The war on Fox. Does Canadian media tend to lean one way?

[steven lloyd]

Winston Churchill once said, "show me a young conservative and I'll show you a person with no heart... show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains". With age comes maturity!

Do tell.

[quietlywatching84]

What churchill really said is

"A socialist before thirty has no heart, a socialist after thirty has no brain" or something like that.

He said nothing about liberalism (in that quote).

I'm glad were all changing historical quotes whenever we feel like it.

[quietlywatching84]

It is actually very entertaining to watch the same story being covered by CNN as opposed to how it is covered by Fox. At least Fox makes no bones about their being a right wing network. For whatever reason left leaning networks like the CNN and CBC always try and hide their letist bias and pretend to be non partisan. That is what gets to me. I don’t mind that the CBC is leftist to the core but it drives me insane how they try to pretend otherwise.

You are right and the reason is revealing. Right-leaning networks admit their bias because they understand that we all have biases. The left don't, but not because they are trying to hide it; they truly believe that being left-wing is non-partisan and unbiased, that it is the position of any sentient being, and that to hold an alternate view is evidence of biased thinking -- meaning, usually, thinking that has been distorted to serve the interests of the corporate agenda, the oil industry, the military-industrial complex and other such leftist shibboleths. The Left believes part of its mission is to 'correct' this distortion in the corporate-controlled flow of information by presenting the unbiased truth. So there is no bias to admit!

Please cite a robust source...

[Homeownertoo]

... At least Fox makes no bones about their being a right wing network. For whatever reason left leaning networks like the CNN and CBC always try and hide their letist bias and pretend to be non partisan....

You are right and the reason is revealing. Right-leaning networks admit their bias because they understand that we all have biases. The left don't, but not because they are trying to hide it; they truly believe that being left-wing is non-partisan and unbiased, that it is the position of any sentient being, and that to hold an alternate view is evidence of biased thinking -- meaning, usually, thinking that has been distorted to serve the interests of the corporate agenda, the oil industry, the military-industrial complex and other such leftist shibboleths. The Left believes part of its mission is to 'correct' this distortion in the corporate-controlled flow of information by presenting the unbiased truth. So there is no bias to admit!

Please cite a robust source...

Sorry to disappoint you but this is not a Wikipedia fact cited from some 'robust' source. It's an opinion (obviously) drawn from nearly four decades of observation, including a good decade spent on the left (complete with card-carrying credentials), a half-decade of indoctrination in leftwing thought at the mercy of university professors, and a quarter-century spent working within a largely leftwing media.

If you have been there and emerged from it, you would find it remarkable how little self-awareness exists within the left, and how much such people regard their beliefs as the natural way of the world that should be shared by every intelligent person.

A little more robust quiet watching might lead to a better understanding of this process.

[Glacier]

What churchill really said is

"A socialist before thirty has no heart, a socialist after thirty has no brain" or something like that.

He said nothing about liberalism (in that quote).

I'm glad were all changing historical quotes whenever we feel like it.

Churchill did not say that nor the quote melwilde put forward.

[ILBT uh-huh]

In 1937 George Orwell said "The typical Socialist is... a prim little man with a white collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings , with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting".

The more things change...

[quietlywatching84]

What churchill really said is

"A socialist before thirty has no heart, a socialist after thirty has no brain" or something like that.

He said nothing about liberalism (in that quote).

I'm glad were all changing historical quotes whenever we feel like it.

Churchill did not say that nor the quote melwilde put forward.

Indeed, you are most correct. That's very interesting. I actually mentioned Thomas Jefferson in that post because I just so happened to come across the same phenomenon with him recently: (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp This one has been popping up with the bank bailouts to the south).

If you have been there and emerged from it, you would find it remarkable how little self-awareness exists within the left, and how much such people regard their beliefs as the natural way of the world that should be shared by every intelligent person.

A little more robust quiet watching might lead to a better understanding of this process.

You're right, but you only give one side of the argument. The left believes they're correct. The right believes they're correct as well. I just find that obvious. Political beliefs are exactly that: your beliefs. I just thing it is unfair to blast one side, while disregarding the other.

[Homeownertoo]

If you have been there and emerged from it, you would find it remarkable how little self-awareness exists within the left, and how much such people regard their beliefs as the natural way of the world that should be shared by every intelligent person.

You're right, but you only give one side of the argument. The left believes they're correct. The right believes they're correct as well. I just find that obvious. Political beliefs are exactly that: your beliefs. I just thing it is unfair to blast one side, while disregarding the other.

Of course both sides believe they are correct, or else they would move on over to the other side. My point, however, was that they perceive each other profoundly differently. The conservative tends to have a good grasp of what motivates the leftist, usually because he was once one himself (see Churchill's alleged remarks).

In contrast, most leftists can't accept that a conservative truly believes what he says, and attributes it to -- take your pick -- serving the corporate agenda that pays his salary (being in the pay of the oil industry is a favourite), a need to hold reactionary views to justify his favoured place in society, innate racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc., etc. Every conservative who engages in public debate eventually faces these slanders, while his opponent wraps himself in a mantle of compassion, community and righteousness that is only equalled by the religious right.

[quietlywatching84]

In contrast, most leftists can't accept that a conservative truly believes what he says, and attributes it to -- take your pick -- serving the corporate agenda that pays his salary (being in the pay of the oil industry is a favourite), a need to hold reactionary views to justify his favoured place in society, innate racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc., etc. Every conservative who engages in public debate eventually faces these slanders, while his opponent wraps himself in a mantle of compassion, community and righteousness that is only equalled by the religious right.

Yes indeed you are correct. The far left is often the "rational sounding" conspiracy theorist (a lot of the ideas really are conspiracy theories). It can be difficult to pick up on that. I will also point out that the right sometimes make conspiracy statements ( note George Orwell's alleged remarks above).

I think there are a lot of left of center people who really do grasp the ideas of both sides. I really hate to peg myself on the spectrum (personal peeve), but if people were judging me they'd probably call me a "left of center" guy (but that depends on the topic). I also really think using any of those "isms" lightly in a serious debate is in poor taste. If you're going to debate somebody on a touchy subject, you need to give them some wiggle room. If you meet somebody such as the person you described above, they don't have political beliefs, they have an "ideology", a much more serious affliction.

Back on topic, I once knew of a fellow who wrote for a publication (a left wing publication, with left wing editors). He wrote a satirical piece on the proliferation of the usage of the term "victim" in society with various examples. He questioned the homeless man being called a victim as one of various examples. That edition of the publication was asked to be pulled from the stands after it was printed and distributed (for "human rights" reasons). Thus the editors were called into meeting, to discuss this turn of events (and the further question, do they comply with this "humans rights" order or defend the writer's satire piece).

In the end, these leftists decided that the piece was a valid argument, but the medium (satirical opinion piece) was probably too tricky for anybody but the most advanced writer. Also, because of the exact wording (satire is open more so to interpretation than other venues of expression) this would make a strong defense of the writer difficult. Basically, the leftist writers only decided not to defend a right wing point of view only on the matters of technicality and also on the fact that they likely did not have the means to mount any meaningful resistance.

If I do recall correctly, the issue in question was pulled from the stands, but the editor in chief in the next issue did note that the views in the piece were a valid query into our society, and that only the method of argument (satire) was the reason they agreed that the publication was pulled.

This is why I would say the leftist ideologue may be closed minded to some arguments, but the journalist, who is born submerged in the leftist university, will be all too aware of the tyranny of power, and why I think we may have more hope then you think for our future press (that's a true story by the way).

[Homeownertoo]

I also really think using any of those "isms" lightly in a serious debate is in poor taste.

I only used those 'isms' for illustration purposes.

The story of the magazine was hilarious in a pathetically sad way, and so illustrative of the Left's compulsion to be politically correct even when they know it is wrong. But I can't say I'm disappointed to see ideologues (of whatever stripe) eating their own.

[Homeownertoo]

...I think there are a lot of left of center people who really do grasp the ideas of both sides.

Yes, some understand conservative policies, but I question whether they understand the underlying reasons for those policies. For example, one can realize that rent controls don't work (just by examining the carnage they produce) without understanding why they fail, which would force the leftist to accept the conservative position. But they rarely do. Rent controls are not in place for lack of desire from the left but because conservative politicians have mustered sufficient political support to ward off such idiocies. When such support wanes, they magically reappear on political agendas.

[Homeownertoo]

Quietlywatching, have a look at this piece by Charles Krauthammer. He must have been reading my earlier posting.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/02/09/charles-krauthammer-the-great-peasant-revolt-of-2010.aspx

[quietlywatching84]

Quietlywatching, have a look at this piece by Charles Krauthammer. He must have been reading my earlier posting.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/02/09/charles-krauthammer-the-great-peasant-revolt-of-2010.aspx

Your name isn't Charles is it?

Most interesting, I'm actually re-reading a book that I read several years ago on this exact subject that we're discussing right now (and that the author of the above blog touches on), as I find the subject very compelling and interesting.

I like to pick out weird contradictions in politics. I often wonder how anti-abortionists and libertarians both end up on the right. To me it seems like a inherent contradiction. I suppose we have people with political beliefs all over the middle, and two ideologies at either end!

The story of the magazine was hilarious in a pathetically sad way, and so illustrative of the Left's compulsion to be politically correct even when they know it is wrong. But I can't say I'm disappointed to see ideologues (of whatever stripe) eating their own.

In that case, I should probably start writing a book on it, I have lots more where that came from.

[melwilde]

thank you to all who corrected the specifics of what Churchill said... In the end the essence is the same. By the way, The Liberal Premier of Ontario is going to Prorogue the legislature. Will we see the same protesters out screaming Hitler and Dictator again? Somehow i don't think so!

[Homeownertoo]

I like to pick out weird contradictions in politics. I often wonder how anti-abortionists and libertarians both end up on the right. To me it seems like a inherent contradiction.

It's a conundrum that I haven't given enough thought to. I define extreme right as libertarian; anti-abortionists could fit as defenders of the pre-born but that doesn't let the religious right off the hook.

Similarly, since I define the Left as a collectivist ideology, at the extreme it's home to both communists and fascists despite some fairly significant differences between them that I haven't entirely rationalized, though their commonality is in no doubt. Any fascist connection to capitalism, however, is merely a stalinist slander.