ROSEN: Mainstream (liberal) media

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 16, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

January 16, 2009

6:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

"Liberals who dispute this are either delusional or liars" Watch them show up here to show their brilliance. I vote for delusional.
January 16, 2009

6:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

denverrose15 writes:

Liberals only listen to information from 30 second sound bites. They would be shocked if they actually READ something that shows both sides. That accounts for the popularity of liberal view, "Don't make work at it to get both sides". All they they have to do is just hear the 30 second blurbs between commercials and programming and they believe they know what is going on. Why don't you turn that dumb TV off and read some books, read a newspaper, anything... but get off that constant sound-bite feed.
January 16, 2009

6:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

taoistblockhead writes:

Irrelevant Rosen as usual... Phil Donahue objected to the illegal invasion of Iraq and he was fired by MSNBC. ALL other mainstream media supported the war and failed to challenge the neoconvicts on the run-up to the war and the subsequent occupation of a sovereign nation. NBC proved to be a mouthpiece for the Pentagon and Tim Russert proved to be a chambermaid for Cheney.

Rather than liberal or conservative the more accurate definition for mainstream media in America is LAPDOG. Rosen is just one more example of a useful idiot obfuscating the real issues in the name of lame ideology. His columns are without substance and meshugena, but worth reading in order to understand the mindset of raving republican dinosaurs still walking the earth.
January 16, 2009

6:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

right on cue comes taoistbh. What should you do with those "raving republican dinosaurs"? Maybe you should open the 're-education' camps again but you would "meet my little friend".
January 16, 2009

6:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

taoistblockhead - the name calling labels you the lesser. You are unable to engage in a reasonable discussion of issues without resorting to infantile name-calling or making unsubstantiated claims. Put your aluminum hat back on and go watch some Nick At Nite.
January 16, 2009

6:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

tao uses a truly misleading and incorrect example to disprove Rosen's claim about the liberal bias in the media. The invasion of Iraq based on the premise of WMDs and the almost unanimous Senate Resolution in October 2002 that gave the POTUS express permission to do so was not a "liberal v conservative" issue. It may have morphed into one after the fact and after the successful invasion was followed by a not-so-successful transition to an occupation force.
Both Democrats and Republican for years had been claiming that Saddam was a menace and that he had to be dealt with - through force if necessary. The video is out there - Clinton(s), Gore, Albright, Pelosi, Kerry, Edwards, and all of the Democratic leadership demanding Saddam be held accountable. The record speaks for itself going back to the Clinton Admin. Too many forget that the invasion of Iraq was a bi-partisan effort - in the halls of politics and in the press as well. It wasn't until the going got tough, the mission became multi-faceted, and our troops needed the complete support of their leaders and the American people that the liberal left bailed out and ran for cover to appease their left wing anti-war zealots for political reasons. Any other opinion is revisionist history.
January 16, 2009

6:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

Mr. Rosen has issued excellent points, that liberals will have difficulty explaining (or avoiding).
January 16, 2009

7:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

GK writes:

At it again with the "liberal media" conspiracy again Mike? Conservatives will do anything to continue push that myth. We all know better.
January 16, 2009

7:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

Consideriing that "liberal" more or less means "open-minded" you can see why the mere mention of the word makes Rosen's skin crawl.

BTW - it is exactly that open-mindedness that explains why the news business and academia are so "liberal" - freeing (the Latin root for "free" is liber ->liberal) oneself from assumptions and dogma are essential traits in both those fields.
January 16, 2009

7:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Gonzopozo writes:

Will the conservative block EVER quit whining about this???

Look, we all get it. It is what it is. DO SOMETHING about it or shut up. Buy a network or something. Get more people to tune into Hannity instead of watching American Idol.

The liberal mass media is there, it has been for some time, and it will continue to be until the population and the market changes it.

More whining by Rosen and Rush is just redundant and makes one wonder if they just don't have anything else to say.
January 16, 2009

7:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

denverrose15 writes:

SheikYurBooty: "Liberal" can and does mean "leftist" politics. I hardly call liberals "open-minded". They don't even read anything that presents both sides. An example of that was was RMN presented a heading about McCain during the campaign. They described what his stand was on the bailouts and after two paragraphs they ended up describing where Obama was going to be, the anticipation of the crowd, etc... and this went on for the next eight paragraphs but NEVER presented McCain ideas or elaborate on them. They DID elaborate on Obama's however.
January 16, 2009

7:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

schnauzer writes:

Mike, Your weekly contribution is about all I'll miss when the Rocky folds. I was a subscriber for many years. I won't miss Littwin, Stein etc. though.
As for Donahue, the reason he was CANCELLED, NOT FIRED was that his show didn't even draw flies! A ratings disaster.
January 16, 2009

7:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

taoistblockhead writes:

“Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes” by Andrew M. Lobaczewski.

http://carolynbaker.net/site/content/...

Lobaczewski asserts that every society should teach its members proper thinking skills and how to detect the red flags of sociopathy. Teaching critical thinking skills in the educational process is one step in that direction, but in America's No Child Left Behind gargantuan dumbing down project; even this first step is overwhelmingly absent.

The author states that "an ever-strengthening network of psychopathic and related individuals gradually starts to dominate, overshadowing the others." (192) This situation rapidly devolves into a pathocracy or a system wherein a small pathological minority takes control over a society of normal people. (193) The book's editor, Laura Knight-Jadczyk, in her footnotes does not hesitate to name Karl Rove, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, under the tutelage of Leo Strauss, as principal players in America's twenty-first century pathocracy. Tragically, according to the author, "Pathocracy progressively paralyzes everything [and]...progressively intrudes everywhere and dulls everything."(195)

If this all sounds very grim, and it is, Lobaczewski encourages us by emphasizing that, "If the ponerogenic activity of pathological factors - deviant individuals and their activities - is subjected to conscious controls of a scientific, individual, and societal nature, we can counteract evil as effectively as by means of persistent calls to respect moral values." (180) In other words, the author insists, crusading for moral values alone, can neither prevent nor expose ponerogenic activity. In fact, he asserts, it can exacerbate such activity by distracting attention from the most ghastly forms of evil to that which is not evil at all or presents with a more complex and less blatant quality. We have only to witness the ideology and rhetoric of the religious right in this country to observe a stellar example of the latter. Professing to be a "culture of life" it is implacably obsessed with death, apocalyptic violence, hell fire and brimstone. It serves no purpose, essentially, in the current milieu but to foster and perpetuate pathocracy.

Political Ponerology is an invaluable work that every human being striving to become conscious, should read, not only for its expose of the pathology of the individuals currently in control of the United States government, but also the light it may shed on individuals closer to home, some of whom may be friends, fellow-activists, business or civic leaders. The book's purpose is not to incite paranoia, but to cultivate discernment and buttress our trust of our innate intuition in order to navigate the daunting manifestations of evil that surround us in the twenty-first century.
January 16, 2009

7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

GK writes:

"I hardly call liberals "open-minded" They don't even read anything that presents both sides. "

Conservatives do?? Hilarious!
January 16, 2009

8:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

mvpel writes:

Gonzopozo writes:
---
The liberal mass media is there, it has been for some time, and it will continue to be until the population and the market changes it.
---

The market is, in fact, changing it, and has been for years. You can see this in the shrinking paper size in newspapers across the country, the fact that the New York Times has hemorrhaged nearly 90% of its market capitalization in the last five years, the Washington Post company (publisher of Newsweak) has shed nearly 60%, Gannett is down 91% and is planning a mandatory one-week furlough in Q1, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune is facing bankruptcy, MTV/Paramount/Viacom layoffs in December, Boston Globe closing its Billerica printing plant, etc., etc.

Do a search for "Dinosaur Media Death Watch" on http://www.freerepublic.com/ and you'll be able to see nearly 200 articles dating back to just September of last year on the death throes of traditional media & journalism.

A business can't consistently insult over half its potential customers' beliefs, principles, and intelligence and expect to survive.
January 16, 2009

8:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

denverrose - you are confusing left-wing ideologues with liberals. Probably not your fault though, since promoting confusion about that distinction has been a full time career for the likes of Rosen, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.
January 16, 2009

8:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

AngelontheSidelines writes:

Conservatives can always claim what is right and factual. The alleged liberal bias in the major media may or may not be fact. What is a fact is who owns these liberal media outlets.

A small group of corporations own almost every television network, station, newspaper, magazine, movie studio, or internet giant.

http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership...

These corporations also have tentacles in the military hardware. War is money to these groups, GE, the maker of crucial killing machinery owns NBC outright, and NBC, especially MSNBC is considered liberal, even by liberal standards(hello Olberman, and Maddow).

But the men behind the curtain are careful to keep lefties and righties fighting, that is their aim.
January 16, 2009

8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

fmikey writes:

Can't believe the grade school level fingerpointing going on in this blog. Can anyone seriously explain what a "liberal" or a "conservative" really is? If we look in our heart of hearts we are all probably some of both. However, it appears its much easier to use simplistic labels, undefined and unsubstantiated, to denigrate others who don't share one's view on a particular subject or group of subjects. Talk about dumbing down......
Yes, I'm aware of the positions generally espoused by one side or the other, and I'm probably as informed on today's relevant subjects, but not more so, than most people on this blog, but my point is that we have deteriorated as a society to the point where snap judgments are made, and little is done to get to the real issues.
This plays into the hands of our so-called "leaders" who more and more show us that they are either incapable of or disinterested in really addressing the issues affecting us today. Bush has been villified, and to some degree rightfully so, but I suspect he has done some good. Obama is the newly elected saint, the answer to all our problems, but he will fail us to some degree as all presidents have (I voted for him).
Get beyond the labels (or go back to watching WWF, PBR, the NFL, Oprah, American Idol and Dora the Explorer...). .
January 16, 2009

8:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

INC writes:

When a news source tells the unwashed truth. It then is "Liberal". WRONG! the job of the news media is to tell the truth. period.
yet republicans would rather hear what they think is truth. when what they are accustomed to is propaganda.

so the media reporting the truth becomes "Liberal"? so be it.

conservatives do not like hearing the truth, anyway.
January 16, 2009

8:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

HolierThanThou writes:

Here we go, again. Too bad the conservative pity pot only empties from the top. It needs a flush.

