Dear Editor,
Your editorial in the November issue definitely caused my eyebrows to go up. They first elevated at the mention of “angle” journalism. While effective, this depends on the journalistic integrity of the person involved. Since Faux News is openly partisan we can safely assume that the angle that their hosts (commentators, not journalists) present doesn’t meet the standards of journalism one would expect. Beck, for example, also has his “angle” on Obama’s birth certificate and “death panels”, ACORN, and Van Jones. It is assumed by people that simply asking a question implies there is merit to the question, and Faux News takes advantage of that to "ask" completely ridiculous, tabloid-esque questions.
What Beck does not mention, for example, is ELECTION fraud, or the difference between election and voter fraud. Despite his assertions, a person who registered to vote 40 times will only vote once, and Mr. Mick. E. Mouse or Mr. S. Bob Squarepants will not vote at all. Ever! Yet somehow this is far more evil than purging voter rolls of minority-heavy precincts or embracing fraud-vulnerable e-voting machines.
Incidentally, I find it ironic that the same conservatives that claim to favor volunteer community action instead of Big Government to fix local problems then spend tons of time and money trying to eviscerate ACORN… a local community-action volunteer group on a shoestring budget.
The media is not liberal, it is corporate. There are aspects of “liberalism” in the entertainment divisions of such networks, to be sure, such as gay characters, questionable language, and sex outside of marriage, but the media is definitely corporate. NBC and MSNBC are owned by General Electric (a giant defense contractor) and Microsoft (a giant software corporation), ABC is owned by Disney (a giant entertainment company), CNN is owned by AOL/Time-Warner (a giant media conglomerate), etc. Since liberalism is against giant corporate monopolies and conglomerates, I don’t think those companies will be endorsing Ralph Nader any time soon. The list of biased reporting, under-reporting, and non-reporting by these corporate entities is long and well-documented by the independent online community.
As to Van Jones the evil communist, well, the collapse of the American communist party organization after World War 2 and the Soviet Union in 1991 has removed any internal or external support he might have had. I’d rather have an isolated, competent communist with extensive experience in a social-program role than, say, an incompetent religious fundamentalist backed by dozens of powerful domestic interest and lobbying groups. And considering how capitalism has treated the poor and blacks it’s not surprising at all that some of them turned.
I agree with you that Democrats are generally on the wrong side of the gun-rights issue, practically, legally, and constitutionally. However, that simply means they are on the correct side of a variety of other important issues and like all human endeavors, imperfect.
Regards,
<krispos42>
It was in response to November's editorial, which extolls Glenn Beck on his pro-gun credentials (which I don't doubt) and his "journalism" (which I highly doubt).
They usually aren't this partisan, so I took note and got vocal.
:-)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
