« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

My reply to JPH: Conservative America’s plan to defeat the majority media — UPDATE

Don't debate them, don't boycott them, don't supress them -- buy them out

By: E Pluribus Unum (Diary)  |  November 13th, 2008 at 12:28 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I’ve been thinking about this for a long time. I vote with JPH (Hey, Republicans When You Figure Out A Media Strategy, Call Me; Until Then, So Long.) in saying that the majority media have proven a nearly insurmountable force in unfairly using their position and influence to sucker Americans into electing and empowering Democrats, in spite of the abundantly obvious fact that most Americans do not approve of Democrat policies, positions, or morals on any level. However, unlike JPH I don’t await the feckless, toothless Republican Party’s battle plan.

Between the Bush Administration’s “Hunker-Down” plan, McCain’s “French Kiss” plan, and Congressional Republicans’ “Dem-Lite” plan, I just don’t have any confidence in the next Republican plan to cope with the 24×365 majority media onslaught.

This is a BIG problem, and the enemy is all of these things: formidable, ruthless, crooked, malevolent, supremely unscrupled, dishonest, dug-in, extremely well financed, organized, and arrogant. But this is my plan. Kill the beast.

How to do that? Haha, glad you asked.

First, I want to recap, touching on some of JPH’s well-done thinking. The media capitalize on 2 things here: Access and credibility. Simply put, on 3 fronts [TV, radio, and newspaper], the news is totally dominated by liberal outlets. Even during Rush Limbaugh radio broadcasts, every hour and half-hour is interrupted by ABC News Radio, where they spout the most vile form of slander and call it news.

While many Americans recognize the bias, and also recognize the excellent work being done by Fox News and the right media, no story is considered to have ‘legs’ unless it is picked up by one of the 3 main TV networks, or by the NY Times and/or Washington Post, or by the newswires Reuters and AP. All 7 of these institutions are viciously, bitterly leftist.

So we have a problem. It demands a solution, because the status quo will not work. Our Constitutional Republic, this Grand Experiment™, is being led down a slip-slope into oblivion, led by the left and fueled by the majority media. Let me offer as a given a few points about the media:

  • They will never be blackmailed into reporting honestly.
  • Their sinking fortunes and ratings aren’t deterring them.
  • They are dedicated to leftism to the point of obsession.
  • They now have the power of the government behind them to suppress opposition and competition via the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
  • Ignoring them or bypassing them has not diminished their credibility or influence.

So this is my plan.

  • Form an investment group.
  • Put at the head of it known conservatives with excellent business and political resumes [why does Dick Cheney come immediately to mind, anyway?]
  • Raise about $50 billion in investment capital from conservative Americans. I think that’s about enough money.
  • Buy the New York Times, ABC, and either AP or Reuters.
  • Fire every sorry SOB that works there, in any capacity in terms of writing, gathering, or telling news – except George Will.
  • Replace them with conservatives and a conservative agenda. Not squishes. The burgeoning right media has for most of a decade been a great proving ground for conservative talent. Between FNC, the conservative magazines (Human Events, NR, etc) and online blogs (Townhall, RedState), there is tremendous talent ripe for the picking. Pick it.
  • Buy Brit Hume from FNC and make him ABC’s anchor. Pay FNC whatever it costs to get him.
  • Let all of America know, unapologetically, that NOW, FINALLY, they are going to receive fair and balanced truth and a pro-American viewpoint from their news.

Some loose thoughts I have about the above plan.

  • If we get ABC, we get ABC Radio Networks, which currently provide hourly slander-casts on over 2000 radio stations. By comparison Rush is played on 600 stations.
  • existing syndication contracts by ABC, the New York Times, and AP have their stories fronted and linked nearly everywhere a person can look. If we control the message, we PWN.
  • We get to play the invent-a-poll game, just like everybody else!
  • By getting one of the big 3 broadcast networks, total credibility is achieved in one fell swoop.
  • $50 billion sounds like alot of money. I think McCain and the RNC raised what, a grand total of less than a billion (I’m having trouble locating exact numbers) in his 20-month campaign. However, those are DONATIONS. I’m talking about investment money. People’s 401K money, IRAs, These properties we are talking about are not junk bonds, and they’re not high-risk – they are well-established media companies with ongoing operations. $50 billion is alot. But shall we go for it, or shall we cower, whimpering in the corner?
  • In spite of some research, I’ve come nowhere close to figuring out approximate selling prices of any of these entities. I figure ABC is the most pricey. Are they worth $20 bil? $100 bil? Help, anyone?
  • Keep all network programming in place at ABC. Even Desperate Housewives [gag]. Credibility is based partly on the vastness of the empire.
  • We don’t have to buy the whole Treason Media – just key, well-positioned players.
  • The thing to guard against is betrayal or incompetence at the top. That’s why I want Dick Cheney. He kills.

So what do you think? Impractical, unworkable, too bold? OK, I’ll agree ONLY in terms of raising the capital. But otherwise, admit it. You like it, don’t you?

———–
UPDATE : I have some more tangible answers to the ‘how much money’ question:
ABC: It’s hard to tell how much it would take to buy the ABC empire, but Disney, the owner of ABC, is publicly traded and has a market cap of $57 billion, with confirmed assets over $35 billion. My guess is that for $35 billion you could get majority ownership of Disney itself. As just a gross, amateur estimate, I bet we could get 100% of ABC for $30 billion in cash.
New York Times : Current market cap has dwindled to $1.1 billion. This is EXTREMELY attainable.
Associated Press: I’m afraid the AP is not attainable. It is owned by a consortium of TV, radio, and newspapers which both provide and consume the content. So the AP is not really an entity that can be bought.

Others of note:
Reuters: (AP’s chief competitor worldwide) market cap of $4.8 billion.
Washington Post: market cap of $4.65 billion
Citadel Communications: (a monster in radio news) market cap is $2.6 billion.

Tags: ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Darin_H

    Fox News replaced ABC News for Rush’s news breaks (a year or 2 ago). Other than that, I like the idea.

    • E_Pluribus_Unum

      which includes my own WBAP in Dallas. I have to take the headphones off for 2 minutes every half-hour while Rush is on to keep from violent projectile-hurling events.

      So Clear Channel I don’t think has any control over it.

  • Nelsen

    This route must be taken if it is at all possible. Donald Trump comes to mind as well. Mitt Romney?

    We difinetly have to keep the normal programmingas well, just change the newscast, talk shows, and sunday morning shows.

    Seriously, if it is at all possible to do this, we must, just to save our country from the left.

  • Common_Cents

    This is the most important liberation in the world. Liberation of Americans from our liberal media.

    It’d be the cheapest bailout our government could do to open up long term opportunity for success.

    How about we buy out all the futures of our liberal Elected Elite in DC and replace them with real people like Palin?

  • rocketeer

    Suppose you are handed $50B and told to do something. Besides being handed the ABC offices, equipment (missing “W” keys) and current contracts, you will need to deal with a few more problems.
    * The donors of the money will expect results, and not just pleasant words over the air. You need a way to make money.
    * Where will you get your reporters and writers? Don’t they all come from the same J-schools, steeped in the same philosophy? It is hard to overcome your training.
    * Where will you get your news feeds? As I understand things, news is made by people and reported locally. Local stories are promoted, and then over-reported by higher tier beasts. You are relying on syndicates for your news — the same beasts you are trying to overthrow. Either you won’t like their product, or you won’t be able to get the product. The modern American left doesn’t always play the same game we play, and might boycott dealing with you.
    * Besides dealing with “more right than Fox News”, you will also have to put up with sniping, and even attacks, from the loony left online. In short, running this news exercise promises to be something more like war. Like your reporters being bruised, their equipment hurt, your infrastructure sabotaged.

    Per Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves To Death, modern American media is supposed to entertain, not inform. So if you change the ABC product, will you keep your audience? Or gain others than the faithful?

    Face it: our modern media is the result of a hundred years or so of taking over the reporting infrastructure — running newspapers, colleges, shaping public opinion on what media should be. Making ABC into American Broadcasting for Conservatives would be a good step — after all, why should a news service pretend to be without a point-of-view? Only here, it seems, do we pretend to be such.

    Suppose the media were the auto industry. Taking over ABC is like buying a car franchise. Calling us Ronald Reagan Ford isn’t going to improve sales much. We need to rather gain control over parts supply, design, manufacture. Then we will have quality product due to our own decisions, and you can see real difference between our Fords and those other-guy Chevys.

    So having a media outlet is something. Something more is establishing an alternative to AP, and creating an a corrective mail-order course in “What’s Right in Journalism”, to fix what is missing from your average reporter’s J-school training and attitudes.

    • Achance

      We get CBS news during Rush and Hannity. That’s an improvement, it used to be NBC.

  • RborisT

    I absolutely believe this plan can work, I said the same in a RS post yesterday. Check out that post for further ideas on this.

    One aspect of this will make it much less expensive and therefore much more feasable.

    Carefully select states or even regions that need to turned back to “red” from blue. Begin buying the media in those areas first. Get results, then expand. I have recommended this post…

    • ryegal

      I think it would be more effective to start there. The other, big splash approach will result in a huge outcry against ABC, NYT, and AP “selling out” to conservatives. The “evil” Dick Cheney as owner? The rest of the MSM will not let the new versions of these news outlets retain their supposed credibility.

      • Whitehorse

        It is doable – however, the news would have to truly be fair & balanced, with Opinion shows having (as much as possible) credible people on either side.

        We also need to look at countering groups like ACORN & the leftosphere, who are generating a large # of people to lobby congress on behalf of Obama’s (& the Dem. congress’) plans. We did a great job with amnesty, however we will need to have our “minutepeople” set up & be able to target specific senators or congressfolk…

        • E_Pluribus_Unum

          Make an offer the family can’t refuse.

          • E_Pluribus_Unum

            It’s an argument, but my whole game is ‘big ball’. I like it that way. Subtlety and positional, chess-like maneuvering, a la Karl Rove, have not been a strategy that has worked for Republicans.

          • jyalai

            “I challenge the claim that Liberalism is ideologically committed to dishonesty. Can you show that? As a counterclaim I observe that the left and the right both routinely misbehave.”

            Liberalism in it’s current state rejects moral absolutism. Dishonesty is okay, as long as the ends justify the means.

            Social conservatism believes in moral absolutes. Honesty being one of them.

            A social conservative who is dishonest is going against his core beliefs. A liberal who is dishonest, checks his goals before deciding whether he goes against his core beliefs.

          • StephC

            This all sounds vague but I believe it’s doable, too. It just takes some savvy people to come up with an unbeatable business plan. There are plenty of those to be had right here on this site.

            In addition, there are some excellent writers. I’ve been kicking around an idea of my own but it’s a startup… which means it wlll take some time to build into anything powerful enough to compete with the left-wing media.

          • JLenardDetroit

            High traffic Diary threads can be hashed out for a w/e edition that the original author could then incorporate any/all good points from the comments to provide a more complete “story” more-or-less. Guess it would be more an Editorials section.

          • BillHilton

            I even posted a pithy version of this as a comment somewhere. I COMPLETELY agree. We need to buy USA Today also. On and on. We also need to start a fund to do our own voucher system for inner city children.

            I would contribute bi weekly.

          • E_Pluribus_Unum

            I know, I know. But these are stable, high name-recognition franchises. Their value will go down to zero ONLY if they continue on their present course. Under sane leadership, they would at least break even.

          • E_Pluribus_Unum

            Hermes, I absolutely agree that the school systems, rife with leftist indoctrination, are a huge, huge problem, and have absolutely contributed to the current mess we are in.

            My proposal goes after the here and now. Yours is the long game. I see no reason not to go after both.

            I bet you waited, expecting something profound or at least verbose from me….. haha, sorry!

          • E_Pluribus_Unum

            I have always wondered about the internal organization of Fox with respect to FoxNews. I still say it takes one of the Big 3 to buy into the game though.

          • E_Pluribus_Unum

            Fair and balanced would have to be a hallmark. And that is true to conservative principles — truth, whether it benefits “the red team” or not.

  • itrytobenice

    Exception: I don’t want George Will either. He is really not fun to read at all. Go to Townhall.com and find at least 10 better.

    Pres: Dick Cheney
    CFO: Mitt Romney

    I’d buy stock.

  • seattle_ite

    Whatever else is planned in this paper/network buyout, some well-known, trusted conservative should host an hour or two show, calling BS on all the slander media. Use video clips, like they do on Fox, to point out where the twists, flip-flops and shenanigans are coming from. Interview conservatives in the news (BAN the squishies), and even bring on some truly fair oppo’s, just for credibility on the ‘balance’ quotient.

    Our side hasn’t been very vocal, in the last forty years. The “Message” has been left to spin in the wind.

  • John_E

    I argue that the change would be wrought from the bottom up by a raft of conservatives making careers in journalism, and especially at NPR, PBS, network news, NYT, WaPo. The desired outcome ought to be diversity in these staffs, not dominance.

    • rocketeer

      The complaint with the current crop of journalists seems to be warping words, looking at half of the story, etc. We would regard “conservative” journalists as more trustworthy. So if the entire newsroom were comprised of trustworthy journalists, then this outcome is less desirable than staff “diversity”?

      • E_Pluribus_Unum

        I just thought I would be magnanimous and keep a position for the Treason Times’ token moderate.

        • E_Pluribus_Unum

          The newsmagazine shows like 20/20 and Nightline, we would expect to take on that full-time duty.

          • John_E

            Journalists gain a measure of credibility or as you say, trustworthiness, for their profession by striving to be objective. But objectivity as an ideal is not humanly achievable. A diverse staff would challenge each others assumptions or at least balance out the choice of stories and adjectives in a way that 95% political homogeneity certainly does not. Journalistic professional theory ought to logically arrive at diversity as an important step in improving objectivity and hence the trustworthiness of the journalistic profession.

            Our present complaint with the MSM is that it is 95% dominated by liberals. It is that dominance which discredits the MSM in our eyes and in much of the public eye. A 95% conservative dominance will have the same discrediting effect.

          • JPH

            n/t

          • E_Pluribus_Unum

            While it is an article of faith that the other networks would do their best to shun the new ABC, AP, and NYT, the truth is, we could not be even REMOTELY silenced. Think of these things:

            AP: it feeds every newspaper in the western world. They would not all go flock to Reuters. When it is realized that AP gives you the straight skinny (unlike now), most likely EVERY middle-America newspaper would dump Reutuers and UPI (whatever UPI is called these days) like a hot rock.

            New York Times: even with a change of ownership, they would still the newspaper of record. Just because the WaPo would not think so would NOT make it not so. The NYT feeds hundreds of papers, and would continue to do so. Less, most likely, but still substantial.

            ABC: Millions upon millions of people would still tune in to see Lost, Dancing With the Stars,Desperate Housewives, and more. The evening newscasts would AT WORST hold what they have now, and most likely ratings would soar — in much the same way that FNC smokes all other cable news, conservatives and moderates ALL across our center-right land would tune in and observe, immediately, a news division that loves America – such a startling contrast it would cause breakouts of hives, crop circles, animals scurrying about recklessly, and small aircraft randomly plummeting to earth.

            ABC News would have full access – presidential pressers, a White House correspondent, a spot on Air Force One, and so on and so on. And ABC Radio – I cannot overemphasize how pervasive they are ALL across America – would still play on 2000 stations every hour and every half-hour, 2 minutes a pop.

            These networks would not, and could not, be shut out. They are the establishment, and they have the full power of incumbency that start-up, competing networks could not gain for 50 years.

          • E_Pluribus_Unum

            A 95% conservative dominance in a newsroom. Do you know what that would look, sound, and smell like?

            It would smell fair and balanced. Conservatives don’t cheat, lie, and manipulate stories – that’s what makes them conservatives.

            If you do not believe this about conservatives, then you should not be one or hang out with them.

          • bs

            You’re correct, of course. But perception trumps reality. If we were to populate media 100% with folks that are clearly identified as conservatives, at least 50% of the populace would turn elsewhere for information, simply because they would perceive that the source is biased.

  • aaronbg

    Why not implement a 6 and 10 news on Fox Broadcast that consists of some of the brightest stars at Fox News. Brit Hume and Chris Wallace come to mind. Hume and Wallace are respected already and have credibility despite them being on Fox News. This is a built in value add, it just needs to be implemented. Fox Broadcast has high ratings already for it’s shows such as 24, Prison Break, Terminator, and others. If Ailes could make that happen it would be easier than trying to revamp ABC.

    As far as the dead tree and AP, those would still be options and I don’t see any built in way to achieve that other than what you propose.

    • E_Pluribus_Unum

      the influence of these 3 orgs – NYT, ABC, and AP, is massive, and pervasive.

      • John_E

        I don’t think that objectivity is humanly achievable, regardless of political affiliation. I don’t think that being conservative means a person is good in all the respects important to journalism and being liberal means a person is correspondingly bad.

        I’m not going to stop identifying myself as conservative. I’d like to be able to hang around and dialogue with you. The rest is up to you.

        • JakePrime

          In the ideal world, we wouldn’t be able to tell which direction news agencies lean.

          • E_Pluribus_Unum

            and yet they tune in and allow themselves to be influenced by people they recognize as biased.

            So how would this be ANY different? I submit that all the sheeple that are gullible enough to watch network news would NOT tune out.

          • E_Pluribus_Unum

            I am saying that conservatism and honesty are inextricably knotted together. It is anathema to conservatives – by nature of what makes us conservative – to steal elections, do voter fraud, to lie about Democratic candidates, to use a public platform to advocate partisan objectives.

            The left routinely does all of those things, as evidenced by the behavior of the media this election cycle. They are interested primarily in gaining and keeping power, and are not bound by honesty or fairness.

            What I am getting at is that a newsroom dominated by conservatives would not be the advocacy wing of the Republican Party. It would have a vested interest in running news straight down the middle, even when the truth runs against the right.

            I can say that in part I am conservative for this very reason.

          • NightTwister

            You’re in big trouble now, dude.

  • Cheetah772

    Let’s say I am a member of hostile media, and if it got out that this Conservative Group is going to buy out all of media outlets, how would you think I’d react to news?

    I’d get every big name reporter in USA and all of big name media corporations to launch what is truly a massive propaganda war on this Conservative Group. It would be one that will make even Goebbels wet his pants. It’ll be a 7/24 thing. There will be no rest from us. There will be no mercy either. It’s an all-out effort or nothing.

    The next step for me is to get every big name investor who’s a known liberal or at least sympathizes with some liberal positions to put up money to defeat Conservative Group’s buyout bids. If not, then we’ll go after all conservative media outlets (blogs and radio talk shows). I don’t care if I can’t get some of them, but I want you to feel terrified of what I can do to you. In fact, with Obama in power, I’ll do my best to push Fairness Doctrine through Congress.

    Not to mention I’d ask the world’s media outlets to help us out as well. They’ll be putting pressure on leaders, then they will call Obama to do something about it. They’ll be claiming that the Crazy Right is plotting to initiate some sort of coup within the USA, a supposedly center-left (never mind it’s not true) country according to some of media outlets.

    I’ll fight you to death, if I go down, I’ll take you down with me. I will do anything from lying, stealing, to blakmail, so gods may help me to slay this great evil Conservative Group. It’ll be just like David taking on Goliath, with David as hostile media outlets and Goliath as Conservative Group.

    Congraluations, EPU, in the process, you’ve just accelerated the polarization of America on political spectrum. But if you’re game, then go for it! ;)

    Or how about ignoring every big name reporter and media outlets, and only talk to known conservative reporters or bloggers. Of course, media outlets will be angry with you, but at least this way, they will only get your side of the story coming from those “dirty” conservative reporters! Let’s be radical, don’t be polite to big name reporters and companies. Ignore them. It’s just like Obama throwing reporters out of his campaign plane whose newspaper companies endorsed McCain. Try your best to marginalize them, don’t give them anything at all. Let’s play politics with media outlets. If they want to report on us, let them get it from OUR guys!

    • Cheetah772

      As an evangelical Christian, I’m embarrassed to say that my hand is caught in PAYING the devil’s advocate! ;)

      Just kidding….

      • bs

        Our new mantra.

        • John_E

          I don’t need chapter and verse. ACORN and its radical progenitors disgust and horrify me. I’m fed up with the Obama-loving MSM. They are both on the left spectrum but it is also arguably false to equate them. I am not personally inclined to argue that there are equivalences between the left and right on every level. Those on the left find plenty to criticize and I have no interest in taking their side. But I don’t see that my argument — that human nature rather than ideology is the pertinent factor  — hinges on the outcome of an argument over equivalences.

          Second item:

          I have to grant you my naivete regarding what goes on in journalism classes these days. An overhaul in the academy is a good idea too as far as I’m concerned. Journalists do regularly claim that they are trained to strive for objectivity. I recall Brit Hume said he knew Gwen Eiffel personally and believed her journalistic professionalism could overcome her book deal interests. Can I satisfy your objection by modifying that sentence to something like: Journalists are supposed to be trained to run the news straight down the middle?

          There is separate and distinct controversy over how the line between editorializing and reporting is presently smeared beyond recognition. But as regards the controversy involving rank bias affecting the MSM; I agree with you that is a rank problem. I disagreed with the solution.

          Look. I can’t say I know what the outcome would be if journalism schools teach objectivity as a cornerstone value and combine it with diversity as a necessary hedge. Maybe all the liberals would be exceedingly biased and all the conservatives would be objective, in which case diversity would not be much of a hedge. That result would require one to conclude that conservatives are good people and liberals are bad people. We presently have a 95% liberal MSM and as much as they disgust me I can’t say that 95% are bad people or bad journalists.

          So: objectivity in reporting is desirable; journalists should be trained to strive for it; human nature prevents its achievement; diversity is a good hedge.

          I think you are granting the first three, but perhaps we are still hung up over the last. Do you have any further arguments in favor of ideology being the best hedge here; or that diversity is not a good hedge?

          • bs

            …I was thinking about and referring to here

            I think you’re right.

          • E_Pluribus_Unum

            I believe diversity can be a great hedge. I take it you mean political (left-right) diversity, not racial or other demographic diversity. And I would grant you that there would be no effective charges of media bias if ABC, NBC, CBS, and the print groups like NYT, Time, etc, had a lineup that generously gave the right side a viewpoint (and I mean something approximating 50% exposure, not just a few conservatives on the fringes). Hearing both biases is a pretty good substitute for trying to have 100% of the newscasters do their best to be unbiased.

            Take a case in point, Fox News, in particular the evening tabloid line-up, but also including the news and newsmagazine shows.

            I don’t watch the evening stuff, because it too frequently devolves into everybody screaming and talking over each other. But it is a fact (in spite of what the lefties charge) that the left is very well represented. While the only righties we ever see on network TV are AT BEST token wussie moderates (notable exception: Joe Scarborough in MSLSD), FNC routinely gives us Barney Frank, Lanny Davis, Gerald Nadler, James Carville, and Charles Rangel.

            In addition, certain actual FNC people are notably left or center-left – Chris Wallace, Geraldo Riviera, Greta, Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Mort Kondracke, Nina Easton, ad I could just go on and on.

            Now, with all that mix, the station still leans rightward, but to tell the truth I draw a great deal of comfort in seeing that the lefties get a fair airing of their views.

            All the same, I still want to buy ABC, fire everybody in the news division, and populate it with conservatives.

  • Nelsen

    I think the key here is to perform the buyout without being known as a “conservative group”. Get some capital together from a number of conservatives (but not well known conservatives) and buy out the companies. Then just start reporting like your fair and balanced even though you lean a little to the right. Pretty soon we will already have turned the company around and ratings/circulation will be soaring.

    I think the NYT would be the way to start. If $1.1B is a correct estimate, this is extremelly attainable. It is common knowledge that they are hurting badly so it wouldn’t look as suspicious to buy them out. Then the key is to staff them with not well known, but very conservative writers and editors.

    Once we get our foot in the door with the NYT, then we can focus on the big prize: ABC. We will already be known as the company that turned around the Times, and now when we look to take over ABC, the MSM wouldn’t mind as much because we won’t be seen as a conservative group, just a good media investment company. Then after we’ve had ABC for a good chunk of time, we can turn up the conservative heat in the two outlets and bring out Rush, Hannity, O’Rielly, Jason Lewis, and the whole gang. The MSM wont know what him them.

    Also – After we’ve dominated that market, we can then work on the Washington Post, Yahoo, and Reuters.

    • E_Pluribus_Unum
      • John_E

        In point of fact ABC News would have to set out to turn over half its staff of reporters, producers, managers, editorialists etc. in order to bring about the diversity that is called for. Doubtful that a legacy president of ABC News is going to do that on his or her own initiative. It is the kind of goal setting that an owner could sincerely defend though, as being for the sake of the highest level of journalistic integrity. If we ever find our rich buyers that is what I hope they would do. Firing everyone would gratify my emotions but I don’t believe it would produce the most favorable result.

        Furthermore the diversity goal is just what CPB ought to require of NPR News and PBS in return for federal funding. In my meager way I’ve tried to get that point across to my Critters because I don’t know who else could drive that point home. But I don’t rate a listening ear.

        • E_Pluribus_Unum

          [rimshot on the pay/play thing......]

          I don’t represent my plan as free of issues. Kind of a ‘hey, let’s examine this idea because it intrigues me, might be possible on first examination, and has kind of a flavor of Klingon revenge’.

          I welcome the cross-examination, cheetah, and this is actually fun for me. That is what our side does – we flame-test our ideas and arguments. So kicking around your thoughts.

          • Keep in mind we are not talking about purchasing the ENTIRE liberal media, just a couple of key components.
          • Yes, I can see that a purchase had better be done on the sly, otherwise George Soros could just open his petty cash drawer, buy them in front of us, and the game would be over.
          • Here I see a critical difference between your thinking (along with our friend bs) and mine. I believe that the attendant bleating and caterwauling from the *rest* of the media would be met with alot of disdain from the public. In the final analysis, they can scream, berate, pass new regulations, whatever they want. And millions of Americans will continue to buy the NYT (including REGULAR America-loving people for the first time in awhile), tune in to ABC and watch Dancing With the Stars, Lost, and the rest, watch ABC News at 6pm, listen to ABC News on the radio just like they currently do.
          • In other words, let it be war. Screw them. Seriously: F them, big time. Let people hear OUR news and THEIR news, and they can decide what is accurate. ABC cannot be silenced, period, even if freaking Al Queda bought them.
          • Let the Obama administration kick the NYT and ABC off the White House press list and Air Force One. I dare them. They could do it to FNC, but ABC will have millions upon millions of watchers being told every night that the Obama administration has boycotted YOUR news. It’s hardball, baby. Let’s rumble.
          • If they view US as having accelerated partisanship and polarization, SO WHAT? We will have a major network and the biggest paper in the world to say otherwise. The current situation, where Rush and FNC are our only voice – that ain’t working.

          Anyway, those are my immediate thoughts.

          • E_Pluribus_Unum
          • E_Pluribus_Unum

            as per my notes to cheetah and bs above, I think I have been persuaded to that point of view.

          • seattle_ite

            So much for ‘Journalistic Integrity’ and ‘Investigative Reporting’. Only one worth listening to on 20/20 is Stossel.

          • cmugrad

            ….with the Class B shares being the ones that really control the company. Class A shares get you an ownership stake, but not much in the way of any input on how the Times is run. I believe the Sulzberger family owns something like 85% of all Class B shares, so even if you bought all of the outstanding Class A shares, I don’t believe you would be able to exert significant operational control over the Times.

          • Nelsen

            well that would be a problem…

          • John_E

            I’m thinking you do not thoughtfully mean that EPU. Do you want mulligan?

          • cmugrad

            ….going out in the market and buying up all the NYT stock. You would have to do something like what Murdoch did when he bought control over Dow Jones (WSJ)…he had to negotiate with different parts of the Bancroft family in order to buy Dow Jones since the family owned the controlling stake in that media outfit. I suspect that at some point in the past, Murdoch might have put out feelers to the Sulzberger clan in order to see if they had any interest in selling the NYT.

          • Cheetah772

            Thanks for replying back to my earlier post.

            But once again, I have to argue with you on “on the sly” angle.

            Here’s my thinking so far:

            Once it is known that there is a certain group that will attempt to buy out NYT, their names and profiles will be known. You cannot hide that long behind any kind of buyout, period. Once the group is known, then I will bet you my life savings, that media will do all it can do to “inform” public about the list of group’s members.

            If the group is large, then media will select one that’s more likely to stick in public’s mind, and pound the message home. I know, because that’s what I would do. In fact, since NYT is based in New York, it gives some crazy Democratic lawyers an opportunity to breath fire in the court, fighting against “Goliath”.

            It’s like playing chess. Your opponent will always react to every move you make. No plan survives initial contact with an enemy.

            My suggestion is: establish a new conservative media outlet in a single swing state — Colorado. Invest in this new company heavily and advertise it heavily as well. Contest every liberal newspaper and other outlets in the entire state of Colorado, right down to even rural areas. Do it again and again every year, until you hit on something that will get quick and excellent results.

            If you can’t buy out the market, then do your best in CORNERING it. Pull the rug out from the biggest liberal newspaper and news stations in Colorado. That will send media scrambling for cover and fight in Colorado. Make it a sort of Alamo, where the decisive shot will decide the entire game. If we win in Colorado, then you can bet we could do the same thing in other blue-leaning states. NYT isn’t the only culprit, there are others, you know. Start with the smaller ones first, then you will have a foundation to build upon.

            Even Jesus started out with just 12 disciples, He didn’t start with Pilate or other powerful figures who could change the scene…easily! He did it the hard way, so we must do the same way He did, politically and economically.

            In any case, you get my idea…

          • bs
          • mbecker908

            And, while I’m not sure of the exact percentage the family owns (it’s certainly well over 50% and your estimate of 85% could well be correct) I think there is no probability that they would sell to a buyer who could be called “conservative”. Or even “moderate”.

            It would take a total meltdown of the Times to even get the family thinking about a sale and the only way I see that happening is through tremendous pressure from it’s “non-voting” class through large organizational holders like CALPERS and ML and I don’t expect to see that happening soon.

          • melissaann

            How is it that The Republican Trust can raise millions in a couple of days in order to air Wright clips, and McCain can collect what he did during the election? Aren’t WE the same folks who donated to those groups? Why are we stopping now? SHOULDN’T WE BE WORKING UNDER AN EVEN GREATER SENSE OF URGENCY NOW THAN BEFORE THE ELECTION?? We should be ramming the background of EVERY ONE of BHO’s associates and friends down the throats of those people who voted for him. These people are not going to go away! BHO is dragging them out from under the bus right now and brushing them off, asking for forgiveness with the promise of a place in his royal court. Every time he goes back on a promise, proposes or signs off on another socialist policy, or when he brings Wright and Ayers and ACORN into OUR HOUSE for counsel, IT NEEDS TO BE TOLD. For God’s sake, do you think a few minds might be changed when they learn about his association with ACORN, and how he said in a speech to that group and others like it that when he wins they will be a part of making policy??

            I don’t give a rat’s rear-end who thinks I’m racist. I offend liberals for fun. I don’t care that BHO is president. I’ll walk up to strangers and hand them a pamphlet full of ALL OF THE DETAILS ABOUT THIS MAN THAT WERE PURPOSELY HIDDEN FROM AMERICANS BY THE MEDIA.

            Why don’t we start a website and have some of the talented writers on this site, along with major conservative writers and personalities write for it in newsletter form, and then WE can print them out and copy as many as we want and distribute them? No one has to be rich to help finance that. I’m not even working right now but you can be damn sure I’ll find $20 or $40 a month to make copies and put them into mailboxes. As readership grows, so will funding.

            Conservatives infiltrating the media is an excellent idea and a major concern. But we have to start NOW. Four years is not a long time and it’s up to US to swat those nauseating People Magazine cover images out of people’s minds with a dose of reality. Remember what we were able to do together with illegal amnesty?

        • LindaJanieBroussard

          While I understand your concerns, I must respectfully state that I think this issue is a tempest in a teapot.

          All audiovisual media outlets have one goal: to turn a profit. They air whatever gets the highest ratings, because the highest ratings translate into the highest advertising dollars. Since it?s all based on profit, I don’t see how we can divide the audiovisual media into Conservative or Liberal camps.

          Free college radio stations, there?s where you?ll find your GENUINE conservative and your GENUINE liberal media.

          I mean, if it?s media for money, how can it be truly Conservative or truly Liberal???

          Sean Hannity got over $10 million on his recent radio contract alone, and Rush made over $30 million in 2007. They made this money by sticking to a particular agenda; how can I trust Rush to be objective when he?s become so VERY rich by following ONE script? Same with Hannity.

          Keith Olbermann is getting paid to be a Liberal just like Sean and Rush are getting rich from being Conservatives. One ?newscaster,? one script. Different script, same adherence to what they?re getting paid to spout.

          As I said, if you?re getting rich by staying on script, why would you deviate? None of them have, and none of them will.

          So why believe anything any of them says? To me, that would be like hiring a gigolo and believing him when he tells me I look like Angelina Jolie. Hired help say what the boss wants to hear; all media blabbermouths are hired help, plain and simple.

          My solution is to get my news from a variety of print sources, foreign and domestic. It helps to be able to read a couple of languages besides English; I recommend French and Spanish; this way you can get all the European, all the Latin American and most of the African news in the language of the writer.

          It?s not hard to figure out what?s real and what?s hype once you develop the habit of critical thinking. Comparing a variety of sources, that?s the answer.

          Again, I mean no disrespect, but my personal opinion is that it is un-American to try to silence the opposition.

          Let everyone speak, and let the radical/extremist idiots fall by the wayside. I’m confident that they will, perhaps not as soon as some would like to see, but they will.

          • E_Pluribus_Unum

            Since I am proposing buying 1 TV network, 1 newspaper, and 1 newswire service, I’d sure like to know what part of that is silencing the opposition. As a conservative, I know exactly what being systematically silenced is like.

            And do you really think that NBC, ABC, CBS, and the New York Times are spouting leftist propaganda because that’s what the ratings indicate? I ask you, take a look at the 5-year financial and readership numbers for the NYT. Check out the evening news viewership numbers for the 3 TV networks over that same 5-year period.

            You will find that they are all losing money and losing viewers. They are not going to change because the entire majority media industry is soaked through and through with leftist ideology.

            You call blatant and endemic media left-bias a tempest in a teapot. I call it the fundamental reason that the left wins elections and the right gets blamed for everything bad.

          • E_Pluribus_Unum

            it looks meaty, but right now it’s Friday at 6:15, the pool halls and barmaids are calling…..

            Catch you in a day or so.

          • mbecker908

            And an effort at misdirection.

            First of all EPU is talking about the purchase of “news” outlets. You don’t address that subject at all. What you DO address is an attempt to pass off Rush, Hannity, Olberman, etal as “news” programs when they are not. They are “commentary” programs that make no effort to hide their biases.

            Your comment highlights the problem with the current liberal ownership and control of the news media. You folks seem to think that commentary passes for news reporting. It doesn’t. And the problem with the current MSM is that they’ve stopped reporting the news and have given themselves over to commenting on isolated events in a fashion that serves their bias. There is virtually no news in any major daily or on the networks, it’s all become nothing more than a platform for biased commentary being passed off to an ignorant public (thank you NEA and public education) as news reporting.

          • Hermes

            I shall be here, patiently lurking and tweaking libs who visit.

          • LindaJanieBroussard

            I misunderstood you based on your description of the problem and your proposed solution, “But this is my plan. Kill the beast.”

            That sounded to me like your goal was, indeed, to silence all who disagree; freedom of speech is, as we know, as American as it gets.

            I misunderstood you, that’s all. Sorry about that.

          • LindaJanieBroussard

            At the bottom, it says “Be respectful, or be banned.”

            The heading on your reply to my comment is “As usual, your liberal talking points are simply wrong.”

            There is nothing respectful about calling my comments “liberal talking points.”

            And there’s nothing “liberal” in the pejorative sense of the term in anything I said. You owe me an apology.

            Furthermore, who are you to define “news” for the rest of us? Sean Hannity breaks lots of news. Are you saying he?s just a ?commentator?? What about Bill O’Reilly? He provides a great deal of information; new information is news to me. Are you saying Bill O?Reilly is just a ?commentator?? I think highly of Bill O?Reilly and watch him often. Are you saying he?s just a talking head? I am well aware of his bias; I mentioned this in my original post; it doesn?t mean I can?t learn anything at all from the man. Good grief.

            Next question, should I sink to your level and say, “As usual, your rabid reactionary retort is simply wrong?”

            No, I?ll answer that myself: I don’t know you, can?t recall ever reading anything you wrote, so what right do I have to insult you? None, so I won?t.

            I?m looking for intelligent discourse; I am a conservative person; I make a comment; what I get in return is a string of insults. If you want to drive rational thinking off this website, you?re doing a pretty good job so far.

            “And an effort at misdirection”??? Mercy. This kind of talk — honest to God — this kind of talk reminds me of the stuff the 1960s Weather Underground and Hippie radicals would spout. I’m shocked.

          • chemjeff2

            This is an interesting idea but I doubt it would work. Here is what I see are the problems with it.

            1. As others have mentioned, the real problem is the ideological tilt of the journalism schools. I’m a good friend with a journalism professor of the old-school variety, and he laments that journalism schools nowadays tend not even to strive for objectivity, because it’s a futile mission. So even if the Conservative Cabal succeeds in buying NYT and AP, who is it going to hire to work there?

            2. The implicit assumption in all this is that if the Conservative Cabal succeeds in buying NYT, that the paper will remain ‘the paper of record’. It won’t. It will become the journalism pariah of the rest of the MSM and the next paper of record will become…oh I don’t know…maybe the Chicago Tribune?

            3. This strategy seems to resemble the left’s strategy w.r.t. Air America. That is, if we only put enough money and effort into challenging the liberal hegemony in the MSM on their turf, we will be successful for sure! Well guess what. Even a $50B investment capital fund is peanuts compared to the totality of the resources that the MSM already has invested in its enterprise.

            I think a strategy that has a greater chance of being successful is the ‘subversion from within’ strategy. Let’s start a conservative scholarship fund for journalism school students. It shouldn’t be overtly conservative, because that won’t expand the talent pool – that will only help students who are already conservative, and we’ve already got them! We want to subtly convert the wishy-washy on-the-fence types to our side. You know, scholarships like those offered by AAUW (American Association of University Women). We all know that AAUW isn’t going to offer a scholarship to a conservative pro-life activist, especially when, for every one application they receive like this, they get 10 others that are equally meritorious in terms of academic achievement but are also in agreement with AAUW’s ideological bias. So let’s start something like the ‘Liberty Fund’ where the objective is to promote academic excellence in the reporting of issues surrounding individual liberty (hey, it’s a conservative value!). I think that’s the idea.

            Anyway, it is an interesting idea and I think we should definitely work towards expanding conservatism’s appeal in the MSM.

          • Section9

            Credit’s a bit hard to get right now, but I’m sure that someone out there is sayin’ that if you can do it, go right ahead.

            http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/section9/PalinWink.jpg

            You betcha….

            Look, don’t think that the Lazy Man’s way of “buying up the Media” is going to change the Guevarist Leftism of the MSM Kultur. It won’t. The New York Times will remain what it is, we just have to let it die a natural death and create alternatives that become more attractive to more readers.

            Oh, and don’t try to change Hollywood. Eventually, Hollywood will go where the money is.

          • drawlings

            This is a great idea. Let’s get started. How do we contribute to the buyout of the left wing media??

          • John_E

            From the WaPo’s ombudsman’s column 11/14/08. H/t Brent Baker.

            Tom Rosenstiel, a former political reporter who directs the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said, "The perception of liberal bias is a problem by itself for the news media. It’s not okay to dismiss it. Conservatives who think the press is deliberately trying to help Democrats are wrong. But conservatives are right that journalism has too many liberals and not enough conservatives. It’s inconceivable that that is irrelevant."

            <snip>

            Are there ways to tackle this? More conservatives in newsrooms and rigorous editing would be two. The first is not easy: Editors hire not on the basis of beliefs but on talent in reporting, photography and editing, and hiring is at a standstill because of the economy. But newspapers have hired more minorities and women, so it can be done.

            Rosenstiel said, "There should be more intellectual diversity among journalists. More conservatives in newsrooms will bring about better journalism. We need to be more vigilant and conscious in looking for bias. Our aims are pure, but our execution sometimes is not. Staff members should feel in their bones that unfairness will never be tolerated."

            We should be putting our energies into pushing this angle EPU. There is a leak in the dyke as a result of the present excesses. If we all rush into to this hole we just might bust through.

            It is much more realistic than buying MSMs "on the sly" which is neither possible nor fitting for honest and trustworthy conservatives.

          • Dave_in_Fla

            He gives hard polling results that dispute the assertions of this ombudsman. He might want to wave his hands a pretend that bias doesn’t exist, but the public isn’t buying it.

          • John_E

            Thanks for the link. I don’t like where he suggests it can be dismissed. It still has a major effect on public opinion. And I don’t think we can afford to be complacent about its effect into the future.

            The WaPo ombudsman has been calling the paper out for its biased reporting this election cycle. I learned about this from Bozell’s NewsBusters site. Of course she doesn’t admit that it is a conspired bias. But she appears to admit that reporter’s preference have a biasing effect which is compounded by their overwhelmingly liberal makeup.

            So Deborah Howell, the WaPo’s ombudsman is not waving off bias. Quite to the contrary, she is admitting it and proposing measures to address it. Hiring more conservative journalists in order to create a balancing diversity in the newsroom is a solution she puts on the table. Perhaps I haven’t communicated that adequately so I urge you to read the links. I really don’t understand why you are making the claim that she is pretending that the bias doesn’t exist.

          • Dave_in_Fla

            “Conservatives who think the press is deliberately trying to help Democrats are wrong.”

            As far as hiring more conservative journalists, good luck. Not many of those coming out of J-school.

          • E_Pluribus_Unum

            If people start sending me money, you’ll never get me out of the pool hall.

          • John_E

            That line is from a person the ombudsman is quoting. In my experience, most conservative reporters take that line as well, because they believe in journalistic professional integrity. And of course no decent journalist could defend Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman as good reporters.

            I don’t think Bozell asserts that most reporters — as opposed to commentators, and the dividing line has been badly smeared by “analysis” — deliberately act out their bias. Perhaps on a cruise you could ask him what he thinks about that particular sentence of Rosensteil’s as well as he larger context of the quote.

            Are you seeking to reopen the argument I had with EPU above and offering to demonstrate that conservatives qua conservatism are good and honest and liberals qua liberalism are bad and dishonest?

            As for the lack of conservative journalists, the remedy for that is directly under conservative’s sphere of influence.

          • Dave_in_Fla

            I believe reporters, editors and publishers are operating in a biased manner deliberately due to both cultural ethos and financial motivation. Republicans will not reimpose the fairness doctrine, eliminating their major competition, but Democrats might.

            As for J-school, you will need to better explain your thought, since the process for conservatives gaining the ability to shape the curriculum and admission practices at Columbia School of Journalism are somewhat obscure to me.

          • John_E

            I’m just saying that more conservatives can choose to enter the journalism profession. The Columbia School of Journalism isn’t the only ticket, but getting accepted and making it through there doesn’t automatically turn a conservative into a liberal. And it isn’t even necessary — some even say it is undesirable — to have a journalism degree in order to become a top rate journalist. And if the affirmative action program conceived by Howell is amplified into an industry trend, then conservatives are going to have a leg up in this profession.

            That would be our politicians reinstating the putrid Fairness Doctrine, not the MSM.

            Now when you say "I believe reporters, editors, and publishers are operating in a biased manner deliberately…" Would that be all, most or some? Would that apply only to liberals, only conservatives, or both? And once so qualified that would still be a generalized claim. How would we go about proving or disproving it? Have you got a generalized argument based on a principle? Or perhaps you are going to derive a general rule from specific observations.

            We might agree the evidence shows that NBC News and more particularly MSNBC has tried to position itself alternatively to FOX News for business reasons. Or that Daniel Schorr is still maimed by a hatred of Republicans because Nixon put him on his enemies list. Or that Seymour Hersh is a conspiracy theorist. But I don’t see how we prove that Bill Keller is deliberately violating his avowed journalistic creed without a confession. Now I don’t like what Bill Keller has done. And he betrays reason when he argues that I’m biased but he is not. Presuming superiority is not becoming. But I don’t see how we are going to show that he is deliberately violating his journalistic integrity while he denies it.

            And then how shall we decipher the deliberation to deceive in the MSM at large?  We now have Howell and Rosenstiel identifying effective bias while maintaining that it is not deliberate. How does that comport with your theory? Is that just a slyly concocted feint by which they have conspired to maintain their deliberate deception? Brit Hume and Bernie Goldberg have long been saying that there is effective bias but that it is not customarily deliberate. Are they part of the conspiracy?

            The public can see a general effect of bias. Journalists themselves are recognizing and acknowledging the effect. Its about time. That is creating a real constructive opportunity to improve upon a structural deficiency in the MSM. But identifying the cause as a conspiratorial deliberate motivation to deceive is calling all these journalist liars. That is simply destructive. It is missing a real opportunity. I share all your frustrated spite for what we on the right have suffered at the hands of the MSM. I understand the desire to pay them back in kind. But just look how quickly that devolves into to talk of us operating on the sly. No good.

          • Hermes

            Reflecting on your position, I agree now that a more aggressive media strategy might well be a solid “short term” solution to the problem, while my strategy is more of a “beat them to the next generation” kind of thing. Both could definitely be enacted at the same time with the right momentum. Building that momentum is what matters.

            Hope you had a great weekend!

  • Hermes

    While I admire your boldness, it is, I feel, misplaced. As has been pointed out by you and others, media bias is clearly perceived in the US. Simply having another outlet to shout that message from the rooftops is not really going to change anything.

    Additionally, the “buyout” strategy has already been put into effect. Fox News, the NY Post, the Washington Times, numerous magazines, radio, etc. It creates some counterbalance to left-wing media; not a lot, but enough.

    I believe that the problem isn’t which party controls the media, it’s that the media is controlled at all. Since at least 1900, the number of corporations controlling the media has grown smaller and smaller. By 2008, we find only a few, enormous corporations control the information that we are provided with daily. Much like the banking industry, it’s a race to see who will be the last one standing, Rupert Murdoch or Sumner Redstone. Winner takes all. So my response to your plan would be to divest control of media from major corporations and restore them to small business or local control. When one company owns more than one media outlet, that becomes a problem. Examples of single corporations having too much power are Redstone’s CBS Viacom and the Gannett newspaper empire.

    I’d prefer to take your $50 billion and set-up swathes of new conservative-leaning universities. Sure, Liberty, VMI, the Citadel, Regis, Dartmouth, Ave Maria, University of Dallas, Franciscan University of Steubenville, the Service Academies, and a few other state schools are great and all, but they aren’t making the impact that the huge number of leftist staffed universities are. The universities are going to be the key to bringing the next generation back into the fold or at least giving them some sense of moderation in their political views rather than the fairly left-leaning views that they are developing now.

    Does that mean that you can’t get a good education at, say, Tulane? Not at all. Just because a prof is a flaming lefty does not mean that they aren’t a fine educator. The best political science prof that I’ve ever worked with is an avowed Marxist constitutional law scholar. Her talking points made me LEARN the Constitution back and front because I knew that my arguments had to be perfect or she’d tear them apart. Despite this, too much of a good thing is always bad and a faculty lacking political diversity is going to wind up becoming an echo-chamber. Students need to hear more than one viewpoint. You could seize the next generation for conservatism by investing your $50 billion in universities.

    • LeaderDesslok

      This is a great idea. If it succeeds, left-wing journalist students will see their already ever-diminishing prospects turn so sour as to prompt them to reconsider their intended careers, thinning out their ranks over time. Discord will break out among the entrenched leftist media themselves (who aren’t bought out and canned) as they begin to feel real pressure and anxiety about their own prospects. Granted, there is no guarantee at all that whatever media organizations are bought will directly make money, but it doesn’t take a genius to know that if you control the things that prompt people’s thoughts, you’ll have a pretty good clue where to put the rest of your money so as to attain profit.

  • Nelsen

    And I don’t got answers for all of them, but as for where to should get to be reporters for the new stations, just look for current talk radio hosts in the individual markets. There are planty of good ones that would love to get over to TV, like Jason Lewis in Minnesota, but can’t becasue the liberal local stations won’t let him anywhere near them. These are the people we would need to get, real conservatives with a resentment to the traditional media.

  • JPH

    I think this could be doable at a much lower cost. We don’t need to buy them all out, just enough to get a strong foothold. if we buy ABC and WaPo, that’ll put us into the MSM and put pressure on the rest of them to get with the program. At least it will slow down their ability to churn out Known Facts on the double.

    P.S. For those doubting Thomases who tend to minimize the impact of the media, allow me to show you an example from today’s news.

    AP:

    In his first two weeks as president-elect, Obama has struck a bipartisan tone. He paired a Republican and a Democrat to meet with foreign leaders this weekend on his behalf in Washington, for example, and his aides emphasized the bringing together of both sides in announcing the meeting with McCain.

    This is picked up and repeated thousands of times by local rags, broadcasts and programs. Average Joe reads this and nods his head, saying “wow, look how bipartisan Obama is” And so, the Known Fact “Obama=Bipartisan” is born.

    What the AP doesn’t tell Average Joe is that the “Republican” chosen by Obama is Jim Leach, who endorsed Obama during the campaign and spoke at the convention in Denver. He also voted against the Iraq War, the Bush tax cuts and threatened to leave the Republican caucus among other things. Choosing a (supposed) R who supported your campaign is not bipartisanship and the AP knows it, but hey, fooled you once shame on me, fooled you twice (or a million times) shame on you.

  • JakePrime

    The non-political sections that is. The Times is probably the default news resource for schools across the country. If we could change just one publication, it would be my choice. The AP has more influence, but the level of bias is less. Besides, I’d love to see Krugman writing cover letters instead of columns.

  • John_E

    Conservatism — I suppose we are talking in terms of ideology now which could become a tangential can of worms; I hope we avoid — places a high value on honesty.

    I accept that claim.

    Liberalism does not value honesty and routinely resorts to dishonesty.

    I challenge the claim that Liberalism is ideologically committed to dishonesty. Can you show that? As a counterclaim I observe that the left and the right both routinely misbehave.

    My own argument starts with the claim that ideologies have at least this in common: human beings are their host.

    Now human beings are wondrous but flawed creatures. Our knowledge is limited. We are  tempted by power. We have preferences of which we can certainly have unconscious influence.

    When we look at our politicians we find corrupt conservatives and corrupt liberals. I conclude that is because they are all subject to the common human frailties which are not eliminated by ideologies.

    Journalist are trained to try to run news straight down the middle. I say they can’t do it because they are human beings. They have gut-level preferences and their ideological political affiliation is one of them. Ideologies don’t perfect human beings.

    Do you challenge that claim?

    We have conservative journalists. Are they all perfectly straight down the middle? We have liberal journalists. Are they all dishonest?

    If we set out to make a list of all the journalists who are  "straight down the middle" who shall we put on it?

  • E_Pluribus_Unum

    Humans are flawed and biased, and it would be impossible to guarantee the elimination of bias.

    But yes, I DO want to challenge at least 2 things that you more or less dare me to challenge. First item:

    I challenge the claim that Liberalism is ideologically committed to dishonesty. Can you show that? As a counterclaim I observe that the left and the right both routinely misbehave.

    OK, is it not sufficient for me to say ‘look at this year’s election’? Please tell me you don’t need chapter and verse. But just a couple of nuggets: ACORN, and the national media’s huge, systematic, and unfair push to get Obama and Democrats elected.

    That there is some misbehavior on the right I do not deny, but it is TOTALLY FALSE to suggest that the RAMPANT vote-stealing, registration fraud, and thuggery and vandalism by the left at every level has REMOTELY an equivalent on the right. No chance. Nope.

    Second item:

    Journalist are trained to try to run news straight down the middle. I say they can’t do it because they are human beings. They have gut-level preferences and their ideological political affiliation is one of them. Ideologies don’t perfect human beings.

    Do you challenge that claim?[bolding by EPU]

    Yes I do – the section I have bolded, I do. My friend, you should drop in on the journalism schools at all the major universities. They are leftist indoctrination camps. They are definitively NOT trained to provide unbiased news. They are trained to use their position and influence to move the viewer and reader leftward.

  • Extex

    YES! YES! YES! Just one of the major networks and the NYT!

    I will never understand why CBS is not CONSERVATIVE NOW- They are such a poor third in the LIBERAL ratings race.

    Dig it- **Rush doin’ the CBS Evening News (or Brit) and Michelle Malkin and Sean Hannity doin’ the Morning Show!!!!

    Oh hel1 YEAH!

  • johninca

    …and I speak as one who has been praying daily for our national liberation from liberal media tyranny.

  • E_Pluribus_Unum

    I will also admit that the statement “Kill the beast” is more of a throwaway line than anything else – it does not fit the rest of the diary or ‘the plan’, so was apt to be misleading.