Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on January 27, 2009 By Draginol In Politics

Last week I wrote an article detailing just how far left Time Magazine is.  My objection isn't that these media outlets are biased, my objection is their insistence that they are "objective" and "balanced" which they most certainly are not.

American liberals tend to foam at the mouth about the existence of FOX News, a center-right media outlet but are often oblivious or in aggressive denial that MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Newsweek, Time, Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, etc. are all as far left as Fox News is right.

Liberals are quick to talk about how you can't get your news from Fox but see nothing wrong with regurgitating quotes from the latest issue of Newsweek or 60 minutes.

This week, I'll walk through Newsweek -- as seen through the eyes of a conservative...

image

Read on...

Starting with the cover we see scary pictures of Dick Cheney.

Now, to the left, Dick Cheney is a kind of boogeyman.  And what did Dick Cheney do to deserve that? Did he institute the draft? Throw people in prison for simply disagreeing with American foreign policy? Send American citizens who happened to have ancestors who came from countries we were at war with? Nope. Oh wait, it was Democratic Presidents who did all those things (Wilson and FDR).

No, Dick Cheney is a villain to the left because...he doesn't think waterboarding is torture and, like most of congress, thinks it is okay if the government listens in on phone conversations of suspected terrorists calling in from overseas.  Am I missing something? Maybe something about Iraq where he, like the Demcorats, believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Or maybe because he believed that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing?

I dunno what the left's issue with Cheney is to be honest. American liberals get hysterical at the drop of a hat anyway.

The Editor's Desk...

The lead editorial could be summarized with this interesting and unintentional admission:

To his [Cheney's] fans (a small but devoted bunch) Dick Cheney is a bulwark against the forces of darkness. To his foes (and they are legion), he is darkness.

I am sure if you live your life in a liberal bubble, Cheney is universally loathed with only a few kooks supporting him.  But outside that bubble, you will find that most conservatives approve of him just as most liberals disapprove of him.

After all, even Bush, who I certainly don't approve of, still managed to eek out a 30% or so approval rating. And Cheney has consistently had a higher approval rating than Bush.

The problem with Newsweek is again, they are blind to their own bias.  They are in such a bubble. It's sort of like when Harry Reid accused Cheney of having an only 9% approval rating when in fact it was much higher -- which is amazing considering how negative the reporting on him has been consistently.

Turning the page...

Newsweek has a lot of pretty vapid coverage compared to the others. 

Unlike Time, which tends to have liberal editorial, Newsweek is far far more guilty of liberal assumptions about the world.  I.e. liberal beliefs posed as facts.

Page 8, for instance says "Even some Republicans are anticipating a love fest at Clinton's confirmation hearing.." 

WOW.

Conventional [liberal] wisdom

When I used to subscribe to Newsweek, one of the first signs that the magazine was turning into a left-wing propaganda outlet was in the Conventional Wisdom area. It's a series of up and down arrows of various items of the week.  I kept noticing that no matter what, conservatives were always given down arrows. 

I had been a reader of Newsweek since high school when I was not political at all. As Newsweek became increasingly left, I just kept noticing that it its judgments didn't seem to make any rational sense.

This week, for instance, Israel gets a down arrow because of the (their words) "Gaza Invasion".

Moving to page 13...

Moving past various Apple related news, we get to an article titled "Traffic Jam? Blame Bush."

Putting aside the fact that the article isn't newsworthy and is just a petty shot at Bush, the content of it is ridiculous. Basically, the Obama family having to move to the White House is causing traffic jams and this is Bush's fault because he didn't let the Obama family move into the Blair house early because it had already been booked previously. Talk about going to great lengths to blame Bush.

Obama's Cheney Dilemma

I won't bother to nitpick this article. It can be summed up that Cheney increased the power of the executive and will Obama be able to resist the temptation to make use of all these new powers?

The Big Idea: The Enigma in Chief

Jacob Weisberg's article on Bush's legacy strikes the tone for the whole magazine.  It makes some typically left-wing assumptions as fact errors such as:

Bush's three most obvious legacies are his decisio to invade Iraq, his framing of a global war on terror after September 11 and a massive financial crisis. Each of these constitutes a separate epic in presidential misjudgment.

Really?  I think not.

I think it equally likely that Bush will be remembered for his response to the 9/11 Terrorist Attack by setting up a series of government agencies and programs that resulted in zero new attacks during his administration, toppled a hostile regime in Iraq and replaced it with one friendly to the United States that was relatively painless to the United States. And he led the way in making the American people and congress aware of the financial crisis and pushed through quickly the means for the government to try to solve it.

But the thing is, I'm biased. The difference is, I'll admit it.  I am biased.  Newsweek plays the game that they're somehow reasonable, objective people offering analysis and they're not.

The article even states:

Among Presidential Historians, it is hardly an eccentric view that 43 ranks as America's worst President ever.

Oh come on. What Presidential Historian? No serious one.

Bush is bad compared to Woodrow Wilson? A man who got us into an unnecessary war, forced hundreds of thousands of Americans into the armed forces where over a hundred thousand died and jailed people for protesting the war?

Bush is as bad as Johnson? A man who got us into the Vietnam war, forcing over a million Americans into the armed forces where 60,000+ Americans died? Created an endless series of entitlement programs that have spent trillions of dollars with almost nothing to show for it except a welfare state with no limit to its appetite?

Worse than Buchanan, whose actions and lack of action helped lead to the Civil War?

And so on where we could add Jimmy Carter, Andrew Johnson, John Tyler?

But in the liberal bubble that is Newsweek, Bush is one of the worst Presidents.  I'd expect that kind of provincialism from say the Huffington Post or the DailyKos but from a so-called serious journalistic outlet? No.

Judgment Calls: Obama's Healthy Choices

Now here is an article that is contrary to much of Newsweek, it actually calls into question some of the left-wing assumptions that the rest of Newsweek's editors seem to have.

The article isn't really conservative or liberal, it is just pointing out why our insurance is so expensive and how hard it would be for us to fix it or even to try to be like Canada or Europe because we expect so much more from our health care providers than what people in Europe and Canada expect.

The rest of the issue goes into entertainment and other non-political areas except for...

The Last Word

Which sometimes has a conservative columnist (George Will) but this week has Anna Quindlen whose article is effectively an Obama pep talk. Utterly vapid and unimaginative, it is an open love letter to President Obama with little care whether we, the reader, have any interest in the topic.


Comments (Page 1)
on Jan 28, 2009

To be fair, though, Newsweek (despite the name) isn't really a reliable news source, for many of the reasons you've stated.

on Jan 28, 2009

Fantastic analysis, again. 

 

on Jan 28, 2009

I admire your willingness to offer help to Newsweek.  God knows they need it.

The arrival of the weekly edition used to be eagerly anticipated & I would read it cover-to-cover.  But it got so bad I told 'em to stuff it more than 2 years ago & don't miss it at all.

on Jan 28, 2009

I think it equally likely that Bush will be remembered for his response to the 9/11 Terrorist Attack by setting up a series of government agencies and programs that resulted in zero new attacks during his administration

I didn't realise attacks of the 9/11 proportion (or even just smaller ones) were such a common occurance!

toppled a hostile regime in Iraq and replaced it with one friendly to the United States that was relatively painless to the United States

Iraq has been relatively painless to the US? Could've fooled me! Sure it hasn't been a Vietnam, but neither has it been a "mission accomplished" quick success story. But I'd agree in part, in that one of Bush's lasting legacies will almost certainly be Iraq.

he led the way in making the American people and congress aware of the financial crisis and pushed through quickly the means for the government to try to solve it

And clearly did a great job!

Legacies will almost certainly be results based. Looking at bushes economic results, something tells me his economic legacy will be a negative one, not a positive one.

I'll admit it.  I am biased.  Newsweek plays the game that they're somehow reasonable, objective people offering analysis and they're not.

True, but herein lies a problem - if you are 'right-wing' biased, then if you see a more centre-ground article/policy/statement, you're probably more likely to view that as left wing due to your right-wing bias. Hence some articles that might be roughly centre-ground might confirm to you that the publication is left wing. I'm certainly not saying that's the case with newsweek, but it is a potential issue, since for example for quite a few of the articles in newsweek you are giving your own summary of their contents as examples of bias, and only occassionally giving direct quotes to back this up.

on Jan 28, 2009

Maudlin: Whatever.

on Jan 28, 2009

Draginol
Maudlin: Whatever.

I see you've been working on making your arguments even more convincing!

on Jan 28, 2009

You just aren't interested in disucssing a given topic but rather getting into some side discussion.

If you want to argue that Newsweek isn't left-wing then say that and argue that.  

But arguing, issues that weren't even part of the discussion (like your whole comment which is just you disagreeing with what I wrote on Bush -- right after I wrote "But the thing is, I'm biased. The difference is, I'll admit it.  I am biased.  Newsweek plays the game that they're somehow reasonable, objective people offering analysis and they're not."

I'm saying Newsweek is left-of-center overall. Your posts almost always make an obvious point that everyone else already recognizes.  Gee, would a purely center-of-the-road magazine appear left of where I stand? Duh.

 

on Jan 29, 2009

You just aren't interested in disucssing a given topic but rather getting into some side discussion

Strange, I could've sworn the topic was that newsweek was biased (and not even just biased, but 'as far left as fox is right') despite claiming to be objective, and I was pointing out the flaws in some of the 'examples' you were giving to back up such claims (of their bias) - to me that's not a side discussion, that's the actual heart of the discussion. You suggested the topics they selected as likely legacies were an example of bias, and gave your own that you thought "equally likely" - which weren't exactly hard to discredit. Meanwhile many of the other examples aren't quotes, but are your own summation of whats in there, and as you say, you're biased. Giving a biased spin on an article and then using it as evidence of that article/publication's bias is akin to a circular argument.

on Jan 29, 2009

No Maudin, you just have incredibly poor reading comprehension.

on Jan 29, 2009

Maudlin,

For your comments on the 'mission accomplish' banner.  Bush did apologize for it and actually commented that he regretted the banner being there.

Maudlin, also your comment about Iraq appear to make it seem like we're losing in Iraq or something.  If you follow the media in the States especially CNN it appears that we are getting our butts kicked during the whole war. 

An example of this biasness in the news is the sending of pizzas to Baghdad on the 4th of July. CNN reported that the reason for this was to celebrate the 4th. Which is not a down right lie, but it is very MISLEADING and done on purpose. The real reason was that it was for the largest re-enlistment ceremony ever! 1,215 uniformed service men and women chose to re-enlisted. CNN was not the only major news outlet that failed to report this. Many of the major ones failed to as well.

Now, why did I share this? Not only to show the bias of the media, but to also show that if the Iraq war was going as horrible as CNN makes it out to be then why would over 1,000 men and women re-enlist to a lost cause?

Brad, I feel you were very clear about your point that Newsweek tries to come off as a reliable news source.  It was very reliable about 10 years ago then it started going to the left. Not that this is necessarily bad, but the fact that they still parade around as if they are a very credible news outlet.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the purpose of this article was to show that due to the fact that Newsweek has a leftist leaning glasses on that's how they are going to view things.

I miss the days when journalism use to just report the story without any bias and allowed the reader to disseminate the information provide instead of manipulating the story in order to parade it around as if it is a geniune fact causing the lepton people to accept it AS IS.

Before I forget for your reading pleasure: http://urbanlegends.about.com/bl_largest_re-enlistment_ceremony_ever.htm

on Jan 29, 2009

Now, why did I share this? Not only to show the bias of the media, but to also show that if the Iraq war was going as horrible as CNN makes it out to be then why would over 1,000 men and women re-enlist to a lost cause?

Sadly, they'd rather report that 2008 saw a higher suicide rate among acdu military, as was reported today.  Not just report, but trumpet.  No real critical analysis, just a comparison to the suicide rate in the general population, rather than males of the same age range (the military's still overwhelmingly young males).

on Jan 30, 2009

I admire your willingness to offer help to Newsweek. God knows they need it.
The arrival of the weekly edition used to be eagerly anticipated & I would read it cover-to-cover. But it got so bad I told 'em to stuff it more than 2 years ago & don't miss it at all.

We did the exact same thing at about the same time!  He picked up a copy while traveling on business to give it another chance and this article is about his findings.

on Feb 17, 2009

I think Jimmy Carter was and is the worst President.

There were presidents who did worse, but I don't doubt that they struggled before they made those decisions. Carter was always quick to make the wrong decision and delay making any decision when delay was needed to make things worse.

Even today he cannot seem to find a murderour dictator he doesn't like. So some people say that he is a man of peace and just happens to like everyone. But this is not so, as Jimmy Carter always found people he didn't like. Of course, most of those tended to be middle-eastern Jews.

And now I read this:

Last month, Mr. Carter termed the American and Israeli government's boycott of the Hamas-led Palestinian government "criminal."

(Note that he did find someone who does things he considers "criminal". If a Jew refuses to talk to someone who openly calls for Jews to be gassed, the Jew is "criminal".)

In April of 1979, the first fully democratic election in Zimbabwe history's occurred. Of the eligible black voters, 64% participated, braving the threat of terrorist attacks by Mr. Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front party, which managed to kill 10 people. Prior to the election, Mr. Mugabe had issued a death list with 50 individuals he named as "traitors, fellow-travelers, and puppets of the Ian Smith regime, opportunistic running-dogs and other capitalist vultures." Nevertheless, Bishop Abel Muzorewa of the United Methodist Church emerged victorious and became prime minister of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, as the new country was called.

Yet the Carter administration, led by the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Andrew Young, would have none of it. Mr. Young referred to Mr. Muzorewa, one of the very few democratically elected leaders on the African continent, as the head of a "neo-fascist" government. Mr. Carter refused to meet Mr. Muzorewa when the newly elected leader visited Washington to seek support from our country, nor did he lift sanctions that America had placed on Rhodesia as punishment for the colony's unilateral declaration of independence from the British Empire in 1965.

(I find it unlikely that Mr Bush can even compete with Jimmy Carter when it comes to worst President ever.)

Since Mr. Carter was thrown out of office by the American people in 1980, he has spent his post-presidential years lecturing others on morality. The same year Mr. Carter lost a democratic election, Mr. Mugabe ascended to power in a violently flawed one. Yet over the past 27 years Mr. Mugabe has escaped being a target of Mr. Carter's frequent hectoring.

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/carters-role-in-zimbabwe/58232/

Now perhaps I am just a disgruntled Republican (after all, would a Democrat even care about an African country), perhaps that is all.

Or perhaps a man like Jimmy Carter, who accepted a Nobel Peace Price without ever managing to make peace between any two parties and without even acknowledging that for peace it is necessary for one side to accept the other side's right to exist, is scum.

And the same goes for Al Gore who likewise accepted a Nobel Peace Price without ever doing anything for peace. I respected the man. I supported him in 2000 because I thought George Bush would turn out to be a crazy Creationist and because I figured that Bill Clinton's Vice President was a good man. At least Jimmy Carter never disappointed me.

But perhaps President Obama can manage to get a Nobel Peace Price in a few years, possibly after invading Pakistan.

 

 

 

on Feb 17, 2009

Leauki you lost a ton of points from me by saying you voted for Gore....im sooo sorry

on Feb 17, 2009

Iraq has been relatively painless to the US? Could've fooled me! Sure it hasn't been a Vietnam, but neither has it been a "mission accomplished" quick success story. But I'd agree in part, in that one of Bush's lasting legacies will almost certainly be Iraq.

I think it is time for liberals to learn more about Iraq, possibly go and see for themselves. Too many rely on champaign journalists sitting in expensive hotels in the Green Zone making up stories about the rest of the country.

 

Meta
Views
» 566
Comments
» 17
Category
Sponsored Links