God's Politics

God's Politics


Elizabeth Palmberg: Free Market Champion’s Worst Enemy: Free Market

posted by gp_editor

In the wake of today’s news that Rupert Murdoch appears to have won his battle to buy The Wall Street Journal, a former Journal columnist expresses his concern that the paper will lose journalistic integrity:

Standards are the lifeblood of WSJ and its related properties. … I remember being told in a meeting that not only were advertising representatives who sold for WSJ.com on a different floor; we weren’t even allowed to know their names. That way, ad reps and their clients could never influence a story.
It is hard to imagine that News Corp. — a juggernaut with more than $25 billion in revenue in 2006 — will keep such ideas in place, considered almost relics in a struggling business. Since Murdoch’s bid was announced, The Wall Street Journal has excelled at covering the story about itself. If bad news erupts about News Corp., will Murdoch dare let reporters investigate the problem and potentially scare off advertisers?

This is the second installment in the Rupert Murdoch Cultural Parable Series. Its predecessor was, of course, the Parable of the Fox (Network) and the Hounds, a.k.a. Social Conservatives’ Worst Enemy: Political Conservatives.
Elizabeth Palmberg is an assistant editor for Sojourners.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(43)
post a comment
jesse

posted July 31, 2007 at 4:56 pm


Breaking news! Liberals don’t like Murdoch or Fox News!
It’s not really surprising that a poll conducted by the NYT and NPR would find out that everyone likes NYT/NPR.
A recent poll also found that the public sees all the major media (with the exception of Fox) as having a liberal bias.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/americans_see_liberal_media_bias_on_tv_news



report abuse
 

Eric

posted July 31, 2007 at 5:03 pm


While we should hesitate to rush to judgement on whether or not Murdoch buying the WSJ is good or bad news, I generally think that it’s a bad thing when more media outlets are in the hands of a single person regardless of that person’s politics. So I’m apprehensive about this latest change of hands.
That being said, I don’t understand what Elizabeth’s point is about the “free market” being the “free market champion’s worst enemy.” What is she trying to say? Help…
I also don’t understand the “Social Conservatives’ Worst Enemy: Political Conservatives” point either.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 31, 2007 at 5:28 pm


A recent poll also found that the public sees all the major media (with the exception of Fox) as having a liberal bias.
Jesse — That doesn’t mean we actually do. In fact, over the years conservatives have so conditioned the public that we have a liberal bias that they often don’t even see the far more pronounced conservative bias, and in some cases outright lies, on Fox News and in other right-wing media.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted July 31, 2007 at 5:33 pm


Rick,
True, polls deal with perceptions more than realities, which is why studies like these are so important:
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664



report abuse
 

aaron

posted July 31, 2007 at 5:53 pm


I wonder what follow up studies of the analysis has shown, I’m not sure counting the think tanks a paper cites is a good measure.



report abuse
 

Ngchen

posted July 31, 2007 at 6:13 pm


Eric wrote:
That being said, I don’t understand what Elizabeth’s point is about the “free market” being the “free market champion’s worst enemy.” What is she trying to say? Help…
I also don’t understand the “Social Conservatives’ Worst Enemy: Political Conservatives” point either.

My guess is that Elizabeth’s point is that it’s ironic how the free market, which theoretically is supposed to give people more choices, seems to be reducing choices here. As for social conservatives being opposed by political conservatives, she’s probably alluding to the fact (ignored by most liberals) that there is a really deep divide these days in the conservative camp. Quite a few “social conservatives” have been butting heads with libertarian-based Goldwater style conservatives. As for the war, the “neoconservatives” have butted heads with the traditionalist “paleoconservatives,” epitomized by Pat Buchannan and The American Conservative magazine. Just as conservatives tend to paint liberals with an overly broad brush, the same tends to occur in reverse too.



report abuse
 

jerry

posted July 31, 2007 at 7:07 pm


eric; good for you. why do all these sojo writers say these things? her headline is stupid. why not just come out and show concern for the consolidation? and again, i’m looking for the christian, God’s politics, in the article. hello. must be a slow writers day.
elizabeth palmburg, please read what you quoted and wrote and explain for me.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 31, 2007 at 9:08 pm


