I briefly got involved in this discussion about a speech that NAACP Chairman Julian Bond gave in Fayetteville, N.C. The post goes on a bit, so I'll summarize: Brendan Loy essentially argues that local media overlooked Bond's inflammatory remarks out of liberal bias, conscious or otherwise.
Risking my blogging credentials, I took a radical step: I asked the reporter, Alice Thrasher. She sent me this link, which indicates that at least some of the remarks were less inflammatory than had been reported in World Net Daily, which relied on third-hand sources.
All of which interests me only because of the speed with which certain elements of the blogosphere jump to factual conclusions that match their prejudices, especially when an opportunity presents itself to trash mainstream media. If there is anything that reporters (and someday bloggers?) ought to know, it is that truth rarely breaks down in such simple terms.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
There is, in my opinion, a giant shadow cast on media by power - political and financial. Right wing accusations of liberal bias are flak, but media outlets, afraid of being branded, do respond to that flak. The most obvious bias I've seen in media is simply deference. I saw it in the leadup to Iraq, the Downing Street memo, election fraud, and now on the wiretap stories ... newspeople will hide behind feigned objectivity, but are marching in step to the tune ... if our leaders say it is so, then it must be so.
Of course there are noble exceptions, and some stories gain traction all on their own, but that's the exception. America suffers from subservient media.
David,
Defend him all you want. But anybody who says this:
“Their (Republicans) idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side-by-side,” Bond said in a series of jabs against conservatives, getting applause from the audience of about 900 people.
is a fucking moron.
Truth telling? HARDLY
Why is is that every accomplished black that is a conservative is merely a token? Give me a break. And equating Republicans with genocidal Nazis isn’t just illogical; it’s hateful. Mr. Bond’s incendiary words are disgusting and should be cause for his firing by the NAACP. He’s done nothing to improve race relations. In fact, if he were the benchmark, he would’ve set race relations back half a century. Fortunately, he isn’t the benchmark and race relations are improving.
Rich,
He didn't equate Republicans with Nazis; he equated the Confederate flag with the Nazi flag. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that descendants of slaves would find the Confederate flag as offensive as Holocaust survivors find the Nazi flag.
Bond did indicate that Republicans tolerate the Confederate flag. That may be unfair, but there is some evidence for it, and it is in any case less incendiary than what you imply.
David,
Bond is a race baiter par excellence. You don't toss out Republicans and the Nazi flag in the same statement and then pretend to be shocked when people reach a conclusion that you are comparing Republicans to Nazis. This isn't the first time that Bond has played the race card. The difference is conservatives like myself are shoving it back in his face, and he's shocked! Why are you defending this type of race baiting hatred?
Personally, I like Louis Farrakhan. But he’s not one of the six “accomplished” blacks that Rich mentioned.
By the way, this isn't the first time the antique media has been accussed of overlooking racially inflammatory remarks from the left. Remember this? sistertoldja
James J.,
Exactly. The Cheney version would be a bit more troubling since it would come from the vice president, rather than a polemical flame thrower, but you could substitute Karl Rove or Sean Hannity or Jesse Helms and it would be just about the same: a cheap shot but not terribly incendiary and not particularly newsworthy.
David,
I disagree, if a prominent conservative used words like that, other conservatives would be the first in line to berate him. The press would trash him. We'll see how the antique press handles this King Funeral Leftists turn a funeral into a political rally. President Bush's words were fitting and proper, but those of the left were inappropriate and insulting. Using a funeral to lash out politically is borish and typical of the left.
Bond is a Democrat first & foremost, don't forget that.
He called Colin Powell & Condaleeza Rice 'tokens' simply because they are Republicans, even though they are highly qualified.
The only black leader I agree with is Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson.
Rich, Come on. Ann Coulter has practically accused everybody who ever voted for a Democrat of treason, and I don't see conservatives (with a few honorable exceptions) lining up to berate her. Don't try to tell me that the left has a monopoly on cheap shots.
Eric, Bond apparently didn't call them tokens. That was a reporting error.
David,
Who are the honorable exceptions? If they are berating Ann, I would hardly call them honorable. Maybe your idea of being honorable is tossing food at her. Or maybe honorable for you is turning a funeral into a political rally. I don't trust the left's version of what is honorable.
Thanks David - amazing how something gets going isn't it?
