|
I think that labeling the media liberal implies an agenda. Ok, the liberal media is on a mission to spread the gospel of liberality(?). Despite the allegedly constant bombardement of liberal ideologies america is confronted with, it seems to be moving steadily right. How does that work? Apparently the media is not only biased, but incompetent as well.
Just for an example about the "bias" of the liberal rag that is the new york times, they just recently apologized for giving bush a pass in the months leading up to the war. What kind of liberal bias gives a conservative target a pass on something as stealing-candy-from-a-babylike as the justification for this war?
What was the length of time between when you heard about the valerie plame incident and when you heard it mentioned by any national news organization? For me it had to be at least a week. It was on the internet, then a week later it was in the papers. Why did the "liberal" media wait so long to break the story? It couldn't have been because they lacked the insight to see that the story could advance the liberal cause, because that's just obvious. I think as an american institution the media is more market driven than ideological driven.
The funniest irony lies in the fact that some people think that they themselves are objective enough to call out other people for a lack of objectivity. "Everyone is biased, except me that is, my opinion on the bias of others is completely objective."
|