I dunno... You're suggesting that democrats don't want what's good for the country. The problem is that "good for the country" can be pretty subjective. Olberman probably thinks Hannity is just as wrong as Hannity thinks Olberman is, yet they both seem to think they know what's "good for the country."
Spotlighting, exaggerating, and distorting stories that make the country look bad, hurt the country
These are the blame America first crowd. The ones that call our soldiers War Criminals.
Reporting classified information in the New York Times, hurts the country.
Pressuring the government to prematurely retreat in defeat from Iraq, when stability is within reach, hurts the country.
Talking down a good economy for six of the last eight years hurts the country.
And refusing to accept efforts of bipartisanship from Bush or Republicans because you don't want them to have any political successes hurts the country.
Merely disagreeing with Bush or someone like Hannity isn't what I'm talking about, in any way. Disagreement and the
honest exchange of ideas and discussion make everyone stronger.
Yes, I'm referring to openly conservative hosts on TV like Hannity, O'Reilly, etc, and also radio, but also National Review, Washington Times, Forbes, Accuracy in Media, TownHall, cc.org, WND, etc, etc. I don't really watch the network news.
A couple shows on Fox News and some presence on the internet..... and you're comparing that to the entire news and entertainment industry...
Some writers I'm sure try very hard to be objective. Some are just delusional. But most everyone will see the spectrum from their perspective on it.
Pretty much all writers and reporters will have opinion and reporting shaped by their experience and political perspective. That's natural.
I only take offense when you have institutions that assertively voice a single leftist perspective in their reporting while they continue the myth that they are fair, neutral, or objective- while they make no effort to even be so or provide some kind of balance to their reporting.
Personally, I enjoy debate. I think it' great when there's an honest exchange of ideas and both sides challenge them, honestly, with the goal of better understanding. You learn quite a bit about yourself and about why you've reached the conclusions you have when their constantly being challenged by a worthy challenger. But I am infuriated by deception and dishonesty, anywhere. It completely undermines the noble pursuit of debate- and in the political realm, it poisons the waters. Fooling someone into supporting your cause on the basis of a pretense you know if false is disgusting.
The political left (a distinction I make because I'm not include people who just call themselves liberals or Democrats...I mean the politicians, the activists, and those that knowingly manipulate) have this tactic at the foundation of their movement.
The political right doesn't do that. The answer from the right is almost always more information. The more you know, the better you understand things, the more likely you are to arrive at the same conclusion. Not tricking you into the cause, or scary you with some falsehood... truth and debate.
I think the right gets the word out there.... maybe not as well as the left because of the bias, but that's one good thing about the internet.
Absolutely right. If it weren't for AM radio and the internet, there'd be NO voice for conservative thought. It has made it infinitely more difficult for liberals and the media to control the story the public gets. Though, as you've noted, they still have a huge advantage. And this is why people think the Fairness Doctrine is so critically important.
