EsqEB (anonymous) says...

Now kids, pay attention. This is why you need to stay in school.

March 25, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

At least the Gazette will be able to decide on their own how they will handle their business/editing decisions without being told how to by the CAE "elite".

March 25, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

Hehehehe

I knew that one wouldn't last

March 25, 2009 at 5:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

crack, why don't you sit on the fence for just a second and look at it from the middle? Patricks editorials DO cater strictly to the ideas of one side and one side only, and is not only intolerant of other opinions, but deliberately picks and chooses which facts he decides to present, and which ones he chooses to ignore. Or should I say which innuendo he chooses to present, and which he is silent on. Maybe he should have paid more attention in his own journalism school......
Yes, stay in school, get fed alot of propaganda, so that you, too, will grow up intolerant of anyone that does not cater strictly to your ideas, then you can be a giant hypocrite yourself and chastise others for being intolerant. Gripe all you want about my last statement, but if the shoe fits....

March 25, 2009 at 7:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Not only that, open_eyes, but since Roger's first statement was that he was responding to a question that the Gazette posed, he seems further justified in voicing his opinion. Amazing how that missed the one who is intolerantly bashing "intolerance" when not asked.

March 25, 2009 at 7:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I would say something but open_eyes and oh4 pretty much covered it.
Hang in there Roger. Use your freedom of speech while you still can.

March 25, 2009 at 8:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Right on, oh4theluvof. Only answers which you agree with are tolerated. Have you ever noticed, the ones who cry "racist" the most are usually the most racist, and the ones that scream "intolerance" the most are usually the least tolerant? Reminds me of not a peep out of people when a poll showed 51% of Dems wanted Bush to fail, but let ONE radio personality come out and say he wants Obama's policies to fail, and look at them crawling out of the woodwork everywhere. I'm not against Patrick spouting his usual drivel - I'd just like to see a counterbalance point of view also, or at the very least a fact-check afterwards. The Gazette asked us for our opinion, but I guess since the masses didn't all 100% say "No, we love Patrick's point of view, we believe it is the only one that matters, we don't want and will not tolerate any other point of view", (which is apparently what they wanted to hear) they quietly decided to just tuck their tails and ignore the people - again.

Hypocrisy rules the day. How's that old saying go, "talk about the pot calling the kettle black", or something like that?

March 25, 2009 at 8:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

It's really pretty simple, if you don't like the publication don't read it, or support it by buying it. Else anyone is free to post an editorial, go for it, present your views if that is what you are after.

Open eyes- Just one thing, I was fed no propagada in my years at school and although it is often stated that this is the norm it is my belief that people on a college level can think and choose for themselves. I feel that younger people tend to be more liberal in nature and that is the decisive factor in many of these studies.

March 26, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"It's really pretty simple, if you don't like the publication don't read it, or support it by buying it."

This has a lot of truth to it. I've been trying to make a very similar point in forums about a different topic.

I think the problem here is that journalists always say how unbiased they are and wear it like a badge of honor. Anyone with any objectivity can see that they are biased. This is disappointing to say the least and I can understand people disgust.

I have a way of interpreting the msm. If they are talking about a conservative it is only half as bad as they say. If they are talking about a liberal it's twice as bad as they say. It's not completely accurate but it at least get it into the ballpark of reality.

March 26, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

DJrocksthemic (anonymous) says...

I'll say only this...Papers can have a lean, and papers can have a slant. It depends though on who is currently employed there and I know you won't believe this, but when I first started in the biz I worked a right leaning paper (owner) with two left leaning columnists, and the second paper I worked at was a left leaning paper (owner) with two right leaning columnists. And the last paper I worked at was a right leaning paper (owner/editor) that had seven left leaning employees. Papers are going to be slanted based on who they employ, and that employee's feelings and leanings. Don't like it, volunteer to write the right leaning response to left leaning editorials. That's what I did when I worked the paper with the right leaning columnists, I volunteered (unpaid) to write a respone or counter column to the columnists in order to present the other view. So don't just gripe, do something about it! (Oh and no offense to the above author, but eight lines of just bashing is not going to cut it. Bring you A game!)

