Arthur Brisbane is stepping down from his job as public editor of the New York Times. In his final column, Brisbane addresses the issue of political and cultural bias at the Times (the emphasis is mine):
I. . .noted two years ago that I had taken up the public editor duties believing “there is no conspiracy” and that The Times’s output was too vast and complex to be dictated by any Wizard of Oz-like individual or cabal. I still believe that, but also see that the hive on Eighth Avenue is powerfully shaped by a culture of like minds — a phenomenon, I believe, that is more easily recognized from without than from within.
When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.
As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.
NewsBusters rightly points out the left leaning bias of major news outlets with this — one of many — examples:
The Washington Postfilm review of the new conservative documentary 2016 mocked the movie as a “fear-mongering” “infomercial” that is too opinionated. The same paper, however, gushed over the “emotional power” of liberal filmmaker Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, praising it as a “cultural juggernaut.”
2016 reviewer Michael O’Sullivan knocked the “slick infomercial,” deriding, “As these things go, the movie seems destined to irritate the president’s supporters while mobilizing his detractors, even as it is doomed to win precious few converts. It’s a textbook example of preaching to the choir.” In contrast, Fahrenheit 9/11 critic Desson Thomson defended, “Documentaries aren’t news articles; they’re subjective points of view, which is why Moore has almost endless fun at the president’s expense.”
Thomson explained away the hard-left tilt of Moore’s movie this way:
What counts is the emotional power of Moore’s persuasion. With a combination of events and facts that we have already learned, and some that we haven’t, Moore puts it all together. You can understand the thread of his argument, even if you disagree.
In comparison, O’Sullivan huffed that 2016 is “anything but crude. The best infomercials rarely are.”
It doesn’t matter whether the nominee is a conservative like Ronald Reagan, or a moderate like John McCain — network reporters always seem to scold Republican delegates and the party platform as too conservative, hostile to women, anathema to blacks, and an all-around turn-off to voters.
Going back to the 1988 convention, the MRC has documented how reporters act like Democratic surrogates, lecturing Republican officials and delegates about how they are too far to the right and intolerant.
I combine two segments from Gallagher and Elder that better explain what the hell Akin so clumsily said. (Posted by: Religio-Political Talk) They reject — of course — the comment about the impregnation percentages women experience who are rapped. There are no stats/science/medical info to back this idea up. But these two lay out what Akin should be saying and bemoan the lack of the Republicans defending a mistake made by one of their own. Wimps.
I am not a fan of Gallagher (just to say he doesn’t inspire me to listen to him like Prager, Medved, and Elder), but I did get a month of his show just because of his stance on this topic and me wanting to hear some input on Republicans standing up “for their own.”
Via Drudge, the inevitable finish for an ad for a President whose track record on vetting and research has been all too vividly featured in our Obamateurism series. Earlier this week, Team Obama stepped up its War On Wimminses strategy with this ad, featuring women who identify as Republican but who intend to vote for Barack Obama in 2012….
….It’s certainly possible that Ms. Ciano had at one time been Republican. Her conversion to Democrat had nothing to do with Mitt Romney, or even Barack Obama, however. And it’s difficult to ascertain exactly what about Romney would have driven the rest of them off, either. One woman cites Romney’s desire to see Roe overturned, as if she’s never heard that argument in the four decades that Republicans have been making it. George W. Bush made it just as much of an issue when running for President, if not more; every Republican nominee for President since Reagan has taken that position, as have most of the candidates who failed to get the nomination. This must be one of the most low-information groups of voters ever featured in a national campaign.
It’s easy to understand why Team Obama wants to run a Republican Women for Obama ad. Is it too much to ask that they check first to see if the women are actually Republican first?
Her Facebook page is here; some of her friends congratulate her on appearing in the Obama ad. In addition to the fact that she is a registered Democrat, check out her Facebook “likes.” They make it obvious that Ms. Ciano is a devoted Democrat and a left-wing activist. Here are some of her “likes,” beginning with the earliest in time:
* Democracy For America * Tar Sands Action * Amy Goodman * Barack Obama * Costoftaxcuts.com * Being Liberal * MoveOn.org * Bernie Sanders Tells You A Secret the GOP Would Rather You Didn’t Know * Miss Piggy Delivers the Best Takedown of Fox News We’ve Seen All Month * Think Progress * The Best Quote From Barack Obama We’ve Seen This Week * Dow and Monsanto Join Forces to Poison America’s Heartland * Climate Reality * Grist.org * The Amazing Victory Scored With Obama That More People Should Be Talking About * The Sierra Club * The Buffett Rule * Obama For America–Colorado * UniteWomen.org * Denver Young Democrats * Obamacare * Latinos For Obama * Michelle Obama * Veterans For Obama * I Love It When I Wake Up In the Morning and Obama Is President * Obama Truth Team * Democratic Party
Yeah, I know a lot of Republicans who like to join MoveOn, Think Progress, and Climate Reality (and who listen to avowed socialist Bernie Sanders). Seriously — did Team Obama think that no one would look at Ciano’s Facebook page?
Update II: At the same link, John says another of the women — Ms. Ciano’s mother — appears to be an unlikely Republican. He’s working on checking out the rest on Facebook.
One of the producers for this movie, Gerald R. Molen, produced: Rain Man, Minority Report, Schindler’s List, Jurassic Park, and Days of Thunder to name a few of his bigger movies.
I didn’t realize Shelby Steele was in the documentary, this was a pleasant surprise. Something Steele mentioned about why some people voted for Obama brought to mind a section in David Mamet’s book that I will quote in its full context, but know that the last sentence is the main point (Remember that Mamet either wrote, produced, or directed some of these hits: Glengarry Glen Ross, The Untouchables, Hannibal, House of Games, American Buffalo):
————————————————— One might say that the politician, the doctor, and the dramatist make their living from human misery; the doctor in attempting to alleviate it, the politician to capitalize on it, and the dramatist, to describe it.
But perhaps that is too epigrammatic.
When I was young, there was a period in American drama in which the writers strove to free themselves of the question of character.
Protagonists of their worthy plays had made no choices, but were afflicted by a condition not of their making; and this condition, homosexuality, illness, being a woman, etc., was the center of the play. As these protagonists had made no choices, they were in a state of innocence. They had not acted, so they could not have sinned.
A play is basically an exercise in the raising, lowering, and altering of expectations (such known, collectively, as the Plot); but these plays dealt not with expectations (how could they, for the state of the protagonist was not going to change?) but with sympathy.
What these audiences were witnessing was not a drama, but a troublesome human condition displayed as an attraction. This was, formerly, known as a freak show.
The subjects of these dramas were bearing burdens not of their choosing, as do we all. But misfortune, in life, we know, deserves forbearance on the part of the unafflicted. For though the display of courage in the face of adversity is worthy of all respect, the display of that respect by the unaffected is presumptuous and patronizing.
One does not gain merit from congratulating an afflicted person for his courage. One only gains entertainment.
Further, endorsement of the courage of the affliction play’s hero was not merely impertinent, but, more basically, spurious, as applause was vouchsafed not to a worthy stoic, but to an actor portraying him.
These plays were an (unfortunate) by-product of the contemporary love-of-the-victim. For a victim, as above, is pure, and cannot have sinned; and one, by endorsing him, may perhaps gain, by magic, part of his incontrovertible status. ~ David Mamet
I just wanted to thank all the people that come to this “humble” blog and visit. While I love to blog my thoughts, biases, and daily searches on “religio-political” current events. I do like to think that I pass on information, and places to start for others own searches and edification. Again, thank you.
