December 29, 2003

I challenged an editor regarding liberal bias. Liberals in the media are totally unaware that they are biased. They are totally unaware that their media efforts strongly reflect this bias. After citing the Jayson Blair incident at the New York Times the editor offered: “What more could they have done?” I had to point out that had it not been for a much smaller paper that chose to expose Blair’s fictional accounts, Blair would still be at the paper along with Howell Raines his editor. He didn’t have a comeback for that.

Let’s face it – everyone has an agenda – we wouldn’t be human without one. You can call your agenda a set of standards, beliefs, values, feelings, or whatever. But these do not constitute an agenda until you attempt to impose your values on someone else. That’s when personal values become an agenda. And having an agenda presupposes you have the means of at least delivering that agenda, with or without the power to enforce it.

This is precisely why I hate, loathe and really despise liberals. They not only seek to impose their values on others, but they do so by cleverly manipulating government methods, systems, law and bureaucracies to force their agendas on others. And those others would in almost all cases just wish to be left alone.

And liberal agendas can be summed up and more correctly identified by the terms “socialism” and “communism.” And when you point this out to a “progressive,” they retort: “Better Red than dead!” How does this square with Patrick Henry’s oration, “Give me liberty or give me death!?” Or New Hampshire’s motto: “Live free or die!” Liberals, progressives and Republican “moderates” just don’t get it. That’s astonishing!

This is totally opposite the design of American government via the Declaration of Independence and the specific operations and their limitations as placed upon American government via the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. If one needs to adhere to an agenda that characterizes the America for which well over one million of our soldiers fought and died to preserve and protect, then why not adhere to an agenda that is dedicated to consecrating and honoring their noble sacrifice? Why not make your agenda fit theirs?

This is the question that should be asked of each and every journalist in America. In their positions of high and mighty opinion-shaping station, all they seek is to mold and shape public opinion in order to impose their liberal agenda on viewers, voters and taxpayers. Journalists were once the sons and daughters of blue collar tradesmen and factory workers; now, they are the offspring of professors, lawyers and doctors. They are in a rich and elite class fitting in comfortably with the filthy rich of communist Hollywood. Both power classes see the public as ignorant, gullible masses requiring daily supervision in all their affairs. This is why the media glitterati and Hollywood ignorati blend so well together.

Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh defined the political camps in the 1990s. Limbaugh, talk radio, many sites on the Internet and the Washington Times aggressively attacked the excesses and corruption of the Clinton administration. If you had a political background as a Republican, you had little trouble aligning with the “School of Advanced Conservative Studies.” But these “advanced conservative studies” no longer fit George Bush or the Republican Party – so what now?

As Alan Stang pointed out, it will be interesting to see how those former Clinton bashers on talk radio and FOXNews will now justify the venom they spewed at Clinton. Now the Republican Party has not only admitted that they are replacing the party of “big government,” formerly the Democrat Party, but has gotten us into an unconstitutional war and into spending binges greater than that of LBJ. And Limbaugh’s okay with that? Abolishing the Democrat Party is what it’s about, but do not our stars and stripes shine best when there’s competition in the free market and at the polls?

What goes around comes around. One website, formerly anti-Clinton, has similarly sold out. A libertarian writer complained to one such site, and here’s the response from the editor: “This is a business!” Unpopular views detract financially from the bottom line. Clearly, there is an expense in not pitching the accepted line. But even if there is a temporary greater expense at first informing and educating, there will be a long term benefit of public trust that will provide a much greater reward for all down the road.

Theodore E. Lang

© 2003 THEODORE E. LANG All rights reserved

Ted Lang is a political analyst and a freelance writer.

Archives

Another Champion for Ignorance! Bill O'Reilly

Saddam for Christmas – How Convenient!

The "Gun Issue"

Assault Weapons Fraud

Extra! Extra! Don't Read About It!

Complete Archives for Ted Lang

Visit Etherzone for other articles by Ted Lang