Poor conservatives getting picked on by the corporate media who finds it necessary to occasionally report actual news. Sadly, and here's where my sympathy fiddle starts to squeak, nothing the conservatives do ever really works out.

Conservatives have offshored millions of American jobs, run the nation trillions into a black hole of debts, left us with a possibly limitless war (excepting nuclear weapons of course), and failed at literally everything they said that George W. Bush was going to accomplish.

Wealthy unregulated conservatives have brought the global economy to the brink of collapse. How did this happen? How is it that the media refuses to report daily on the number of jobs offshored and the ponzi schemes of unregulated conservative investment bankers? Could it be that the MEDIA IS CONSERVATIVE? It would seem so because they're usually owned by the same bunch.

Rosen's pity pot is only rivaled by the one currently being used by George W. Bush. Get off it, Nancy!
January 16, 2009

8:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

rockymountainway writes:

Ok here it is, 5 differences between Conservatives and liberals:

5) Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it's vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt. Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn't like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not.

4) Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That's why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best. Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is always....you guessed it, another government program.

3) Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country. That's why we believe in "American exceptionalism" and "America first." Liberals are internationalists who are more concerned about what Europeans think of us and staying in the good graces of the corrupt bureaucrats who control the UN than looking out for the best interests of this nation.

2) Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper. Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity. That's why, whether you're talking about a school play at Christmas time, a judge putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of his court, or a store employee saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays," liberals are dedicated to driving reminders of Christianity from polite society.

1) Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they're pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they're "nice" and make them feel good. Whether the policies they're advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them.
SOURCE:http://townhall.com/Columnists...
January 16, 2009

8:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

rockymountainway writes:

6 more differences:

11. Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires instead of legislating from the bench. That means that judges should determine whether laws are permissible under the Constitution and settle debates about the meaning of laws, not impose their will based on their ideological leanings. Liberals view judges as a backdoor method of getting unpopular left-leaning legislation passed. They don't want umpires, they want political partisans in black robes who will side with them first and then come up with a rationale to explain it.

10) Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose. Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren't going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.

9) Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. On the other hand, liberals believe that it's ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.

8) Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn't be punished for being successful. Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That's why they don't respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs.

7) Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion. Most liberals, despite what they'll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother.

6) Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens. Liberals believe in using law enforcement measures to deal with terrorism, which means that they feel we should allow terrorists to train, plan, and actually attempt to kill Americans before we try to arrest them -- as if you can just send the police around to pick up a terrorist mastermind hiding in Iran or the wilds of Pakistan
January 16, 2009

8:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

For way too many people, "liberal" has come to mean little more than "something I don't understand and might be threatened by" or "something I don't agree with." "Socialism" is equally misunderstood.
January 16, 2009

8:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

rockymountainway writes:

Conservatives and liberals approach almost every issue with completely different philosophies, underlying assumptions, and methods. That's why it's so hard to find genuine compromise between conservatism and liberalism -- because not only are liberals almost always wrong, their solutions almost always make things worse.
January 16, 2009

8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

bobjohnson writes:

I remember the day Alger Hiss died. The lead story on ABC News, hosted by Peter Jennings was "Alger Hiss, who may have been innocent..." During the Senate vote after the impeachment of Bill Clinton, he referred to every Senator who voted to convict as "conservative", and that was half the Senate, while leaving out any label for those who voted to acquit.
January 16, 2009

8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

denverrose15 writes:

GK & SheikYurBooty! I do read both sides. Tell me how it is moral when someone like libs think compassion is allowing people to do whatever they like and then taxing everyone so it can be cleaned up... all in the name of government? There are so many things libs feel are right but without both sides being studied and minus the name calling how can you know for sure you are right? You can't and you won't because it is too hard to check books out of the library and read biographies of these very same people you admire. If you really knew what they mean by this and that you MIGHT not feel the way you do. Most of the media (TV) is a very poor source since I believe they present only one side and newspapers are the same in most cases.
January 16, 2009

8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

MaxPlanck writes:

Rosen takes great pleasure baiting letter writers to the Rocky as much as he enjoys bullying callers to his radio show who articulate alternate views. The reason why he's reduced to this role is not that he's a tireless champion for minority views as he represents but rather his premise - the presumed misdeeds and tyranny of the 'mainstream liberal media' - is invalid and has been so for a very long time. Newspapers? They're in a death spiral, replaced by a new model that's yet to be defined. The TV networks? Their 'control' has been passe for years, replaced by numerous competing sources - the Web, blogs, etc. Radio? I think we know who owns that turf.
You sorely need some new material, Mike.
January 16, 2009

8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Mike: If you are talking about print media and television media, there may be a slight edge to the left. However, you fail to mention the overwhealming mojority of the right in talk radio. This is undeniable. You know it and I know it. You also know that most Americans get their information from talk radio. The point being is, who has the greater influence based on decimination of information and where people get it. Most people don't read newspapers or watch the national news any more. This is evidenced by the rapid decline in print media. Television media has had to create cable stations just to stay afloat. Please use some intellectual honesty Mike when deceminating your bias. Talk radio has boomed in the last 25 years, in large part to tallent's like Rush Limbaugh. Whether people like him or not you have to admit he has helped to push talk radio in the conservative direction. My point being that it is not how the scales are weighted in media, it is who caries the most influence. It is talk radio which dominates where most people get their information. The bias, therefore becomes where the majority of people get their information not which media outlet is presenting it.
January 16, 2009

8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

B1 writes:

Inc wrote: "When a news source tells the unwashed truth. It then is "Liberal". WRONG! the job of the news media is to tell the truth. period."

When you are talking about truth, are you including Dan Rather?

Imagine the screaming if a made up story had been so prominently broadcast weeks before your messiah was elected.
January 16, 2009

9:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

jfredmuggs writes:

The mainstream media paddles their canoe close to the middle of the stream. That is the safest course and where the money is. If you believe that the mainstream media is liberal, that means that you are conservative. If you believe that the mainstream media is conservative, that means that you are liberal. Some media outlets may paddle on the right side of the canoe, and some may paddle on the left side of the canoe; but, they all keep their canoe in the middle of the stream. There is no voice for radical views from either the right or the left in the mainstream media.
January 16, 2009

9:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Clarence_Boddicker writes:

Marshdale writes: "Mike: If you are talking about print media and television media, there may be a slight edge to the left. However, you fail to mention the overwhealming mojority of the right in talk radio. This is undeniable."

Did you not read the article Marshdale?

Rosen: "Conservative outposts like TV's Fox News Channel (with 2 million viewers compared with the liberal news networks' 25 million), The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, National Review magazine and much of talk radio certainly counteract some of this liberal dominance of the mass media, but that doesn't alter the reality of liberal dominance - to say nothing of liberal domination of public education, academe, the arts and the entertainment industry."
January 16, 2009

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Clarrence: You missed the point. Regardless of whether or not Fox News has 2 million to others of 26 million was not my point. My point was where most Americans get their information these days, which is talk radio. Talk radio consists mostly of opinion laced with a few facts and half truths and outright lies. The majority of talk radio overwealmingly so, is of a conservative slant. So the bias lies in where people rely on getting their information not which media outlet is presenting it. I am not saying that the few liberal radio talk shows don't do the same. Randi Rhodes being the worst. Even as a liberal I can't stand her. She spews missinformation like Old Faithfull.
January 16, 2009

10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

B1 writes:

Marshdale: "My point was where most Americans get their information these days, which is talk radio."

I hadn't heard that before. Do you have a source to back it up?
January 16, 2009

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

Additionally, regarding talk radio. Lumping Rush Limbaugh and other radio "personalities" in with "news" is mighty convenient.

Arbitron, a company that specializes in radio ratings, reports that the majority of radio listeners get their news from public radio sources (NPR, APR, etc.), of course making a distinction between news and commentary is the key here. Rush Limbaugh is considered commentary, not news. Commentary is expected to be biased, news is not. If one gets ones "news" from commentary, perhaps the contents of what one is getting is not the problem.

Now, when we take the number of radio news listeners (26 million according to Arbitron) and compare that to the number of viewers of television news sources (cable and broadcast) alone (roughly 28 million reported by Nielsen) we see that, in fact, more people get their news from television than from radio, let alone print.

Marshdale, can you share some research that supports your "It is talk radio which dominates where most people get their information." claim?

An analysis of the Arbitron information can be found at the Journalism.org website (http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.com/20...).

Nielsen ratings are available here (http://www.nielsenmedia.com) or more simply at (http://tvbythenumbers.com)
January 16, 2009

10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

After his most recent column on the mascot Boone, I suggested that Rosen was purposely baiting his audience (white, male, older--the demographic for talk radio listeners) into feeling resentment over anything that smacks of a racial or PC issue.

He does this with this column too. The resentment that he foments here, is based primarily on the idea that "the" media is against ME. Or, as Sheik puts it: "For way too many people, "liberal" has come to mean little more than "something I don't understand and might be threatened by" or "something I don't agree with.""

