12 Comments

Cry Me A River

I gotta say, I just read the funniest thing on some Greensboro, right-wing blogs. Evidently CNN’s broadcast of the Republican debate was a total farce, some might even say a “setup”, and now CNN should be boycotted. It was so funny, I almost did a spit-take. You know the kind when you’re drinking something and you hear or see something so funny that you literally spit your drink out with that “ppppfffffttt!” sound? Yeah, that.

I never get tired of hearing cries from the right about how the MSM (that’s the main stream media for you less informed out there) is liberally biased. According to those in the know, every major media outlet is slanted left these days. This CNN/YouTube thing is just the latest in a long line of hippy drenched, pot-smoking, birkenstock wearing propaganda all designed to make even more of us hate George W. Bush than the 73% of us that do now.

So ignore the over 250 newspapers published daily by right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch, the highest rated news network on the planet, Fox News, the most listened to neo-cons on talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Neil Boortz and just remember that CNN can’t ask legitimate questions about Giuliani, an adulterer that spent tax payer’s money to have his love trysts paid for, all the while overlooking the hole in the ground that used to be the World Trade Center. Cause that would be biased.

P.S. – CNN does it to the left too. So as Taylor says “Deal with it!”

12 Comments

  1. Pingback: Cry Me A River
  2. Thank you so much, I couldn’t agree more! Look, these conservatives don’t like the tough questions, so they attack the questioners. Why is it so easy for them to get away with stuff just by saying, “Oh, that question came from a liberal…” I don’t care – just answer the damn question!

  3. Sam,

    I suspect I missed the sarcasm in your post because of this hilarious line – “Once again, we have demonstrated and blatant bias by a network other than Fox News, and the silence is deafening. Meanwhile, Fox is boycotted without any evidence to justify the same.”

    You actually think there is no evidence that Fox is biased against the left? This could be one of those “Really?!?” segments on SNL it’s so funny. The evidence of this is overwhelming, I suggest you stop looking through your rose colored, red state glasses and go see the forrest for the trees. Even Roger Alies himself has said Fox was created, in part to counter supposed “liberal bias” in the media.

    As far as the Dems boycott of Fox, I didn’t think it was a bright idea, but last time I checked, it’s their decision where they appear to debate, just like it’s the GOP’s decision not to appear on CNN if they chose. I seem to remember Fred Thompson sitting more than a few debates out, and no on on the right gave him a hard time about that. If the Democrats lose points with the American public because they refused to go on Fox, what do you care? It just means that they can’t take the heat and probably don’t deserve your vote.

  4. No the sarcasm is that maybe Republicans should boycott CNN based on bias that actually occurred because Democrats boycotted FOX based on a fear of what MIGHT happen.

    That is what should have caused you to “spit-take”- the irony of the situation.

    You still provide no evidence of Fox bias on the air. People commenting on FOX or pointing out right wing ties does not establish bias. The same can be said of MSM people who have overwhelmingly Democratic ties (Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, George Stephanopoulous, Cokie Roberts to name a few). What counts is the actual bias in action. We saw that with CNN and see it constantly on MSNBC.

    I don’t really think the GOP should boycott CNN, but it was Democrats who first started the stupid boycott thing in the first place which didn’t seem to matter to you then.

  5. Sorry Sam, your argument doesn’t hold water. There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples of Fox bias. They are there if you care to look. I especially like Fox’s recent tendency to label scandal-laden GOP members of congress with a democratic (D)s in their news crawls. That’s a new favorite of theirs.

    As for the Dem boycott, I stated my position on that, and you chose not to hear my reply. That’s your fault not mine. I don’t agree with it, and yet you want to put words in my mouth that mean the opposite.

    And by the way, I’m still waiting for an answer from you on this question. Why is that do you suppose?

  6. Ged, the MSM does the same thing when Republicans are involved in scandals by emphasizing party affiliation. In fact, they invented it long before FOX came along.

    As to your second point, I did “hear” what you wrote and I agree with it, but my point was that you are a little Johnny Come Lately in your opposition to the Democrats actual boycott that is still in effect.

    As to your last point about torture, I didn’t realize the question was addressed to me. But to answer it, no I don’t believe it is torture regardless of who it is employed against. Start pulling out fingernails, etc, and we might agree.

  7. “Ged, the MSM does the same thing when Republicans are involved in scandals by emphasizing party affiliation. In fact, they invented it long before FOX came along.”

    There is a difference between reporting a *fact* and distorting one. The simple act of showing a republican as a democrat as he’s giving a speech about how he’s denying he’s a pedophile is biased. Pure and simple. This has happened on numerous occasions. More than can be casually dismissed as “mistakes”.

    “As to your second point, I did “hear” what you wrote and I agree with it, but my point was that you are a little Johnny Come Lately in your opposition to the Democrats actual boycott that is still in effect.”

    Fair enough. I won’t argue that.

    “As to your last point about torture, I didn’t realize the question was addressed to me. But to answer it, no I don’t believe it is torture regardless of who it is employed against. Start pulling out fingernails, etc, and we might agree.”

    Okay, thanks for answering that for me. Now I know that when our men and women are water boarded by some foreign nation in the future, you’ll be perfectly okay with it since it’s a legitimate interrogation technique in your eyes. That clears that up, so I appreciate that.

Comments are closed.