Dear Mr. O'Reilly,
I'm having difficulty figuring out your position on Obama and Wright. You have been willing, if I am not mistaken, to give Sen. Obama a "pass" on whether he knew Wright's beliefs and the content of Wright's sermons. Last night, however, you apparently thought he made a "calculation" to sit in Rev. Wright's congregation.
I cannot understand why you are so credulous at a claim that is clearly incredible. (Don't take my word for it; ask Juan Williams.) Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright go together to the Million Man March, and we are supposed to believe that it was just this past weekend that the Senator discovered the Reverend's admiration for Farrakhan? It's really worse than this.
We are supposed to believe that Sen. Obama attends the church for 20 years and never once hears of the Black Liberation Theology that so animates the Rev. Wright. Sean Hannity has the Rev. Wright on for 5 minutes, and the Reverend is demanding of Mr. Hannity if he has ever read James Cone, and that unless Mr. Hannity knows the content of Black Liberation Theology, Mr. Hannity really isn't an informed interviewer. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the Reverend never makes the same demand of Sen. Obama? So, you really think, Mr. O'Reilly, that Sen. Obama is brought to Jesus by the Reverend, attends for 20 years, gives 25,000 to the church, receives a monthly newsletter, is married in the Reverend's church, has his daughters baptized there, prays privately with Rev. Wright before his presidential bid announcement, and the good Reverend never once says, "Barack, here's what we believe at Trinity...." And just so all we know exactly what it is that Sen. Obama didn't know until recently, and you apparently are more than willing to believe he didn't know, here is James Cone:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."
I've known my Pastor only through his sermons and for far less than 20 years, and I know how he feels about abortion, the war, adultery, loving one's neighbor -- and I most certainly know that he does not believe that God is against anyone because of their skin color.
Now, you said on your show last night that the Reverend is a smart man, that he could figure out that he was damaging the Senator's campaign. And the Senator is not a smart man? He couldn't figure out in 20 years what the beliefs were of his chosen church? Your view is that he made a calculation? A calculation about what -- that he could sit in a church, whose Pastor held such beliefs, and not be expected to answer for it?
And here's why it still matters, despite your apparent claim that the Senator has now done what he needed to do. Sen. Obama may have now "disowned" Rev. Wright, something we were told he couldn't do. But he has yet to be honest about what he knew and when he knew of the beliefs of his Pastor. Unless, of course, you want us to have the same credulity that you seem to have about this matter. Yet the credibility of a candidate is extremely relevant to his bid for president. If we can't trust the Senator about something that he says go to the core of who he is, why should we trust him on anything else?
It's clear you would like the Senator to appear on your program. But you've always promised your listeners and viewers that the "spin stops here." Mr. O'Reilly, you may not be spinning, but your view sure looks like you are sliding all over the place. Mr. O'Reilly, tell your viewers clearly whether you think that Sen. Obama knew his chosen Pastor was racist and anti-American before well before 2008.
(author to be posted at a later date)
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
EARTHQUAKE!!! 5.3 ------ EUREKA, CA.
Version #3: This report supersedes any earlier reports of this event.This is a computer-generated message. This event has not yet been reviewed by a seismologist.
A moderate earthquake occurred at 8:03:06 PM (PDT) on Tuesday, April 29, 2008.The magnitude 5.2 event occurred 18 km (11 miles) ESE of Willow Creek, CA.The hypocentral depth is 18 km (11 miles).
Magnitude
5.2 - regional moment magnitude (Mw)
Time
Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 8:03:06 PM (PDT)
Depth
26.3 km (16.3 miles)
Willow Creek, CA - 18 km (11 miles) ESE (114 degrees)Blue Lake, CA - 42 km (26 miles) E (97 degrees)Hayfork, CA - 42 km (26 miles) NW (315 degrees)Eureka, CA - 56 km (35 miles) E (85 degrees)Sacramento, CA - 307 km (191 miles) NW (326 degrees)
I guess the Reno fellas didn't get around to reading this one. ?