Read Rosen's column and you'll see that his primary argument for his claim of a "liberal mainstream media" is that he (or someone else) says so. Repeatedly. In other words, the media is liberal because I say it is. Example: "That the mass media are dominated by liberals is so obvious as to be beyond debate". Note too, that he frequently prefaces persons or things as left or right (or some corresponding label). That way his audience can easily identify "sides" and who is good and who is bad. Kinda like cowboys and indians, or Broncos and Raiders.

No need to define liberal or conservative, or to define "the mainstream media" or to provide evidence of media that exhibits bias, or to put any of this into perspective.
January 16, 2009

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Clarence_Boddicker writes:

Marshdale writes: "Clarence: You missed the point."

You said Rosen failed to mention the overwhelming majority of the right in talk radio, which he did. Your assertion that the majority of Americans get their information from talk radio is just an assertion. Most of talk radio is editorial and entertainment, not journalism
January 16, 2009

10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

BobCratchit writes:

Oh no. The "LIBERALS" control the media! Boogety Boogety!

The reason why liberals dominate the media is the same reason they dominate the teaching profession. Liberals are committed to making sure their communities are better places. Being a reporter or a teacher doesn't PAY much, but it does actually contribute something to our society.

Rosen whining about a liberal bias in the media is as laughable as me whining about the conservative bias in the banking and insurance industries.

Perhaps if more conservatives were willing to forgo their love of money and take jobs making the world a better place, they would have a bigger voice in those professions.

I would like to point out the industries Rose cites where there is a LIBERAL BIAS...public education, academe, the arts and the entertainment industry, have not outsourced ONE job to a foreign country.
Can the same be said of typically conservative industries like banking, insurance and financial planning? Also, how are those typically conservative industries doing lately?

Rosen is the worst kind of hypocrite. It's a pity he won't be following his hero, George Bush into retirement where they both could make up whatever reality suited their world views.
January 16, 2009

10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

fantasymountain, thanks for posting a source of some real evidence. As the arbitron link indicates, the news/talk/information is the most popular format on the radio. The last time I checked, (probably at arbitron), KOA (talk radio giant) was clearly the most listened to station in the Denver metro region. I've read that the talk radio audience numbers about 30 million nationwide (I don't have a source at hand).

You are kind to call Limbaugh's show commentary (implying something that is measured or thoughtful). It's straight up propaganda. Marshdale makes an important distinction: talk radio (most anyway) consists of a single view--kinda like an infomercial. Major newspapers and even television to some extent provide a variety of views. So it's rather disingenuous for Rosen to make a straight comparison between these mediums.
January 16, 2009

10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

I recommend the term "mediaocres" because they are the "media" and their ability to accurately portray reality is rather "mediocre".
January 16, 2009

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

To all of you Rosen-haters out there (you know who you are).

First, Mike could say the sun rises in the east, and you would find some ulterior motive behind his statement and discredit it ... usually by claiming he is "irrelevant", as if your saying so made that true. That's one of the true indicators of liberals -- whatever you claim is true must be true because you said so.

Second, if you don't like his column, don't read it. I know it hurts your brain to try and digest alternative views. No matter what a previous letter writer said about liberals being open-minded, it's not true. You hate (yes, jay -- hate) everything outside your world view.

Third, even if you disregard the above advice, take heart in the fact that you won't have Rosen to kick around much longer. Once the Rocky closes you will have to find a new whipping-boy for your ire.

Good luck.
January 16, 2009

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Clarence Boddicker to Marshdale: "Your assertion that the majority of Americans get their information from talk radio is just an assertion. Most of talk radio is editorial and entertainment, not journalism"

So, are you saying that when we talk about that vaguely defined "media bias", that talk radio doesn't really count because it's not journalism? It's clear to me that many people's political ideas are strongly influenced by what they hear on the radio. You see talk radio remarks (in style and substance) parroted every day in the letters to the RMN. Of course, that's only a subjective impression.
January 16, 2009

10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Funny!!!! Taoistblockhead quotes “Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes” by Andrew M. Lobaczewski without recognizing that Lobaczewski is promoting only a different form of indoctrination, an indoctrination that requires mind-numbing followers far more than I've seen of any right-wing ideologue.

How absolutely ironic!
January 16, 2009

10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ofearghail writes:

>>B1 writes:
Marshdale: "My point was where most Americans get their information these days, which is talk radio."

I hadn't heard that before. Do you have a source to back it up?<<

I seriously doubt there is a source that can back that up, because I don't believe it is true. Yes, many Americans get their information from radio; however, the vast majority of Americans are not terribly interested in real information anyway, so they just listen to music on the radio (when they're in the car and don't have access to television or Internet).

It seems to me that television is still the primary source of "information" for most people, although for the majority of them it amounts to a few sounds bites from the nightly news (if they bother to watch that) or whatever is fed to them between segments of their sitcoms and "reality" shows.

A sizeable, and growing, number of people get more of their information from the Internet. These people probably take more time to delve into details and compare alternative points of view; however, those who are strongly partisan are most likely only reading sites that provide what will support their preconceived notions.

I have no "source" to back up my suggestions above - going only on "gut instinct" and personal observation. But it seems in line with most of what I have read and heard in recent years.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that the great majority of Americans are NOT really informed at all. They don't want information, just entertainment. This is why they are so easy to persuade with catchy sound bites and ads during election time. Just come up with the "right image" or some catchy phrases, and all the dumb little sheep will come scampering your way on election day... even if they don't really know why.
January 16, 2009

10:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

B1 writes:

The clear distinction, which Anderson and others don't get, is that Rosen, Limbaugh, etc, admit their bias. Couric, Olberman, NPR, etc expect us to believe they are unbiased.
January 16, 2009

10:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

BobCratchit, are you implying that Outsourcing is a bad thing?

One can argue, BobCratchit, that the reason that "liberals" dominate the teaching profession is not related to pay, but related to the way the profession is managed (think unions, administrations, etc.). In fact, recent research has shown that teacher pay isn't one of the top 3 reasons for low morale within, and exists from, the teaching profession.

I'll agree with your assertion that US public education has not been outsourced, that is, teachers and staff do not reside in other countries, but manufacturing text books and other support materials are definitely "outsourced".

The arts & entertainment industry has certainly seen some outsourcing. Where are DVDs and Blue-ray disks manufactured and where are the production lines for transferring the latest box-office block-buster to that media?

As for how are industries doing, last I checked, the public education system (colleges and universities included) is not doing so well. With only 17% of students entering college actually receiving a degree, the US ranks among the bottom half globally and our younger population (18-24) is not getting the education they need to succeed. Granted education has not fared nearly as poorly as the other industries you've mentioned, but you are implying that there have been no failures or declines in education, which is untrue.
January 16, 2009

11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Ofearghail: Apparrently My source was bad on this. You are correct. The latest info I found was 1 in 4 get info from radio. So I spewed missinformation. Sorry about that. I appologize. I'm embarrassed, but at least I admit it. What I found after further research is people are still getting info from TV, but more and more from satelite radio and internet.
January 16, 2009

11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

DiogenesTheCynic writes:

Right-wing columnist who shares space with right-wing Krauthammer and right-wing Kopel and right-wing Carroll in a right-wing paper and hosts a right-wing talk radio show bookended by other right-wing talk show hosts thinks the media overwhelmingly backed a center-right candidate and is left-wing because of it.

Rosen, you are out of your mind.
January 16, 2009

11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Clarence_Boddicker writes:

anderson writes: "Clarence Boddicker to Marshdale: "Your assertion that the majority of Americans get their information from talk radio is just an assertion. Most of talk radio is editorial and entertainment, not journalism"

So, are you saying that when we talk about that vaguely defined "media bias", that talk radio doesn't really count because it's not journalism? It's clear to me that many people's political ideas are strongly influenced by what they hear on the radio. You see talk radio remarks (in style and substance) parroted every day in the letters to the RMN. Of course, that's only a subjective impression."

That isn't remotely implied by what I said. I was countering Mashdale's assertion that Mike didn't mention talk radio (which he did) and that the majority of Americans get their information from talk radio (which isn't true).
Most rational people can see the clear difference between NBC Nightly News and Rush Limbaugh/Randy Rhodes. The ideologs like to quote the later because that's who's telling them what they want to hear.
January 16, 2009

11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Clarence_Boddicker writes:

Kudos to Marshdale for the retraction. Thank you
January 16, 2009

11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Ofearghail: I believe I've read a report that most people get their news from television. I agree with all you said expect perhaps for your characterization of most Americans as uninformed dumb sheep. I think most people are thoughtful and want good information. However, those who market media have a different agenda (selling a product) and its pretty hard to escape all of the ideas loaded into the product. I mean, if you turn on the TV for sports information, for example, you basically have a choice of ESPN the Soap Opera or Fox Sports, and their ideas are pretty simple (I should love sports, I should identify with sports personalites, I should love pickup trucks, beer, and fast food, I should avoid talking about political ideas but the latest cat fight on the Cowboys should be interesting to me).
January 16, 2009

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

DiogenesTheCynic writes:

The allegedly left wing NYT supports globalization, backed the war in Iraq and employs universally wrong neoconservative Bill Kristol and evangelist of outsourcing Thomas Friedman.

In Denver, both the right and allegedly left-wing papers backed George W. Bush.

Pundits can call Obama's 4% increase on the top marginal tax rate "socialism," (even though the rate topped 90% under Eisenhower and was over 50% through the entirety of Reagan's first term,) but if anyone said Bush's executive power-grabs and nationalist wars smacked of fascism, they'd be driven out of the business.

Mike, you only think the press is "liberal" because you're so far to the right you're ready to teeter over the edge.
January 16, 2009

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

B1: "The clear distinction, which Anderson and others don't get, is that Rosen, Limbaugh, etc, admit their bias. Couric, Olberman, NPR, etc expect us to believe they are unbiased."

