Re: Re: Re: WHAT'S THIS? The New Black Panther Party and TX Young Republicans AGREE
Originally posted by EB
This is such a good answer. Only I would say that the major media outlets are corporate. The liberal media outlets are non-corporate and are basically accessed through the Internet.
One should understand. The media are as liberal as the conservative corporations will let them. The ruling on media ownership that was passed by the republican majority FCC benefited the corporations that own MUCH of the media outlets in this country.
Few will mistake Fox News as liberal. Many have recognized that CNN and other major news outlets had a very pro-war coverage. Very few American media outlets followed what really went on in Florida during the 2000 election-especially when it came to Black folks. One had to read the foriegn media.
No one will confused ABC's George Will as a liberal. Few will confused John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 as a liberal. Columnist William Saffire is no liberal. Atlanta's Neal Boortz and most other talk radio show host will not be confused as liberals. Black people in Atlanta will not confuse the local media as liberal. I suspect that most Black people around the country will feel the same way about their local media.
As for Clinton after all of the millions of dollars spent on investigating his wife and him, all they, namely Ken Starr, basically came up with is that the president had a little fling in the White House with an intern. I cannot defend Clinton on that. But they did not come up with much.
Hmmmm..... Imagine if Clinton said those exact 16 words about Iraq, Niger and nuclear weapons. One can bet their house that the media would treat (read harsher) Clinton a lot different than Bush.
http://www.buzzflash.com/premiums/alterman.html
The bottom line is this question of media bias is all in the eye of the beholder. Being that our ideologies are totally different, you guys "can't" see it and I can.
If Clinton said those words, the media would spin it as a great humanitarian effort by a noble president, but now that it's Bush and the democrats really have no issues to challenge Bush on, the media is on his arse like stank on isht trying to get anything they can to feed the dems. The dems are falling all over themselves TRYING to use the 16 words thing to the ultimate advantage, just as the republicans did Clinton on White Water, etc.
People who work at or are CEOs of companies can be whatever political pursuation they want. There is no law that says "the CEO's political views must be reflected in the company". (although I would submit Ted Turner and probably the most dominant, influential network of the latter 20th century as an example you didn't cover above, as an example of a flaming liberal and the most liberal-biased network known to man.) What makes these conglomerates "liberal" is their programming, what they choose to run as stories, how they spin them. Also, "media bias" that I'm talking about not only includes the news, but all the movies and magazine media.
This is one thing that people will never address. Take movies for example. Virtually all movies that come out of Hollywood have some politically correct theme behind them, some kind of "moral" at the end that's straight from the pages of the liberal media machine. There are countless examples, basically every movie that has been made since the 70s. It's politically incorrect to make movies that, for example, promote family values, religious views against the gay life style. If a movie is made, it usually portrays a character with those views as the "villian". Also, take a look a sitcoms from the late 70s and 80s. I can remember this one sitcom where the black kids blurts out, "WHY DON'T YOU HONK HONKY?!" and then there's there's the black "Archie Bunker" George Jefferson. Why could George call whites "honkies" but you never heard even Archie Bunker call blacks "niggers"??? I'd say this was because the producers of the shows where more liberal than conservative and trying to effect social change through sitcoms (and movies).
As I say though, we are ideologically diametrically opposed on this matter, so the exchanged are an excersize in futility because we will never agree or see the other's point. Speaking of this matter of liberal media bias though, that was not the original theme of my post (although I see that always tends to draw fire). :topic: I know your views on liberal media bias and you know mine.
I am more interested in your views and comments on this development between the New Black Panthers and the Young Republicans in Texas! Now I'm sure yall are "down" with the New Black Panthers right?
So what do you make of this potential agreement with "dispicable" white conservative Young Republicans??(including growing disdain for the democratic party)
This take cuts to the chase:
No problem, both are conservative groups.
But that raises another question; Now I would think that, JSU*Toi for example, would be in ideological agreement with the New Black Panthers on virtually all topics; you too,, would that be a fair assessment? Ok, so does this mean that she/you break ranks with the NBPP because they have much in common with the Young Republicans WHILE AT THE SAME TIME it is clear they are essentially the champions of black causes?? This is what I'd like some commentary on. :look:
I mean,, come on now. :smh:
