Wednesday, February 11, 2004

Wow. I live for things like this. Maybe I should send them a thank-you card.

Be sure to go to ABC NewsWND.comABC News and save a copy of this article! You're going to want it as proof. You'll see why!

My comments inline in blue. (Note: I viewed this at the ABC News link, at the first link above. By the time I was done writing this commentary, though, they'd changed it.'s story is permanent, and I linked to that, but then someone tipped me off to the archived page on ABC News so that's where to get it now. Thanks to Brent for the archive URL.)



The first version published of yesterday's Note included what was intended as a SATIRICAL report of a fictional ABC News/Washington Post poll. No such poll was conducted. The questions and results listed were not from a real poll.

But on this day when John Kerry has a chance for wins in Tennessee and/or Virginia that just might get the Southern monkey off of his back -- and take an opponent out of the race -- and after two full news cycles in which Kerry's transient upper hand over President Bush doesn't seem to have been removed by the "Meet" appearance -- on this day, let us tell you again what we tried to say yesterday.

Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.

They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."

VERY important! Some of you will know all this already but youngsters or political newbies may learn something:

This is why you almost never hear them say "liberal". Being "liberal" is "normal", and being "conservative" isn't (to them). As with conspiracy theorists vs. coincidence theorists, the "normal", or "default" position -- that's coincidence theorists, for most people, in that set -- is usually never labeled, and the existence of the label on the "non-default" position has a subtle but strong negative psychological effect on the audience, increasing with repetition. Over time, the audience attains a Pavlovial response to the "non-default" position, regarding it as somehow "wrong" even though they may be unable to articulate why, and are unaware that their own position also has a label, since they've simply never heard it before (at least, not enough for it to offset the effects of repeatedly hearing the label applied to the "non-default" position). Many other examples could be provided of this same effect, including similar treatment applied to virtually every one of the issues and items in this article! And they STILL don't have our guns!! HAHAHAHA! There must be more of us than they would like to believe. Actually, I think they know we outnumber them; I think, when they say they have a "shared sense" that these liberal positions are the default, they are not being entirely honest. I think they are trying to make those positions the default, in part by using the psychology I just described and hoping it will brainwash the masses.

They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories.

I didn't write any of that. They did.

More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow.

Change is the only constant. Ask Hegel. And put down those old books; nobody reads that old stuff any more, silly!

The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.

They were on a roll for one sentence here, then committed intellectual suicide in the second. They need to visit and wake UP! "Multilateral institutions" are pretty much all U.N. subentities, and anyone not scared of that is NOT PAYING ATTENTION (or hoping to be one of the corrupt oppressors in charge of, or profiting from, the emerging -- unless it falls off the tracks first -- world system)!

It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.

Duh... we ar thu medea. We ar rill gud at eekanamics. We wint to Yale n stuff, n ar parfesser sed Karl Marx is da MAN -- n he's rill smart cuz he watches thu news allot.

Hunh? Circaler reasining? Whu....

It remains fixated on the unemployment rate.

It believes President Bush is "walking a fine line" with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between "tolerance" and his "right-wing base."

Indeed. Now get ready, folks, here comes the hammer...

It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him -- and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.

Ouch. Despite how wrong their beliefs are, they DO know Bush is not a conservative, and they are laughing at faithful Repubs who still "stand by their man" even WITH many conservative leaders trying to alert them.

Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press's scandal bias -- not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process!).

No comment. ;-)

The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race.

Folks, I SWEAR to you I'm not writing this myself. That really is direct from ABC News. I'll only add that you just might want to consider the above even beyond the presidential race.

That means the President's communications advisers have a choice:

Try to change the storyline and the press' attitude, or try to win this election without changing them.

So we ask again: What's it going to be, Ken, Karen, Mary, Terry, Nicole, and Dan?

Maybe I'd know those names if I watched TV. Bush communication advisers, I presume?

That's quite a headline in the Los Angeles Times: "Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas."

And the Washington Post story filled with quotes from Republican-leaning business people who have politically soured on the President is quite striking.

More laughing at you, faithful Repubs.

As is the Wall Street Journal piece despoiling the Medicare reform law before it event [sic] takes effect.

Hate it when that happens.

On the strength of all the negative coverage of the President and all his own positive coverage, Sen. Kerry heads into today's twin primaries on a roll.

Yep. Big media, when given the choice, will gravitate toward Dems pretty much every time. Still, that is NOT a sufficient reason to choose a NWO globalist Insider in a presidential primary. NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT!!


Well, there you have it. Like I said, save a copy of that bad boy for later, and bust your commie friends' chops with it when they try to deny the media has a leftist bias!


Post a Comment

<< Home