Let’s go with media bias for a 1,000

We don’t have to take it from conservative media. Here’s Ted Koppel actually making the good case against the MSM agenda.

Ted Koppel: New York Times, Washington Post ‘decided as organizations’ that Trump is bad for United States

By Brian Flood | Fox News

Journalism legend Ted Koppel feels that The New York Times and Washington Post have both “decided as organizations” that President Trump is bad for America.

“I’m terribly concerned that when you talk about the New York Times these days, when you talk about the Washington Post these days, we’re not talking about the New York Times of 50 years ago. We are not talking about the Washington Post of 50 years ago,” Koppel said on March 7 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in a clip that was uncovered on Monday by NewsBusters.

“We’re talking about organizations that I believe have, in fact, decided as organizations that Donald J. Trump is bad for the United States,” Koppel said. “We have things appearing on the front page of the New York Times right now that never would have appeared 50 years ago.”

Koppel explained that analysis and commentary didn’t use to appear on the front page, but times have changed since Trump entered the world of politics.

“I remember sitting at the breakfast table with my wife during the campaign after the Access Hollywood tape came out and the New York Times, and I will not offend any of you here by using the language but you know exactly what words were used, and they were spelled out on the front page of the New York Times,” he said. “I turned to my wife and I said, ‘The Times is absolutely committed to making sure that this guy does not get elected.’”

Koppel said Trump’s perception that “the establishment press is out to get him” is indeed accurate.

“He’s not mistaken when so many of the liberal media, for example, described themselves as belonging to the Resistance. What does that mean? That’s not said by people who consider themselves reporters, objective reporters of facts,” Koppel said. “That’s the kind of language that’s used by people who genuinely believe, and I rather suspect with some justification, that Donald Trump is bad for the United States.”

The Times and Post did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

This is hardly the first time Koppel has bashed a mainstream media organization.

Last year, Koppel mocked CNN’s Brian Stelter to his face, telling the “Reliable Sources” host that “CNN’s ratings would be in the toilet without Donald Trump” while on stage for a National Press Club panel discussion.

Stelter responded by asking, “That means what? If ratings are up, that means what?”

Koppel – who anchored ABC News’ “Nightline” for 25 years and has been a working journalist for over four decades — quickly answered.

“The ratings are up, it means you can’t do without Donald Trump. You would be lost without Donald Trump,” Koppel said as Stelter shook his head in disagreement.

“Ted, you know that’s not true,” Stelter said.

“CNN’s ratings would be in the toilet without Donald Trump,” Koppel said as the audience laughed.

There is one little nut he left in there. He said “people who bleive, I suspect with some justification, that Donald Trump is bad for the United States.” Except justification is missing. Opinion is not reason alone for what they do. We never did that en masse to Obama and we had quite the case there for it. Believing he is “bad for America” is not the justification for hatred, resistance and impeachment. There must be real cause.

No, the problem they have with Trump is that he is non-conventional, and they are more than non-conventional in return. If he was conventional, they could apply all their typical radicalism and beat him down. And that would work as usual.

So Trump is somewhat radical in the way he responds. And that is partly why he got elected. It also happens to be the only effective way to react to these rabid leftists.That is the appeal of radicalism, make their own subversive actions hard to respond to.

They don’t want a debate or discussion, no matter how many times they say it. So Ted Koppel inadvertently gets himself caught in a dilemma.

Every time you hear media, politicians or people hypercritically complaining how some problem needs to be dealt with and fixed, remember one thing: they might have a superficial point that does sound good, it is ridiculous in practicality. We must have an effective response to radicalism — no matter what the problem is. Unless you have that, you will not have a real solution. A followup part II is needed for that.

And then there was Light

My editorial juices have been running a little low lately, and I have been tapped out of ideas feeling, as Solomon said, that there is really “nothing new under the sun.”

My friend Pepp recently wondered if Shakespeare was alive today, what he would say? That got me thinking with all that is going on today, he would have a field day or go crazy. One or the other.

Then I saw this article in the Federalist by someone that caught my attention. It was sincere, only by a self-described liberal who had awakened to the media bias during the election. I hope you check it out. From that point of view it is informative.

Up until now I figured it was mostly a lost cause, but this person gives me a little hope that there is life out there after the liberal bubble. (her own term) Though it made me think of the countless others I see on social media. I could almost write one profile to include them all. These are your typical liberals from not-so informed to hard line Marxists. And there often is not that much that separates them.

Anyway, so predictable that you can expect their words. I’m beyond, way beyond, feeling sympathy. I mostly accept that they are not reachable anyway, which seems a fool’s errand to try convincing them of anything. It is what it is, as they say.

But this piece gave me renewed hope for some of them. (I am not going soft or gushy) For a moment, I considered their point of view, or perspective. I know what they think. I may not know the why in many cases. I know the what though.

Their view of the media, their positions, their favorite candidates and policies, even their dislikes, and best what sets them off. Maybe that is a study in psychology in itself. Considering their perspective did reveal something I hadn’t thought much about.

One of the triggering things to them is always conservative media. Fox News is akin to poison to them. More than anything else they love to bash Fox, almost as much as Trump. That is the key.

Now think for a minute what that person thinks and feels, not their ideas. Well, Fox is the worst thing that came along. And if you were they, it is Faux News and always lying or agenda driven. However, it is the central problem. That means all other mainstream media is okay but Fox is the problem.

So that presents a simple view. One just has to believe Fox is wrong and everything else is, well, right. It is not hard to take that there is only one enemy, maybe a few marginal others, while everything else is friendly and honest to you. They don’t try to lie to you.

Doesn’t that make things so much easier thinking only Fox News is wrong? Sure, then you accept everything else as authentic at face value. You can accept it. You don’t have to be suspicious and question what comes from Mainstream Media.

Go a step further and you can accept all our institutions as good, except on their structural racism thing. Other than that everything is on the up and up and the media all have pure motives because, after all, they agree with most everything you think and believe.

It’s much easier and simpler that way. They are on your side. Everyone is looking out for you too. No, they don’t really like America, or that antiquated patriotism. The government is your friend, or should be. The government shouldn’t even believe in an exceptional America or us first. Blame America first is cool.

But then there is always world globalism which is basically on your side too. It’s a rosy-eyed view but the enemies are caricatures backed into corners. They are the flat-earthers and the like. But the general “mainstream” (i.e. liberal stream) all thinks and believes much like you. And those are the people who get to authority, because we stick together and get them there.

I figure that is so much simpler, it’s an easy way out, and lazy. In that backdrop you’d have to think that coming out of that la la land would be a challenge. It’s much easier to stay and believe in that illusion. Or keep believing, as Obama said. You don’t need critical thinkers, you just need lock-steppers.

So now isn’t that a crazy way to look at things? But you don’t have to think or worry about things except those creatures in the corner infringing on your paradise. Then there was Obama who confirmed to them all that they owned this phony paradise. Now they are flailing at anything that might distrurb those happy thoughts. They’ve already infested everything and everywhere of importance so that they are embedded and radicalized. All of it is based on your ideological worldview that you all accept, voluntarily of course.

I followed it out because it really makes the case of an easier less-complex way of looking at things. Well, you can be suspicious of those outside that bubble. You may question their motives all you want. Make fun of them, mock them, call them names, they are like animals anyway.

Still it is an easier lifestyle. Corporations and even markets should be in your favor. Everything should be in your favor because your are the ideal people. And within being a member of that society you can do anything. Those outside it should be questioned and accused on every little thing. You have an exemption card. You don’t want to leave.

It just gets me that all you have to know is that Fox is wrong. Everything and the media is right. They are the intellectual betters so don’t need to question anything except Fox. And in that situation it seems the only way to change that thinking would be on their own. You or I could probably not convince them. So they have to see it. It must be their doing.

Reference article in The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/30/im-liberal-agree-sean-hannity-american-journalism-dead/

Right Ring | Bullright

Beck sides with Facebook on bias

Beck Attacks Conservatives For Being Mean To Facebook, Says “No Evidence Of Wrongdoing” By Social Media Titan

Pat Dollard May 19, 2016

Overzealous? This is the guy who was basically damning people to hell if they didn’t vote for Ted Cruz. Beck is kissing ass to get some of that fine Facebook money for future ventures, and to hook up with Mark Zuckerberg and enjoy the access to his rich and powerful connections that comes with it. Yes, Beck is selling out conservative values for cash. Which tells you everything you need to know about his sincerity as a conservative. And the god he really gets on his knees for: money.

Excerpted from The Hill: Radio host Glenn Beck is criticizing some of the other conservatives who joined him at a meeting with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over allegations of political bias at the social media giant.

Beck accused other conservatives in the room of being overzealous in their efforts to get the company to respond to their concerns. …/

Read more at http://www.patdollard.com/beck-attacks-conservatives-for-being-mean-to-facebook-says-no-evidence-of-wrongdoing-by-social-media-titan/

So Beck and his incredible shrinking relevance is sucking up to Facebook. Who’da thunk it? Well, that puts to rest any remaining question about his lack of principles, or his sanity.

The survey says: media bias running wild

The big bash: 86 percent of Romney coverage negative

By Jennifer Harper – The Washington Times

Media bias has gone from bad to ridiculous.

During Mitt Romney’s overseas visit earlier this week, 86 percent of the coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC “emphasized Romney’s perceived gaffes,” according to a content analysis of 21 major news stories by the Media Research Center, which also compared Mr. Romney’s trip to a similar excursion made by President Obama in 2008.

The results: The broadcast networks committed 53 minutes of almost entirely negative coverage to Mr. Romney, and 92 minutes of “gushing” to Mr. Obama.

“The near unanimous negativity of their coverage is as outrageous as it is transparent,” observes the center’s founder Brent Bozell. “It’s impossible to look at the fawning coverage of Obama’s trip in 2008 compared to the sliming Romney has taken in 2012 and not see a clear agenda on the part of the liberal media.”

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/3/big-bash-86-percent-romney-coverage-negative/

There’s a surprise!

Other post: https://rightring.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/mitts-on-track/