You're right, I disagree with your remark. It's a joke to compare, for example, Limbaugh and NPR as two sides of the same coin. As I suggested earlier, one is propaganda. The other is not. You may find some "bias" in about any media. That doesn't mean that all bias is equal in its degree or effect, nor does it mean that bias is liberal or conservative (and nothing else).
January 16, 2009

11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jeff writes:

Taoist (to go back a bit), you make a good point about the runup to the war. As with so many other neocon arguments, Rosen’s basically rests on the premise that we’ve all gotten amnesia vis-à-vis 2002-2005. If there was a huge liberal news bias back then, I couldn’t find it.

rockymountainway: Your list reminds me of a stand-up comedian doing one of those “Black guys drive a car like this! White guys drive a car like this!” acts, and probably should be taken no more seriously.
January 16, 2009

11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

kjohnsen writes:

This is satire, right? No one really believes in a liberal media anymore, do they? After the New York Times pushed the administration line and helped get us in to Iraq? That would be truly delusional.
January 16, 2009

11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

BobCratchit writes:

fntsymtn...please.

Are you honestly suggesting that people often decide upon a career because of how it's administrated?

And as for DVD production being outsourced...Um, actually you are WRONG there. Most DVD's are burned within the US due to copyright infringements in foreign countries like China. Next time you try to pass off your best guess for the truth, do some research first. And of course you fail to mention all those UNION jobs that MAKE the entertainment product which is then burned onto DVD's and CD's.

As for the current state of education, I would have thought that 7 years of no-child-left-behind would have fixed all that?

My central point, that liberal bias in these industries is inherent to the type of people and their goals and aspirations is why they are dominated by one group or another, remains unassailed.

Rosen and you, avoid this fact because you don't like the mirror it holds up to conservatism. Too bad.
January 16, 2009

11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Relevant Rosen as usual. Nice, truthful and very accurate opinion piece, Mike. Thanks for speaking out, even when the far left kooks post diatribes based off of their feelings and emotions but without facts. Everyone knows the New York Times is as far left and out of touch as it gets with any newspaper.

When most of us are near moderate, maybe a little left or a little right, the far left and the far right are out of touch with reality. It's why Americans are looking elsewhere for the truth instead of being led like sheep by left wing nuts in the media.
January 16, 2009

11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

Anderson, I don't recall that Rosen made a direct comparison between radio and television/print in his piece. Marshdale made the direct comparison and asserted that more people get their information from talk radio than from the other sources.

The average weekly audience for all of talk radio (according to Arbitron) is about 13 million. This pales by comparison to just the viewing audience of the big-3 (ABC, CBS, NBC) which is nearly 24 million viewers. Add to that 20 million to the 6 million cable news viewers and the 51 million newspapers in circulation, and you really dwarf the talk radio audience.

So what's my point? It is disingenuous to equate talk radio with television/print in terms of audience size or influence, and bordering on patently false to assert that more people get their information from talk radio than from television and/or print.

Additionally, Mike Rosen has defined his definitions of liberal and conservative on countless occasions on RMN, discounting this article because he didn't reassert those definitions is lazy at best.
January 16, 2009

11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

jd writes:

I don't remember which columnist reported this but they actually agreed that 85%+ of the reporters out there are left leaning liberals and that it was true that the news in this country is heavily left leaning. Why argue about it among ourselves. The liberal reporters themselves admit it.
January 16, 2009

11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

DougH writes:

Oh for sure, We must thank Mike for saving us from the terrible fate that has come from the wicked LIBERAL Press. What a bunch of BS.

Conservatives have their own news outlet on Fox and now say that everyone that does not agree with them is LIBERAL. So FOX is the only true news sources and ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Rueters, CC1, Associated Press and the BBC are all bastions of Liberalism and should not be considered as news sources.

This reminds me of the third grader that says he is right and everyone else is wrong , so he will take his ball and go home.

What a lot of bull that we keep hearing from Rosen and his right wing extremists. Don’t forget, people like Mike Rosen and Rush Limbaugh were the guys that brought us George Bush.
January 16, 2009

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Marshdale, can you provide proof that "most Anericans" get their information from talk radio? What an out of touch exaggeration of a comment that was. Talk radio might be dominated by conservatives, but talk TV is dominated by far left liberals, like Maher, Colbert and Olberrman. The Fairness Doctrine would mean that those guys would have to give a balanced view too, you do know that, right? And since there's more viewers of TV than listeners of talk radio, I'm sure Pelosi would try hard to make sure the Fairness Doctrine would only apply to radio and not TV. After watching a lot of stuff on the History Channel about Hitler and the Nazi's, it's not far off from how Hitler made changes to control the media in a way that favored him and any dissent to that was quashed. Nancy Pelosi is similar in her beliefs on controlling information to the public.
January 16, 2009

11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

B1 writes:

Cwilly-Marshdale retracted that statement.
January 16, 2009

11:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

fnstymountain: "Anderson, I don't recall that Rosen made a direct comparison between radio and television/print in his piece."

Here is his direct comparison. It is implied:

"Conservative outposts like TV's Fox News Channel (with 2 million viewers compared with the liberal news networks' 25 million), The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, National Review magazine and much of talk radio certainly counteract some of this liberal dominance of the mass media"

Fntsymountain: "The average weekly audience for all of talk radio (according to Arbitron) is about 13 million."

If your taking this number from the link you posted earlier, read closer. I believe the 13 million figure is a reference to people who listen to public radio.

"It is disingenuous to equate talk radio with television/print in terms of audience size or influence,"

I agree and that's a point I made earlier.

"[It's] bordering on patently false to assert that more people get their information from talk radio than from television and/or print."

I never made such a claim. Marshdale retracted his earlier statement. Furthermore, there's no indication that he purposely intended to misinform or provide false information.

"Additionally, Mike Rosen has defined his definitions of liberal and conservative on countless occasions on RMN"

Really? Self-serving definitions that support a circular argument don't count (e.g., because of the liberal New York Times, our mass media is liberal). If I were to undertake a study of media bias, I would have to define liberal and conservative (and explain why I used these two categories to the exclusion of anything else). Rosen has never done anything of the sort, that I've seen. He knows how to yank chains, and appeal to prejudices, however.

"discounting this article because he didn't reassert those definitions is lazy at best."

No. Like I said earlier, he's claiming the media is liberal because he says so. It's a bullsh__ argument.
January 16, 2009

11:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

BobCratchit writes:

The success or failure of conservative ideology can be found in the last 8 years.
* Worst attack on US soil in history of U.S.
* Worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression.
* Vast majority of U.S. citizens believe America is on the "wrong track".
* Infrastructure failing.
* Deregulation disastrous.
* Largest budget deficits ever.
* WORKING AMERICANS have seen their paychecks worth less and their pay stagnate.

But at least Bush and the neocons got Osama Bin Laden though.
January 16, 2009

12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

B1 writes:

Bob-your inability to admit that blame lies on both sides can be found in your above post.

The dem led house and senate are not exactly setting approval ratings records.
January 16, 2009

12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

jd: "I don't remember which columnist reported this but they actually agreed that 85%+ of the reporters out there are left leaning liberals"

This is a right-wing talking point. Take a piece of the picture (the political views of reporters--if that could be determined) and offer it without any context as proof of "bias". (1) If a reporter is liberal, bias in a story is possible but the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow; (2) Editors, owners, and advertisers all have an influence on what is reported. If you want a specific example, see a RMN editor and publisher John Temple's
pulling of Jason Salzman's column two weeks ago; (3) reporters imply newspapers. What about radio, TV, the internet?

"Why argue about it among ourselves. The liberal reporters themselves admit it."

Why should we trust what a reporter says if, as you say, they are biased?
January 16, 2009

12:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

B1 bomber to Bob-"your inability to admit that blame lies on both sides can be found in your above post.

The dem led house and senate are not exactly setting approval ratings records."

I believe part of the disappoval of both Congress and the President is fueled by the fairly recent tendency (i.e., in the last 20 years) in media to be hyper-critical of politicians. They're an easy target. A Senator or the President has to be accountable to a variety of constituents to some extent (they are in public service in a glass house). Sean Hannity does not.
January 16, 2009

12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

BobCratchit writes:

B1...

So, you're saying that the republicans who stubbornly stuck by their failed policies and failed to implement the change the American public demanded in the 2006 elections, are the fault of liberals somehow?

The chance will come in the following years to see which party, given controlling power of congress will do a better job with it.

It will not be difficult for the liberals to outshine the job you conservatives have done.

The conservative tactic of asserting that they are not solely to blame is getting tiresome. I thought you guys were supposed to be the party of responsibility. Why don't you try taking some for the condition your "leadership" has left this country?
January 16, 2009

12:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

flimflam writes:

One of the most fascinating things about living in this day and age has to be that the political wing that represents the most powerful people in our country continues to harbor such a vibrant victimization complex.
January 16, 2009

12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hragel writes:

taoistjackass:

NAME THE LAW President Bush violated when he launched the congressionally-approved liberation of the nation of Iraq.

You CAN'T. It was NOT an ILLEGAL WAR.

Facts, the inconvenient truth. You might want to use one once or twice.

Oh, and Your Boy the Magic Plastic Muslim Kenyan Messiah and Mrs Bill Clinton (who got to where she is ON HER BACK) BOTH voted to authorize the liberation of Iraq. Did they violate the law too (okay, Hitlery Clintoon is a SERIAL CRIMINAL, I just mean did the purulent cow violate the law in approving the Liberation of Iraq)?

