catapult magazine

so arnold schwarzeneggar was just elected governor of california despite having been accused of inappropriate conduct with many women over many years. the other day, i heard someone commenting that “the liberal media” was behind all of these allegations, which essentially allowed them to dismiss such allegations entirely.

contrast that with the insanity surrounding the clinton/lewinski scandal. remember that? republicans led the charge to spend $50 million on an independent counsel to discover whether clinton had sex, lied about sex or was anywhere near anyone ever having sex.

so was that the liberal media, too?

i know i’m generalizing all over the place here, but why does it seem like conservatives can always cast blame on a liberal media when scandal enters their camp? it doesn’t seem to add up. for example, if al gore had been president for the last three years and had done everything exactly as bush has, i have a feeling he would have been burned at the stake by now.

what’s up with that? what accounts for this strange trend?

If you don’t mind me asking, please present evidence that this is a race-related issue.

I’m curious how a filibuster could have been going on for 2 years without anyone hearing about it. By definition it means nothing else is getting done. A filibuster stalls all senate action. Also, which Democratic senator is giving this 2 year long speech?

Also, why would Democratic politicians not want to stop Bush from appointing his conservative people? Republicans did the same to Clinton. It’s the president’s responsibility to to appoint people who will pass the scrutiny of the Senate and the House. If they aren’t approved by the senate and the house, then he has to appoint someone else. It’s democracy in action, not Democrats being silly.

I asked an old friend named Merriam-Webster.

BY DEFINITION:
[filibuster] a : the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly b : an instance of this practice
[dilatory] 1 : tending or intended to cause delay

In case there is some question, CNN (left of center on the media scale) talks about said FILIBUSTER and calls it the same:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/04/estrada.withdraws/

To assuage your curiosity as to how this could be going on for two years without anyone hearing about it: IT’S BECAUSE THE MEDIA DOESN’T WANT YOU TO HEAR ABOUT IT

Sorry, that’s redundant to what has already been demonstrated in this thread.

I’m sure it’s just a simple oversight that the “other media” that you are “exposed to” have not let you know about a candidate that was in line to become the first hispanic to be nominated to the Supreme Court.

Dan, I can’t prove to you unequivocally that the issue was about race (although I’ve heard liberals admit that it was) and that’s not why I brought it up. I actually was asking for examples when Reps did the same thing. I’m not doubting it happened – I am just interested in comparing the two scenarios. You said “Republicans did the same to Clinton.” That’s what I want details on, if anyone out there has them. Let me rephrase and ask my earlier question again: Was there ever a qualified candidate that Clinton proposed that the Reps did not ALLOW a vote on? I sincerely want to know.

Both of these sentences can’t be true:

1. “CNN (left of center on the media scale) talks about said FILIBUSTER”

2. “THE MEDIA DOESN’T WANT YOU TO HEAR ABOUT IT”

If CNN is talking about it, then what are you arguing? I thought we were talking about things only drug addicts know about—things the media is deliberately keeping from us.

by the way, I think it is cheap politics to play the race card without evidence. 60 percent of voting Americans in the 2000 election didn’t vote for Lieberman/Gore. Does that make them all anti-semites? To say someone is racist because they are blocking a conservative hispanic from getting onto the Supreme Court is a real cheap shot. Do you really think those same Democrats would have blocked the appointment of a more liberal hispanic? Give me a break.

well, this thread has turned into the same polarized political mess as most of our political topics. why do you suppose that always happens? maybe that’s a topic for another thread . . .

anyway, regarding the Miguel Estrada situation: no, this wasn’t about race, it was about sending a message. basically, the senate is getting a little tired of the bush administration sending over highly conservative nominations (which he’s been doing since he was sworn in). they’re saying, “hey, the constitution gives a right to advise and consent on these nominations and we’re advising you to choose less politically-motivated nominations.” for the most part, blocking Estrada’s nomination had nothing to do with him personally (he’s very qualified, after all). and while that all seems kind of crappy, it’s what US government is all about (power).

back to the topic i started with: the liberal media scapegoat. both republicans and democrats have been guilty of sinking to new lows over and over again. i want to know why the conservative side of the spectrum always casts blame on the so-called liberal media whenever things aren’t going their way. the liberal side of things has only recently begun to cry out about a conservative media, but mostly the idea is laughed at because this liberal media idea is so engrained in US political culture.

so, why can conservatives still use this liberal media card and get away with it, even though evidence doesn’t substantiate such a claim?

Please clarify: Evidence doesn’t support the claim that the media is overwhelmingly liberal OR evidence doesn’t support that everything’s the liberal media’s fault (as conservative politicians seem to think)?

clarification: i’m asserting that evidence doesn’t support the claim that the media is overwhelmingly liberal and yet it is still used as a conservative scapegoat.

laurencer, what evidence are you referring to? Do you mean:

1) All evidence relevant to media positively demonstrates that the conclusion that media is conservative or “neutral,” not overwhelming liberal,

2) All evidence relevant to media is not sufficient to conclude that the media has a liberal or a conservative bias,

3) The evidence cited in this thread does not support the conclusion that the media has an overwhelmingly liberal bias,

Or 4) Something else?

man, i knew someone was going to ask me for evidence . . . : )

i would pick number 2 from your options because i don’t think the media can be classified entirely as either one or another. i think media outlets appear to be somewhere on the liberal-conservative continuum depending on where you are on the continuum.

hmmm . . . i guess that would be one indication as to why the liberal media is used as a scapegoat. perhaps many people find themselves more towards the conservative end of the continuum and therefore the media appears to be liberal, making the liberal media argument more valid for them. but that line of thinking would require an acknowledgement that a vast majority of the US public is very conservative, an acknowledgement i can’t imagine is true (more people are probably in the middle somewhere, depending on what’s going on in their lives at the moment you ask them).

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/kaymcfadden/2001757992_kay06.html

at the risk of being redundant, here’s a link that i posted on another, older thread (and which sank below the top five almost immediately).

it’s a study done at UMD specifically relating to media coverage of the Iraq war, but it quite convincingly defeats the idea that the media is extremely and pervasively liberal, i think.