March 26, 2009 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Not everyone can be a writer. As you can see from my posts some of us just ain't that good within tha writen and such. Like the old and apparently forgotten saying goes "The world needs ditch diggers too." While I'm diggin' them thar ditches fer ya educated folks I sure would liken it ifn' a journalist would either write unbiasedly or admit that they aren't and state that their is another side that they aren't presenting and their agenda for doing so. I realize this isn't going to happen because the lack of honesty both with themselves and in there writing is the problem. That is why I have my filters that I use to try to sift out the opinions with and leaving something that hopefully is more factual. I always get nervous when I'ma doin' tha writin' on these here chat circles on the world wide inter web and theresa actial professional writer there in tha midst. I brought my A game with this here post and Ima thinkin' I done pertty good. Hows she look? I done good, didn't I do good? ;)

March 26, 2009 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

DJrocksthemic (anonymous) says...

Yeah, I think you did :)

March 26, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy - maybe back in our day, we didn't get fed alot of propaganda, but I don't think things are the same anymore. I have a nephew in college who daily complains about all the far-left views his professors expound on a regular basis. Yes, I think younger people DO tend to be more liberal in nature - hmmmm...... is that part of not being mature or experienced yet?

Hey, the Gazette ASKED. We're answering. I think we ARE writing "editorials" to counter many of Patrick's "spins" - they're just not called editorials, they're called "posts".

March 26, 2009 at 2:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Posts tend to get ignored and often go unread. Editorials are much more visible. I did not finish my MBA till a few years ago, even then I did not hear anything like what you are saying, not to say that is not happening, but I don't think it is as bad as your making it out.

Young people are inherently more liberal, it is not due to maturity factors, I feel it is due more to the fact that at that stage in their life they have yet to choose what path and responsibilities they will take on. Some want kids, some want careers, some want to drink beer lol. It's a melting pot for sure, but I am positive that with the massive amounts of information that flows nowadays that more of them are aware and participating in government(which is nothing but a good thing), youth vote this last election was WAY up. To close I am not saying that what you speak is not going on, I am saying that I am willing to give our college students the benefit of the doubt that they can make their own choices regardless of bias. I really doubt that most of them care what their profs say much outside of what will get them through the course with a good grade, I know I didn't lol.

March 26, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Oh, you poor naive people. Our universities are FAR more liberal and left-wing than when I attended in the late sixties. Just the other day, right here at Emporia State, my daughter observed a student being publicly ridiculed and chastised in a class by a professor. She called him "racist" and "ignorant". What did the student say that was so bad? When the teacher advocated open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, the student replied that he considered that stance dangerous, un-American, and contrary to any nation's right to soverignty.

Our universities are virtual breeding grounds for liberal, left-wing, socialist ideals and agendas and any student, or anyone else, who disagrees with their teachings is attacked as being ignorant and racist bible-thumping radicals.

Mr. Kelley obviously graduated from one of those institutes of selective thinking.

March 26, 2009 at 7:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

That's true - editorials are much more visible & read - but, the Gazette won't follow up on their own question, and present another side, so we use what avenues we have.
Personally, I think it is worse than what you think. Maybe where you went, or the classes/instructors you had, but I look around me and see alot of things that were unthinkable when I was in school. Teachers in Colorado urging high school students to experiment with drugs & sex. College professors grading people on whether or not they share their hatred of Bush (yes, there were plenty of stories & complaints out there, but I'm sure you never heard of any of them, because they only put stories like that on networks you probably consider "biased").

I think the truth on young people is that we both have points that are valid. I do agree, information is much more readily available now than it was in our day, people are better informed at a younger age - but, there's the danger, informed with what? If they open the Gazette and believe every word of a Patrick Kelley editorial & nothing else, I'm sorry to say, they've got some huge holes in their information stream, strategically placed there on purpose. I also know that young people learn what they are taught, and until they experience some things themselves, what their parents taught them & what they learned from professors carry much weight. For instance, look at religious upbringings - how many kids raised in a Muslim community make choices & turn to another religion as they get older (well, bad example - they're probably beheaded if they do). But, you get what I mean. The majority of Catholics today came from a Catholic family, etc.... and I would say alot of the same goes with whether your family was strong Reb/Dem/Lib/Cons. And college is, in general, where young people DO start deciding for themselves, but there's still alot of influence going on, and carried to that point.
And yes, I do think that in a small part it is maturity. If you have yet to experience those responsibilities & paths, you don't have that experience to rely on, maybe experience is a better word than maturity.

Just my 2 cents. (Well, maybe only a penny's worth, this time - Gov took the other penny & gave it to AIG -:)

March 26, 2009 at 7:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Uh, Bjnemp, I didn't want to name Universities & names, but yes, I've heard the same experiences from people at ESU. Open borders & amnesty is being pushed pretty hard by at least some professors. And, despite what goodoleboy thinks, lots of students are lapping it up.

I mean, what do you expect? Do you think if our media is biased, our editorials are biased, our professors are biased, and any dissenting point of view is shouted down/ignored, or most ironically, labeled "intolerant" - just what percentage of kids/young adults do you think are going to drink the Koolaide?

Ever hear of a madrassa? What percentage of those kids do you think, as they grow older, realize America is NOT "The Great Satan", and realize that Jews don't REALLY come from Apes & Pigs? Anyone really think what people are taught doesn't matter?

March 26, 2009 at 7:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And, Bjnemp, if I was that student, I would seriously consider pursuing some kind of legal or disciplinary action against that professor. Or at the very least, send an email to Bill O'Reilly. Might get some attention. Or, on the other side of the coin, to be fair and impartial, you could send the same email to MSNBC, they would most likely publicize what a racist/ignorant person the student was. I'm sure Mr. Kelley will write a fair and balanced editorial stating the same "fair-minded and balanced" view of this dangerously far-right wing fanatical student..... or some similar garbage.....

March 26, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

It's amazing to me how opinions that we agree with are always thoughtful and insightful, while those we don't agree with are always biased and stupid. Possibly the biggest danger facing this country today is how we have divided ourselves into two "armed" camps..."liberal" and "conservative " both of which listen only to views they agree with and refuse to even hear what anyone else has to say. I personally love to watch Keith Overman on MSNBC because he tells me only thinghs I want to hear and it makes me feel good about my place in the world. Conservatives watch Bill O'reilly and FIX news for the same reason. But I can at least see that this continued division can lead to nothing good, I can only hope that the other side can see the same thing.

March 27, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

DJrocksthemic (anonymous) says...

Finally biscuit boy with some sense here. You make it seem like everyone out there is pushing a purely liberal agenda. I can name many poeple who are pushing a conservative agenda who you fail to criticize. By what you're saying Rush Limbaugh, Bill O' Reily, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, James Dobson, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingrham, Elizabeth Hasselback, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Robin Pierce and Megan Mosack (WIBW), Bruce Williams (heard on KVOE) should be taken off the airways for not presenting the other side. Not to mention some of the most highly syndicated newspaper columnists George F. Will, Cal Thomas, Kathleen Parker, Morton Kondrake and Thomas Sowell who do the very same in many American newspapers and magazines.

Play the game both ways people, if you want it to be even, start calling some of the above names, by the way names who appear in both the Wichita Eagle and Kansas City Star.

I'll leave you with this, a study by Media Matters showed that only 20% of all American newspapers are considered balanced in their columnists. And of the remaining 80%, 60% of those papers are conservative.

SO my question is this Mr. Coleman and others....Would you be complaining and posting on this forumn in this way, if the columns were right leaning and not presenting a progessive or liberal side of the issue. If you can in all honesty say yes, then I look forward to reading your continued posts. If you cannot say in all honesty that you would, then you aren't truly against Columns not presenting all ideas, but moreso against them because they don't "fit" your opinion. Which goes back to that first amendment thing everyone seems so keen on.

March 27, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I'd like just the facts with no agenda at all. I believe that is what reporting is supposed to be. If someone wants to write an opinion piece that's fine but label it as such. Simple.

It is interesting that there are tons of networks yet when liberals point out conservative leaning networks it's not networkS it's just the one and they always spell it wrong to make it look bad(see post by biscuit boy) while at the same time bragging about how open minded they are. Do liberals not believe in mirrors or what? lol Silly liberals.

March 27, 2009 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

DJrocksthemic (anonymous) says...