Just like you jackasses kept screaming for President George W Bush to be impeached and your ninnies on Capitol Hill never did, because he did NOTHING to be impeached over!

Is it no wonder that most stupid people vote Democrat?
January 16, 2009

12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

O_TRAIN writes:

maroons, buffoons, whiners - the type that blame the referees when their team loses. I don't remember ever being forced to consume any specific media. We have choices on where we want our info - to complain about bias is lazy and an excuse when you have nothing else. Buck up media consumers and take some responsibility.

Jeff - you are correct, rockymountainway's list is pure fantasy or intentional troll bait. He/she may want to start with Goldwater to understand what a conservative used to look like.
January 16, 2009

12:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

B1.... yeah, I saw that. Thanks. It's cool that he at least admitted it and I respect that.
January 16, 2009

12:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

taoistblockhead writes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

By John Conyers Jr.

Friday, January 16, 2009; Page A19

This week, I released "Reining in the Imperial Presidency," a 486-page report detailing the abuses and excesses of the Bush administration and recommending steps to address them. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. popularized the term "imperial presidency" in the 1970s to describe an executive who had assumed more power than the Constitution allows and circumvented the checks and balances fundamental to our three-branch system of government. Until recently, the Nixon administration seemed to represent a singular embodiment of the idea. Unfortunately, it is clear that the threat of the imperial presidency lives on and, indeed, reached new heights under George W. Bush.

As this report documents, there was the administration's contrived drive to a needless war of aggression with Iraq, based on manipulated intelligence and facts that were "fixed around the policy." There was its politicization of the Justice Department; unconscionable and possibly illegal policies on detention, interrogation and extraordinary rendition; warrantless wiretaps of American citizens; the ravaging of our regulatory system and the use of signing statements to override the laws of the land; and the intimidation and silencing of critics and whistle-blowers who dared to tell fellow citizens what was being done in their name. And all of this was hidden behind an unprecedented veil of secrecy and outlandish claims of privilege.

……

Third, the new administration should conduct an independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities. Just this week, in the pages of this newspaper, a Guantanamo Bay official acknowledged that a suspect there had been "tortured" -- her exact word -- in apparent violation of the law. The law is the law, and, if criminal conduct occurred, those responsible -- particularly those who ordered and approved the violations -- must be held accountable.

Some day, there is bound to be another national security crisis in America. A future president will face the same fear and uncertainty that we did after Sept. 11, 2001, and will feel the same temptation to believe that the ends justify the means -- temptation that drew our nation over to the "dark side" under the leadership of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. If those temptations are to be resisted -- if we are to face new threats in a manner that keeps faith with our values and strengthens rather than diminishes our authority around the world -- we must fully learn the lessons of our recent past.
January 16, 2009

12:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Talk radio listenership:

What the industry (via magazine media) says about itself:

http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php...
January 16, 2009

12:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Bob, the worst attack ever on America soil was actually at Pearl Harbor from the Japanese.

The financial meltdown can be laid at the feet of both parties. Republicans and Democrats! Don't forget the mortgage crisis and how Democrats pushed to lax rules for home ownership that is affecting the country now.
January 16, 2009

12:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

oma writes:

denverrose posted at 8:40: GK & SheikYurBooty! I do read both sides. Tell me how it is moral when someone like libs think compassion is allowing people to do whatever they like and then taxing everyone so it can be cleaned up... all in the name of government? There are so many things libs feel are right but without both sides being studied and minus the name calling how can you know for sure you are right?
whatever you are trying to say here makes no sense and is idiotic. just what is it that "libs" allow people to do that needs to be cleaned up? like valdez oil spills? remember the love canal? (no, not that love canal). what about enron? was that "clean up" caused by liberals? your assertions are incomprehensible w/o further explanation. as a progressive, i pride myself on reading both sides of the argument and i find that conservatism of the last 8 years is morally and ethically bankrupt. so much of the last 8 years, conservatives claim that libs hate bush so much. no, i don't hate bush, i just don't see anything to like about the guy, especially his policies and his cavalier attitude about all things governmental. he gave no more thought to going into iraq than he did in choosing which white house bathroom to use for his morning constitution. so we don't hate bush because i just said so, why do you all hate liberals so much? and one more thing, rosen and conservatives new mantra since their absolute trouncing at the polls this past november is that the majority of the country is right of center. prove it. i would say that in my walk of life on a daily basis, it is 60/40, progressive/conservative.
January 16, 2009

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

BobCratchit writes:

Cwillyrun1:

Again, we see the conservatives simply stating something they believe to be fact, when in fact it is not.

Over 2400 Americans died at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941.
Over 3000 Americans died in NYC and in Washington DC on 9-11-01.

Tell me, which number is bigger?

As for blaming the subprime meltdown on dems, who wrote and rammed though congress the Gramm-Bliley Leach act in 1999 which allowed the repackaging of these subprime loans as secure commodities?

An analysis for The Wall Street Journal of more than $2.5 trillion in subprime loans made since 2000 shows that as the number of subprime loans mushroomed, an increasing proportion of them went to people with credit scores high enough to often qualify for conventional loans with far better terms.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB11966...

So when the MAJORITY of subprime loans went to borrowers that could have qualified for prime rate loans, that was the democrats fault?

I am getting pretty tired of having to debunk the lies you conservatives feel compelled to tell. Tell me, is it simply because you're too lazy to find out the facts or do you know you're lying and simply don't care?
January 16, 2009

12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

B1 writes:

Bob-"So, you're saying that the republicans who stubbornly stuck by their failed policies and failed to implement the change the American public demanded in the 2006 elections, are the fault of liberals somehow?"

No, I am saying that both parties are to blame for the current state of the USA. Do you deny that congress voted on Iraq? Do you deny that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, among others, are a big part of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the foreclosure problem? What change did the American public demand in the 2006 elections?

"It will not be difficult for the liberals to outshine the job you conservatives have done. Why don't you try taking some for the condition your "leadership" has left this country?"

I am no apologist for Bush and the rep majority from 2000 to 2006. There are a lot of things I wish they had done differently/better/at all. Can you name one thing that Bush did well in 8 years?

You are crazy if you think only conservatives/reps are responsible for every current problem.

I answered your questions, let's see if you can do the same.
January 16, 2009

1:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

rcop writes:

"If the shoe were on the other foot and conservatives reigned in these places, liberals would be screaming bloody murder."
M. Rosen

They are screaming about talk radio. Why else would there be a hypocritical push for the Fairness Doctrine?
Seems Rosen's theory is correct.
January 16, 2009

1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

BobCratchit writes:

B1:
A majority of the REPUBLICAN controlled congress voted on intelligence that was cooked by Republicans.

What exactly did Barney Frank and Chris Dodd do? Did they deregulate the lending industry? Did they allow subprime loans to be chopped up and sold as secure commodities? I have yet to see one conservative back up the supposed mismanagement of Freddie and Fannie by Frank with any actual facts. Show me the facts behind your assertion and I'll consider it. Until then, just the conservative assertion that it is so, does not cut the mustard.

What change did the American public demand in the 2006 elections? How about get out of Iraq and fix THIS country and give our people affordable healthcare instead of building infrastructure and providing healthcare in Iraq?

I gave two FACTUAL examples of fiscal mismanagement by conservatives and you have simply asserted that Dodd and Frank did something with no proof to back up that claim. I can sure as hell point to a direct consequence of the Gramm-Bliley Leach legislation passed by the republican congress...can you do the same for Dodd and Frank?

I'm not blaming conservatives for EVERY problem. Just the ones they helped create, which happen to be most of the big ones we're facing right now.
January 16, 2009

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

GK writes:

"even when the far left kooks post diatribes based off of their feelings and emotions but without facts. Everyone knows the New York Times is as far left and out of touch as it gets with any newspaper.

When most of us are near moderate, maybe a little left or a little right, the far left and the far right are out of touch with reality. It's why Americans are looking elsewhere for the truth instead of being led like sheep by left wing nuts in the media."

Whose out of touch and emotional??
January 16, 2009

1:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

It's a favorite technique of the talk radio crowd to point out flaws in others, that are more like their own. Kinda like the kid who says, "Who cut the cheese?" (it came from him of course). Kinda like Rosen's decrying strawman arguments (of course he doesn't name it, just says it occurred).
January 16, 2009

1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Roni writes:

Mom carefully taught me not to hate, and, not say anything about another, if I couldn't say something nice.
Snarking, which I see far too many inkers, including “Dominant, liberal establishment mass media” (quote Mike Rosen), isn’t funny, kind or interesting.
It tromps over that fine line of civility, and dangerously leaves the tromped upon without their pride.
In 1978, I read a little book titled - "The Fourth Branch of The Government" - which of course the author claimed as "the media."
This past election qualified that, by the media’s resounding nation wide notice , “He who controls the printed word, controls elections.”
Snarkers are also “hit and runners.” They‘re nothing more than stinky little brats, who kick folks in the shin, then run away and hide. (See Maureen Dowd et al.).
They never offer solutions, apologies when they’re clearly wrong, or debate.
It is my humble observation that Mr. Rosen is accurate...in his observations.
Thank you Mike. For your long time continuation of stating the truth…and the facts.
January 16, 2009

1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

B1 writes:

Bob-

Great editorial on Frank, at best he stuck his head in the sand:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12209...

Chris Dodd received more contributions from Fannie from '99 to '08 than anyone and also refused to admit there was a problem.

"How about get out of Iraq and fix THIS country and give our people affordable healthcare instead of building infrastructure and providing healthcare in Iraq?"

There was not a vote on those things specifically. There were votes on individual house and senate races. The reps had control from 2000 to 2006, the democrats did not roll over and let them do whatever they want. A power shift does not mean the sitting president should completely change his policies. Thank goodness we don't live in a straight democracy.

You may not be blaming conservatives for every problem, but you are definitely refusing to admit any guilt on the part of the left.
January 16, 2009

1:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

bob, sorry to disappoint you but history is clear. If you're only going by a statistical number...... based off of deaths (which seems to be shortsighted, but whatever), then you can feel free see it that way. The worst attack on American soil was Pearl Harbor, regardless. We got in World War II because of it, and despite the pacifists that still thought we should eat it and not fight for our survival. No matter what you say, my thoughts won't change.

I think you need to expand your knowledge on legislation as well. In 2007, under Democrat leadership, a bill was passed that allowed more and more people who were unqualified or underqualified to secure mortgages. It didn't take long (over a year) for the mortgage mess to come about as a result. Those facts are undisputable and don't support your theories. Sorry!

One other thing, labeling someone a conservative who is registered Independent and is moderate doesn't help your argument. Left wing nuts are just as bad as right wing nuts.
January 16, 2009

1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

gk, apparently the left wing and right wing nuts, huh?
January 16, 2009

2:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

jbowen43 writes:

Pity the wing nuts like Rosen who have only their myths left to them. The facts have shown that conservatism is a gross failure when put into practice.
January 16, 2009

2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

darkman writes:

Marshdale-- I second the kudos for the retraction. Although you and I probably disagree on many things (I am hardcore conservative), it's nice to see intellectual honesty. Too often in these pages I see people who consistently put out ridiculous arguments and immediately resort to name calling or accusing the other side of whining, etc.

It sure would be nice if we could have more "arguments" where we only discuss the matter at hand rather than bringing up things like: "oh yeah, well so and so who is a Republican/Democrat did xyz bad thing" so you are most/all like that. In my opinion this kind of arguing accomplishes nothing except for enflaming the other person. Just look at many of the posts above; I think it proves my point.

Oh, and btw Marshdale, that second paragraph is not directed at you...just a general observation about the quality of discourse on these pages.
January 16, 2009

2:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

darkman writes:

HolierThanThou writes:

"Here we go, again. Too bad the conservative pity pot only empties from the top. It needs a flush.
Poor conservatives getting picked on by the corporate media who finds it necessary to occasionally report actual news. Sadly, and here's where my sympathy fiddle starts to squeak, nothing the conservatives do ever really works out."

This is the kind of cr@p I was talking about in my previous post. Yeah, great argument.I don't suppose you could list an actual documented fact or two?

HolierThanThou writes:

"Conservatives have offshored millions of American jobs, run the nation trillions into a black hole of debts, left us with a possibly limitless war (excepting nuclear weapons of course), and failed at literally everything they said that George W. Bush was going to accomplish."

Exactly what conservatives have offshored those jobs? Is there some big secret government agency somewhere that decides where companies setup shop? Guess what-- it's the CEO's and directors of companies that decide where to build factories. And guess what-- some of them are Republicans and some are Democrats. I hate to burst your conspiracy bubble but the reason they do it is cheaper labor and tax costs. I'm not at all saying I agree with the practice, just that it's done for monetary reasons, not liberal .vs. conservative or Democrat .vs. Republican. And if the government is to be able to make any difference here, what about corporate income tax rates? Which party is it than generally wants to lower the costs so the companies might stay here? And which party is it that usually wants to raise the rates and incites class warfare with "tax cuts for the rich" claims?

HolierThanThou writes:

"Wealthy unregulated conservatives have brought the global economy to the brink of collapse. How did this happen? How is it that the media refuses to report daily on the number of jobs offshored and the ponzi schemes of unregulated conservative investment bankers? Could it be that the MEDIA IS CONSERVATIVE? It would seem so because they're usually owned by the same bunch."

Again, do you have any FACTS to support this? Which "wealthy unregulated conservatives" were these? Was Bernie Madoff a conservative? Which others? And like so many have stated before, there are Democrats in charge of oversight in congress. And btw, I am not saying that conservatives or Republicans had no hand in this-- I definitely believe we are equally culpable in much of the financial mess. I just hate ridiculous lies about conservatives being solely responsible.
January 16, 2009

2:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

rosen rosen rosen.

once again, folks, instead of trying to blame everyone else for the failures of conservative policy stances, republicans need to take some responsibility for their own actions and positions and find a way to once again become relelvant.

until then, the whining about the media, the voters, mcsame, palin, the slim dem majority in congress since 2007, etc just isn't going to help their cause.
January 16, 2009

2:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Rosen, the rightwing persecution complex is getting seriously tedious.Which is at least one reason why more voters and more media outlets aren't conservative. Good grief, who would want to be?
January 16, 2009

2:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

BobCratchit writes:

Cwillyrun1:

"I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him."
Abraham Lincoln said that. He might just as well have been talking about you.

I said that 9-11 was the worst attack on U.S. soil in history of U.S. and I was right. Not the aftermath. Not any of your other piddling mitigating factors. Again, we see conservatives are loathe to admit when they make a mistake and PROUD of being too stubborn to admit it. And how did Republicans react to this attack? By attacking those who carried it out? No, by invading another country that had nothing to do with it and killing half a million of it's occupants.

As for the subprime meltdown, if you're going to cite a piece of legislation, perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me the name of it at least? Are you talking about the CRA act? If you don't even know the name of the law, how in the world can you come off as either informed or knowledgeable about it?

If the CRA is what you ARE talking about, please provide some empirial evidence that it contributed to the subprime meltdown?

In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA. Another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. He stated that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps" one in four sub-prime loans. Referring to CRA and abuses in the subprime market, Michael Barr stated that in his judgment "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".

So, are you suggesting that 25% of the bad subprime loans made were the TOTAL cause of the subprime debacle? Also, let us not forget that these lending institutions made these loans VOLUNTARILY as there is no penalty for violating CRA. Also there is the profit motive for selling a subprime loan which makes more money for the lender than a traditional prime rate loan. Golly, could it be that REPUBLICAN deregulation like the Gramm-Bliley Leach act had MORE to do with subprime lending than your imaginary theory about a law that has no penalty for non-compliance?

Conservatives and neocons have been hiding their incompetence behind the moniker of "moderate" and if you believe half the blatant lies you spewed here, you are no moderate, but a full fledged neocon kool-aid swilling idiot and therefore I have no compunction about calling a spade a spade or in your case a liar, a liar.
January 16, 2009

2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

BobCrachit: cwilly is a troll. If you say A, he'll say B. If you say the sun rose this morning, he'll deny it. If the pope said he was Catholic, cwilly would call him a liar. Don't expect a reasoned conversation. Only absurd sticks and grenades.
January 16, 2009

3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

BobCratchit writes:

anderson:
I figured as much when he had to backpedal from his Pearl Harbor gaffe and couldn't even name the legislation he blamed for the subprime mess.

It doesn't bother me that types like him troll these boards. What bothers me are the idiots who read his stuff and agree with it, because they are either too lazy or too stupid to find out for themselves.
January 16, 2009

3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

anderson,

You mentioned something about Salzman's column being pulled. Is that true? I still see his mugshot on the opinion page. I hope he is gone though. His columns were so ridiculous.
January 16, 2009

3:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

yaakovwatkins writes:

I have trouble believing the media at all these days. These guys have been complaining that the media can't get into Gaza, then AP runs a story written by the AP staffer at the AP office in Gaza.

Journalism went down the tubes when "advocacy journalism" was invented. This version of journalism says that you can manipulate the the accuracy of what you write because there is a higher truth.

An ex-RMN columnist said to me that what he wrote didn't have to be true because it was his opinion.
January 16, 2009

3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

lib•er•al

broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others
culturally oriented: concerned with general cultural matters and broadening of the mind rather than professional or technical study

con•ser•va•tive

reluctant to accept change: in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change
cautious and on low side: cautiously moderate and therefore often less than the final outcome

Being Liberal is a very good thing. Note the difference in definition. Its original meaning has been skewed in recent history giving it a very bad interpretation. That’s really too bad.

The Founding Fathers were Liberals. They had the crazy idea that the people should enjoy certain freedoms they were denied in their homelands; freedom of religion, speech and press. They were tired of a monarchy that ruled as a theocracy. The King was the head of the Church. They thought they should be able to say and print what they wanted without fear of retribution and to worship as they wished.

The press and all media should be liberal. It was the intention of the Founding Fathers. The term “Liberal” has been turned into a dirty word by certain factions of the right. It’s a shame. They have sullied the roots of our Republic.

The press answers 4 basic questions when it reports the news; who, what, where and when. These are basic reporter facts. But the intention of freedom of the press is to tell us the story of what’s happening. When a reporter gets a by line it is in fact permission to tell the public how you feel about your subject.

The media is doing just fine. I want all of them to keep telling me what they think and how they view the various subjects and people in our world. It’s what the Founding Fathers intended. (Unless the reporting is outright lies.)
January 16, 2009

3:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

John, only one Salzman column was pulled (see John Temple's blog for the story) and he is, as far as I know, still with the RMN, for which I am glad. Contrast his columns, in which he is careful to support by citation and evidence, and Rosen's columns (like this one) in which the evidence consists of proclamation: The mainstream media is "liberal" (undefined) because I said so. Of course, if Rosen makes a claim that coincides with something you already believe, you may not be so concerned with the quality of the evidence.
January 16, 2009

3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

John_II writes: "anderson,

You mentioned something about Salzman's column being pulled. Is that true? I still see his mugshot on the opinion page. I hope he is gone though. His columns were so ridiculous."

I believe he's still a columnist, but he and John Temple had a public tiff that was recorded via the RMN and Salzman's blog over a column Temple refused to run.

