Letís begin with those ultra-liberal magazines Esquire which ran "John McCain Walks on Water" (and, no, it didnít get any better past the headline, either) and the National Journal who proclaimed him "The Lone Ranger".
Even those unbiased talking heads Mike Wallace, who did a 60 Minutes piece that didnít include even one detractor and Sam Wallace, who offered a carbon copy love fest on 20/20, both aired during Sen. John McCainís ineffectual presidential run. Wallace, to prove the point that he was as unbiased or at least as liberal as the Rabid Right claims, later told a fellow reporter that if McCain won the nomination that Wallace would quit his job to support his campaign.
This is the same McCain who votes with the Far Right on every social, economic and foreign policy issue dear to their callous little hearts. He is also the same McCain who headlined an Oregon fund-raiser for a radical and deadly anti-gay group which began with a speaker lavishing praise on a woman who had murdered a doctor for the fallacious crime of performing legal abortions. This is the same McCain who supported Phil Gramm, votes against every pro-choice and sensible gun control legislation and even outright opposes the idea of a minimum wage.
How about that bastion of liberal thought, Dan Rather? Couldnít he be considered the point man for us dirty old Commies?
On his CBS Evening News segment "Eye on America", he and correspondent Bob McNamara reported on a Texas resident who in under investigation for killing two Mexican nationals in two separate incidents. The first was killed crossing the Rio Grande (back towards Mexico) after, as the Texan claimed, he had tried to break into his house. The other, also killed while standing in the Rio Grande facing Mexico, was shot in the back. The Texan has offered no reason for that killing whatsoever (but Iíll bet heís a big Tumbleweed supporter).
Now, one would expect a liberal reporter to investigate this story as the double murders that they pretty obviously were, wouldnít one? Instead, Rather reported the entire account using military metaphors like "an army of invaders" and "the border battle" and "the daily invasion of illegal immigrants". McNamara fared no better, proclaiming, "Border Patrol agents have seen the illegal invasion take on the tactics and size of an advancing army".
Not once was there any hint of an interview with anyone who spoke for the immigrants or who advocated for the immigrants. In fact, McNamara simply referred to statements made by two relatives of the victims, with one being only an acknowledgment of the attempted burglary by the victimís brother. Nearly the entire rest of the segment was made up of either the killer himself or his neighbors who also proclaim their bloodthirsty willingness to kill. One even admitted, "If my family or my property is threatened, I wouldnít hesitate one bit." (Now, help me out here, gentle readers. When did damaging property or breaking and entering become capital offenses? In fact, when did standing in the middle of a river become a capital crime? And wouldnít one figure that a reporter would make that the basis of his report instead of babbling about invasions and armies when they are talking about people coming across, in the vast majority of cases, simply looking for work?)
The report left even me with the distinct impression that Rather and McNamara were offering justification for the slaughter of anyone caught entering the country illegally. In the small and unformed minds of the Right, the report sounded distinctly like a call to arms and a declaration of war. And all of this from those liberals in the media? ( 1 & 2 )
Maybe the liberal media would be more overt in their left leaning attitudes when monopolies are being formed and consumerís rights left in the dust. One such case would be the AOL/Time Warner merger, an event that will redefine the idea of "open access" to all ISPs to Time Warnerís cable system by forcing competitors to buy access to that system. AOL, never a champion of consumer privacy in the first place, will now have access to even more personal data from Time Warnerís customers to sell and rent and otherwise violate.
How did the liberal media respond to this disaster for American consumers? NBCís Tom Brokaw proclaimed that the event was "a whole new universe created overnight!" USA Today trumpeted it as "one of those rare events that seems to change the world overnight" and compares the merger of two corporations to "the 13 colonies defeat[ing] the British."
Okay, so the liberal media canít quite get it right when it comes to immigration, McCain, or Corporate America. At least we can be certain that they are quite active in reporting on the lies and half truths that flow forth from NATO and our cigar loving president, right?
Are you aware that the actual level of killing of both the Serbs and KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) is now more than it was before the slaughter that was the NATO air attacks? Thatís right, folks, an average of 10-15 individuals on each side died every week before the attacks and the number of deaths have actually doubled since we bombed both military and civilian targets and foreign embassies into rubble.
Did you know that CNN was told by the war planners during that miserable slaughter to remove their equipment and personnel from the RTS (the Serbís radio station) two days before it was illegally bombed? I say illegally bombed because, as international law precludes "intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives." The same laws also prohibits "intentionally launch[ing] an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects ... which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated." ( 3 )
In other words, CNN had prior knowledge of an impending attack on a civilian target which would violate many laws and treaties concerning the infliction of death or injuries to civilians. Did they do anything at all? Actually, they did, but not what you might suspect. Knowing that the building would be destroyed at about 2:30 in the afternoon, they invited Serbian Information Minister Aleksandar Vucic to appear via satellite on Larry Kingís Show and asked him to arrive no later than one half hour before air time for "make up". Vucic arrived late, after NATO missiles had already slammed into the building at six minutes past two. ( 4 & 5 )
Finally, the New York Times reported that, according to their rather superficial interpretation of the Census Bureauís 1999 Statistical Abstract, that the "typical" American can be described as follows:
"As the 20th Century closes, the typical American is a young woman, 25 to 34, named Lisa. She lives in a California suburb with her daughter, Emily (these days, odds are no better than 50 - 50 that mother and father live together with the children). She is thinking of having another child, who will be called Samantha or Michael ... Lisa and little Emily end 1999 with a household income of $45,000, enough for two cars and cable TV. Lisa has been to college, of course."
Where to start, where to start? First, how many single mothers with the responsibility of raising a young child do you know who earn anywhere near $45,000,? For that matter, how many single mothers can afford to live in the "suburbs" of California and what exactly can be defined as "suburbs" in a state that consists of little other than suburbs? What in the world would a single mother of one child, let alone two or more, need two cars for, although the cable TV speaks for itself.
In order to create this silly little Alice in Wonderland image, one must first completely forget that the actual average annual income for families headed by single women is much, much less - around $23,000. There are no figures for how many cars a family like this owns, which in itself speaks volumes. True, the median family income is $45,000 but that involves, by a factor of seven to one, families with at least two adults living in the same house. ( 6 )
Obviously, such a completely skewed picture of the lives of single mothers must have come from a liberal newspaper, but for what purpose? Maybe to show us all that the visions of millions of women and children going hungry and going without needed medical care and slaving at low wage no benefits jobs while their children stay in an empty and cold house was really the fantasy that the Rabid Right always claimed?
Gentle readers, there is no liberal media and, since the late sixties, there hasnít been even the shadow of an honest media to speak of. Your news and information comes almost exclusively from the wealthiest of Americans and the largest of Corporate Americaís behemoths, neither of which have any desire to give you the truth about just how quickly this world is falling into their dirty little hands. The only reason to label the media "liberal" is to make even the compromised and diluted and outright fabrications appear to be leftist propaganda, enabling the cheats and liars to continue their theft of your world and your freedoms unopposed.
Folks, the world of news reporting has pretty much descended to the same level as politicians and military leaders ... you always know when theyíre lying because their lips are moving.
Return To Front Page
Visit Our Unique Shops At:
The Progressive Mind
Impeach The Moron
Rosetta Stone - Your Name In Egyptian Hieroglyphs
Signs of the Zodiac Gifts