Wednesday, May 13, 2009

The Leftist Mouthpiece

If you know anyone who reads the New York Times, you already know they read it. They've told you about it a thousand times. And if you ever dared to read something else (even if it was another paper owned by the Times), then the Times reader will explain to you how you've failed at newspaper reading.

Nothing to me better symbolizes liberal know-nothing-know-it-all-ism better than the New York Times. And I couldn't be happier at its recent financial struggles.

I'm fluent in three sections, actually.

And yeah, they certainly have the best, hardest hitting, reporters:

Look at all those smiling journalists, basking in the glory of their demagogue, laughing at the New York Times reporter asking about enchantment when people were panicking about swine flu.

Question for Uberliberals: why is the NY Times so good? If news is news, does it really matter what the disseminating source is? The USA today may be a jumble of graphs, charts, and color photos; but is it not the same news?

Could it be that y'all think the Times is so spectacular and intelligent because it AGREES WITH YOU? Furthermore, you agree with the Times, so you must be smart too!

It's a vicious circle of liberal smugness.

All media has a bias, and anyone that doesn't think so is retarded. Political reporters don't get into politics unless they're interested in politics. And people interested in politics tend to have OPINIONS about politics. And no matter what, these opinions will affect how people see events, and consequently affect how they're reported.

But just admit that, for the most part, the media is liberally biased. The Times, CNN, MSNBC, and so on. And please, stop criticizing FoxNews for being conservative. That's like a lesbian making fun of a gay man for not being straight.

But you know what, I am tired of the liberal and conservative media outlets arguing about who is more biased. How much time does Bill O'Reilly spend railing MSNBC? How much time does MSNBC spend railing Bill O'Reilly? Who even takes Bill O'Reilly seriously?

Why can't we have full disclosure in media? I know on CNBC that guests have to disclose if they own the stock they're discussing, and whenever General Electric is mentioned, they must add "GE is the parent company of this network."

Let's say during election coverage every 4 years, we get to see who Wolf Blitzer voted for? Is the media afraid that disclosing facts like this would reduce their credibility? If we find out that Blitzer is a Democrat, and he's voted Democratically in the last 4 Presidential elections, would we find him less believable when he discusses politics?

Maybe we should give it a shot.

No comments: