ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,706
- 245
By Bill O'Reilly
Saturday, August 5, 2006
Perhaps the biggest reason why so many Americans are confused about the chilling dangers posed by Islamic fascism is the reportage of the terror war by the liberal print press. Day after day, committed left-wing newspapers frame their coverage with an emphasis on the inadequacies of the Bush administration or Israel, not the aggressive worldwide jihad that seeks nuclear weapons. Routinely, those who act confrontationally against the fascists are marginalized and sometimes personally attacked. Rarely, do the left-wing dailies give a fair hearing to both sides of the terror war controversy.
But, of course, the journalists toiling at the committed liberal papers don't see it that way. In a recent appearance on National Public Radio, Los Angeles Times reporter Tom Hamburger presented a point of view that is anything but rare in liberal circles: "targeting the mainstream, even establishment media -- as having a liberal bias, has been one of the most successful campaigns that's been organized by the conservative right. And it's made editors and reporters cautious about what they say."
According to Hamburger, his paper and others like The New York Times are not liberal at all, their images have been distorted by the right. Well, let's examine the facts.
The New York Times has four uber liberal op-ed columnists who, within the last 18 months, have written more than 150 columns about the Bush administration. None of the columns were positive, not one. The Times has no pro-Bush columnists.
In addition, the TV columnists for the Times, its business media writer, and the lead film critic, A.O. Scott, are also committed liberals, as is sports columnist William Rhoden. I don't know about the head obit writer.
And it's the same thing at most of the other left-wing papers -- the deck is stacked with liberal writers not only on the editorial pages but also in every other section of the paper. The result is a constant barrage of negativity toward those who believe we are fighting World War III and we'd better get serious.
The Fox News Channel generally takes a strong anti-terrorist position, and it is not well received by the print press. I get a clip file every day from newspapers around the country, and the coverage of FNC, and my program, "The O'Reilly Factor," is relentlessly negative. Yet everyday Americans somehow overwhelmingly choose us over our competition, so at least there is some balance in the media.
Truthfully, this nonsense about "conservatives" falsely describing the newspaper industry as predominately liberal is flat out dishonest. Even a recent media study done by UCLA professor Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri professor Jeffrey Milyo came to the conclusion that "almost all major media outlets tilt to the left."
And the tilt becomes a freefall when President Bush's name comes up. The liberal newspapers generally consider him an inarticulate bumbler, too unsophisticated to deal with complicated issues like stem cell research and global warming. The committed left editors remain furious Bush defeated Al Gore in the Supreme Court and are crazed that many of them bought into the WMD threat in Iraq.
Thus, no matter what the president does now, and no matter how much danger nations like Iran present to the world, the liberal dailies are not going to play it strong. The big story is, and will remain, that Bush is an idiot.
That kind of narrow media groupthink is dangerous. Granting Hezbollah moral equivalency with Israel, putting forth that America is a nation of human rights violators, and labeling Iraq a failure before all the dust has settled -- all these things absolutely make life easier for the jihadists.
That may not be the intention of the left-wing press, but that very well may be the result of their own jihad.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2006/08/05/liberal_jihad
Saturday, August 5, 2006
Perhaps the biggest reason why so many Americans are confused about the chilling dangers posed by Islamic fascism is the reportage of the terror war by the liberal print press. Day after day, committed left-wing newspapers frame their coverage with an emphasis on the inadequacies of the Bush administration or Israel, not the aggressive worldwide jihad that seeks nuclear weapons. Routinely, those who act confrontationally against the fascists are marginalized and sometimes personally attacked. Rarely, do the left-wing dailies give a fair hearing to both sides of the terror war controversy.
But, of course, the journalists toiling at the committed liberal papers don't see it that way. In a recent appearance on National Public Radio, Los Angeles Times reporter Tom Hamburger presented a point of view that is anything but rare in liberal circles: "targeting the mainstream, even establishment media -- as having a liberal bias, has been one of the most successful campaigns that's been organized by the conservative right. And it's made editors and reporters cautious about what they say."
According to Hamburger, his paper and others like The New York Times are not liberal at all, their images have been distorted by the right. Well, let's examine the facts.
The New York Times has four uber liberal op-ed columnists who, within the last 18 months, have written more than 150 columns about the Bush administration. None of the columns were positive, not one. The Times has no pro-Bush columnists.
In addition, the TV columnists for the Times, its business media writer, and the lead film critic, A.O. Scott, are also committed liberals, as is sports columnist William Rhoden. I don't know about the head obit writer.
And it's the same thing at most of the other left-wing papers -- the deck is stacked with liberal writers not only on the editorial pages but also in every other section of the paper. The result is a constant barrage of negativity toward those who believe we are fighting World War III and we'd better get serious.
The Fox News Channel generally takes a strong anti-terrorist position, and it is not well received by the print press. I get a clip file every day from newspapers around the country, and the coverage of FNC, and my program, "The O'Reilly Factor," is relentlessly negative. Yet everyday Americans somehow overwhelmingly choose us over our competition, so at least there is some balance in the media.
Truthfully, this nonsense about "conservatives" falsely describing the newspaper industry as predominately liberal is flat out dishonest. Even a recent media study done by UCLA professor Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri professor Jeffrey Milyo came to the conclusion that "almost all major media outlets tilt to the left."
And the tilt becomes a freefall when President Bush's name comes up. The liberal newspapers generally consider him an inarticulate bumbler, too unsophisticated to deal with complicated issues like stem cell research and global warming. The committed left editors remain furious Bush defeated Al Gore in the Supreme Court and are crazed that many of them bought into the WMD threat in Iraq.
Thus, no matter what the president does now, and no matter how much danger nations like Iran present to the world, the liberal dailies are not going to play it strong. The big story is, and will remain, that Bush is an idiot.
That kind of narrow media groupthink is dangerous. Granting Hezbollah moral equivalency with Israel, putting forth that America is a nation of human rights violators, and labeling Iraq a failure before all the dust has settled -- all these things absolutely make life easier for the jihadists.
That may not be the intention of the left-wing press, but that very well may be the result of their own jihad.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2006/08/05/liberal_jihad
