Friday, October 25, 2013

A despicable, cowardly media

It almost goes without saying that the so-called mainstream media has a significantly leftist political bias.  We also know that the MSM is weak on press freedom and is prone to self-censor and to downplay or ignore certain issues.  They do this out of politically correctness (ie. upsetting lib/leftists who share their biases).  They also do so out of simple cowardice in the face of potential physical danger.  Altogether this highly unfortunate situation is just short of earning the MSM the title "despicable".

This week they (the journalists and executives of CTV, Global TV, CBC) crossed the line during the anti-fracking "protests" (riots) near Rexton, NB.  They displayed all of the above near-despicable negatives plus failing to come to the defence of fellow journalists who were attacked by Indian thugs and criminals.

The violence and thuggery of Indian "protesters" was bad enough.  But Ezra Levant hits the right target when he calls out members of the despicable "Media Party" for their cowardice and duplicity:


Anonymous said...

I don't follow. Ezra Levant calls members of the press 'despicable', and they are to blame for not defending him when he falls afoul of others he's alienated in the past as well?

Kind of a separate issue, but what's with the term 'media party'? It's silly. Everyone who disagrees with you is a member of a homogenous 'group' that acts/thinks the same way? Sounds like simplifying or dumbing the real world down because reality is too complex to figure out/describe as is.

Either that or 'media party' is a term people like to throw around to make them feel like they're in some kind of special club that shares views. It's the world against us. Right? The media party and the communist hordes against us good old ordinary folk... The world is a less scary place that way eh?

Alex F said...

They didn't harm a hair on Ezra head.

They went after reporters and the other reporters let it happen and said nothing.

There is no rule that says you MUST defend someone who is in trouble, but the lie that they are ethical and impartial is finished when they act so hatefully.

It's an intelligence test of sorts. I've heard that you can kill a chicken in the middle of chickens all around and they will start eating the dead chicken. The Media Party is like this though I wish they were more dumb than just nasty.

Anonymous said...

The protestors are bullies.
The people that watch them bully are enablers.
Being a sychophant for a bully is no defence against them bullying you.
At some point they will turn on you and there will be no one to defend you.

J said...

Anon, Oct 25 957 pm,

Oh please, you are playing the oldest trick in the "Dodging-Awkward-Questions" handbook.

Trick #1 - "When confronted with an embarrassing question that you are unable (or UNWILLING!!!) to answer, pretend you don't understand".

You CAN'T BE **THAT** DUMB. (Mind you, if you are a journalist, I suppose it's certainly possible).

Levant's point is a valid one. The herdlike "news" media love to portray themselves as these noble, bold defenders of free speech, (as long as it's the free speech of those they agree with). When it is the free speech rights of an enemy then they gleefully allow that person's rights to be trampled on.

What scumbags.

Now here is another example of your "willful stupidity":
---QUOTE - YOU ---"but what's with the term 'media party'? It's silly. Everyone who disagrees with you is a member of a homogenous 'group' that acts/thinks the same way?"

Actually Yes, dumb ass! If you don't believe that 90% of the media don't think alike socially and poltically then you are either: A) Willfully blind.
B)Stupid as a brain damaged earthworm.
C). Lying.
D). All of the above.

I find it amusing that journalists and lefites (same thing really) always believe that all police officers think alike, all soldiers think alike, all Christians think alike, all black people think alike ect ect but when it comes to journalists there is this wonderful diversity of opinion. OH FUCK OFF!

Journlists are so herd-like in their thinking they probably stampede when one of them sees a rattlesnake.

As far as you sneering at the term "media party" as some sort of protective stereotype conservative trot out? Umm, excuse me? Dipshit?
Apparently you haven't bothered to look in a mirror and truly witness the "circle-the-wagons" behavior exhibited by leftists and journo when on or more of their own is threatened.

Now I'm finished. I'm certain you are too ball-less to respond.

JR said...

J, well said.

In the first incident shown in Ezra's piece, the Indian rioters and thugs threatened and intimidated the reporters and crew of all the media outlets (the media party + Sun TV). Only Kris Sims of Sun resisted their intimidation, the others gave in to it and (unlike Sun TV) instead of condemning the Mi'kmaq thuggery, decided to strike a submissive posture in order to try to avoid further abuse. What kind of "journalism" is this if not despicable and/or cowardly.

In the second instance the same Mi'kmaq thugs booted a Sun TV reporter from an open press event. The media party "heroes" in attendance stood by and let it (an obvious abuse of a fellow reporter, not to mention press freedom) happen without protest. Why? See above.

The term "Media Party" is an apt description for a group of news and opinion media outlets who consistently engage in politically correct group think and who consistently adopt a one-sided political stance (favouring the left and farther left and opposing the right). The behaviour described by Ezra Levant in his video piece highlights this plus a few more foul characteristics.

The despicable Media Party should be hanging its collective, cowardly head in shame.

J said...

----"Media Party should be hanging its collective, cowardly head in shame".

You are right, they SHOULD.

But they won't and they NEVER WILL.

These are people who feel no shame - ever.

Whenever anything is done wrong by one of their own they have they have an encyclopedia-Brittanica sized list of excuses, justifications, distractions and evasions to escape personal responsibility.

Try to remember who you are dealing with here. These are people who didn't have the work ethic to enter a skilled trade, or business, who didn't have the brains to study science, tech or math. They are too arrogant and self important to enter the service industry. They are too lazy & undisciplined to serve in the military or law enforcent. They lack the talent or physical skills to excel in enterainment or sports.

So they seek to leech cheap fame by pointing at others and casting their little judgements.

Yes, despicable pretty much sums it tup.

Anonymous said...

J: "I find it amusing that journalists and lefites (same thing really) always believe that all police officers think alike, all soldiers think alike, all Christians think alike, all black people think alike ect ect but when it comes to journalists there is this wonderful diversity of opinion. OH FUCK OFF!"

All Journalists and ALL lefties ALWAYS believe that ALL police, ALL soldiers, ALL Christians, black people think alike?

Bit of a generalization don't you think? Lazy thinking. So don't be lazy for a sec, and think about that. Think about why you generalize without actually understanding. Do what you likely often accuse the 'lefties' of not doing, think about why you think the way you do, try to reasonably see the world from another perspective. Rationally you must understand that not everyone thinks exactly the same way, but a part of you stubbornly persists in assuming that so many people must lack the rationality you so dearly prize.

I would likely be labelled a 'lefty' by you, justifiably or not, but I don't see the same homogeneity of opinion that you seem to think exists. What I do see is people commonly casting people into 'thought groups' in order to simplify a diversity of thought that they can't understand and commonly threatens their worldview. They belong to a group, the group thinks in a particular way, and we can refer to the group with a word, assign characteristics to it. Reduce it to a 'them', the opposite of 'us'. That's the real goal, because 'they' are always the problem, the source of what ills society, right?

You can see this tendency in all schools of thought. It's stupid whenever it occurs, but it's common and it's utterly predictable.

J said...

LOL!!! Here is a classic example of Trick #2 in the journalist's favourite classic ""Dodging-Awkward-Questions" handbook.

This is commonly known as the amateur psychologist's evasion. When you under attack pretend that you have some unique insight into the psychological workings of your opponent in a desperate atttempt to change the topic or put him on the defensive.

Quote - Dipshit - "....Think about why you generalize without actually understanding..."

Actually dumbass I understand you just fine. Do you know why? I READ what YOU write!

Accusing me of the crime of generalization is not going to change the basic truth of MY accusation against the journalism community. Just because as you say, YOU don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you lacks your superhuman powers of observation and insight.

Wow, glad to see you aren't suffering from low self esteen there buddy.

And, I might add you can try all the cute little dodges, & evasions and counter accusations you want but it is not going to help your case.

Journalists are repugnant low lifes and you aren't going to weasel out of the truth of that one or the fact that they deliberately acted in acompletely cowardly and hypocritical fashion during this incident.

But... on the other hand you ARE right about one thing. I WOULD probably call you a lefty because, well, you are one.

Alex F said...

What a steaming pile of Bull.

Tell me oh Brave and intelligent Anon, so Brave you hide your name as you belittle us, tell me how many reporters you actually know?

Me, I've met plenty from Mother Corp. and some of them I know so well that I call friends and are welcome in my home. Have you had deep philosophical conversations with any Mother Corp Journo's?

I don't think so. Its obvious you don't know what the hell you are talking about because if you did you would know that they stereo typically tend towards Marxism. Its a self selection process you willfully blind moron.

-And no, to say that "Media Party" involves homogeneity is the stupidest thing in the history of stupid. If that were true there would be no liberals or conservatives either. Nowhere does anyone say that a term describing a group of similar people have to be exactly the same in every way or the term doesn't exist. Ridiculous.

Guess what Anon? You belong to the group called Trolls. Go on. Give me your best internet psychoanalysis treatment telling me there are no trolls and its all primal wagon circling.

Anonymous said...

J, You keep insisting I'm dodging awkward questions, but I couldn't find any questions in any of your posts here, unless "Umm, excuse me? Dipshit?" counts...

Alex, I couldn't quite follow what you're saying. On the one hand you're saying there is no homogeneity at all, on the other hand you're saying that journalists trend towards marxism. Maybe you mean there is some diversity of thought within some kind of narrow confines, which is a better position than J took (who seems to really like the terms 'ALL' or 'Always').

I find it strange though, that there's this common thought which I see most often in rightwing political blogs, that 'journalists' trend towards marxism. Problems with putting everything on a single left/right dichotomy aside, if you equate 'marxism' with anything to the left of your own opinion, and have an opinion that is substantially to the right of the general population, things are going to look that way from your perspective. It's not selection bias though, it's simple statistics, combined with the natural consequence of having a worldview that diverges with most of the rest of the population and looking at things in simplistic left-right terms--- part of what I mean when I say it's making generalizations/simplifying things.