We have mirrors, well atleast I do, and I'll agree with you, on television there is really only one conservative network. But you can't stop at only one medium, their are far more conservative radio networks and newspapers, so I think it evens out, don't you?

March 27, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

DJ
I don't know if it equals out or not. I think people watch a lot more TV than read papers or listen to the radio. I'm not sure of that, just a guess. It would be interesting to look into that. For me personally it's The National Inquirer and the Emporia Gazette forums(not the stories just the comments) and nothing else. ;)

March 27, 2009 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"I'd like just the facts with no agenda at all."

I couldn't agree more, and that's why I watch C-SPAN. All they do is just point the camera.

March 27, 2009 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Even then, josiesbar - you might have to check into the camerman and his leanings. Nowadays, he might choose to point the camera one way & turn of the mike when its pointed another - LOL.

I think FOX (or FIX - good acronym) - has gotten more conservative lately, but they almost have to by default to counterbalance how much further in the other direction everyone else is pushing. Personally, I think many of their commentators do admittedly stand to the right, (some more obvious than others) but I still see other sides being presented and given a voice, even it they are regularly disagreed with. I occasionally switch over to the Obama Network and I never see any other point of view. It is just a panel of people that all agree among themselves. Which is more balanced? A show that presents one side only, or a show that lets both sides talk, and then (at times) gangs up on the one they disagree with? LOL. At least it got out there & heard. Maybe not equally, but it was there. DrJ, you may not agree with most of them, but try a little experiment, say, with O'Reilly. Watch it for a week, keep your pencil & paper handy, and keep a running total of how often another point of view is presented or part of the discussion. Not if they got the exact same number of seconds to opine, or whether they were agreed with by the commentator, but that they were even allowed to opine a different point of view. Then do the same with Olbermann. Total them up at the end of the week & let us know what ya find.......
One thing I AM amazed at is just the amount of stories I see on one network that I never see on the other. I really don't care to have the network, or, as Mr. Kelley spouted last year, the Gazette do the deciding for me as to what is newsworthy. For instance, Kelley spouted off about the story of the person yelling "Kill Him" at the McCain rally..... but never a word when it was determined a reporter made the story up. Which of those 2 was the most "newsworthy"? Do you all want Mr. Kelley to decide for you? That's why I prefer a certain slogan that goes something like "We Report - You Decide"......... LOL

March 27, 2009 at 2:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

DrJrock - Nobody is asking for the above mentioned to be taken off the air (well, actually, lots are - many in Congress) - what we want to see is alternatives at the same cost & ease of access. You can turn those people off anytime you want & switch over to MSNBC, pretty much anyone that has cable or dish has them both. You can always change your radio dial to someone you agree with, and you don't have to buy a totally new radio to do it. But people don't want to have to pay for a totally different subscription to a second newspaper just for the opportunity to see another point of view. If they insist on being one-sided, I guess people can always find a paper that shows both, and then cancel the Gazette (wonder if THIS will get censored out - LOL).

BTW, had lunch with some friends & their son who is on spring break from college, their son started complaining about how all the professors were so liberal & were pushing their agenda on the students hard. He related a story of a class that shortly into it, the instructor asked if anyone in the class was an atheist. Two people raised their hands. No further discussion, no reason given for the question. From that point on, he says it was obvious to EVERYONE else in the class, those 2 are getting preferential treatment & grades. True Story, I swear, just happened to me at lunch today. Not naming the University. But not ESU. Bet you never had anything like that happen to you in school, goodoleboy. Me either.

March 27, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Oh, and BTW, citing Media Matters for a study..... might as well hire another fox to guard the chicken house. A few bullets on Media Matters, and their "impartiality":

Self-described "progressive" media "monitor" which tracks content that "forwards a conservative agenda."
Creation of Democratic Party funders and operatives and former conservative writer David Brock

Established in May 2004, Media Matters for America is a "web-based, not-for-profit … progressive research and information center" seeking to "systematically monitor a cross-section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation." But in addition to "news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible," the organization's concept of "misinformation" includes anything that "forwards the conservative agenda." Thus political differences of opinion are often portrayed by Media Matters as lies or worse.

Media Matters' founder and CEO is David Brock. A reporter for the conservative magazine The American Spectator in the 1990s, Brock (in the aftermath of his biography of Hillary Clinton that brought disastrous reviews) engaged in a public self-denunciation, characterizing all his past writings critical of liberal figures as a confection of lies and slanders. In Brock's present judgment, the mainstream media have fallen under the sway of conservative ideology. He believes that conservatives have moved the mainstream media "to the right and therefore they've moved American politics to the right. … I wanted to create an institution [Media Matters] to combat what they're doing."
--------------------------------
One question: I'm all for it, as long as they ALSO "systematically monitor a cross-section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for LIBERAL misinformation".....

So why dohn't they do that? If you are truly impartial, wouldn't you want to monitor for misinformation REGARDLESS OF WHO PUT IT OUT THERE?????

They give Exclusively to Democratic & liberal sides.....

Could it be..... they have an agenda???? (GASP)....

Funny..... last year during the campiagn, I posted lots of links from lots of different places on studies of media bias, from lots of reputable orgs, standard polls, etc..... pretty much showed the exact opposite of MM.

Personally, DrJ, I don't think your "stat" is worth the paper it's printed on.....

March 27, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

DJrocksthemic (anonymous) says...

The stats are based on founded research of ever newspaper in America based on which columnists this run, the vailidity of the organization aside, you can easily find that George Wills is the most red columnist in America, followed closely by Cal Thomas. Including Dan K. Thomasson who appeared in today's Gazette, seems pretty balanced to me.

March 27, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Studies of journalists & their views for the last 45 years (hint - the majority 'ain't' nowhere near conservative)

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasi...

Study of 25 major newspapers covering 1500 editorials over a 10 year period. 18 of 25 left

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2008/02/...

UCLA study of media bias covering all media forms:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/...

What I find most interesting on this study is the section on journalists admitting media bias:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasi...

It goes on and on..... and there's plenty out there that claim just the opposite.....

So, to be fair, I went to Media Matters home page (turned my browser protection WAY up before I did) - LOL - it was pretty obvious just from the headlines across their home page that all Dems & liberals were saints, and all GOP/conserv were Satan, but, this is from their OWN "About Us" page:

"the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for CONSERVATIVE misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the CONSERVATIVE agenda..."

Now, does that sound solid & unbiased to anyone other than DJrock? What would have been wrong with the same statement, only leaving out the words "conservative"? Wouldn't a fair-minded and balanced org root out inaccurate misinformation no matter WHO or WHICH SIDE presented it?

I don't really care who's the most "red" columnist, I care who tells the truth. Good. I'm glad we had a balanced day in the Gazette. 'Bout time. Be nice if they put those online too.

March 27, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

You know I visited the mediaresearch page you linked Open Eyes, and reading through the frontage articles I can say safely that is a conservative site with an agenda all the same. Seriously man, if one was so inclined one could discredit almost any source out there, lawyers make a living doing just that. I have seen you often discredit sources you don't agree with, and I am here to tell you, it works both ways and tends to veer discussions away from what they are really about. It's really not my fight since you went after another's source but this is just an observation.

But as far as bias goes, I have a theory about it. My theory is pretty simple, if people don't like the message they won't listen. The republicans dug themselves a deep, deep hole with the Bush administration and their last round of power in Congress. Quite frankly they lost the public trust, that has to be earned back or the other party has to blunder so badly they have no choice but to elect the other party. They have almost no credibility left with the people of nation, and that is why I think the liberal media is so popular nowadays, cause it sells better. The thing that just astounds me is that they keep playing right into the left's hands by having people like Limbaugh as a pseudo spokesman, the last thing people want to here in a time of crisis is people like him ranting about how to fail. My hats off to them though, at least they finally came up with a budget, hoping that it is feasible. One party is not healthy for this country.

March 28, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy, I agree totally with about everything you said except for about 1 sentence. I don't think the GOP has Limbaugh as a pseudo spokesman as much as the left is TRYING very hard to TURN it into that, or portray it as such. And I don't think it is succeeding as much as they would like it to. But a small point.

