CBS -- news or propaganda

CBS has been a suspect news organization since the days of Walter Cronkite and his anti war reporting on Vietnam.  It was Cronkite who took news reporting from the facts to advocacy which the three major networks into promoters of liberalism.  As this article articulates, CBS is so far in the tank for the liberals that they even withhold parts of interviews that may not fit the narrative du jour.  What's frustrating about this state of affairs is the fact that the FAA, a government agency tasked with permitting these privately owned networks access to the public's airways, does not hold them accountable for this powerful advocacy journalism -- as it is supposed to.  It is an established fact that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal and vote accordingly in elections.  Again, were it not for the emergence of the internet, talk radio, and Fox News, conservatives would be trapped in the same prison of liberal ideas as those who watch CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, and who are served by big city liberal papers like the Washington Post, NYTimes, LATimes and many others.  While Republicans are out creating businesses that employ people and make the wheels of the economy turn, Democrats are busily doing their best to undermine the system in then guise of making nit more fair, or something.  Still, the liberal paradigm has run its course.  They have now run out of "other peoples' money" in pursuit of a level playing field and all the rest of the socialist dream world fantasies of the perfect society.  Hopefully a Romney election can reverse the 80 year drift to more government, collectivism, and less individual freedom.  Since the failure of the USSR provides a vivid example of where the liberal path eventually leads us, one has to wonder why so many want this solution.

The NYTimes at it again

Steven Hayward and John Hinderaker of Powerline both have posts here and here today on the Solyndra defense mounted by the NYTimes editorial page. This defense is a pluperfect example of the Times' take on the subject of economics.  Clearly and unmistakably the Times thinks the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers and that such decisions are far too important, or something, to be left to a free market solution.  It gets worse: the Times also thinks that the policy of increasing the cost of fossil fuels should be encouraged by government policies to continue to rise in order to make the renewable energy sources the viable alternative.  This attitude at a time when gasoline prices have doubled over the past three years of the Obama administration and unemployment has risen in spite of all the new government debt designed to bring it down.  The Times can't seem to put two and two together and come to the pretty obvious conclusion that rising energy costs actually causes unemployment. Duh! Most non economists can figure that one out.  It's no wonder there's so much ignorance out there about how the real world works when so many people take the Times as Gospel on almost any subject.  These two linked posts above are short and to the point.

How the liberal mind works

This is a long (57 minutes) interview of Fran Rich by Brian Lamb of C-Span.  It is particularly interesting in that it reveals quite clearly the approach to issues and events by a true blue liberal.  Rich is a product of the Washington/New York axis of media elites who don't think the rest of the country matters all that much.  Most of his opinions and views are about politics, or so it seems from this interview.  There is little or no mention of economics and capitalism and all the real stuff that makes the world go around.  Rich very much lives in the liberal cocoon of interests and thoughts reflected in the famous remark by one of the TV anchors who once said no one he knew approved of the Iraq intervention by the Bush administration.  Rich was a theatre critic before his gig as an op-ed contributor to the NYTimes, where he has been employed many years.  Interestingly he seems recently to have soured on Obama although not in this interview which took place before the election of '08.

The NYTimes's problem with the truth

Why anyone with any concern for truthful reporting reads the NYTimes has to be one of the big mysteries of our times.  BI (before the internet) the Times could ge away with this kind of story and did frequently.  But it's a different world when a scrupulous and diligent lawyer like John Hinderacker gets ahold of a Times story and deconstructs the narrative; for this fact we can thank the emergence of the Internet.   Since Daryl Issa, Republican congressman from San Diego, became the chairman of the House Oversight Committee and has been looking into the various misdemeanors of the Democrat Administration, the pit bull arm of the Party, namely the Times and all the far left internet sites that feed the Times their story lines, have been out digging up "stuff" to discredit him.  It is instructive to read here how the Times and its minions go about this nefarious and sladerous work, which they do over and over on a regular basis to anyone who threatens the Democrat Party's leadership and moral authority.  This is truly a sordid story but one that reveals how low both the Times and the Democrat Party have sunk.

NYTimes bias

For anyone reading the NYTimes on a semi regular basis, or reading linked stories or news items, a series of articles and the book written by Samuel McGowan is old news.  Clearly this paper long ago became the Progressive voice and then lurched further left to become the voice of the Democrat Party and all its causes and minions.  It is not the place to go for the unvarnished truth by a long shot.  And yet for many it is the Bible of news, much to their loss.  The series by McGowan has been carried by Powerline from the beginning and links to all individual parts can be reached on this particular link in the end.