That reporter forgot the other possibility: a “soft naive pushover”

He also forgot “complacent issuer of boilerplate.”

See all the nuance that the networks miss in their absurd bias?

Well you know, some things are dichotomies and some things aren’t.

The good news here is that the public gets the bias now, in 2004, after this last election, better than it ever has.

I’m a member of the lucky minority of Americans who do not have television in their homes. Our boob tube is limited to videos, and their content is restricted for the kids sake. So I really don’t have a venue to watch the news other than while I’m on the treadmill at the gym, and the screen is close-captioned; there is no sound.

Thus, most of my media criticism is based on what I read about what is on TV rather than what I see on it. The reports of the left leaning bias of the major news anchors would be laughable if they were not just plain frightening.

Sometimes I feel as if I’m out of touch with the news since I have limited my contacts to print media and the internet. But for the most part, not having a television and thereby being able to avoid the garbage of the airwaves has been quite positive. If I am indeed naive, it is by choice, and not by ignorance.

Same here, FK. I don’t miss TV news one bit.

If he had said “hard line neocon idealogue”, I would have considered it perfectly fine, as foriegn policies in the last four years are impossible to explain except as the fruits of an intense and irrational ideology combined (perhaps) with an amoral lust for resources. It cannot be explained, pace Mr. Auster, as a well-intentioned, and justified military interventioned dismantled by efforts to democratize. The problem with the characterization is more that it attempts to paint neocon nonsense as “conservatism in an effort to kill the right period and to not offend.

The only people still willing to defend this war are the most crazed or craven neoconservatives
and people so invincibly ignorant that they believe that Saddam ordered 9/11 personally. (In case Mr. Auster is among the latter, I’ll inform him that Saddam in fact did not do so.)

Mr. Auster, despite my sarcastic remark above, was pushing the Saddam-Al Quaida connection well after every sensible human discarded it. He still, to my knowledge, thinks we might find WMDs someday. Even water-carriers like George Will have abandoned their support for the war. But perhaps Mr. Auster is in Krauthammer’s class of madness?

Though Mr. Auster is a legit social conservative, and at times an astute critic of liberalism, his defensiveness and paranoia when it comes to issues related to the Middle East render his comments on those issues useless to non-fanatics. He also seems to display undue prickliness on various other bugaboos. They’re out to get the Christians, Buchanan hates the Jews, Paleos are anti-Isreal to the point where he cannot endorse them at all, etc. Mr. Auster perhaps might consider that a conception of America as a nation with mutual historical and cultural ties requires that it treat Isreal as any other country, i.e. according to the interests of the U.S. I would hope that he would stop making an unprincipled exception of this issue. If his attachment to Isreal is so strong that he forsakes the Paleos whole cloth on that issue alone, it’s his perogative. But I hope he ceases to pretend that his point of view is at all coherent.

Have you been drinking, Philly?

I was afraid this would happen: I’ve been found out by the anti-war paleocons. I am a crazed or craven neoconservative, I am invincibly ignorant, I have given the impression that I believe that Saddam personally ordered the 9/11 attack, and in any case, I was pushing the Saddam-Al Quaida connection well after every sensible human discarded it, I am alone with crazies like Krauthammer in still supporting the war, I am defensive and paranoid, my arguments with regard to the Mideast are useful only to fanatics, I am unduly prickly, I say that Buchanan hates the Jews, I believe that Paleos are anti-Israel to the point where I cannot endorse them at all, and I am incoherent.

Wow, these anti-war paleocons are really knowledgeable and effective debaters, aren’t they? Criticized for relying on ad hominem attacks, they come back and fill their messages with ad hominem attacks.

While I can’t respond to characterizations of my personality, I can respond to characterizations of my beliefs. I’ve never said or argued that Hussein ordered the 9/11 attack, though, when possible evidence of it was raised I said we should look at it. I have been as up-front about my anguish about the war as anyone could be—from months before the war to the present moment—and I wrote in the last month that if all the things we apparently know now were known before the war, I would not have supported the war. Of course, we didn’t know all those things before the war.

While I’ve written that, to the best I can figure out, Buchanan has a deep animosity against Jews, I don’t _know_ that to be true, and have amended it to a statement which is uncontestable: that Buchanan is a bigot against the Jewish state and a rationalizer and supporter of Jew-killing Moslem terrorists. Here we don’t have to guess about what’s in his head, since his record is explicit on these matters. Also, I have never written, quote unquote, that Buchanan is an anti-Semite. Moving along, I have never made a generalization about paleocons such as the poster suggests, but my position as regards Jews and Israel has been stated many times: I will have nothing to do with people who support, rationalize or excuse people who seek to exterminate Jews. Many paleocons and Buchananites fit that description.

I’ve replied to all of Mr. Roach’s substantive statements. But, as I’m sure he understands, his kind of personal attacks are not what VFR is about and he won’t be posting here again.

Well, if you picture the current situation in Holland, but (instead of being bordered by Belgium and Germany) it was surrounded by Syria and Egypt…you’d understand the natural concern people would have for it.

OTOH, Holland doesn’t have any a-bombs.

Awful has been the news coverage of the War in Iraq by every single aspect of the American media except the Internet. Why is the justified or unjustified killing of an insurgent on video a story being wallowed in instead of the butchery of a female social worker helping the enemy? Why are our troops and helicopters going house to house instead of our high-flying, invulnerable aircraft? Why isn’t every civilian vehicle in Iraq grounded? Why isn’t every Iraqi told not to come with one hundred feet of an American soldier or be shot on sight? The Iraqis would still have the generous gift of life. Have we gone truly mad?

Well, I can tell you right now, Mr. Henri that if I were a stressed out marine under the circumstances I’m reading about in Faluja, I would not hesitate to drill these wounded SOBs. I had an uncle who fought in the Pacific in WWII, and shooting the wounded was routine because you could never be certain the Japanese might not kill you as soon as your back was turned. These crazed Muslims are probably no different. The media is nuts…just as they were in Vietnam.

I see this story as nothing more than the media “Hate” of the week, the latest “wave” in an unending series of media waves meant to tear down Bush or the U.S., always failing, but then followed soon enough by another “wave.”

Aren’t these the same media who were lauding Arafat as a great world figure? They laud the founder of modern terrorism, while making a huge deal out of an American marine who shot an enemy soldier in ambiguous circumstances.

This stuff isn’t even the kind of thing worth arguing against any more. The media has gone into some kind of frenzied anti-Bush overdrive, and despite all their recent embarrassments they haven’t reformed themselves one bit.

I was trying to reply to all of Mr. Roach’s substantive charges against me, but I didn’t reply to the charge that I’m a neocon.

Let’s see. What defines a neocon is a belief in America as a political project defined by belief in democracy, and this project realizes itself through muscular spreading of democracy to the rest of the world and the importation of the rest of the world into America. Since I’m against the neocons’ both on their democratization project and on immigration, the only reasons I imagine that Mr. Roach would think I’m a neocon are that (1) I supported the war, though for national defense reasons, not democratization reasons; (2) I consistently defended Bush when people were making ridiculous charges against him; (3) I am a scold of the anti-war paleocons; (4) I defend Israel from its enemies. None of those things fit the definition of neoconservative. What it really comes down is this: if you condemn paleocons, paleocons consider you a neocon. In the paleocons’ mind, there is no such thing as wrong and right, there is just “neocon” and “paleocon.” The idea that a paleocon could be _wrong_, does not exist for them. So if a person says in strong terms that a paleocon is _wrong_, then there’s no possibility that he’s _right_; he’s simply a neocon.

Let me suggest there is something much more evil at play than Mr. Auster moderately proposes, although the participants probably deserve mercy because they have become callous as a result of societal acceptance, much as the women who have abortions have gained acceptance. The media is driven by MONEY, gold, power…guarantors of corruption and cannot be trusted any longer. “I am just covering the most popular story of the day, and this is news” is the rationalization used by media participants.