And you are absolutely right about many of the sources I cited. Some were definitely right-wing, others were not. The point I was trying to make about MediaMatters, is that their own mission statement admits they are completely biased. In other words, if a liberal misrepresents or tells an untruth, they will ignore it. I have a hard time putting much faith in anything coming from an organization that admits that kind of bias.

I also have to admit to eating crow concerning a segment of Bill O'Reilly the other night. They had a conservative viewpoint on there with absolutely NO dissenting point of view from the left. They were discussing the protests planned for the upcoming Obama speech at Notre Dame. Both O'Reilly & Beck said flat-out that was wrong. The president and the office of the president should be respected. And if they protested at all, they should keep a respectful distance and keep it respectful. But they should not dishonor the president. No counterpoint liberal point of view wanting to run across the stage & hit him in the face with a pie ala Coulter, or camp outside his house like in Texas, or disrupt the speech with people inside shouting & wearing shirts, or no talk of planting a story about Africa or Kill Him or anything of the sort. Nothing like what we've seen daily for 8 years. Tsk, tsk. Those right-wingers & their dangerous far-right fanatic views....... tsk, tsk.... that particular segment was SO one-sided..... what a shame...... :)

March 29, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

PS - yes, the mediaresearch mission statement is pretty much the mirror image of mediamatters, so one should give each of them every bit as much weight as you would the other - take you pick :)

March 29, 2009 at 4:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"goodoleboy, I agree totally with about everything you said except for about 1 sentence. I don't think the GOP has Limbaugh as a pseudo spokesman as much as the left is TRYING very hard to TURN it into that, or portray it as such. And I don't think it is succeeding as much as they would like it to. But a small point."

See, the problem with this is that they are making it entirely to easy on the left, we have him(RUSH) as a key note speaker at the convention, and then we have the Steele contrdicting him and then APOLOGIZING to the man. /facepalm if I've seen one. Its evident who is wearing the pants hehe. Let me put it like this way, if the GOP would grow a pair and just tell the guy to shut up and to let the actual policians try to reconcile the party then the left would have next to nothing to work with. They NEED to distance themselves from the far right for time being if they hope reclaim some of their former power. In short, their shooting themselves in foot time after time, the left does not even have to try.

March 29, 2009 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"Nothing like what we've seen daily for 8 years. Tsk, tsk. Those right-wingers & their dangerous far-right fanatic views....... tsk, tsk.... that particular segment was SO one-sided..... what a shame...... :)"

Bush and Congress enjoyed some very high approval ratings in the beginning, about the beginnning of his first term were where the loons started showing up, so 8 years is streching it. The other part of that equation is that the American people felt lied to and betrayed, if Obama pulls the same crap Bush did then he deserves the exact same treatment. I'lll even toss my shoe!

March 29, 2009 at 5:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

ugh. meant to say beginning of his second term, my kingdom for an edit button

March 29, 2009 at 5:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Well, we respectfully agree to disagree on the last couple of things, I respect your opinions however, but I don't see it as them telling Rush he needs to shut up, maybe they need to listen to him more. I'm not sure what is "far" on either side, anymore - I started out pretty much in the middle, and I don't feel I've strayed far from that, but the world seems to have shifted aways left on me since then so without changing I seem to be on the right side more often than not these days. It wasn't all that long ago that believing in God, Ten Commandments, more freedom & less government were NOT considered radical far-right positions. And what is commonly accepted liberal positions nowadays were "out there" not that long ago. As for Bush's approval ratings, yes, he had some high ones for awhile, especially after 9/11, but I also recall a very vocal & vehement voice blasting him nonstop from the Florida elections straight thru his reading to the school kids on 9/11 & beyond, I don't recall there ever being respect shown from quite a segment there right thru the first 4 years, so I don't feel I'm stretching it in the least. What amazes me is why more Americans don't feel lied to & betrayed already - still looking the other way thru their rose-colored glasses, just like thru the campaign. Sure, he's done alot of what he said, but he's done alot of the exact opposite, and even though it may take some time to change Washington, all it takes to start is a simple veto. Not that hard. There's no rule anywhere that the President MUST continue business as usual (pork, lobbyists, etc) just because it takes time to change. I think that's a cop-out. Funny how 7 min for Bush was horrible while he waited on the chopper to be ready on 9/11, but Obama rush's thru a bill without letting people read it (remember I will go thru line-by-line & scrutinize spending) - but then can't sign it for 4 days because it was Prez & Valentine's day. He sure made it out to be critical beforehand though, the country just COULDN'T afford ANY delay. Good thing 9/11 didn't happen on 12/24, Bush might not have been able to respond till after the New Year..... :)

Well, Cindy Sheehan is already calling Obama a war-monger, but then again she's just a nut anyway...... I think she'd call Mother Teresa a war-monger if she had a chance...

