There is no doubt that the mainstream media, by and large, is in the pocket of liberals in general, and the Democratic Party in particular. Whether it was Dan Rather's quickness to run a false story to sully a sitting Republican President (thanks Dan and CBS News for that backfiring October surprise), or other anchors like Katie Couric and Brian Williams, the bias against conservatives and Republicans is well-documented with whole books dedicated to the subject. The part I personally find most amusing is that the MSM is so deluded into thinking that they "objectively" report the news that it borders on the deluded thinking of your garden variety mental patient walking around the hospital with his butt cheeks hanging out the back of the hospital gown. Meanwhile, there is no doubt that the gang of four- NBC, CBS, ABC, and NPR- in their various guises like to attack those who may happen to differ on occasion from the liberal orthodoxy that they call the "news." That is, they like to portray Fox and others who may try to present some semblance of balance as being in the pocket of the conservative movement, or the Tea Party, or God forbid, the Republican Party. That is called "projection" in psychiatric terms which proves my point about their delusional thinking.
Recent surveys indicate that those who bring us the news rarely, if ever, vote for a Republican and very few are even registered Republicans. Yet, they pompously proclaim that this in no way interferes with their "objectivity." There were recent "scandals" about certain people, most notably Keith Olberman, making political donations while in the employ of MSNBC. Well, first of all I wouldn't consider him a newscaster in the first place and second his show was nothing but a venue to spew hatred and vitriol towards anything that disagreed with liberal (er, progressive) "groupthink." Regardless, I really do not care about his political donations to Democratic candidates, or the donations of anyone else for that matter; all the more power to them. In fact, they should be allowed to donate with one proviso- disclose it! Democrats and liberals are big on financial disclosure, so let's do it. If they want disclosure, give them disclosure, but we go all the way. And if they want to to demonize Big Oil's contributions to Republican candidates and claim a hidden agenda, then we need to highlight and demonize "Big Media's" contributions to Democratic candidates and demonize them for it and claim a hidden agenda. Those are odds I would take any day.
For example, according to OpenSecrets.org, in the 2008 election, the TV/Movie/Music industry donated $16 million to candidates with 86% of it going to Democrats ($9 million to Obama alone). I was actually surprised to see McCain received $1 million from this industry. That is a donation disparity of 6:1 in favor of the Democrats. Conversely, the Oil/Gas industry donated $5.6 million to candidates, or 65% less than the entertainment industry. And, yes, oil and gas gave more to Republicans than Democrats, but the ratio was 2.5:1 in favor of Republicans. So, if money does in fact equal influence, as one liberal mantra goes, who has more influence- Big Oil or Big Media?
There are some who say that Republicans should avoid the MSM. I say, enter the lion's den, but with facts (not talking points) in hand. Sure, there will people who will try to lay traps trying to get that next "Katie Couric-Sarah Palin gotcha" moment. There will be people like George Stephanopolos (apologies if I spelled the name wrong) who will twist objective poll numbers to make Obama look better than he actually is in reality. Ron Reagan was recently on the leg-tingled "Hardball with Chris Matthews" show where the host sarcastically asked whether his father really believed that tax cuts increase revenues. I confess to not knowing the response from Reagan, but quoting John F. Kennedy, a Democratic icon, would have shut Matthews up dead in his tracks and possibly lessened that leg tingle because there is only one thing Matthews likes more than an Obama and that is a Kennedy. Because it was JFK who said that you cannot grow revenues without first cutting taxes. The moral of the story is that before entering the lion's den, be prepared for and expect the worst and have facts in hand. Unfortunately (or fortunately as the case may be) that leaves people like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump out who, quite frankly, often offer up embarrassingly simple-minded responses. Actually, Trump is about as conservative and Republican as my dog's infected left ear. And as much as I really hate to say this because I think the guy is a hypocritical, liberal windbag with a noticeable lisp, but I have a certain respect for Barney Frank for at least occasionally showing up on O'Reilly's show on Fox. Now that I have said that, I have to go shower...
Regarding the print media, we need to write, whenever possible, editorials knocking the tenets of liberal (er, progressive) dogma. While it is true that the print media is dying a slow death- most of it brought on by itself...sort of a slow, but satisfying suicide- it still has its readership. We should not cease using that avenue to get out an intelligent, coherent conservative response to the drivel of their "respected" columnists and political opinion writers. Yes, yes- it will be banging one's head against a wall most of the time, but if it plants the seeds of doubt or even wins over a small percentage of the readers of these rags, then it is worth the effort. Maybe I have an optimistic view, but I do not think that every liberal (er, progressive) is a jackass dolt just as every conservative is not a redneck "clinging to (our) Bibles and guns." But, calling out liberals and their dogma in their very venues has its benefits.
Finally, they need to be fact checked vigorously and held accountable at every turn for their fasle or misleading ramblings. Unfortunately, they see a Republican or conservative bogeyman behind every tree (another sign of deluded thought processes). Let us not join them in the looney bin, but face them down with intelligence and thoughful rebuttals. As far as Hollywood personalities go, their statements speak for themselves and creating caricatures of their statements and views should be easy to come by. If worse comes to worse, "Team America" should be required viewing to illustrate the idiocy and political naivete of them. Unfortunately, there will be a certain segment of the population who will be influenced by the likes of Alec Baldwin (great unofficial cast member of SNL), Madonna (perhaps the harlot foretold in Revelations), and Michael Moore (who obviously hasn't seen "Supersize Me"), but those people are hopeless anyway. Regarding liberal radio, they have a national listening audience roughly the size of the population of Peoria (no offense intended towards the citizens of Peoria), so I would not worry too much about that segment. Their biggest contribution to politics in America was the laugh-a-minute Senator from Minnesota, Al Franken (no offense intended towards the citizens of Minnesota). Again, their influence is miniscule and the people who do listen to liberal talk radio are also hopeless anyway.
In short, instead of bashing the MSM, we should embrace it, but not to reform it because that will never happen. But, it does remain another option, another vehicle, another venue to get the conservative message out. And face it, for better or worse, come 2012 the Presidential debate panels and moderators will not be coming from the ranks of MTV, or the 700 Club. I am not calling for a return to the equal time rule; that was one of Reagan's greatest legacies to this country (although I thought busting the air traffic controller's union was pretty cool also). But, when given the chance, the invitation must be accepted and the message must be intelligent. The day that glittery unicorns and "hope" trump intelligence to solve this Nation's many problems is the day Canada looks better and better as a place to call home and rest my head. But then again if that happened, I couldn't get that knee replacement, could I?