While the rhetoric from both sides on the board has gotten heated, I'm more than a little confused by those posting here who are now mad at people who defended the Tea Party through the morning.
When people suggested that it was too soon to be discussing the shooter's motivations and that stating that a) He might belong to the Tea Party and therefore implying b) that his possible affiliation with the Tea Party might be relevant to why he committed mass murder...people here were quick to shout back a litany of excuses including some that can only be meant to silence dialogue ("How dare you defend the Tea Party when these people aren't even cold yet!").
In other words...we should allow the media to vilanize NOT the actual monster who shot these people, but rather a political organization based on flimsy, speculative, and downright shoddy journalism.
Seriously?
It seems to me that the real problem here is an out-of-control media with an agenda...and those citizens who support the media's CONTINUED promotion of its own agenda despite its claims of impartiality and non-bias.
The victims of this crime deserve our prayers. I do not doubt for a moment that everyone on this board, regardless of political leaning, feels sorry for these people and their families.
But this is a political message board - not a prayer vigil. The discussion about the media's ongoing "1984-esque" desire to make the news tell the story it wants to tell, rather than what is actually occurring should be as important to us as any other story currently being discussed today.
If we can not discuss it when we have such a BLATANT, FLAGRANT example of how casually the news media can use poor journalism during a tragedy as an excuse to crucify a political group...then when CAN we discuss it?
You are working from the concept that the corporate media is indeed the evil liberal media bent on the destruction of the right, going to have to prove that load of crap first.
I'm glad you ask to "prove it" first...
Would you say that if you donate money to a political party that would mean hmmm I'd like to see my money back a winner! I mean you wouldn't give money to a party that you didn't want to win upcoming elections would you?
"MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions
from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission.
Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left:
125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes.
Only 17 gave to Republicans.
Two gave to both parties."
Journalists give campaign cash - politics - NBCNews.com
So which party did over 85% of Identified journalists donate $$ to ? Democrats.
So would you say a MSM Editor would have some opinion regarding political bias?
"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics.
About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time.
There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.-
Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas
This same NewsWeek editor when asked:
our job is to bash the president, that's what we do." -- Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.
Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President' | NewsBusters.org
But what does this hardened "professional journalist" say about Democrat Obama??
I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world,
he’s sort of God." –
"he's sort of God"! Really.. Objective hard newsmagazine editor referring to Obama as a "God"!
* More than
four-fifths of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
* “Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum,” Lichter and Rothman’s survey of journalists discovered"
* “Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right — a margin of seven-to-one.”
* Nearly half of the journalists surveyed agreed that “the very structure of our society causes people to feel alienated,” while the authors found “five out of six believe our legal system mainly favors the wealthy.”
*
30 percent disagreed that “private enterprise is fair to workers;” 28 percent agreed that “all political systems are repressive.”
* 54 percent did not regard adultery as wrong, compared to only 15 percent who regarded it as wrong.
* “Ninety percent agree that a woman has the right to decide for herself whether to have an abortion; 79 percent agree strongly with this pro-choice position.”
*
Majorities of journalists agreed with the statements: “U.S. exploits Third World, causes poverty” (56 percent); and “U.S. use of resources immoral” (57 percent). Three-fourths disagreed that the “West had helped Third World.”
Exhibit 1-1: The Media Elite | Media Research Center
Want more Proof??? of MSM bias???