Although this one was 35 miles away, I was holding on to my tv set (that sits on a four foot stand) and was moving about a foot back and forth. This was nothing compared to the 1989 quakes that hit 6.8 and followed with two 6.2's four hours apart. Most of our quakes occur off the coast here where we have a couple of major fault lines. The fact that this one was inland make me a little nervous about the next one.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
"Perfect Storm" Continues.........
As Hillary Clinton defeated Barak Obama last night in Pennsylvania the Republican Party can't help but be pleased to see a Democratic nomination race continue as the two candidates march on to another primary and another round of self-denigration.
"This is exactly what I was afraid was going to happen," said Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat who has not endorsed anyone in the race. "They are going to just keep standing there and pounding each other and bloodying each other, and no one is winning. It underlines the need to find some way to bring this to conclusion."
Clinton got what she needed, (with a 55% to 45% ten point advantage), to continue her stance that she can win the "big" states necessary to win the electoral college votes in November. Clinton's problem, (and Obama's), is neither candidate appears to have the ability to convince the super-delegates to put an end to the race. As it stands right now, if either candidate gets the boot by the super-D's there will be just enough disenfranchisement in the general election to put John McCain in the White House. From today's New York Times:
"The results of the exit poll, conducted at 40 precincts across Pennsylvania by Edison/Mitofsky for the television networks and The Associated Press, also found stark evidence that Mr. Obama’s race could be a problem in the general election. Sixteen percent of white voters said race mattered in deciding who they voted for, and just 54 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election; 27 percent of them said they would vote for Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama was the Democratic nominee, and 16 percent said they would not vote at all."
And from the Washington Post:
Gov. Edward G. Rendell, Clinton's top supporter in the state, described the victory at a post-election rally as an "earthquake" that would change the dynamic of the Democratic race. It came as a huge relief for Clinton aides, who say their only chance of an upset is to run off a string of triumphs.
Yet it was a relief for the Obama campaign, too. The senator from Illinois denied Clinton an overwhelming landslide in a state that played to her demographic strengths, with its many working-class, elderly and Catholic voters, and it put her back on uphill terrain. Obama continues to hold a huge financial advantage and a lead in pledged delegates that will be almost impossible for Clinton to surpass in the few contests that remain.
While all this is transpiring, the New York Times and the LA Times continue their own process of vetting McCain smear stories to see which ones will be worth re-publishing during the general election. So far, throwing mud on a military veteran that has far better national security and foreign policy credentials than the other two "cut 'n run" defeatist just doesn't seem to stick. Even the fragile economic concerns can not be shouldered completely by the Republican Administration when the Democratic Party will have been in control of the House and the Senate for almost two years by November. Pelosi and Reid have wasted too much time with over eight hundred over-sight hearings and surrender/retreat legislation to prove they can do the job they were elected to do, which was to solve the nations domestic ills. Instead, their partisan politics has destroyed much of their party's credibility. So much for the "new direction" promises the democrats made to the electorate that brought them into power. And now they have this "perfect storm" to deal with.
Raincoats and Popcorn required.
Update: The Dean 25 (credentials committee) is now kicking in the Michigan/Florida debacle into the "storm". This may be the makings for a hollywood script. Given the anti-war crap that flopped bigtime over the past year, the "producers" may have to give this a serious look.
As Hillary Clinton defeated Barak Obama last night in Pennsylvania the Republican Party can't help but be pleased to see a Democratic nomination race continue as the two candidates march on to another primary and another round of self-denigration.
"This is exactly what I was afraid was going to happen," said Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat who has not endorsed anyone in the race. "They are going to just keep standing there and pounding each other and bloodying each other, and no one is winning. It underlines the need to find some way to bring this to conclusion."
