What do you mean by liberal? Consistently vote with democrats and support the positions of the democratic party which consistently is pro social spending, pro social safety net, pro UN, Pro minimum wage and pro NATO? Then by that stick Tom, most polls I have seen place around 51% of americans in the 'liberal' camp, a thin majority but a majority none the less. One thing the neocons should pay attention to is that traditional values has always been their extra draw, where people will give on the other issues to vote republican.
Listen, you are question begging here. If You define moderate left social perspectives as 'liberal' then a majority of most 'White Suburban Dweller Dominated' careers will be 'Liberal dominated careers' by your definition. Last time I checked, the computer programming industry was massively left-leaning- but I sure as hell don't recall seeing a leftist computer programmer conspiracy.
All of this aside, lets get down to the meat of it. What you are saying is that because media workers tend to be liberal, it is necessarily the case that they are executing a political agenda, are incapable of avoiding bias, are shills of the so-called 'Vast Kerry Conspiracy'
Nutz Tom. You wouldn't buy it if I made the argument the other way. If the media was 'Conservative' dominated. You would reject such arguments off the cuff- as exactly you should!
A further problem is that you consider any socially left politics as 'Liberal'. Name one damn thing you would consider Left but not Liberal that is not just a re-stating of right political positions.
Lastly, the reason that Fox news stands out is the same reason that NPR stands out. There may not be an active agenda, but there is a spectrum, and Fox and NPR are if not endpoints of that spectrum, at least delimiters for what might be considered credible and worth paying attention to.
And keep in mind that while Fox is not indeed all BS, neither is NPR/PBS. After 9/11, the Frontline series on AlQaeda was screened by ever senator and house representative as background material. Hell, I heard Trent Lott bemoaning that he found out about Abu Graib on NPR for the first time when he was carpet calling Rumsfeld for not bringing it to congress sooner.
Davin L
Current Events » in reply to A more accurate assessment would be:
re: A more accurate assessment would be:
The whole thread (37 posts)
- Clinton advisor develops butterfingers
- More on the "socks" issue...
- Clueless Kerry suddenly drops Berger from his advisory staff (n/t)
- Another interesting item...
- I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of that faster than they find who outed Plame!! (n/t)
- re: Clinton advisor develops butterfingers
- re: Or maybe just light fingers.
- Why is this story comming to light days before the 9/11 report is released?
- Belmont Club has a bit more on this