What do you find so ridiculous about his columns?
January 16, 2009

3:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

bob......... it's your opinion that I'm wrong, and it's my opinion that I'm right. You see it in terms of black and white, I see there's shades of gray as well as black and white. You only see numbers to back your claim up, I see the big picture of the effects on America. Again, my mind won't change and I don't have shortsightedness on history.

As it's well known, it wasn't a Republican war in Iraq, it's what Democrats voted for too. But it's just too convenient to blame Republicans because of your hate. You need to get over it, dude. Both parties got us in Iraq...... and it's not even close to the Democrat President Lyndon Johnson ramping up Vietnam. How do you feel about that? See, both parties are to blame. Some in each are good people and good representatives, and others aren't. By the way, would you like to cite any facts to back up your claim that Americans have killed a half million Iraqi's? And speaking of responsibility for binLaden, what do you think of the 1993 WTC attack he was responsible for, and Clinton's administration knowing his whereabouts and not doing anything to capture him? Just so you know, I voted for Clinton so don't go there.

Here's the legislation on mortgages, voted unanimously by Democrats while Republicans voted at about 60% for it: Expanding American Homeownership Act (HR 1852). I'd provide details for you, but you can read it for yourself. When more and more people are allowed to buy a home despite not being financially able to, it's creates the foreclosure mess we have now. It also increased the limit to how much financing is available, resulting in some homeowners overborrowing or borrowing beyond their means.
January 16, 2009

4 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

anderson, you're just a hatin' tool and I expect no less than for you to whine about my comments. I actually think you're jay..... and you (or both of you) are laughed at daily.
January 16, 2009

4:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

seeker,

Your post was absolutely absurd. But, since the current topic has been beaten to death, I respond to your post.

By quoting from a dictionary, you severely simplify both ideologies. The dictionary definition of liberal is not exactly flattering. Especially when juxtaposed to the conservative definition.

Simply being tolerant of different cultures and standards of behavior is not a virtue. Are not some cultures and behaviors better or worse than others? Should one tolerate all cultures and behaviors regardless of whether or not they may be destructive to society?

The definition for a conservative seems to be a much better philosophy for a nation. Being "cautious" and against "abrupt change" are prudent positions. You would rather change things willy-nilly? And "traditional values" are important, are they not? Being "cautiously moderate" also seems to be a wise behavior.

"The Founding Fathers were Liberals. They had the crazy idea that the people should enjoy certain freedoms they were denied in their homelands; freedom of religion, speech and press." - seeker

How did you determine that? The dictionary definition says nothing about freedom of religion or press or speech. Where does it say that conservatism equals oppression? You just invented this one.

By the way, the man considered to be the father of conservatism, Edmund Burke, was a supporter of the American Revolution even though it was against his own country. By your definition, he should have been a fierce opponent to the Revolution since he is a archetype conservative.
January 16, 2009

4:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

John_II, to further your point on the founding fathers. If they were "all liberal"........ seeker, why would some of them decide to continue enslaving blacks, denying freedoms to a group of people that deserved the same as any of us? Isn't that contrary to your opinion on what a liberal stands for?

Funny thing about being tolerant of other cultures and behaviors...... Britain and France tolerated Hitler's Germany expanding into part of Czechoslovakia, thinking it would prevent a war. Soon after, Hitler's Germany invaded Poland and touched off World War II.
January 16, 2009

4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

taoistblockhead writes:

As far as blaming Clinton for bin Laden... The morally hypocritical Republicans (led by Kenneth Starr) were too busy holding the nation hostage with their obsession about Big Bill's wiener and its various and sundry locations, to be bothered with focusing on the real issues such as foreign policy and terrorist threats.
January 16, 2009

4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Cwilly writes: "Funny thing about being tolerant of other cultures and behaviors...... Britain and France tolerated Hitler's Germany expanding into part of Czechoslovakia, thinking it would prevent a war. Soon after, Hitler's Germany invaded Poland and touched off World War II."

In all seriousness, that's why I have grave misgivings about "reaching across the aisle" to conservatives. In my opinion, it has become an extremely sinister movement. Say what you want about liberals, but they aren't writing books called "In Defense of Internment." I have read conservatives on these forums call for the death of liberals, and I have heard the same rallying cry from famous conservatives.

There is a dark undercurrent to conservatism, constantly egged on by talking heads like Mike Rosen, that if not taken seriously enough, will continue this country on a very troubled path.
January 16, 2009

4:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

John_II

We can always depend on you to be insulting and rude in your opening statement.

My definitions of liberal and conservative are the basic meanings. Not the political ones. And I am not surprised that you would find fault with the liberal definition. Good God! How could anyone be so stupid as to find tolerance and the broadening of cultural concerns a good thing? What the heck was I thinking? What was the staff of the dictionary company thinking when they wrote the definition?

Tolerance is a virtue. Understanding other cultures can actually lead to peace and reconciliation. Had we studied the culture of Iraq better we would have been better prepared for the three separate factions of Islam that we came face to face with when we went to war.

Being educated and informed does not always lead to destruction and the moral breakdown of a society. Unless you listen to those who juice up the culture wars that has its basis in ideas that try to separate us rather than unify us.

The Founding Fathers being Liberals did not come from a dictionary. It comes from history. The status quo in England was monarchy/theocracy. It was ruled by fear, death and injustice. There were no freedoms for the common man. The Revolution was about rebellion against the King and his unfair treatment of the people. It was about giving the power to the people and giving them freedom. They were rebels who would surely have been executed had the Revolution been lost.

I never said conservatism equaled oppression. I said it’s a shame the term liberal has been skewed into a dirty word. Being liberal is not a bad or evil thing. It’s being open, tolerant and willing to broaden one’s scope of the world.
January 16, 2009

5:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

Cwillyrun1

Human beings are works in progress. In the days of the Founding Fathers, slavery was the way of many societies in the world. As we grew as a nation and a people we began to understand and see that slavery was wrong. Likewise, the other things you mention, changed as societies became aware of what was going on. The people of Germany were not aware of what Hitler was doing to the Jews. It is a painful and shameful time in their past and they have changed.

I like to think that liberals see the the future and the better world ahead. We remember the past and try not to repeat the historic mistakes therein. Others ignore the past and are doomed to either repeat its follies or dig it up to throw in the faces of those who would dream of a better world. Which person do you want to be?
January 16, 2009

5:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

tao, nice of you to throw the inactions taken at the time back on Republicans. It's pathetic. One of the biggest problems with our society of today is the inability of people to take responsibility. It's always about pointing the finger at the other guy. You're proof that concept is alive and well, and thriving.
January 16, 2009

5:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

mytwosense, I don't think it's about conservative or liberal, I actually think it's about being too far left or too far right. Bush was a disappointment. Pelosi is clueless. Those two are examples of far right and far left. Neither, I think, have the best interests of the average American at heart. I wish they did. And for the sake of all of us, I hope Obama does have us first, instead of last. Both parties can screw our country up, and maybe both parties can finally fix it and get it right.
January 16, 2009

5:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

Cwillyrun1

"And for the sake of all of us, I hope Obama does have us first, instead of last. Both parties can screw our country up, and maybe both parties can finally fix it and get it right."

I couldn't agree with you more. United we can overcome this mess and I hope we are successful. This is what America needs now. A truly "United States of America"!!
January 16, 2009

5:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

seeker, some founding fathers were against slavery at the time, but in the desire to unite against England, the decision was made to put the issue aside until later in the future....... hence, the Civil War.

I like to think I'm balanced, or moderate. Some things I see liberally and others with a more conservative view, but I don't agree with the far left or the far right. Both have hurt America, either in the past or the present.

To answer your question though, a person who doesn't learn from their mistakes or from history is bound to repeat it, and that becomes a viscious cycle. It's a stagnant growth pattern. I have no problem with growth, or change (for the better), I also don't think it's something that comes with the flip of a switch. It's all a learning process.
January 16, 2009

5:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

No doubt seeker, no doubt! I second that emotion........ lol. :)
January 16, 2009

5:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

seeker,

Your post directed at me was so full of inaccuracies and contradictions I almost hesitate to respond. Almost.

"My definitions of liberal and conservative are the basic meanings. Not the political ones. " - seeker

So why post the definitions? You obviously meant it in a political manner. Otherwise why choose those two words out of all the interesting words in the English language?

"How could anyone be so stupid as to find tolerance and the broadening of cultural concerns a good thing?" - seeker

Perhaps you should think about that question. Ponder it. Should we tolerate anything? Even bad behaviors and actions? No. So tolerance, in and of itself, is meaningless. We need to know what is being tolerated before we can appreciate tolerance. And a "broadening of cultural concerns" is not exactly bad until one's own culture is abandoned in the process.

"Being educated and informed does not always lead to destruction and the moral breakdown of a society." - seeker

Where did that come from? Who asserted otherwise? That was a non sequitur.

"Unless you listen to those who juice up the culture wars that has its basis in ideas that try to separate us rather than unify us." - seeker

Huh?

"The status quo in England was monarchy/theocracy. It was ruled by fear, death and injustice." - seeker

Nonsense. Pure drivel. How old are you? Am I chatting with a child?

"There were no freedoms for the common man." - seeker

More nonsense.

"I never said conservatism equaled oppression. " - seeker

I see. I suppose if I were a complete idiot, I would probably accept that statement. But, you said:

"The Founding Fathers were Liberals. They had the crazy idea that the people should enjoy certain freedoms they were denied in their homelands; freedom of religion, speech and press."

That seems to imply that the Founding Fathers could not possibly be conservatives because they wanted freedom of the press, religion and speech. Hence, conservatism equals oppression by denying those freedoms.

"Being liberal is not a bad or evil thing." - seeker

Is being a conservative a bad or evil thing?

"It’s being open, tolerant and willing to broaden one’s scope of the world." - seeker

Does being a conservative mean one is closed-minded, intolerant, and culturally ignorant?
January 16, 2009

5:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

Cwillyrun1

I actually consider myself ever so slightly left of middle. I too hate extremes on either side. My big fault is defending whoever I think is getting the short end of the stick and it has gotten me in trouble since childhood. I jump to defend the underdog sometimes against my own better interest.

I just want us to get our acts together and get out of this mess! I'm tired of the arguments and accusations. We just need to work together to get America back on her feet and concentrate on those things we have in common rather than those things that drive us apart. It's time to unify for the good of the country.
January 16, 2009

5:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"The people of Germany were not aware of what Hitler was doing to the Jews. " - seeker

Another non sequitur. That did not address what Cwillyrun stated. The culturally aware and always tolerant West believed Hitler's cultural motives for invading other European countries. In each instance, Hitler offered historical and cultural reasons for his invasions. He could have been stopped much earlier if the West had not been so "tolerant" and "culturally concerned".

"Human beings are works in progress." - seeker

How do you know this? And if we are a work in progress, how will we know when the work is finished? And, if the work is ongoing, does this not imply that lessons from the past should be valued? Hence, these valued lessons, or as I like to call them, traditional values, should be preserved as best as possible since they represent the lessons learned over the course of human beings "work". And changes to traditional values should be made cautiously since they were established based on man's experience.
January 16, 2009

5:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"I'm tired of the arguments and accusations. We just need to work together to get America back on her feet and concentrate on those things we have in common rather than those things that drive us apart. It's time to unify for the good of the country." - seeker

Yet, your 3:38pm post belies your desire. You had no problem offering a simple partisan dichotomy in that post. I did not see any desire for unity when you lauded liberals and suggested that conservatives were against freedom of speech, religion and press.

You do not just desire unity. You want liberal unity. Or would you be happy if we were a unified conservative nation?
January 16, 2009

6:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

John_II

The Nazis were stopped. Their leaders were tried, imprisoned and/or executed. We cannot change the past but we can learn from it and we did. Had we not been so status quo, so reluctant to change or interfere we might have also stopped them too. But these are the definitions of conservative. It goes both ways.

Human beings are works in progress. We no longer live in caves or offer human sacrafices in ritual worship to the god of the sun.

And you continue to make my point about history and it's importance in the future.

I come from a family who values tradition. We are rich in the culture and ritual of our religion and our family history. We honor our long line of military service and it's connection to this country.

I understand the balance of tradition and progress. Being liberal embraces both of these concepts.
January 16, 2009

6:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

John_II writes:

"I'm tired of the arguments and accusations. We just need to work together to get America back on her feet and concentrate on those things we have in common rather than those things that drive us apart. It's time to unify for the good of the country." - seeker

"Yet, your 3:38pm post belies your desire. You had no problem offering a simple partisan dichotomy in that post. I did not see any desire for unity when you lauded liberals and suggested that conservatives were against freedom of speech, religion and press.

You do not just desire unity. You want liberal unity. Or would you be happy if we were a unified conservative nation?"

What??? I said; "The term “Liberal” has been turned into a dirty word by certain factions of the right. It’s a shame. They have sullied the roots of our Republic." I said nothing about conservatives being against freedom of speech, religion or press.

What I want is the petty, nit picking, I'm smarter than you, name calling, putting everyone in their places bunch who do nothing but criticize and condemn anyone who doesn’t agree with them to stop driving a wedge between us with trigger issues and start working together to unite the people of America to save this country. That’s what I want. All you are doing is trying to pick at everything I say. I am not the enemy. I have a right to an opinion and I do not need to call you names or remark about the quality of your remarks to express how I feel. It is you who called my remarks absurd and over a period of posts made rude and insulting comments to me and others. Why can’t we exchange ideas without you belittling the ideas of others?
January 16, 2009

6:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"The Nazis were stopped. Their leaders were tried, imprisoned and/or executed. " - seeker

Again, that does not address the original argument. Millions upon millions of humans were slaughtered in WWII. Yes, after all that bloodshed, the Nazis were stopped.

But, why did it need to get to the point where millions needed to die? Have you studied the history of WWII? Do you know how Hitler began his short-lived conquest of Europe? He invented cultural and historical disputes to justify why he needed to take a little here or some land over there. And each time, the West was fooled because they wanted to be tolerant of the German culture and history. Each new tolerance only emboldened Hitler.

"We cannot change the past but we can learn from it and we did." - seeker

What conservatives learned from WWII is that we cannot "tolerate" thugs, dictators, and tyranny. We learned that aggression is easier checked earlier rather than later. What did liberals learn from WWII?

"We no longer live in caves or offer human sacrafices in ritual worship to the god of the sun." - seeker

That is true. So, once we learn that human sacrifices are wrong, we should cherish that value, correct? And we should not willy-nilly change from human sacrifice to abolishing human sacrifice and back to human sacrifice, right? In other words, we should be cautious about changing our cultural behaviors lest we revert back to something that our forefathers have already determined was bad.

"And you continue to make my point about history and it's importance in the future." - seeker

History and learning from history is a cornerstone of conservatism. In fact, learning from history is inherent in the very definition you supplied for conservatism. History tells us what worked and what didn't work. Therefore, our values, based on tradition (history), should be respected and not changed easily. And if change is needed, that change should be "cautious", "moderate", and gradual.

As your dictionary definition points out, conservatism does not equal immutability of behavior or thought. It means that those mutations should be "cautious", "moderate", not "abrupt", and with respect to history or "tradition". In other words, conservatives have a deep appreciation for lessons already learned by our forefathers; history is our most valued ally.
January 16, 2009

6:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"What??? I said; "The term “Liberal” has been turned into a dirty word by certain factions of the right. It’s a shame. They have sullied the roots of our Republic." I said nothing about conservatives being against freedom of speech, religion or press." - seeker

Right. Is that all you said or did you base an entire post on how liberals are better than conservatives and that our Founding Fathers must have been liberals since they wanted freedom of speech, press, and religion?

"What I want is the petty, nit picking, I'm smarter than you, name calling, putting everyone in their places bunch..." - seeker

You might want to re-read your 3:38pm post.

"All you are doing is trying to pick at everything I say." - seeker

You may not like my tone, but you should appreciate the respect I have for everything you (or anyone else) writes. I quote you and I respond to your quote. I only wish others could show me the same courtesy. I do not, as some others on this forum do, take your words and dramatize them into something else. You will never have to say to me, "I never said that."

Will I call you a fool if I think your arguments are foolish? Yes. But that seems to be a minor offence since I always include thoughtful counter-arguments with my insults. I will not just call you a fool but I'll tell you exactly why you are being foolish. Again, I only wish others would be so courteous to me.

"Why can’t we exchange ideas without you belittling the ideas of others?" - seeker

Do you think your 3:38 post was not belittling towards conservatives?
January 16, 2009

7:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

John_II

I don't have time to address all of your endless points on my posts that you've addressed and are readdressing. My grandchildren are on their way over for a visit. But from the litany of your post of 1738 today calling the fact that England was a monarchy/theocracy at the time of the Founding Fathers "nonsense" and "drivel" asking if "I'm chatting with a child?".....I learned in 2nd grade Catholic school that piece of Church and U.S. history.

"The English church was under papal authority for nearly a thousand years, before separating from Rome in 1534 during the reign of King Henry VIII. A theological separation had been foreshadowed by various movements within the English church such as the Lollards, but the English Reformation gained political support when Henry VIII wanted an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. Under pressure from Catherine's nephew, the Emperor Charles V, Pope Clement VII refused the annulment. Eventually, Henry, although theologically a doctrinal Catholic, took the position of Supreme Head of the Church of England to ensure the annulment of his marriage. He was excommunicated by Pope Paul III[7]."

I quickly looked this up under Church of England. As a Catholic I can tell you of the persecution and violence against the Church under Henry and others.It remained at the time of our Founding Fathers a monarchy where the king was the head of the church. This is considered a theocracy by all historians. The queen remains the head of the Church of England today. And FYI, the monarcy of England at the time of the Revolution and after used to hang children and sent them to debtors prison with their parents. They were not a nice bunch of people. They were cruel and heartless.

Now, I get to do something I really enjoy....spend time with my grandchildren. Back to you later.
January 16, 2009

7:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

Come on, seeker. That was ridiculous.

The English were not "cruel and heartless". "Common men" had rights. Were there transgressions on the part of the monarchy? Of course. Just as there are transgressions on the part of our democracy.

But your comments expose your ignorance of history. America's chief concern with England was "no taxation without representation". In fact, there was a big debate as to whether or not America should break away from England. All we wanted was representation in England. If we had that representation, the Revolution would not have been fought.

To say that England "was ruled by fear, death and injustice." and that "There were no freedoms for the common man." is just a foolish and historically ignorant thing to say. Our laws are based on English philosophers and English laws. Ever heard of Sir William Blackstone and his Commentaries on the Laws of England?
January 16, 2009

7:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

John_II

This started out about the liberal main stream media. My comments were directed toward liberal in that sense. It is you and others who turned it into a political debate about "Liberals" and "Conservatives".

I am for a liberal press/media. I want to hear it all. From the Rush and O'Reilly side to the Olbermann and Huff Post side. It's what makes us the best country in the world. Freedom of press is a wonderful thing. I object to lies and deceit but I want the press to be liberal in the dictionary sense of the word.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

ROSEN: Mainstream (liberal) media

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 16, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs

News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Calendar

Upcoming events

Sponsored links