Rich,
Here's one: http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2006/01/counter-coulter.html
Wow, you zeroed in on a real winner. He is obnoxious enough to discredit the way Ann chose to write about Barbara Olson and assume she has no internal feelings of love for her friend.
The issue depicts Coulter on the occasion of the death of her friend Barbara Olson in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, and decries her disinterest in taking the moment to reflect on Olson’s life of “Christianity, spirituality and graciousness,” preferring instead to “scrounge through the wreckage, find a piece of her…and beat Hillary Clinton over the head with it.”
Here's the column This is War, that Ann wrote that this cad has the audacity to profane with his 2 penny opinion.
I'm in agreement with Ann on this one. If you don't like the way she shoves things in your face, tough.
OK, Rich, if you don't like that conservative critique of Coulter, try this one, responding to the same column: http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment100301.shtml
So your point is that conservatives DO condemn other conservatives. That's what I said above. Conservatives engage in spirited debate amongst ourselves all the time. I just don't agree with Ann's condemnation. You can't even condemn the race-baiting tactics of Julian Bond and the NAACP. How about a condemnation from the antique media of this statement from yesterday's King (rally) funeral by former President and current idiot Carter
Carter brought up the government response to Katrina, saying, "We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi" to know that inequality exists. He also noted that the Kings once were "victims of secret government wiretapping" - echoing Bush's domestic spying program. More Here
Apparently Billy was the sane brother. Can you condemn Dhimmi Carter's accusations of racism here? By the way, do you remember who the Attorney General was who authorized the above mentioned wire tapping? Need a hint? Here's a hint To politicize a funeral is apparently business as usual for the moonbat wing of the democrat party, which apparently is in the pilot's seat.
Can you condemn ANY of the race-baiting that goes on from the left?
By the way, take a couple of minutes and learn how to post a link. It's not that difficult.
Here is how to post a link using the < a > tags (spaces added so the html doesn't take effect) like this:
< a href="http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com" > LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS < / a >
Remove the spaces in and it becomes LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS
It's a nice courtesy for your readers.
Rich,
I'm having trouble keeping up with your circular argument. You say:
1. Unlike leftists, Republicans are willing to speak out against those on their side who err.
2. Unless Ann Coulter errs.
3. Therefore, see No. 1.
I see no reason why I should condemn or defend anything that Bond, Carter or any other Democrat says. They don't speak for me, and I don't apologize for them. It would be nice if the NAACP were a tad more sober and responsible, but I think that ship has long since sailed, and I won't try to catch it.
As for the funeral, I don't see why you or anybody else has any business sitting in judgment on the propriety of what various speakers said. If family and friends weren't offended, then what does it matter what any of the rest of us thinks?
Circular argument? Not at all. You showed that conservatives disagree with other conservatives. That's life as usual. Check out Townhall.com. There is plenty of strong argument and stimulating conversation. But for you to pick one conservative and make some kind of point because I don't disagree with her says nothing about conservatives in general. I don't think Ann errored in the article you posted. Perhaps other articles that she has written I might disagree with, but I haven't read everything she has written. Do you disagree with EVERYTHING she has written?
As for your statement about not making a judgement about what went on at the King (rally) funeral, I think that is piffle. The event became a pubic event when they invited the President(s) to the event. It became public when WE decided that her husband deserved a national holiday in his honor. If you can't make a judgment about what went on there, then apparently you can't make any judgements on ANYTHING in the public realm. For a former President to take that opportunity to make racist accusations is beyond the pale, in MY JUDGEMENT.
LOL, I really didn't mean to call it a pubic event, PUBLIC event. My bad.
David said (in the original post):
Brendan Loy essentially argues that local media overlooked Bond's inflammatory remarks out of liberal bias, conscious or otherwise.
David also said:
As for the funeral, I don't see why you or anybody else has any business sitting in judgment on the propriety of what various speakers said. If family and friends weren't offended, then what does it matter what any of the rest of us thinks?
So you are willing to overlook the inflammatory remarks because of your judgement that it's not anybody's business to sit in judgement. Sounds like a matter of liberal bias, conscious or otherwise (I'll leave it open to which you chose), which to me sounds like that was Loy's point.
All of the remarks were misquoted and two were completely made up, Rich, so you tell us.....where is the beef?
Somebody said:All of the remarks were misquoted and two were completely made up, Rich, so you tell us.....where is the beef?
Try to keep up, will you?
Life must be understood phone sex international backwards; but... it must be lived forward. phone sex international
Post a Comment