The straw that broke my camel’s back was viewing Pat Buchanan’s substitute hosting of Scarborough Country tonight. (I earlier had been primed while watching a wall of the network coverage at my fitness club across the street. I really don’t watch network TV by choice, but I was dutifully talking to my mother by L.D. telephone, and I had the closed-captions on, as I always do because actors murmur nowadays. She and I are 100% political soul mates, and she was equally outraged.) The shooting by the soldier was the lead topic, probably chosen by the producer. I could not participate in such graft. I am sure Pat has become callous, so I must remember to be merciful.

Perhaps substituting nonprofit organizations would be better, though NPR is grotesque to say the least. We need to consider alternative ways of getting our news, even though I don’t have a clue as to what the alternatives might be.

Yes Mr. Griffin, I fully agree. Why are we not using a loudspeaker at every building or corner and barking, “you got five minutes to come out with your hands up or you will be annihilated by precision guided 2,000 lb bombs”? How many Syrian-Iranian border-crossers would we see? Many fewer. Coupled with my earlier advice, there would be none.

Maybe we have a mass obsessive-compulsive disorder, scrupulosity: Everything we do is wrong. This is an illness recognized by the Catholic Church, which must deal with it because of its concern with thought-sin.

But many don’t realize there is a difference between mortal sin, which one must be absolutely, positively certain is involved before accusing oneself, and venial sin. The Church has always believed in just war, but the emphasis on thought-sin perhaps has recently infected it and the Protestant churches to the point that they take one idea and blow it out of proportion to the exclusion of other ideas.

One idea is hanging an unarmed person such as Goering or Bin Laden. Immoral is a ridiculous idea to most once one realizes there are the ideas of justice and deterrence. The pick-and-choosers forget about Sodom and Gomorrah. That Goering or Bin Laden might have a gun under their tunics is merely one side to the argument, according to the media.

I’ll continue my tear, with Mr. Auster’s indulgence, despite my Net-inability to see comments subsequent to mine for the last two hours. We should secretly tell Iran and Syria to end border crossings or bombing will begin in short order; not a thing they could do to hinder it.

If they want war, start a draft, which should involve only Dan Rather and younger loudmouths like myself instead of young men, if we want to be fair. The Nazis and many ancient cultures did it, so it can be done.

Although I have numerous injuries from being an athlete and would need pills, I know how to shoot. Certainly I am capable of dying as well as a younger man.

I suppose I get my fierceness from my mother, who would annihilate the Iraqis with nuclear weapons if provoked. My Dad was a Marine combat corporal who also has a temper. So it is not surprising I am somewhat bloodthirsty.

I can recall once when I was driving my folks one Sunday, and some lowbreed decided to get cute and do something I can’t recall now. I blew the horn, and he gave me the New York salute, which I automatically returned. In a pickup, he indicated to me to pull over. Guess who was the first to say “pull the damn car over?” Ma. (My mother is kind and sweet to everyone who does not get in her face. My brother and I used to have to pick our own switches, for example.) Well, skuzzy saw we were prepared for him, and he wisely kept moving, to both our benefits no doubt.

Ma was the captain of her high school basketball team that won the city championship. Yet she was small, a playmaker. I inherited her ability in sports, most of which I excelled in, but not basketball; so I inappropriately played pro-style basketball. I still can’t figure why the huge players I sometimes played against did not pound me into the court for my aggressive style.

Well, I consider myself a paleocon, Mr. Auster, and I don’t accuse everyone who criticizes paleocons of being neocons. (I think of you as more of a meso-con, like Don Feder).

I like the term traditionalist myself. For one thing, the word ‘conservative’ implies that there’s something left to conserve. With the huge advance of liberalism into all quarters of our society in the last four-to-five decades, there’s scarcely anything left to conserve. I think of VFR, and the views promoted here, as a dissident view - one opposed to the dominant liberalism of our society.

I’ve always liked the name of Rabbi Lapin’s outfit - Return to Tradition - with its implicit repentence. A turning away from the lies of liberalism

I disagree with Mr. