Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

RW talking point on Williams, Gallagher payola scandal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:11 AM
Original message
RW talking point on Williams, Gallagher payola scandal
"Well the liberals have PBS and NPR and they're funded by the government!" :argh: :argh: :argh:

I've read it in LTTEs and heard it from Rush drones in conversation. For one thing, on NPR and PBS if someone is of a particular ideology it is disclosed. And there is no shortage of conservative views on either of those outlets.

Why are wingnuts so stupid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's not stupidity. It's lies and distortions.
There's a big and important difference. As long as we continue to think they're stupid rather than actively malignant, we misjudge the situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. Oh, I've heard that NPR and PBS have been slanting right recently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shopaholic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. You've heard that because it's true.
They have been turning to the right and that's why I no longer watch/listen to either of them. I got good and fed up and disgusted with them quite some time ago.

You know damn well that if they'd found out that Clinton had media on the official government payroll (if only we had), that there would have been sheer hell to pay. Now do we get why these people were so vehment in trying to destroy the Clintons? They were getting paid to do so.

And where's the outrage from the public? Where's the investigations that should be going on into this from the government? And most importantly, where's the outrage from the press who should be offended and outraged that this is ruining their good name?? Oh yeah, that's right-the public are sheeple who believe anything they're told; the government is GOP led, so therefore if they do it, it's perfectly alright, and the media are literally whores, taking money to shill stories for this crooked administration.

God bless America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
3. Their funding isn't a secret.
And they get more funding from right-wing corporations than from the pittance they get from the gov't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shopaholic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Ah, but all we can hear is how awful it is that George Soros funds
progressive causes as they try to claim he made his money via drug dealing!!! But conservative billionaires funding conservative/right-wingnut causes--NOT a problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
6. NPR and PBS aren't liberal they just aren't FAR RIGHT
as with the rest of the media
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gumby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
7. "actively malignant" sounds about 'right' to me.
That's about how I feel about PBS and NPR too. Under the guise of neutral intellectualism, PBS and NPR have been mainstreaming right-wing extremism for years. They present topics in a right-wing frame and host right-wing guests as 'one side' of the conversation. On the 'other side' is an 'academic' or a 'radical' (not) like Mark Shields.

This is a two-fer. They mainstream the extreme right while marginalizing other voices -- especially from the left.

I seldom listen to either any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 02:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC