Drudge

I try and visit a lot of blogs and Online news sources daily. Drudge is one of them.

Has anyone else noticed that for the last several days (some could argue weeks) his site has featured story links and Drudge exclusives that have been nothing but 100% Democratic slams?

Because he's the number one home page destination for news portals, it makes me wonder how his obvious conservative slant affects opinion. Will he equally as skewering to Republicans during their convention? Will there be a complete and utter lack of negative Bush story links? Will he only put up a negative article or two during Bush's convention as a token to fairness?

I think not. His disdain for all things democratic are becoming objectionable to the point of boycott for me. As of today, I have deleted the Drudge bookmark.

Which brings up a bigger discussion. I have no choice but avoid almost all TV news. I used to watch a fair amount of CNN, Fox and MSNBC. At this point I no longer watch a single minute of Fox or CNN. I can barely watch MSNBC. At this point, all they do is repeat GOP talking points verbatim. Because there is little to no media machine working at the DNC, little to no liberal voice is heard in the news media anymore.

I laugh every time I hear a conservative whine and complain about the so-called liberal media. Shit. If there is one, WHERE IS IT? I sure would like one because my side could use a little of the same help the media's been handing over to the Republicans for over a decade now.

Take a look at Drudge's home page today for yet another perfect example of what I'm talking about. Yet millions of Americans have no idea Drudge is a GOP shill.

I don't know if conservatives truly believe their repeated claim that network news is overwhelmingly liberal because of their own personal experience; or if it's because they've been repeating the charge so often and for so long that they ultimately don't know the difference.

Look, I'm unabashedly liberal. I crave fairness and balance on the news, whether it be network or cable. But, quite frankly it's far from balanced. Yet all I ever hear is that Fox is the counterweight to CNN. Really? Man oh man I wish CNN was as liberal as Fox is conservative. I truly wish that were true. But its far from it.

We can argue all day about whether there are equal numbers of blogs, webzines and Online trades representing both sides. But most Americans get their news from television. And like I used to be, before I took the red pill, I accepted everything they reported as factual. I never realized that politics would permeate the news so thoroughly as it does today. Now, with the blinders off, I realize the news if fact-esque: Bush bashing, Dean is angry, march to war, Sandy Berger gets all the news cycles but not a peep about DeLays mess, and on and on and on...

Republicans charge unfair Bush bashing and the networks repeated the charge without question. Of course there was NO Clinton bashing in 2000 was there? As if restoring honor and integrity wasnt the ultimate Clinton bash. But Republicans never got charged with "hate" and the news didnt repeat, ad nausea, that Republicans were hateful like they do to Democrats today. This is all heavily perpetuated by the news media. They take everything Democrats say skeptically, yet repeat GOP talking points with glee. All of them. Every single television news show or channel.

So yes I want and CRAVE a liberal television news outlet other than The Daily Show.

Here's a prime example of how Republicans have mastered media manipulation while Democrats sit around sucking their thumb...

Matt Stoller wonders why Ed Gillespie and the Right Wing Noise Machine are allowed to use the Fleet Center for their propaganda operation.


I don't begrudge Republicans for having a propaganda machine, even if I wonder why Gillespie is allowed access into the Fleet Center. And who will we use to broadcast out of the RNC convention?

No one. We have no way to answer.

Incidentally, the RNC apparently has sent out press passes to credentialled bloggers. They promised no ideological discrimination. So which liberal bloggers have been credentialled?

Unapologetically swiped from Kos

I realize I'm talking to an empty room here...but this is a perfect example of "what liberal media?"...

Hmmm, I think the AP is calling CNN a bunch of liars. _Take a look at the emphasis in these 2 stories on Fahrenheit 9/11's screening in Crawford last night. _And then tell me again why CNN is considered "Liberal Media". _From the AP Version.


Ok, so the AP leads with how 3000 people showed up to see the film, and there were about 1/10th as many protestors there who were mentioned later in the Article. _Now let's look at how CNN portrayed it.


The AP leads with stories about the people coming to see the film, how far they came, how their numbers exceeded expectations, and then later goes into the numbers on the badly outnumbered protesters. _CNN on the other hand, leads with the outnumbered protestors and suggests that they were the real story. _Later in the article both talk more about the protestors behavior. _AP


and CNN


So here, CNN describes the protestors being shut out of there and behaving themselves in the parking area, while the AP has them being rowdy and nearly getting into a confrontation with the police - a point CNN totally ignores.

So to sum up - CNN decided that 300 protesters deserved front-page placement on their web page, they then reduced the number of people who actually showed up according to the AP (CNN gave the number that were expected to show up, 1000), ignored the behavior of the protesters, and basically did all they could to give the anti-Moore perspective.

When the protestors are outnumbered 10 to 1, you don't give their side of the story. _In Fox's world, CNN is now considered fair and balanced.

Um, were you around during the 1990's? The biggest witch hunt of the century took place then. Remember, we don't censure Democratic president's for personal indiscretions, we impeach them. But if we're misled about a war that kills 911 soldiers and wounds and maims thousands of others, that's cool. The media gives Bush a clear pass. Why? War is good for ratings. So of course the media is going to support the Bush administration...they're good for ratings.

So I ask you this? How has the media handled the DeLay scandal? Where's the demand from the media for a hearing? Where are the relentless stories about DeLays connections with big business and big oil? Where are the allegations of impropriety? Where is it?

The media's response... Scandal? There's a scandal involving Tom DeLay? When did that happen? Chirp chirp. Chirp chrip. Hello? Are there any reporters out there? Nope. They, AND YOU PARTICULARLY, are more concerned with Democrats hair styles and how much their haircuts cost.

(RE)ELECT BUSH! HE'S GOOD FOR RATINGS!

David Brocks Media Matters proves its worth once again with its debunking of one of those nutty World Exclusives."_ In it, Brock notes, Drudge dredged up a discredited charge that Kerry filmed reenacted combat scenes for future political career._ He writes,


Drudge is full of it, per usual. Read on.

Berger Cleared of Withholding Material From 9/11 Commission

SCOT J. PALTROW WSJ article was printed on page A6. The story's been out there. Where's the coverage from the so-called liberal media?!!!!


Come on "liberal" media! Let's hear from the rest of you...hello? Hello....

Atrios

So, I've been watching CNN for a couple of hours and at least as far as I've seen they haven't yet mentioned that Sandy Berger was "cleared of all wrongdoing."

Come on liberal media, prove the conspiracy theorists right. Give us some of that good old fashioned liberal slant. No? Of course not.

But hey, they sure have proven amnesia about a big report they aired only three weeks ago:

CNN's Aaron Brown had introduced TNR's Beinart on July 7 as follows:


It's clear from this quotation that Brown understood the significance of the story. Indeed, CNN replayed clips of Beinart's appearance throughout the following day, and Beinart made another brief live appearance as well.

As of this writing, however, neither CNN nor any other news network has mentioned the TNR article. On CNN, anchor Judy Woodruff first reported the arrest at around 4:15 pm (ET) on July 29:


About one hour later, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer recapped news of the arrest before introducing CNN's Islamabad bureau chief, Ash-har Quraishi, who reported the story by phone live from Pakistan. Neither Blitzer nor Quraishi brought up the "July Surprise" angle, even as Quraishi reported that Ghailani had been captured "early on Sunday" -- meaning that he was captured more than three days before the Democratic National Convention began but that the news media was not informed until hours before Senator John Kerry's climactic speech on its final day.

Liberal media MY ASS!

No. Just picking one story to follow as a clear "example" of what I'm arguing. There are hundreds of examples (a few of which have been discussed above already). But this board has proven that if you offer too much evidence we get bogged down in nit-picking...something I have no patience for currently.

So the Sandy Berger story is a perfect example. The media at large has ignored the DeLay scandal. Yet they made Berger front page news. Now that Berger's actions have been cleared we hear absolutely NOTHING from them.

It's currently 4:30PM EST and Drudge has not added a single link to any stories about Berger. Is this because no one's reporting it and therefore a lack of linkable articles? Or is it that Drudge is so hellbent on staging Democrats as incompetent that he can't even follow through on the conclusion of a story he was determined to make his headline?