas Morning News is a good example of how Newspapers do have conservative viewpoints (Mark Davis comes to mind). The WSJ that you brought up is an example. The Des Moines Register columnist John Carlson is another. St. Louis Post Dispatch reguarly runs Mark Brooks, who is a huge supporter of the War in Iraq. And I could go on and on.

 

Its *NOT* that all newspapers are liberal, its that the newspapers in big markets are liberal. And of course they are, metropolitan areas consistently vote democrat. It just makes sense.

 

As far as TV goes, most of it is produced in New York, by reporters who are from New York, giving viewpoints from New York. However, conservatives are getting their place on other channels besides Fox news. Ever watch MSNBC lately? Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough are both conservative talking heads and both have their own shows on MSNBC.

 

This whole Republican feeling of the "liberal media" and how the liberal media is out to get them makes about as much sense as Christians saying there is a war on Christianity in this country.

[Reuben Gant]

I meant to say Washington Post.

 

I appreciate the rest of your thoughts even if I'm not going to agree.

375960[/snapback]

Thanks, me too. You're a good sport.

[SilverNRed]

Ever watch MSNBC lately?

376079[/snapback]

No, and neither does anyone else.

 

[Chilly]

No, and neither does anyone else.

 

376139[/snapback]

 

Point taken.

 

Seriously though, would you agree that its mainly a question of resources, not that there isn't anyone out there that promotes conservative viewpoints? Why or why not? (God I sound like an exam question rofl)

[UConn James]

I'm surprised you included the Washington Times in there -

 

As far as success goes in Iraq, or Afghanistan, my take is this. All good news is public, nobody, especially the administration is sitting on much good news, they want it out there. The bar was set pretty high by the administration: Osama will be brought to justice, the Anthrax guy will be brought to justice, a free Iraq will transform the region. So whatever you define as progress beyond that is pretty hard. The media also have a vested interest in not getting killed to report these stories, as well as the drive to keep newsrooms profitable, which greatly reduce the efficacy of reporting foreign news and keeping foreign news bureaus open.

 

I have found that John F. Burns reporting for the New York Times to be pretty ballsy stuff, and he is very practical about what is knowable. If you are a regular reader of the NYT then you know most of their columnists and editorial policy has supported the war, and at least they have protected their sources in this Valerie Plame mess, Hell,  they broke Whitewater for that matter. I still find their reporting too conservative.

 

I am often getting the idea that anything that is not lauditory, or praiseworthy, or at least flattering to the Neo-Conservative orthodoxy is called liberal. If that is what you think is liberal, then yeah, it is the "liberal media." I think looking back on this era ten years from now the story will be how soft media reporting got.

Especially in the transformation from an age of written media, the literate age, to one of sound and image.

 

just my two cents.

375945[/snapback]

 

Spot on.

 

We're in the era of many outlets being either administrative/establishment lapdogs (this is pretty inherent, as most quotes come from some kind of Officialdom), some that are attack dogs, and some that reasonably balance the two.

 

I think the last sentence is the most telling. Words just fly by people in this era. Previously, people actually sought out information and actively participated. That continues to change as a smaller percentage (but actually, hard numbers of subscribers are up) of people read their news. Big difference in the quality of TV and print, too.