real quick: (preface: the footnote I tried to do below does not work cuz blogger is NOT as usable as you would think. [please help if you know how to fix!])
1. alice eve seems to be hot.
2. I am not done thinking about continued assertions or messaging from the likes of sarah palin that the mainstream media is biased. MAINLY BECAUSE there is some truth to it. okay. let's assume that the new york times leans lefty in the way they tell stories. or the way they connect dots, the aspects of stories they choose to highlight, the place that their stories create sympathy. 1 I think perhaps it’s been this way for a long time, and it's a revered institution not just a liberal propaganda machine. (wow that was a stark contrast) but which side of that contrast you might prefer does not, I think, divide easily along ideological lines. This is because the way we consume information and the way we object to a news organization communicating in a biased way to the public, are two different mechanisms, right? not that those mechanisms ought not interface.
okay. Such potential bias as the NY Times likely has [you can nail down the quality or quantity of the bias for yourself if you like] is readily identified by the freedom-fighter conservative tea party media machine. but of course these bias crimes were different 20 years ago, right? that is, the media environment was radically different, but sure I guess in many important ways so so so much the same.
footnote
_____________________________
1. I think the new york times is read by self-described "moderates" or "conservatives." perhaps because it's all about the level of literacy. if a reader is not so inclined, which liberal premises about the way the universe works are going to even stick to a certain level intellect?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