Eric Said
“bad thing when more media outlets are in the hands of a single person regardless of that person’s politics.”
Excellent point Eric , I agree with this concern . The more the better in regards of the media. I rather not have seen this myself .
But I do see much bias in the media , not just in what is covered , but what is actually written about it .
FoxNews to me is biased to the right , but CNBC , NBC , ABC , CBS , and CNN, PBS , all tilt to the left in varying degrees .



report abuse
 

Hali

posted July 31, 2007 at 9:13 pm


Did any of you guys bother to click on the links?



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 31, 2007 at 9:37 pm


Jesse — I’m still not terribly impressed because, by definition, those studies are also biased.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted July 31, 2007 at 10:11 pm


Rick,
Agreed…then can we all just admit that its one of the laws of human nature for our own beliefs to affect the way we see and describe things and that it’s, therefore, only natural for a reporter’s personal beliefs to affect their reporting?



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted July 31, 2007 at 10:36 pm


I’m all for creative destruction. If Murdoch messes up the Journal too much someone else will just capture that market. The Bancrofts are making a financial decision, and it should be left at that. I throw more than half of my Journal away every day as it is, and mostly look forward to a good letter or column from someone credible in the opinion section, though that is getting to be slim pickings these days, too.
As for the Headline, it is snarky. But not nearly enough, and not well informed. The free market has always been the free market champion’s worst enemy. The creative destruction I mentioned is the competition among individual firms to satisfy customers. When this occurs consumers, everyday guys, especially the poor, win.
The Journal has been getting a little too conservative, or as Brad DeLong calls it, shrill. Too much emphasis on tradition and warmongering has alienated the same base that the Republican party is losing.
Nathanael Snow



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 31, 2007 at 11:06 pm


Agreed…then can we all just admit that its one of the laws of human nature for our own beliefs to affect the way we see and describe things and that it’s, therefore, only natural for a reporter’s personal beliefs to affect their reporting?
As a sometime reporter myself, I try hard to keep that from happening. That’s why we have editors and editors on top of editors and consultations with other writers, to make sure we have the story, the whole story and nothing but the story. Besides, I’ve learned that there’s such a thing called “reporter’s instincts” — often you can tell where’s something going. On top of that, one of my coworkers recently posted two responses to one of her stories, one calling her a “socialist” and another calling her “a lackey for the Bush Administration.”
That said, I generally do not read “conservative” publications because, in my experience, they tend to leave stuff out that would change the tenor of a particular story — and that’s why I maintain that they’re far more biased than mainstream media. Bottom line, due in many cases to their basic unprofessionalism, their coverage tends to be very unreliable, untrustworthy and, more often than people want to believe, outright false. The group Media Matters for America, while it does lean liberal, is so incredibly thorough in its analysis of conservative media that the right-wing Media Research Center will no longer appear on the air with it.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted August 1, 2007 at 12:44 am


“The group Media Matters for America, while it does lean liberal, is so incredibly thorough in its analysis of conservative media that the right-wing Media Research Center will no longer appear on the air with it.”
–Interesting claim. Reference?
My understanding is that Media Matters spends a lot of time criticizing conservative pundits (e.g., O’Reilly) for voicing conservative opinions. Though MRC, Timeswatch.org, and others more often tend to track biases in the people making the supposedly unbiased news reports.
Though maybe Media Matters is more thorough than MRC, which I guess could only mean that they have more staff and are better funded by Soros & Co.



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted August 1, 2007 at 2:20 am


I don’t see why the author is comparing Rupert Murdoch’s purchase of the Wall Street Journal as a tolling bell for the publication, or as a signal of poor free market symptoms.
If the Wall Street Journal begins to sour, so what? No choices are being eliminated. There is always a persitent choice with the WSJ, or any other publication or good, and that is the choice to purchase or ignore. In terms of news, you can buy someone else’s publication, ignore the news, or start your own. Which is why this whole blog is available, and why Elizabeth Palmberg can say whatever she wants.
We don’t have a completely free market in the United States today, nor do we have a solid tradition of thinking in free market terms. We are standing quite solidly in the middle of socialism and liberalism, and have been for some time. So it’s probably not best to suggest that potential market failures today occur because of the free market (a post hoc fallacy) without analyzing how our government interacts with specific portions of the economy.



report abuse
 

Michelle

posted August 1, 2007 at 6:00 am


Liberal or conservative…it’s all smoke and mirrors, folks.
If you are a hard core capitalist, anti-abortionist, have inflexible traditional values coupled with a closed mind, feel safer watching “liberals” being rudely interrupted, enjoy carefully crafted cynicism, hand picked guests and ranting for ratings or just aren’t aware enough to know you are being manipulated psychologically you’ll like Fox and applaud Murdoch’s desire to acquire as many media outlets as possible. From what I’ve seen (and I just hope I can exorcize what I’ve seen from my subconscious mind), the above describes the type of conservative viewer Fox seems to be appealing to. I know this first hand because my sweet, 97 year old grandfather, watches Fox News daily most of the day…often quoting sound bites like a disturbing mantra. I’ve forced myself to watch this mad T.V. wasteland because that is the only way I can spend any time with gramp. Shall I be frank? Fox News, and it’s many talking heads, sickens me both physically and spiritually.
But let me be “fair and balanced”. According to hype, liberals want to kill unborn babies, let migrant workers invade and eventually take over our country, support satanic, liberal bloggers, spread scientifically unproven propaganda that suggests we need to save the planet from environmental destruction, foolishly try to use diplomacy instead of relentless force to resolve terrorism, force Christian America to foot the bill for American citizens and guest workers who are “slackers” (or just too poor, uneducated, sick, young or old to provide healthcare for themselves), prevent corporations from getting richer and more powerful, etc., etc.
Oops! I guess the above appears to have a bit of a liberal slant. My aunt has told me I’m “as liberal as it gets and I should move to Cuba”. Well, actually I’m a moderate who believes an unborn baby is a human being. I have old-fashioned, traditional values. Maybe that’s why I care about the young, old and poor, worry about our nation’s youth and care about the political and environmental future of this planet. Forget space travel. Let’s take care of the planet we live on.
Wow! How can I juggle both liberal and conservative views at the same time?
There are no archetypal liberals or conservatives. The illusion that there are two political camps in the United Corporations of America is a myth promoted to shape and direct mass consciousness. It’s an advertisement strategy, all part of our free market, consumer dependent economy. The time people waste arguing about all this baloney could be spent solving bigger problems like can we truly love God and others as our self?



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 1, 2007 at 6:52 am


Although I do not like some of the Neocon talking points of Fox News and assume his control of the Wall Street Journal will impact the editorial policy, the free market is always superior to top down government and political actions.
We are very pleased to announce the creation of The Free Market Hall of Fame where members of the Freedom Movement will have the opportunity to initially vote on individuals contributing the most to free market economics including academic economists, journalists and writers, business leaders, legislators and government officials and think tanks.
Nominations for the Free-Market Hall of Fame are open to the public and can be made by anyone by e-mailing ron@freedomfest.com Individuals can vote for or nominate individuals who they believe should be in the Free Market Hall of Fame. Write-ins are permitted.
For more infor on the Free Market Hall of Fame go to http://www.freedomfest.com/hofhome.htm
Ron Holland, Editor
FreedomFest News http://www.freedomfest.com/news.htm



report abuse
 

MadHatter07

posted August 1, 2007 at 8:06 am


I can’t wait for Elizabeth or any of Jim’s other friends to do an expose on the liberal bias of other networks, though I won’t be holding my breath for them to respond.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 1, 2007 at 8:11 am


Posted by: MadHatter07 | August 1, 2007 8:06 AM
Well stated!
Have a great day!
.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 1, 2007 at 8:52 am


Interesting claim. Reference?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609210008
My understanding is that Media Matters spends a lot of time criticizing conservative pundits (e.g., O’Reilly) for voicing conservative opinions. Though MRC, Timeswatch.org, and others more often tend to track biases in the people making the supposedly unbiased news reports.
No, Media Matters criticizes them, and even some of the groups you mentioned, mostly for outright lying. It actually has volunteer monitors which take transcripts of their broadcasts and read their stories, and it keeps records. When, say, O’Reilly makes a comment that “I never said that,” Media Matters can pull out something that says, “Yes, you did.” That’s why O’Reilly, Savage, Beck et al hate it so much And BTW, CEO David Brock used to be a conservative journalist and thus knows exactly how right-wing media operate.
Though maybe Media Matters is more thorough than MRC, which I guess could only mean that they have more staff and are better funded by Soros & Co.
Hardly — Media Matters has not received a single dime, ever, from George Soros. That claim has been bounced around right-wing media precincts since earlier this year.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 1, 2007 at 10:50 am


UCLA leans liberal, and they did a study that you dismissed offhand for no reason.
I read the analysis, and it says absolutely nothing useful. First of all, merely mentioning how many groups of a certain political persuasion are mentioned in stories represents a shallow way to conduct research — if such a piece quoting liberal groups ran in a conservative media outlet, would it then be classified as “liberal”? Of course not. Anyway, part of that could be that conservative organizations in many cases won’t even talk with or to “liberal” media for fear of being “misquoted” — I doubt the UCLA analysis picked up on that. Or it could be that the “liberal” organizations actually are –horrors — factually correct. Did that ever occur to anyone? (I put “liberal” in quotes because not everyone who doesn’t agree with the conservative agenda is a true liberal by definition.)



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 1, 2007 at 11:26 am


“if such a piece quoting liberal groups ran in a conservative media outlet, would it then be classified as “liberal”? ”
Why wouldn’t it? The study analyzed news media, not panel shows or shows that are going to accompany the quote with commentary discrediting it. The study came to the conclusion the Fox news trends right, and that CBS trend left. This is a startling revelation to essentially nobody.
“Anyway, part of that could be that conservative organizations in many cases won’t even talk with or to “liberal” media for fear of being “misquoted””
This isn’t true. Every political group I have worked with has been happy to get their message out to the press. Conservative groups lament the fact that they get quite a few more hangups from journalists. Having worked issues on both sides from a PR standpoint, I can certifiy that their lamentations are warranted.
At any rate, if your argument is valid, then National Public Radio, which was placed squarely in the middle, must therefore lean conservative.
“Or it could be that the “liberal” organizations actually are –horrors — factually correct.”
I think this is statement explains why you do not understand the concept of liberal media bias. You see the political left as largely correct on most issues. Your argument is that papers have a liberal bias simply because they report the truth. That is pretty circular reasoning.
And Media Matters is not an impartial observer. At all. Period. Quit insinuating as much.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 1, 2007 at 12:30 pm


“Hardly — Media Matters has not received a single dime, ever, from George Soros.”
Soros is a part of the Democracy Alliance, which funds Media Matters. He may not be the sole supporter, but it is incorrect (or, at minimum, very misleading) to say that they have not received a single dime from him. It is certainly accurate to say they are funded by “Soros & Co.” since funding generally comes from the same resevoirs of wealth that fund other liberal projects.



report abuse
 

Blake

posted August 1, 2007 at 2:54 pm


Is it not AMAZING that Rick Nowlin will not admit that there is bias in all media? Fox in conservative, networks/CNN are liberal. Are you kidding?!! Rick, wake up.
This is ridiculous!



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 1, 2007 at 3:27 pm


The study analyzed news media, not panel shows or shows that are going to accompany the quote with commentary discrediting it. The study came to the conclusion the Fox news trends right, and that CBS trend left. This is a startling revelation to essentially nobody.
The study, as I said and for the reasons I gave, proved absolutely nothing. Period.
I think this statement explains why you do not understand the concept of liberal media bias. You see the political left as largely correct on most issues. Your argument is that papers have a liberal bias simply because they report the truth. That is pretty circular reasoning.
It is indeed circular reasoning if you’re not in the habit of digging for yourself, and I was doing that even before I myself became a part of the media in the early 1990s. In no case have I ever found that a conservative publication or broadcast proved more journalistically accurate than a “liberal” counterpart, based on the facts on the ground that I have been able to ascertain for myself. This is why, as I said earlier, that I do not subscribe to any conservative media — they regularly use shoddy, half-baked, ideologically-driven reporting with more holes than a block of Swiss cheese, and any of my colleagues here will tell you the same thing. There are reasons why conservative publications don’t win Pulitzers (and they’re not because of “bias”)!
These latest accusations of “liberal media bias” began in earnest in the mid-1970s with then-Vice President Agnew, and they since have become a matter of faith for those on the right. In fact, after Nixon resigned, thanks to the Washington Post, some revengeful conservatives decided to form their own media that they would use hopefully to nail a Democrat, which is how and why they went after Clinton so hard. But after Brock spilled the beans second-hand to the Clintons, right around his impeachment, such media were exposed — by the mainstream media — as fraudulent. Brock, for example, confessed that he routinely used just one source for many of his stories, while standard practice dictates that you use at least two sources.
And BTW, I never said that Media Matters for America is totally impartial. However, their research is so incredibly thorough that conservatives have never been able to discredit it and for that reason consistently slam it on their shows.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 1, 2007 at 3:30 pm


Is it not AMAZING that Rick Nowlin will not admit that there is bias in all media? Fox in conservative, networks/CNN are liberal. Are you kidding?!!
My concern is accuracy and fairness, and my personal policy is to go with those media committed to those. Conservative media consistently fail on those criteria for reasons I’ve already mentioned.



report abuse
 

Blake

posted August 1, 2007 at 3:52 pm


Conservative Guy: “My concern is accuracy and fairness, and my personal policy is to go with those media committed to those. Liberal media consistently fail on those criteria…”
It doesn’t get us anywhere Rick. Admit bias, then we can converse. Otherwise, you’re no more progressive than the others.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 1, 2007 at 4:39 pm


“The study, as I said and for the reasons I gave, proved absolutely nothing. Period.”
The study analyzed statements and compared and contrasted them with the viewpoints of congresspeople of varying ideologies, in addition to think-tanks, advocacy organizations and the like. You are simply asserting that the study proves nothing. You gave no valid reason. You disagree with the findings. That is reason enough.
“It is indeed circular reasoning if you’re not in the habit of digging for yourself”
And if you dig for yourself, you will be a Democrat, because you believe in truth, and so on… You define what you believe ideologically to be truth. That is the point. And you are, yourself, part of the media.
When Anderson Cooper is bellering about the presidential response to Katrina, that is not objective reporting. When an AP article states that European leaders are more “nuanced” than George W. Bush, that is not objective reporting. Nothing about Newsweek is objective reporting.
“Brock, for example, confessed that he routinely used just one source for many of his stories, while standard practice dictates that you use at least two sources.”
Anonymous as they may be.
“There are reasons why conservative publications don’t win Pulitzers (and they’re not because of “bias”)!”
The WSJ has won pulitzers. George Will has won a Pulitzer. The reason conservative publications don’t win pulitzers is because there are not that many mainstream conservative publications, and left-leaning journalists outweigh right-leaning journalists 9 to 1.
I’ll end by quoting the New York Times
“Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? Of course it is.”



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 1, 2007 at 5:01 pm


It doesn’t get us anywhere Rick. Admit bias, then we can converse. Otherwise, you’re no more progressive than the others.
I’m not the issue here, believe it or not. You want to believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts, and I have little patience for that. I don’t want to have one of my stories slammed as slanted when I knew I did the best job of reporting I could with the facts I could get at the time.
You are simply asserting that the study proves nothing. You gave no valid reason. You disagree with the findings. That is reason enough.
I’ve already told you why the methodology was flawed, from the get-go. If you don’t want to accept that I can’t help you.
That is the point. And you are, yourself, part of the media.
And this is where your pronounced conservative bias shows.
When Anderson Cooper is bellering about the presidential response to Katrina, that is not objective reporting. When an AP article states that European leaders are more “nuanced” than George W. Bush, that is not objective reporting. Nothing about Newsweek is objective reporting.
Once again, with those statements you demonstrate your own bias, not necessarily theirs. If such media give specific examples of what they’re talking about, your thesis is dead in the water.
The WSJ has won Pulitzers. George Will has won a Pulitzer.
Save its editorial page, the Journal is not a conservative medium. And Will works for the Washington Post, not a conservative medium.
The reason conservative publications don’t win Pulitzers is because there are not that many mainstream conservative publications, and left-leaning journalists outweigh right-leaning journalists 9 to 1.
Exactly my point on the first part, and those that do exist are lousy. The second part is not worth responding to; I say that because you are focused on someone’s ideology to a point that I never will be.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 1, 2007 at 5:44 pm


Conservative Guy: “My concern is accuracy and fairness, and my personal policy is to go with those media committed to those. Liberal media consistently fail on those criteria…”
Totally false — because, as I have already mentioned, conservative media exist specifically to promote the conservative viewpoint and thus deliberately skew their facts accordingly. Journalistically, we are NOT talking about two sides of the same coin, your personal views notwithstanding.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted August 1, 2007 at 5:49 pm


Rick said:
I say that because you are focused on someone’s ideology to a point that I never will be.
–To which I laughed heartily in response.



report abuse
 

Bill Samuel

posted August 1, 2007 at 7:57 pm


The column you cited had a headline about the purchase tarnishing the image of WSJ. Probably true, certainly in the short term. But do we care primarily about image?
A big, bad corporate take on this seems ridiculous, since what is happening is that the paper is being transferred from one right wing corporate enterprise to another. It’s not exactly like a Pacifica radio station being taken over by Clear Channel.
Practically, the alternative appears to have been Dow Jones cutting back to save money or Murdoch investing money (expanding news pages by 4 and increasing news staff) with a long term strategy (probably won’t work, but that’s another story).



report abuse
 

jesse

posted August 1, 2007 at 8:24 pm


Bill,
Even though the WSJ editorializes conservative, the rest of it is liberal. According to the UCLA study I cited earlier, it’s the most liberal of any major news outlet.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 1, 2007 at 10:25 pm


To which I laughed heartily in response.
Yeah, keep on laughing … :-)
The column you cited had a headline about the purchase tarnishing the image of WSJ. Probably true, certainly in the short term. But do we care primarily about image?
Yeah, we should. The issue isn’t its perceived ideology but its truthfulness. Will it continue to print the news never mind the consequences or will it try to please Murdoch?



report abuse
 

Piss Williams

posted August 2, 2007 at 3:48 pm


Rick, I appreciate your thoughtful responses on this post. Unfortunately, those who think there is a liberal bias won’t let themselves be confused with the facts put out by Media Matters and FAIR. It’s a symptom of our postmodern society: if you don’t like the truth you are confronted with, you just go to a truth more to your liking. Fox is willing to dish up a nice “truth” that folks want to hear, and when the meme of “fair and balanced” gets repeated often enough than folks start to see emperor clothes that don’t exist.
To the Murdoch defenders posting here: do you believe it is wrong for advertisers to have influence over the stories that are published in a given publication, or is that okay? That was the original point of this thread.



report abuse
 

Johor

posted August 2, 2007 at 4:45 pm


Rupert Murdoch? There is absolutely nothing to like or admire in this man. The sale of WST to him is as big a mistake as electing GWB to be President. It is quite right to believe that its integrity will be compromised. His mane is definitely not Midas. Everything he touches turns into paper money, not gold. And he makes it to make more as if that is all there is to life. I wait to see if he makes a bid for Microsoft!



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 2, 2007 at 7:46 pm


It’s a symptom of our postmodern society: if you don’t like the truth you are confronted with, you just go to a truth more to your liking.
That’s what I was getting at. My longtime contempt for ideological conservatism has mostly to do with its false bases — in other words, I’ve known for decades that it’s full of lies and cannot be defended otherwise.
I wait to see if he makes a bid for Microsoft!
Not likely. He’s a publisher, not a money machine.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 3, 2007 at 12:50 am


Rick,
You are so blinded it is beyond belief. Every one of your posts makes me feel so sad for you. You are so blind and do not even know it. First of all Fox News is not conserative. Never has been and never will be. They offer only a slighty different view point of the same stories that all the other networks do. You say you want the truth. Do you really? Consevative news can not be trusted? Really. Please back up your sources. In my own personal experiences I find qwuite the opposite of what you describe. I find the drive by media leaving things out of stories all thetime. Examples abound but this is for starters, The Iraq war, Abortion, homosexuality, Hurricane Katrina, The clinton years. I could go on but I do not want to bore you. Do some research Rick and for your sake I hope the blinders come off soon. Conservatism works every time it is tried. Liberalism gave us the carter years.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 3, 2007 at 8:51 am


You are so blind and do not even know it. First of all Fox News is not conserative. Never has been and never will be.
Physician, heal thyself! I simply do not have the time or space to mention on this blog just how consistently conservative media simply have lied over the past couple of decades. Not simply given a different view point — I mean, flat told falsehoods, and I’m talking about specific instances. Media Matters mentioned that, as of last year, it had documented nearly 1,500 false or misleading stories on the Fox News Channel alone! The disinformation that I read in conservative magazines is so thick I can’t even get to the meat of them, and on top of that, several years ago a stringer for the right-wing newspaper in town said that her stories were changed to reflect the publisher’s views. We don’t do that. So don’t even go there with me, ever.
And conservatism works? How can something that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy work? The 2006 election was a referendum on conservativism, whether you want to accept it or not. If you haven’t noticed, Reagan is dead.



report abuse
 

Piss Williams

posted August 3, 2007 at 10:12 am


And let’s take note of something: despite all the ranting about SCHIP expansion by the right wing, even Orrin Hatch championed it, despite Bush’s threat of a veto. The Republican Senators who opposed it were mostly from the south and west, but quite a few conservative and moderate Republican senators supported it becasue it was the right thing to do. They put pragmatism and compassion over ideology. But boy did the ideologues yell!
Yes, Reagan is dead! Rush is less influential than he used to be. America is at long last waking from its slumbers. Now let’s work toward a Biden-Obama ticket for 2008 so this country can undo some of the damage of the past twelve years.



report abuse
 

Doug

posted August 3, 2007 at 1:40 pm


Rick and Piss Williams,
I won’t even argue with idiots like you. If you are christians you are probally the feel good and tickle your ears type. Rush is not losing influence. If Republicans would only be conservative they would win in a landslide. I should not be surprised by how many people are being blinded by the devil and promoting evil in these last days. Even on sites like this that claim to be christian. After all the bible does predict it. I only pray that you will wake up before it is too late.



report abuse
 

Piss Williams

posted August 3, 2007 at 4:57 pm


When Tom DeLay was being “persecuted” for his corruption he said that when his supporters look in his eyes he hopes they see Christ. The Rev. Rick Scarborough compared Tom DeLay to Christ at Gethsemane. Doug, when you look into Tom DeLay’s eyes do you see Christ? Has He helped you to avoid the sin of supporting health care expansion for low-income children?



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 3, 2007 at 5:06 pm


Rush is not losing influence. If Republicans would only be conservative they would win in a landslide.
There’s a little river in northeast Africa that reminds me of what you just said …
I should not be surprised by how many people are being blinded by the devil and promoting evil in these last days.
Maybe you ought to look in the mirror before you make those kind of ignorant statements. Could it be that the devil invented conservatism to seduce people like yourself? Naah … :-)



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.