Clinton got what she needed, (with a 55% to 45% ten point advantage), to continue her stance that she can win the "big" states necessary to win the electoral college votes in November. Clinton's problem, (and Obama's), is neither candidate appears to have the ability to convince the super-delegates to put an end to the race. As it stands right now, if either candidate gets the boot by the super-D's there will be just enough disenfranchisement in the general election to put John McCain in the White House. From today's New York Times:
"The results of the exit poll, conducted at 40 precincts across Pennsylvania by Edison/Mitofsky for the television networks and The Associated Press, also found stark evidence that Mr. Obama’s race could be a problem in the general election. Sixteen percent of white voters said race mattered in deciding who they voted for, and just 54 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election; 27 percent of them said they would vote for Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama was the Democratic nominee, and 16 percent said they would not vote at all."
And from the Washington Post:
Gov. Edward G. Rendell, Clinton's top supporter in the state, described the victory at a post-election rally as an "earthquake" that would change the dynamic of the Democratic race. It came as a huge relief for Clinton aides, who say their only chance of an upset is to run off a string of triumphs.
Yet it was a relief for the Obama campaign, too. The senator from Illinois denied Clinton an overwhelming landslide in a state that played to her demographic strengths, with its many working-class, elderly and Catholic voters, and it put her back on uphill terrain. Obama continues to hold a huge financial advantage and a lead in pledged delegates that will be almost impossible for Clinton to surpass in the few contests that remain.
While all this is transpiring, the New York Times and the LA Times continue their own process of vetting McCain smear stories to see which ones will be worth re-publishing during the general election. So far, throwing mud on a military veteran that has far better national security and foreign policy credentials than the other two "cut 'n run" defeatist just doesn't seem to stick. Even the fragile economic concerns can not be shouldered completely by the Republican Administration when the Democratic Party will have been in control of the House and the Senate for almost two years by November. Pelosi and Reid have wasted too much time with over eight hundred over-sight hearings and surrender/retreat legislation to prove they can do the job they were elected to do, which was to solve the nations domestic ills. Instead, their partisan politics has destroyed much of their party's credibility. So much for the "new direction" promises the democrats made to the electorate that brought them into power. And now they have this "perfect storm" to deal with.
Raincoats and Popcorn required.
Update: The Dean 25 (credentials committee) is now kicking in the Michigan/Florida debacle into the "storm". This may be the makings for a hollywood script. Given the anti-war crap that flopped bigtime over the past year, the "producers" may have to give this a serious look.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Art Downs at Common Sense Political Thought puts the Obama-Clinton debacle in historical perspective.
The Apotheosis of Obama
April 21st, 2008 by Art Downs
There are often hints as the hype-mongers prepare to pull another fast one on the public. This is most often observed in the entertainment world as well as the mass-marketing of a product. Presidential candidates are usually the product of a seasoning process rather than the result of some ‘teaser’ type ad or catchy media blitz. Our campaigns have had their songs, images, and slogans but they were adornments rather than the basic product.
Our earliest presidential candidates were chosen by the respective party caucus and this seemed to leave the choice to the insiders. The ‘era of good feeling’ that followed the War of 1812 saw partisanship vanish on a National basis but the campaign of 1824 put an end to kinder and gentler politics when four contenders from the only National party fought it out in a contest where the first runner-up (John Quincy Adams) beat the Jackson and initiated four years of bitter complaining by the unselected candidate. The result was a party split and the birth of the Whig............Link
The Apotheosis of Obama
April 21st, 2008 by Art Downs
There are often hints as the hype-mongers prepare to pull another fast one on the public. This is most often observed in the entertainment world as well as the mass-marketing of a product. Presidential candidates are usually the product of a seasoning process rather than the result of some ‘teaser’ type ad or catchy media blitz. Our campaigns have had their songs, images, and slogans but they were adornments rather than the basic product.
