Powered by TypePad

« Mexicans Drink Tequila In Mexico! | Main | Chomsky Lives! »

October 06, 2006



"We're all that way, and I think a part of it is we grew up in the '60s and the press led us against the war and the press led us on civil rights and the press led us on Watergate," Clinton said. "Those of us of a certain age grew up with this almost unrealistic set of expectations."

I love the way he use the term "WE" and "US"... once again the arrogance of the left to think we all thought the same way.


"Those of us of a certain age grew up with this almost unrealistic set of expectations."

The key word is "almost." He still expects the MSM to carry his water as evidenced by his purple raging against Chris Wallace and Fox News.


/b> sorry

Rick Ballard


thanks rick


AS If? The day I ever have anything in common with Hil and Bill is the day I've been mind-rayed. No Bill, we don't all remember it that way because unlike you a known draft -dodger with my brother serving in Vietnam I was actually rooting for victory back then.



Let's not forget that Bill had a personal stake in Vietnam being declared an "imoral and wrong" war. He was driven to achieve the presidency since a very young age yet took steps to avoid serving in Vietnam which he knew was not a politically fortuitous position. His actions were more easily justified in his own mind when Vietnam became a "quagmire" in the MSM's reporting.


Clinton also has raised himself to "hero" in his own mind by claiming to be the generation that brought an end to "an immoral and unjust" war. Note how many of the lefties cling to this "heroism" personally.


Daniel Okrent's major premise is horse hockey; that the NYT and most other papers are one-sided because it's so difficult to take off one's rose-colored glasses. His implication is that in a fit of zen inspired excellence in journalism they'll all become more balanced, if only we present them the right case.

Stop feeding me crap. The MSM and a significant portion of the intelligentsia long ago got caught up in a relativist / truth to power / Marxist mindset. Vietnam, the Civil Rights movement, Watergate etc. all reinforced a class consciousness and conspiratorial prejudice that paved a road they were already on.

They don't detail a libertarian or capitalist or individualist or minimialist view because they don't want to. They think those views are wrong, prejudiced, immoral and at least outdated. This fall election is proof of it. As the new media voices get louder for conservatism, the MSM must get harsher. The gloves are already off. In a couple of years, they'll be saying it.

Conservatives don't realize the meaning of many of their own thoughts and words; it's a cultural war, and the left will do anything to win. There has never been any question on who's side the MSM is on; they're driving the bus!

Articles like this irk me. Okrent is either unbelievably naive, silly, too civil for his own good, or just plain daft.


To be fair, Okrent's column was over 2 years ago, so it's not like he's describing what's happening NOW.


Liberal bias in the MSM?

Oh, nooooooo! There is NO such thing, as they've consistently told us.



My dad told me years ago about liberal bias in the media. Since then I've wised up and don't believe the flat out lies and untruths promulgated by the major network channels or MSNBC or CNN. Happy 10th anniversary Fox News the only station that presents both sides of an issue.
Will someone please tell Bill Clinton to be quiet. I have no interest in what he says or thinks. His 15 minutes are up only no one has the guts to tell him because he might throw another tantrum and no one wants to be on the receiving end of that. He might poke you.


What the NYTimes, WashPost, LATimes, AbcNbcCbsCnnMsNbcBlaBla have been producing lately is propaganda, pure and simple. Slick, professional, gloriously produced propaganda.

What's more... they damn well know it. They consciously slant their news stories as a part of a sustained effort to mislead their customers. This is intended to control the world-view of their audience.

What does this have to do with "journalism?" Absolutely nothing. What does it have to do with political hackery? Absolutely everything.

Mark in Texas

But for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading.

No, Dan. I moved past "disappointment" years ago. I am now firmly into "I don't believe anything you say anymore" territory.

If we go by the Walter Duranty Pulitzer Prize still proudly on display, the Times has never been any more honest than it is now.


You are absolutely correct in your assessment.


One thing I observed over the years is that if one side makes an accusation against the other, the mainstream media will jump in to investigate. The difference is, if the accusation is against a Republican, they'll investigate the accused, while if it's against a Democrat, they'll investigate the accuser.



One wonders whether you'd call the current President or Vice President a "draft dodger" for their less-than-stellar personal record during the Vietnam Conflict. Perhaps you could explain why VP Cheney had "other priorities" that explained his five Vietnam draft deferments?

I commend your brother's br



I commend your brother's bravery in fighting in Vietnam, but singling out Clinton for "draft dodging" is pretty unfair.


Well, I guess for one thing Bush was in the NG, and for another the VP was a young father with a bunch of kids when he got the deferments. Most importantly, neither ran off to a foreign country and bad mouthed this country.

The comments to this entry are closed.