Oliver Willis, makes the rather perplexing argument that since the media spends more time talking about Te-RAY-zah (who in case you missed it, might become first lady) than the reporter she insulted, the media is not full of liberals.
Guess ‘ol Oliver missed when Evan Thomas of Newsweek admitted:
“Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there’s going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”
Or when Mark Halpern the political editor of ABC News admitted:
“Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.
They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are “conservative positions.”
…The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race.
Or when the New York Times admitted they were “Of Course” they were a liberal newspaper.
Or that the liberal bias was so thick at CBS that Bernard Goldberg had enough material to fill a book.
No, to Oliver the fact that that the media focused on the woman who might be first lady over a reporter no one ever heard of, proves there are no liberals in media.
Ignorance is never to be faulted- self induced stupidity however, really is a shame.
Update: Oliver gets destroyed in his comments with the line of the day being this:
Oliver, you can’t mean this.
I’m going to ask again, if President Bush tells Helen Thomas to shove it, will that be ok with you? Will the real story be how liberal Helen is?
Game. Set. Match.
I think what the Teresa Heinz Kerry story shows about the media is that they may have liberal biases and consist of an overwhelming number of employees that have liberal views, but ultimately the media is a predatory industry that will attack and consume any prey it sees as being high in readership/viewership/ratings potential.
Just as there is no honor among thieves, there are no friendships in the media deep enough to prevent a reporter from sinking his fangs in your neck if you’re the only prey available.
Except that Goldberg’s book has been thoroughly discredited, Evan Thomas seems to have missed his media buddies flocking to every Kerry non-story that Drudge & co float, and when ABC News runs John Stossell hatchet jobs on John Edwards in prime time, or the NY Times everlasting jihad against President Clinton – and their broadcasting of the Bush administration’s deceptions and lies about Iraq’s WMDs without caveat.
Other than that, they’re totally liberal. I know, the Easter Bunny told me so.
And look, I did all that without resorting to calling you a dumbass. Oh, sorry, too late.
Oliver you are delusional.
You mean, the New York Times just thinks it’s liberal, but it’s really not?
Which I guess just makes them incompetant?
And having a conservative John Stossel proves that the media isn’t liberal, but having Barbara Walters issue an unprecedented “That does not represent the views of ABC” immediately following Stossel’s piece doesn’t mean anything. And third-tier correspondent Stossel’s conservatism can’t be balanced by the liberalism of network headliners Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw,
I guess I’m having trouble following Oliver’s line of argument.
Most thinking people do.
Now (according to NewsMax), Teresa Heinz-Ketchup’s speech has been pulled from the prime-time alphabet networks’ broadcasts for tonight…
Like a Hoover Self Propelled WindTunnel
Oliver, listen to me. Put doooowwwwwn the Kool-Aid and back away. Put it down. Geeeennnnntly….
And note Oliver’s tactic of saying that Goldberg’s book has been discredited, while providing nothing in the way of proof. Because to provide links would reveal the partisan sources of his Kook-Aid recipe (type intended.)
Come on. Oliver works with David Brock (and Atrios it seems) at the holier-than-thou Media Matters. Everything they say is gospel. So if Oliver says the book is discredited, it must be the truth, right? I mean, a group led by David Brock would not lie, would they?
/end sarcasm