Our earliest presidential candidates were chosen by the respective party caucus and this seemed to leave the choice to the insiders. The ‘era of good feeling’ that followed the War of 1812 saw partisanship vanish on a National basis but the campaign of 1824 put an end to kinder and gentler politics when four contenders from the only National party fought it out in a contest where the first runner-up (John Quincy Adams) beat the Jackson and initiated four years of bitter complaining by the unselected candidate. The result was a party split and the birth of the Whig............Link
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Cash Cow vs. National Security
House of Representatives-Lawyers Lobby Holding Up Surveillance Bill
Saturday, April 12, 2008
by Rovin
Our House on Friday passed their version of the Terrorist Surveillance Bill leaving out the crucial text that protects communication companies from getting sued when they cooperated with the government after 9/11. There are currently over 40 lawsuits (in the billions) pending against the companies that could bring in millions for individuals and attorneys claiming that the wire-taps were illegally authorized by our government. President Bush plans to veto this version of the bill if it reach’s his desk.
WASHINGTON-AP - The House on Friday approved a Democratic bill that would set rules for the government's eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails inside the United States.
The bill, approved as lawmakers departed for a two-week break, faces a veto threat from President Bush. The margin of House approval was 213-197, largely along party lines.
Because of the promised veto, "this vote has no impact at all," said Republican Whip Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri.
The president's main objection is that the bill does not protect from lawsuits the telecommunications companies that allowed the government to eavesdrop on their customers without a court's permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. White House spokesman Tony Fratto called the measure a "political ploy" designed to give Democrats cover for their failure to grant full retroactive immunity to the telecom companies.
The vote sent the bill to the Senate, which has passed its own version that includes the legal immunity for telecom companies that Bush is demanding.
Without that provision, House Republicans said, the companies won't cooperate with U.S. intelligence....... Link to full story
While Nancy Pelosi and her powerful lawyers lobby continue to play games with our national security for monetary gain, our communication companies are left high and dry by being subjected to civil lawsuits. This was the same surveillance that prevented the London bombers plot to blow up planes crossing over the Atlantic.
For the record, the Democrats are claiming that they are protecting constitutional civil rights as their reason for leaving out the protections to the telecoms. While it’s ok for the government to pick up the tab on social service programs to the tune of billions, it’s apparently not ok to intercept phone conversations that plot to blow up Americans.
We should all thank Nancy and her party for looking out for our best interest.
House of Representatives-Lawyers Lobby Holding Up Surveillance Bill
Saturday, April 12, 2008
by Rovin
Our House on Friday passed their version of the Terrorist Surveillance Bill leaving out the crucial text that protects communication companies from getting sued when they cooperated with the government after 9/11. There are currently over 40 lawsuits (in the billions) pending against the companies that could bring in millions for individuals and attorneys claiming that the wire-taps were illegally authorized by our government. President Bush plans to veto this version of the bill if it reach’s his desk.
WASHINGTON-AP - The House on Friday approved a Democratic bill that would set rules for the government's eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails inside the United States.
The bill, approved as lawmakers departed for a two-week break, faces a veto threat from President Bush. The margin of House approval was 213-197, largely along party lines.
Because of the promised veto, "this vote has no impact at all," said Republican Whip Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri.
The president's main objection is that the bill does not protect from lawsuits the telecommunications companies that allowed the government to eavesdrop on their customers without a court's permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. White House spokesman Tony Fratto called the measure a "political ploy" designed to give Democrats cover for their failure to grant full retroactive immunity to the telecom companies.
The vote sent the bill to the Senate, which has passed its own version that includes the legal immunity for telecom companies that Bush is demanding.
Without that provision, House Republicans said, the companies won't cooperate with U.S. intelligence....... Link to full story
While Nancy Pelosi and her powerful lawyers lobby continue to play games with our national security for monetary gain, our communication companies are left high and dry by being subjected to civil lawsuits. This was the same surveillance that prevented the London bombers plot to blow up planes crossing over the Atlantic.
For the record, the Democrats are claiming that they are protecting constitutional civil rights as their reason for leaving out the protections to the telecoms. While it’s ok for the government to pick up the tab on social service programs to the tune of billions, it’s apparently not ok to intercept phone conversations that plot to blow up Americans.
We should all thank Nancy and her party for looking out for our best interest.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
San Francisco Protesters Get "Torched" by Route Change
AP and Washington Post Spin Troop Reductions Story
Meanwhile Pelosi and the Dumbocrats in the House continue their moonbattery:
"As Congress prepares to take up a new war spending bill, House Democratic defense appropriators agreed this week on three policy prescriptions: a government-wide ban on torture, a mandate that soldiers and Marines be given at least a month at home for every month in combat, and a withdrawal timetable that would be longer than past failed efforts and that would explicitly leave the details of withdrawal to military commanders."
While General Petraeus, Ambasador Crocker, and our President are all on the same page in protecting the gains made over the past seventeen months that have turned the corner in violence in Iraq, our Democratic "leadership" continues down the road of surrender and defeatism while pandering to their radical left anti-war crowd.
AP and Washington Post Spin Troop Reductions Story
Meanwhile Pelosi and the Dumbocrats in the House continue their moonbattery:
"As Congress prepares to take up a new war spending bill, House Democratic defense appropriators agreed this week on three policy prescriptions: a government-wide ban on torture, a mandate that soldiers and Marines be given at least a month at home for every month in combat, and a withdrawal timetable that would be longer than past failed efforts and that would explicitly leave the details of withdrawal to military commanders."
While General Petraeus, Ambasador Crocker, and our President are all on the same page in protecting the gains made over the past seventeen months that have turned the corner in violence in Iraq, our Democratic "leadership" continues down the road of surrender and defeatism while pandering to their radical left anti-war crowd.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Angry Journalist
As CBS cuts jobs in their news division, there's a new website for the disgruntled journalist to vent their frustrations. Too bad they just don't get it------that they are catering to only half this nation with their liberal bias while blaming the Internet.
Angry journalists vent their frustrations to the world
They're angry at their demanding editors. They're angry about the mushrooming workload in shrinking newsrooms. They're even angry about other angry journalists.
But these angry journalists are happy they can now vent their frustrations to the rest of the world, courtesy of angryjournalist.com, a sort of online complaint board allowing ink-stained wretches to gripe anonymously.
Ironically, their anger is partly fueled by the Internet, which has forced newspapers and television networks to reinvent themselves with painful consequences for their staffs.
Here's a sampling of comments posted to this story:
4. Steve C. April 1st, 2008 - 9:00 pm
Hey, CBS just laid off a load of people today. You want to get angry guys? How about directing your anger at the management that allows you to produce that biased crap you try to pawn off as journalism. This ain’t rocket science fellas. The quality of journalism is a joke. Everyone knows it but you. And for the love of god,stop blaming the Internet. We go to the Internet because newspapers and network news are not doing their job, period.
Hey, if you don’t like your jobs, maybe you could go to Hollywood and write some more of those anti-war movies. They keep making them and they all do so well. Hundreds of people have seen them.
3. Jon April 1st, 2008 - 8:56 pm
Oh…poor baby print journalists - grow up!! The world is changing at breakneck speed - oh sorry, that was the print journalism ‘profession’ the online world just passed by…I, for one, am delighted not to have to put up with the vile anti-American garbage from NYTimes, LA Times, etc. who all take their cues from whoever is angry with the US (i.e. Castro, Chavez, Ahmedijad, etc.)…perhaps your rags will be recycled into a proper use - say, toilet paper…long live online!!
7. K. West April 1st, 2008 - 9:55 pm
If journalists weren’t mostly liberal morons who are more interested in promoting their agenda than in reporting the news, they might still have a job. RIP, dead tree news.
9. brian April 1st, 2008 - 10:20 pm
WAIT a minute !! Isnt this supposed to be a recession made up by the media? HMMM the plot thickens!!
11. G. MAN April 1st, 2008 - 10:34 pm
Hey Left Wing Media,If you got off your tail and told both sides, instead of trying to push your left wing agenda down our throats, you might have a job. You are getting what you deserve!!!You need to be fair on both sides. The news people need to investigate the Democrats the same way they do the Republicans. The media should not have an agenda, but you do. You are in the tank for the Democrats.You guys wonder why advertising is down, circulation is down, it’s simple, you don’t tell the truth, ( DAN RATHER) and you only tell half the truth. It’s easy, JUST BE FAIR and you will have a job. If you keep going the way you are, you will all be out of a job. I can’t understand why someone at the N.Y. Times or the L.A. Times, can’t see this. After all the business the major newspapers in this country have lost, you would think it would be easy to see. You are playing to only half of the country with you left wing agenda. Right wing people can read also, but they don’t want to read left wing garbage.
12. Parker April 1st, 2008 - 11:12 pm
Most journalists and editors are left leaning because only leftist ideologues could put up with the horse manure that passes as a "humanities" education these days. (Hint: conservatives are driven out, denied scholarships, made to feel unwelcome in humanities departments - leaving almost only liberals in the journalism and teaching professions).
Why? Because 60’s generation leftists monopolize 99% of the humanities departments, teachers schools and journalism schools across the nation.
Cultural relativism, race and ethnic identity obsession, anti-Americanism, fascist feminism, pro-terrorist Middle East studies - a regular circus of PC, cult of victimization nitwits.
15. Justy April 2nd, 2008 - 12:46 am
Well it’s their own damn fault. When you only cater to 50% of your potential audience you only require 50% of the staff.
16. Mike April 2nd, 2008 - 1:10 am
Try as I might (granted, I’m not trying very hard)I can muster absolutely no sympathy for these self-described " journalists". The vast majority are nothing more than shills for the political left, "useful idiots" who hold themselves and their own views in high esteem. Perhaps if they even approached objectivity, there might be a market for them. The thinking portion of the populace wants facts, not agenda-based opinion reported as fact.
23. Mark April 2nd, 2008 - 3:21 am
I’d ask all of you journalist-bashing posters how they’d feel if they lost their jobs… but then I realized, you’re most likely unemployable losers anyway so you wouldn’t be able to answer.
24. brian April 2nd, 2008 - 3:26 am
I hope you are all replaced by minimum waged illegal aliens, the ones you have so desperately supporting.
25. al vander stoep April 2nd, 2008 - 3:29 am
There isn’t too much to add. Normal Americans are tired of having their country and morals trashed by a bunch of gutless liberals who will write anything to keep their propaganda jobs. Good luck in the real world, liars.
Mark (in comment #23 bolded) must be one of those poor souls that doesn't get the point that so many others are writing about-----and resorts to what a good DUer or a KOS kid would do when they can't win (or debate an argument) by attacking the messenger.
The sad facts are that the mainstream media is becoming neither when they proceed to advocate their left-wing liberal agenda and call it "journalism".
Update: I found a fair assessment of what a journalist has become in this Angry Journalist post:
Angry Journalist #2786:
I am glad to see journalists lose their jobs. Today’s journalists are no longer unbiased, impartial, or the guarantors of democracy in their role as the fourth estate.Instead, today’s journalists are extremely liberal and seem to be social engineers rather than journalists. They persecute religious beliefs, give a free pass to politicians they agree with, and try to dictate morality and social norms by altering the public’s perception of the issues of the day. Illegal immigration is okay, abortion is good, religion is bad, Bush is a liar, Clinton is great, porn is okay, censorship of any kind is bad, etc. Why don’t journalists just report the facts, and let the readers interpret things for themselves? The success of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, et al, should be a lesson for them. Not that Fox is entirely unbiased either; but Fox is a backlash to the liberal agenda pushed on the public by the mainstream media. But do they get it? No. Americans like traditional values and want to see their traditional values embraced in the mainstream media. “Oh, traditional values? So you want segregation back and you want women confined to the kitchen?” NO, damn it, no. It is the common refrain of the liberal media to characterize traditional conservatives as wanting to turn back the clock and bring back all kinds of social and economic evils.We just want the truth and we want love of family, God and country to remain the cornerstone of our lives. Instead, we feel very much on the defensive regarding upholding and keeping these values.But most of all, I am glad journalists are losing their jobs because while they are becoming INCREASINGLY liberal, they deny the charge of liberal bias even MORE loudly. How dare they? How can journalists be so blind to their own bias? Or perhaps they are not blind — perhaps they think the general public is stupid enough to accept their denials of liberal bias. We are not stupid. And now you are out of a job. Good riddance to you all.
Stupid is------as stupid does................
As CBS cuts jobs in their news division, there's a new website for the disgruntled journalist to vent their frustrations. Too bad they just don't get it------that they are catering to only half this nation with their liberal bias while blaming the Internet.
Angry journalists vent their frustrations to the world
They're angry at their demanding editors. They're angry about the mushrooming workload in shrinking newsrooms. They're even angry about other angry journalists.
But these angry journalists are happy they can now vent their frustrations to the rest of the world, courtesy of angryjournalist.com, a sort of online complaint board allowing ink-stained wretches to gripe anonymously.
Ironically, their anger is partly fueled by the Internet, which has forced newspapers and television networks to reinvent themselves with painful consequences for their staffs.
Here's a sampling of comments posted to this story:
4. Steve C. April 1st, 2008 - 9:00 pm
Hey, CBS just laid off a load of people today. You want to get angry guys? How about directing your anger at the management that allows you to produce that biased crap you try to pawn off as journalism. This ain’t rocket science fellas. The quality of journalism is a joke. Everyone knows it but you. And for the love of god,stop blaming the Internet. We go to the Internet because newspapers and network news are not doing their job, period.
Hey, if you don’t like your jobs, maybe you could go to Hollywood and write some more of those anti-war movies. They keep making them and they all do so well. Hundreds of people have seen them.
3. Jon April 1st, 2008 - 8:56 pm
Oh…poor baby print journalists - grow up!! The world is changing at breakneck speed - oh sorry, that was the print journalism ‘profession’ the online world just passed by…I, for one, am delighted not to have to put up with the vile anti-American garbage from NYTimes, LA Times, etc. who all take their cues from whoever is angry with the US (i.e. Castro, Chavez, Ahmedijad, etc.)…perhaps your rags will be recycled into a proper use - say, toilet paper…long live online!!
7. K. West April 1st, 2008 - 9:55 pm
If journalists weren’t mostly liberal morons who are more interested in promoting their agenda than in reporting the news, they might still have a job. RIP, dead tree news.
9. brian April 1st, 2008 - 10:20 pm
WAIT a minute !! Isnt this supposed to be a recession made up by the media? HMMM the plot thickens!!
11. G. MAN April 1st, 2008 - 10:34 pm
Hey Left Wing Media,If you got off your tail and told both sides, instead of trying to push your left wing agenda down our throats, you might have a job. You are getting what you deserve!!!You need to be fair on both sides. The news people need to investigate the Democrats the same way they do the Republicans. The media should not have an agenda, but you do. You are in the tank for the Democrats.You guys wonder why advertising is down, circulation is down, it’s simple, you don’t tell the truth, ( DAN RATHER) and you only tell half the truth. It’s easy, JUST BE FAIR and you will have a job. If you keep going the way you are, you will all be out of a job. I can’t understand why someone at the N.Y. Times or the L.A. Times, can’t see this. After all the business the major newspapers in this country have lost, you would think it would be easy to see. You are playing to only half of the country with you left wing agenda. Right wing people can read also, but they don’t want to read left wing garbage.
12. Parker April 1st, 2008 - 11:12 pm
Most journalists and editors are left leaning because only leftist ideologues could put up with the horse manure that passes as a "humanities" education these days. (Hint: conservatives are driven out, denied scholarships, made to feel unwelcome in humanities departments - leaving almost only liberals in the journalism and teaching professions).
Why? Because 60’s generation leftists monopolize 99% of the humanities departments, teachers schools and journalism schools across the nation.
Cultural relativism, race and ethnic identity obsession, anti-Americanism, fascist feminism, pro-terrorist Middle East studies - a regular circus of PC, cult of victimization nitwits.
15. Justy April 2nd, 2008 - 12:46 am
Well it’s their own damn fault. When you only cater to 50% of your potential audience you only require 50% of the staff.
16. Mike April 2nd, 2008 - 1:10 am
Try as I might (granted, I’m not trying very hard)I can muster absolutely no sympathy for these self-described " journalists". The vast majority are nothing more than shills for the political left, "useful idiots" who hold themselves and their own views in high esteem. Perhaps if they even approached objectivity, there might be a market for them. The thinking portion of the populace wants facts, not agenda-based opinion reported as fact.
23. Mark April 2nd, 2008 - 3:21 am
I’d ask all of you journalist-bashing posters how they’d feel if they lost their jobs… but then I realized, you’re most likely unemployable losers anyway so you wouldn’t be able to answer.
24. brian April 2nd, 2008 - 3:26 am
I hope you are all replaced by minimum waged illegal aliens, the ones you have so desperately supporting.
25. al vander stoep April 2nd, 2008 - 3:29 am
There isn’t too much to add. Normal Americans are tired of having their country and morals trashed by a bunch of gutless liberals who will write anything to keep their propaganda jobs. Good luck in the real world, liars.
Mark (in comment #23 bolded) must be one of those poor souls that doesn't get the point that so many others are writing about-----and resorts to what a good DUer or a KOS kid would do when they can't win (or debate an argument) by attacking the messenger.
The sad facts are that the mainstream media is becoming neither when they proceed to advocate their left-wing liberal agenda and call it "journalism".
Update: I found a fair assessment of what a journalist has become in this Angry Journalist post:
Angry Journalist #2786:
I am glad to see journalists lose their jobs. Today’s journalists are no longer unbiased, impartial, or the guarantors of democracy in their role as the fourth estate.Instead, today’s journalists are extremely liberal and seem to be social engineers rather than journalists. They persecute religious beliefs, give a free pass to politicians they agree with, and try to dictate morality and social norms by altering the public’s perception of the issues of the day. Illegal immigration is okay, abortion is good, religion is bad, Bush is a liar, Clinton is great, porn is okay, censorship of any kind is bad, etc. Why don’t journalists just report the facts, and let the readers interpret things for themselves? The success of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, et al, should be a lesson for them. Not that Fox is entirely unbiased either; but Fox is a backlash to the liberal agenda pushed on the public by the mainstream media. But do they get it? No. Americans like traditional values and want to see their traditional values embraced in the mainstream media. “Oh, traditional values? So you want segregation back and you want women confined to the kitchen?” NO, damn it, no. It is the common refrain of the liberal media to characterize traditional conservatives as wanting to turn back the clock and bring back all kinds of social and economic evils.We just want the truth and we want love of family, God and country to remain the cornerstone of our lives. Instead, we feel very much on the defensive regarding upholding and keeping these values.But most of all, I am glad journalists are losing their jobs because while they are becoming INCREASINGLY liberal, they deny the charge of liberal bias even MORE loudly. How dare they? How can journalists be so blind to their own bias? Or perhaps they are not blind — perhaps they think the general public is stupid enough to accept their denials of liberal bias. We are not stupid. And now you are out of a job. Good riddance to you all.
Stupid is------as stupid does................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)