Save your shoes, goodoleboy - lots of us might be going barefoot before this is all over - LOL

March 29, 2009 at 9:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

DJrocksthemic (anonymous) says...

Open Eyes, I admitted that journalism is biased, but the jab of the article talked about columnists, editorial writers, which, the majority of those printed (whether or not the paper leans left or right) are more right leaning. Even your UCLA article says this, that though the Wall Street Journal leans left it displays a right leaning column.

March 30, 2009 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Yes, it displays a right-leaning colum, but which way did the paper lean again?

I think things are getting so biased these days, that it is nearly impossible to accurately define "leanings" anymore. Anything slightly left of center is STILL "leaning right" to the far left, and you can apply that to pretty much all the rest. It varies from your particular viewpoint. At the North Pole, EVERY direction is "South" :) That's kindof what I was referring to with Cindy Sheehan, in her mind Obama is a War-Monger.

I'd still hang onto your shoes (*wink*). I'll bet that journalist had it pretty cushy under Sadaam. He probably covered the gassing of the entire city as a righteous government move. I bet there's a whole lot of people who lost entire families in the night to his Secret Police that would like to toss a few shoes at that journalist, also. Again, all depends on your perspective.

March 30, 2009 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I smile at how you cited the quote - the actual quote was "While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times.". Gives it a little different flavor than "even though it leans left, it displays a right leaning column." Nice they try to provide some balance.
So, what makes a paper "lean" in one direction or the other? Is it what is printed? Or where they buy their ink? What kind of paper it is printed on? I get confused here...... just kidding, I see your point..... not sure I agree that singling out one or 2 sections as leaning one way, while the majority of the paper leans the other, is....well, don't know what it is. An attempt at balance? Someone can destroy/level a house, but if someone complains, they can say "hey, look, we left the mailbox standing, so you can't say we tore everything down"...... LOL

March 30, 2009 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

DJrocksthemic (anonymous) says...

You know Open_Eyes, i've come to respect your opinion and enjoy your wit. I've always believed in a balance, I just think some papers can't find someone on the other side, I know I site myself alot, but when I started I was a history major (in college) pulled out of the cafeteria because the paper couldn't find anyone willing to write from the opposite side. And for the record my colums are slightly left of center, in case you were wondering.

March 30, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Thanks DrJrock - I think you probably have a better insight into this than me, that's interesting. Now we fall into the question of something along the lines of, are the more vocal ones the majority, or minority? Meaning, are those that tend to gravitate more into journalism, or editorializing representative of the cross-section of the country as a whole? Interesting..... if you don't mind me asking, was that very recently? Or back awhile.... (don't have to admit your age if you don't want to - LOL - I'm not long in the tooth but no spring chicken either :)

Kindof along the lines of in 3rd world countries, the 10% that have guns control the 90% that don't - so I'm wondering if the 10% that like to vocalize accurately represent the 90% that only like to read? (and those that do neither - LOL :)

March 30, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Oh, and meant to add also - interesting that they went to lengths to find someone to write from the opposite side. I'm not sure alot of media these days puts alot of effort into that...... some of those that do seem to be branded as all on one side or the other JUST for simply even giving the other voice a platform at all. And that is sad. I'm not asking for an absolute 50/50, but I just distrust any/either side that tolerates little or no opposition.
Hannity, for instance - even though I'll agree with the guy alot more than I'll disagree, I'm disappointed Colmes left. He kept him in check and called him out on things at times, good for him. Not just for the entertainment value, for an honest attempt at looking at things from both sides. Don't watch him nearly as much anymore now. Possibly an example of what I was referring to at the beginning of this post.

March 30, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )