Quote:
Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Sometimes it escapes me as well.
The quote on the taxes appeared to me to deride the Dems by saying if they really cared about the poor they could donate their tax breaks to the poor and end poverty. But because they kept the hated tax breaks they clearly are clinging more to the "facial excuse" rather than fixing the problem. Whereas in the media discussion, you appeared to assert that the bias complaint should stand on its own, despite AG's point that this could be addressed by action from those who feel that the conservative viewpoint is underrepresented in the big papers that most people read.
Seemed like a goose and gander thing to me (and this while agreeing with you that the class warfare argument is a nonstarter). Did I misread?
|
My argument on the bias doesn't go to, there should be countervailing lies - it's that a "journalist" should be ethical. Whether you have a liberal or a conservative daily paper, you should be able to depend on it for
news. So, I have standing to complain when someone else is actively doing wrong. My complaint needn't await my starting a new paper. If I think that your action hurts, I can call you on it.
If you think I am not doing
enough to foster your own values, however, you don't need to wait for me to start before you foster them yourself. You can still complain about me not doing enough - but if your immediate contributions will help what you call a dire need, you shouldn't wait. Provide that "ethical act" yourself. By doing so, you don't have to commit the unethical act of which you complain. The big difference, in my mind, is that the press's unethical behavior misinforms all by itself, and to "fix" it, I should do something unethical myself? - that won't stop the damage, it will only cause a countervailing damage - while my disinclination to fund all of the things that you want funded has no negative effect - it merely doesn't bring funding as far up the continuum as you would like.
No flip. Not even a flop.
