 ouyangwulong says: You know, I can understand why many people are interested in Fred Thompson, but perhaps this is going a little too far. I mean seriously, is he considered articulate by conservative standards? Sure he's conservative, but articulate? Vaclav Havel is articulate political voice. Fred Thompson is still in the minor leagues. I mean, don't conservatives have plenty of more articulate voices? Why not start with William F. Buckley Jr. or William Safire, or does anyone still still watch John McLaughlin? For the sake of all of America, I hope the GOP and conservative voters start raising the bar before they start gushing over another pugnacious actor with few inhibitions. but articulate?Perhaps in the sense he says exactly what he means in the image of a Reaganesque "great communicator" quality. I think it is important to distiguish what qualifies as an articulate political voice for a Conservative. A liberal can communicate to the people and the press and have little issue with the presentation. A Conservative voice must speak directly to the American people, and often. This is where GW Bush has failed miserably. Wow, Wilhelm, I think you may have struck gold there! So perhaps we can say that there is not so much an institutional bias in the media, so much as that the way liberals talk is better suited than conservatives to the format of discours inherent in the media? And that would also explain the lack of liberals who connect with the general population, even when they are expressing popular views. Somebody give this man a POP! So perhaps we can say that there is not so much an institutional biasWhat willhelm articulates is based not so much upon an institutional bias, but upon personal biases. It is hard for most journalists to convey the arguments of conservatives, not because of a willful distortion in most cases. Rather, since many journalists cannot comprehend conservative philosophy due to their own liberal bias, it is not possible for them to make it comprehensible to others. The liberal viewpoint is easier to promelgate because they understand it. ... Right Cniq Cniq. Very few, if any media outlets will do justice to the Conservative message. It is either qualified, presented with skepticism or negativity, or countered with liberal talking points rather than historical or statistical facts. For Liberals it is easier. Whether admitted or not, there is a strong liberal bias in the Mainstream Media. As a Conservative, I do not necessarily have a problem with that. It just needs to be taken into account when selecting a Conservative candidate. The best candidate will be one that talks directly to the people. The good thing is I see a lot of this ability in the Conservative front runners. pop for discussion. The "Liberal media" mantra really breaks down when you look at issues like the lead up to the Iraq War, or the success of Republicans in Congress or the lack of public health care in the country. The media and how it reacts and works makes much more sense when viewed within the framework of an establishment, a power elite v. the outsiders. There is no conservative or liberal within the establishment, there is access to power or no access, sex/money/fame (invitation to all the right parties and gatherings) or being just another person on the street. The "Liberal media" mantra really breaks down when you look at issuesI've caught some flack for using the term "looney left", but this is a perfect illustration of why I use the term. Big "L" liberalism is very distinct from those I term the "looney left." While I disagree philosophically with Liberals, it is possible to engage in a rewarding and an intellectually honest discussion with them. While I... cniq cniq, spot on good chap. I concur 99.999% Health care? Again, I'm confused. Are you suggesting that if the media were Liberal than we would have a different health care system? As I said before, I do not believe the Liberal bias is as much institutional as it is personal. The observations you make on establishment and power elite considerations are also undoubtedly present. They certainly do effect coverage and personal biases. Yet, the fact that such biases influence journalists, does not men these folk are ideological blank slates. Both currents carry reporters and their editors. The pull of each tide will vary from individual to individual, but it is naive to believe that the media either operates in an ideological vacuum... Although in response to kmcolo's remarks, I think what I interpret to be Wilhelm's proposal helps this make sense. The media often appears to take liberal positions simply because the way that liberals state them tends to be more media friendly, but this is not always the case, as you have pointed out. When liberals adopt positions that are not as easy to articulate the way the media wants to cover them, then coverage shifts to the right. The real bias in the media is that they seem to listen most to those who are the easiest to package. cniq cniq, spot on good chap. I concur 99.999%I will concur with your concurrence. I thought of this clip when I read the comparison of leads in this article. I have linked to avoid distraction from ouyangwulong's topic. |
View the Top Clips from June 4, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
