An appeal to stupidity...

[weswilson]

Source: http://nation.foxnews.com/john-king/2012/01/20/hurt-why-use-despicable-clueless-left-wing-media-moderate-gop-debates

HURT: Why Use ‘Despicable,’ Clueless Left-Wing Media to Moderate GOP Debates?

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. — There is growing consternation in Republican circles and among conservatives over why Republicans keep allowing the various Communist, leftist and otherwise anti-American TV networks to host GOP debates.

The ickiness of Diana Sawyer asking questions in her cloying voice is more than most can bear. The utter cluelessness of the questions these people think actual American voters care about is mystifying. The shameless and ham-handed pandering to conservatives by the networks is revolting.

Indeed, the entire phoenix rising candidacy of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich can be attributed to America’s abject hatred of the left-wing media. He was destitute and written off by the press when he tapped into one of the most visceral political reactions coursing through the veins of regular Americans. And once be began beating up the media, America gathered around him.

Last night, we saw once again why Republicans need to keep allowing fakers and Communists to moderate their GOP debates. Because without the leftist, elitist snobs to beat the ever-living crap out of every couple of weeks, the debates would be so much less fun.

COMMUNIST television networks? Diane Sawyer is anti-american? People support Newt because they hate the liberal media? How can people read this kind of crap and not die from hyperbole poisoning?

The simple fact is that the GOP cannot exist as an island. Without appealing to the moderates, they will most likely never have enough support to win the presidency. And despite what the pundits would have you believe, our media is moderate.

Comments

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Persecution complex much? It's like I say, conservatives* don't consider a discussion "fair" or "balanced" unless they utterly control the conversation and all aspects of the forum, from moderation to broadcasting. If there's a "liberal" moderator or too many liberals in the audience, they're being "persecuted."

* Not all of them, just the whiny ones, Fox News being among the worst offenders here. It's telling that Fox, which is basically a right-wing echo-chamber, considers itself "fair and balanced" while, say, CNN is obviously a front for the Communist Party, it hates them so much.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Conservative pundits hate it when liberals play the victim card because it distracts from the real victims: conservatives.


Jon Stewart on conservative victim card playing. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/gop---special-victims-unit?xrs=share_copy)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's funny you say this, too - I really think CNN does the best job at trying to be objective. I definitely prefer their coverage on election evenings over anyone else's.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

"Persecution complex much? It's like I say, conservatives* don't consider a discussion "fair" or "balanced" unless they utterly control the conversation and all aspects of the forum, from moderation to broadcasting. If there's a "liberal" moderator or too many liberals in the audience, they're being "persecuted."

There is evidence right here on LJ to support your claim to a degree:

http://melvin-udall.livejournal.com/1365102.html

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Well Fox, you can't have all the debates. Even though the entire "lame"stream media are US-hating commies and you're the only one who brings back balance to the Force. You just don't have enough air time to show all the debates, which take place 24/7, nay, 26/8.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

There is something I do not understand. OK, let us assume that the media are really liberal-biased. And Wikipedia has liberal bias. And science has liberal bias. Virtually anything has liberal bias. OK, fine. Now...

How did that happen?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

You know what they say about Reality...

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How did that happen?

The right has failed at getting its own message out, and has failed in getting involved in the left-dominated areas. Not exactly news.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Science doesn't have a liberal bias. However, discussions about science, especially related to certain issues, are highly politicized. Ideas that contradict the liberal agenda or even open minded inquiries about sacred cow issues are suppressed or misrepresented.
How did that happen? Partly, it was caused by liberal control of the news media. The politicization of higher education, especially the tightening of political correctness on campuses, is, in my view, also a factor.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

"There is something I do not understand. OK, let us assume that the media are really liberal-biased. And Wikipedia has liberal bias. And science has liberal bias. Virtually anything has liberal bias. OK, fine. Now...

How did that happen?"

The Devil did it. Because you know, Satan hates conservatives since they're incorruptible guardians of all that is moral and decent. He works tirelessly to undermine their efforts. :p

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I'm still trying to understand how 1 percenters and their minions can call someone "elitist" without a hint of irony.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Elitist are immune to irony, its a class skill. ;)

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Meh, some of us always wanted to be minions. :P

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The simple fact is that the GOP cannot exist as an island. Without appealing to the moderates, they will most likely never have enough support to win the presidency.

Whether this is true or not isn't really the point. While this essay is incredibly over the top (surely why you chose to highlight it), there is some valid points in wondering why the GOP continues to allow hostile media outlets to moderate their debates. The end results throughout this entire time have been questions Republicans and conservatives don't care about, gotcha-style questions designed to trip up the candidates as opposed to illuminate positions and differences, and a lack of any real substance to the debates at all.

The moderates aren't primary voters, generally speaking. That may be the case in open primaries like New Hampshire, but it's up to the candidates right now to be appealing to likely primary voters, not moderate voters.

And despite what the pundits would have you believe, our media is moderate.

Most know that this is a blatant falsehood.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

...why the GOP continues to allow hostile media outlets to moderate their debates. The end results throughout this entire time have been questions Republicans and conservatives don't care about, gotcha-style questions designed to trip up the candidates as opposed to illuminate positions and differences, and a lack of any real substance to the debates at all.

So the alternative would be what? Personally, I want every candidate's feet held to the fire. In primary debates, especially, because they're going to eventually have to debate for the general election and work for those moderate votes as well as take questions that they may not care about or consider gotchas. It's part of the gauntlet.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Is there a way to measure whether this is a falsehood, other than your opinion vs anybody else's?

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Most know that this is a blatant falsehood.
Not surprisingly, I disagree. I think what conservatives actually decry is that the media doesn't slant in their direction often enough.

The problem with the media isn't that it's liberal or conservative, the problem is that it's lost all semblance of journalistic integrity. It's all about money and ratings and profits, so in turn it's about populism. They won't run a story if it won't be popular, which is why they were all giddy for Bush invading Iraq and didn't dare criticize the war until it became unpopular.

The other problem is corporate ownership has compromised it. We heard way more about Tim Tebow than we did about SOPA, until of course it was finally defeated by popular backlash (which also goes back to the first point about popularity).

The media has tried so hard to appease those who call it liberal that it has made fairness more important than accuracy.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I would agree. Most I know would say categorically that the media leans right.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

And despite what the pundits would have you believe, our media is moderate.

Correction: Our media is centrist, except for when corporate interests are involved, in which case it becomes explicitly pro-big business.

"Centrist" is not the same thing as "moderate." Moderates don't fall dead-center on every issue. By contrast, at the rate we're going, I fully expect our media to start providing "equal time" to hate groups during Martin Luther King Jr. Day, because modern mainstream media centrism believes that the "truth" is merely splitting the difference between two polar opposite opinions.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Correction: Our media is centrist, except for when corporate interests are involved, in which case it becomes explicitly pro-big business.

Bingo!

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

What gives with people on the left believing in subtle bias when it comes to race but nothing else? Why is it they talk about phrasology but neglect their own?

The news is as biased as the people in it and just because they don't realize their bias in phrasology or in valuation of news story doesn't mean they're balanced and moderate.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

The news is only as biased as the people who OWN and CONTROL those networks. It has nothing to do with employees.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If liberals really do have all that kind of overwhelming mind-warping power than this means four things: 1) conservatism is doomed anyway, so why bother even pretending to be one? It never gets anywhere and its ideas are impossible to get somewhere through the overarching vast liberal conspiracy so it's a pointless exercise in real-life trolling to be one. 2) Conservatism is too incompetent to do anything to seriously challenge liberalism with results that match point the first. 3) Conservatism is just a version of the Matrix by closet liberals to ensure that there is no serious challenge to their ideals, ensuring that there's always a milder version passed and shifting goalposts further to back their ideas. 4) Liberalism controls the world, media, and intelligent, smart people? Sign me up, baby, I want my black helicopter and Davy Crocket tactical nuke and MIB flashy thingy.

Or alternately conservatives have an alarming tendency for a persecution complex where the actual liberals seem to spend too much time fighting amongst themselves and failing parliamentarism forever for that persecution complex to be worthy of anything more than that Nelson "HA HA" macro.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I wish I could be a GOP candidate. Anything goes wrong, just whine about the media.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

You could be a GOP candidate.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I won't comment on Fox News' response but the actual comment from Gingrich was a masterful example of "playing to the crowd" and doing what the Grinch does best, namely being a mean SOB.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I also agree with others who have said CNN at least makes the effort to be moderate and objective, how succesful they are depends on your point of view.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Don't you know?
Anything less than anarcho-capitalism is communism.

[omnot.livejournal.com]

I find it striking how closely the "Liberal bias" in the media resembles "sanity bias".

Right wing politicians are inclined to say crazy things, and the reaction is likely to be fairly overwhelming, so in an effort to provide "balance" in a situation where there is one crazy-mouthed politician vs the entire population of Reality talking about an issue, media programs will cast about to find someone who will advocate for The Crazy Idea. So we end up with reporters who live in Reality struggling to keep their visible boggling to a minimum as they sit opposite someone who is spouting off about what a great thing The Crazy Idea is.

Curious: can anyone tell me which side of politics has more recorded instances of people declaring that the government should just print more money to solve the nation's financial problems?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

This talking point gets repeated so often and so rote that it confuses my ability to sort out who is who on the left.

I gotta admire the precision displayed in repeating it so well.