I don't personally excuse car-burning at protests, it's pretty stupid. My point with my original post was that Ezra has burnt too many bridges to expect to be treated seriously by the mainstream media. It's not his political stance, it's the vitriol. We can complain about political correctness all we like, but at the end of the day, we live in a society with norms, and if people continually violate the norms, they get sanctioned for it in one way or another, being isolated is one of them.

Alex F said...

Well thank you Anon for at least treating me (us) more like a human being(s) in your last response.

You have the capacity not to act like a troll just like what we call the media party has the capacity to be more objective if they choose.

I still don't understand your problem with the handle "media party." Ok if don't like don't use it. We use the term the way people use all labels.

Its the way labels are used. Example: We say Pi to easily handle the complex idea of 3.14.... etc.. which in itself is a simplified symbol. We can say Media Party without going into the infinite examples and illustrations or even debates about that term. Don't get too caught up on it. Don't try and invent all kinds psychological theories to justify your dislike of the categorizing term itself.

I also disagree with your dismissal of my personal observations of my reporter friends politics. I've got a pretty good idea of left and right politics and their views can only be described as far left (which is not a crime btw).

J said...

Anon get lost and quit trying to put words in my mouth. What I said was you were "playing the oldest trick in the "Dodging-Awkward-Questions" handbook"

It wasn't what you WANTED to read but that was what was there. Go back & read it again or have someone read it for you.

Nice try.

You are willfully pretending not to understand what I and other posters are talking about when it is blatantly obvious. Taht is a way of "dodging" or refusing to admit the unpleasant truth that we have a point.

When pretending not to understand doesn't work you try subtley changing what was actually said in order to make it a point you CAN argue with.

Again nice try but it won't work.

So, having said that, who really cares if you refuse to admit it? The point stands anyway. Journalists HAVE a herd, left wing mentality and are quite willing to use the news as a vehicle to further their political viewpoints.

Just because you deny this doesn't make it any less true.

Also, quit trying to deny that journalists have an overwhelming left wing bias by trying to manipulate what the "benchmark" for left and right is. That won't work either.

You try your little evasions because, despite the fact that they don't fool anyone you apparently are too stupid to realize it.

Also? Here is what YOU said: "I don't follow. Ezra Levant calls members of the press 'despicable', and they are to blame for not defending him when he falls afoul of others he's alienated in the past as well?"

D-uuuuuh I dohnn fulloh wawz this guy tawkin abowt??? Duh


Levant was asking the legitamate question why the NON SUN REPORTERS lacked the balls to stand up with a SUN journalist. Levant wasn't even at the protest Kris Sims was you idiot!

Anonymous said...


I don't like the term media party precisely because it gets used in the way that I describe.

If we acknowledge that the media isn't inherently offside of the public (where we set the 'centre' can be a question for another time), then pairing the notion of 'herd like' with 'leftwing' creates the effect I'm talking about. The term 'media party' isn't neutral, it refers to a very specific concept, that depends on a worldview whereby the media is skewed far to the left and herdlike-- people then use the term as a catch-all for what ills society without actually looking at a specific issue intelligently.

Media eviscerates a conservative politician? That's the media party. Media covers a protest that 'the left' is sympathetic towards? That's the media party. Media eviscerates a leftwing politician? Well, since the media party is a left-biased herd, they obviously didn't go far enough, and why didn't they eviscerate THIS OTHER politician? etc.

It's a lazy term because of this: it can't encourage a rational view of events because of its presuppositions, and it is generally used to validate a perspective (which is what I meant with my kind of cynical 'special club' phrase before)-- using the term 'media party' when referring to negative coverage of a conservative politician gives people myopia where they excuse behaviour that they wouldn't tolerate in a non-conservative one. Look at how 'media party' gets used around the whole Senate issue to see my point.

You're right though, I can choose not to use it, and I don't, at least not without irony. But I'm also free to criticize it, because I think it actually hampers intelligent conversation/thought when, as a concept, it's used uncritically.

We can still talk about herd behaviour of journalists-- I don't actually disagree that that's a thing.

J said...

"We can still talk about herd behaviour of journalists-- I don't actually disagree that that's a thing."

Thank you anon. You're right. NOW we can talk. Herd behavior in journalists *IS* a fact AND a problem.

A free press is vital to democracy and it simply is NOT A FREE PRESS when the vast majority of the journalists feel the same way about social, political and economic issues.

Anyone who flat out denies that there is a herd mentality in journalism is doing the greater good a disservice.

Personally, I think a journalist is doing a good job if they ask questions that I would love to ask if only I could be at; the press conference, the disaster, the council room, the meeting, the hearing ect.

The fact that journalists exhibit this left wing, herd like behavior makes me distrust them. All they have to do is *NOT* ask a question to skew an entire story. All they have to do is *NOT* report a story to skew an entire narrative on an issue. AND THEY DO THIS.