thornhappy
Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline
|
I disagree with the media elite being uniformly progressive. The NYTimes broke Whitewater and a bunch of other "-gates" and flogged them for years (even when nothing came of them). They, and the Washington Post, were vigorously pro-Iraq war (anything that raised doubts was placed way back in the paper). Bush received more positive articles and fewer negative articles than Gore in 2000. Journalists covering DC during Bush 43's administration did little investigative work or even offer conflicting views until late in the second term. The major broadcast networks are corporate owned and generally look out for their own interests.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee
Here is part of a really good essay on this:
Geography aside, however, we have never been so evenly divided with such hateful rhetoric since the years leading up to the Civil War of the 1860s. Because the national media elite are so uniformly progressive, we keep hearing (in the elite media) about the rhetorical excesses of the "extreme right." To hear the same media, there is no "extreme left," just the occasional progressive who says things he or she shouldn't.
But any rational observer has to see that the Left and Right in America are screaming the most vile accusations at each other all the time. We are fully polarized -- if you accept one idea that sounds like it belongs to either the blue or the red, you are assumed -- nay, required -- to espouse the entire rest of the package, even though there is no reason why supporting the war against terrorism should imply you're in favor of banning all abortions and against restricting the availability of firearms; no reason why being in favor of keeping government-imposed limits on the free market should imply you also are in favor of giving legal status to homosexual couples and against building nuclear reactors. These issues are not remotely related, and yet if you hold any of one group's views, you are hated by the other group as if you believed them all; and if you hold most of one group's views, but not all, you are treated as if you were a traitor for deviating even slightly from the party line.
It goes deeper than this, however. A good working definition of fanaticism is that you are so convinced of your views and policies that you are sure anyone who opposes them must either be stupid and deceived or have some ulterior motive. We are today a nation where almost everyone in the public eye displays fanaticism with every utterance.
Here is the link: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/articles/empire_afterword.shtml
|
RE: Is this forum ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread