Is there any wonder why most of the news publications, newspapers and magazine and TV hate conservatives and do anything and everything to portray them as the terrible enemy of America?
They are mostly liberal rats that omit and censor stories that put the Democratic party in a bad light while repeating half truths and picking at old wounds from 41 frickin years ago - Watergate (which pales compared to the deaths that occurred in Benghazi etc...)
FAUX News? The real FALSE news which imitates journalism resides in the editor offices of the major media empires in America. Time, Newsweek, Playboy, Rolling Stone, Esquire and of course major newpapers from NY Times to LA Times all slant left and down.
You can tell who they are by their low TV ratings and publications going bankrupt. You can tell who they are because they have all the girly men as their anchors and reporters.
Real man believe in free enterprise capitalism, continuation of traditions, minimal government intervention in economy, strict law and order enforcement, and gradual change as opposed to radical reform. F__K the phony communist George Stephanopoulos's of the news world.
They are all whores waiting for cushy jobs in return for leaning forward with communism.
Why don't conservatives just buy more media? They've obviously got plenty of money to do so, considering they managed to buy North Carolina....isn't liberal media just the free market at work? I thought the free market was good? If there was a demand for it, wouldn't it exist???
You're a fucking idiot. Your ranting and raving MIGHT have some merit if this were some sort of new phenomenon in politics. However, the fact is that journalists have worked in literally EVERY. SINGLE. ADMINISTRATION. EVER.
Hell, one of Bush's press secrectaries, Tony Snow, was a journalist for more than 20 years at FoxNews, amongst others, prior to joining the administration. Shit, the Bush administration even admitted to paying several journalists to publish Bush-friendly pieces and/or work for them on various issues that the Bush White House wanted to promote.
So this shit is hardly unique to liberals and it's hardly news. Get off your soap box and stop acting like an infantile hypocrite.
No I whole heartedly support their cities taking turns being the murder capitals of the United States. Oakland, Detroit, Chicago (500 murders) Philadelphia, Washington DC, Baltimore, Atlanta, New Orleans?
I will forget I read about the abundance of Arctic Ice and believe Algore's global warming FACTS.
What do you suggest I call people that bankrupt Detroit? Those idiot rats are asking for more money to waste on their failed ideas.
You don't get it because your mind is hardened. What don;'t you believe in the links that I posted? It's as if a veil were upon your mind.
Liberalism is a disease and it usually cannot be cured.
Playboy? Rolling Stone? I'm so surprised that a magazine devoted to naked women and another that was founded by hippies in the 60's (in San Francisco no less) would lean left. What doesn't surprise me is that you try and bolster your argument by referring to these magazines when mentioning serious journalism. Who the hell READS Playboy? Does anyone over the age of 15 even buy Rolling Stone?
And if their ratings are so low and they are going bankrupt doesn't that imply they don't have much influence?
Weekly Standard National Review Taki's Magazine The American Review The New American The American Spectator The American Conservative FrontPage Magazine The Christian Science Monitor Human Events CyberCast News Service The Atlantic The Economist Harper's Forbes Daily Caller Fox News A plethora of talk radio and cable news programming Too many websites to mention
I'd say the conservatives are pretty well represented in the media.
I was considering including it, but they seem more balanced, both in readership and editorial slant, than some of the other rags. I'll give you the New York Post and Washington Times, though, and plop USA Today on top like a sickly-sweet, artificially colored maraschino cherry.
Most of the conservative magazines are full of words not pictures. Therefore they are not widely read and certainly not on par with Newsweek, Time, Rolling Stone, Playboy, Esquire subscriptions.
I realize the conservative cable news like FOX wipes the competition off the table, but there are so many of them even though they are propped up by liberal money. With PBS tax money is used to promote their politics.
"Playboy is an American men's magazine that features photographs of nude women as well as JOURNALISM and fiction."
"Playboy features monthly interviews of notable public figures, such as artists, architects, economists, composers, conductors, film directors, journalists, novelists, playwrights, religious figures, politicians, athletes and race car drivers. The magazine generally reflects a liberal editorial stance."
"Rolling Stone is a magazine published every two weeks that focuses on politics and popular culture."
The fact that there are hundreds of liberal slanting periodicals is the problem. You don't go in for a doctors appointment and find the Standard Weekly next to Time.
Boast A: Fox is crushing the competition. Look at Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, etc. ratings! No one watches MSNBC. New York Times is hemorrhaging subscribers!
Whine B: Every single media member in America is a die hard liberal!
It has to be tiring keeping up with all this. And what goes through conservativedog's mind when he picks up Time and reads the article in there from the National Review which frequently has a page? Probably too busy thinking about his favorite black people list.
The proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1 or 4-to-1, has stayed the same since a survey began in 1962. That liberals are dominant is now beyond dispute.
Does this affect coverage? Is there really liberal bias? The answers are, of course, yes and yes.
It couldn't be any other way. Think for a moment if the numbers were reversed and conservatives had outnumbered liberals in the media for the past four decades.
Would President Bush have gotten kinder coverage? For sure, and I'll bet any liberal would agree with that. Would President Reagan have been treated with less hostility if the national press was conservative-dominated? Yes, again.
The effort to hire more minorities and women has had the effect of making the media more liberal, because that group overwhelmingly leans to the Democratic party.
By diversifying the profession in one way, they were making it more homogenous in another.
High-visibility scandals involving fabricated stories and controversies about plagiarism only seem to happen to liberal journalists and politicians. What a diverse media. So many Choices of plagiarism for liberals.
Your last statement sums up how frustrated you must feel:
Only in a politically correct fucked up liberal retard world can a "favorite black people" list be construed as racist. How is that racist?
There is an inferiority complex at work in liberals that paints any non liberal a RACIST if they write or speak about African Americans. Truly the mark of a racist.
-----You guys wouldn't know racism even if someone yelled "I Hate White People before they killed you."
FROM Coulter is... Acting Like an A$$ blog - I think I make a very good point...
The left wing media matters :http://news.yahoo.com/left-wing-foundations-lavish-millions-media-matters-055013767.html
...tape of Ann Coulter arguing that Obama only got into Harvard because of Affirmative Action is most likely a truth. How is that RACIST?
When white firemen sued after being passed over in favor of making the fire department diverse and inclusive by promoting firemen who performed poorly on the STANDARD TEST was that a good thing?
Is it not RACIST not to mention life threatening to promote inferior firemen over more experienced or superior firemen?
Just because a left wing media organization infers that someone said something racist and then includes a snippet of audio where Ann Coulter states he got into Harvard because he is a BLack American, does not prove that she is racist. How infantile.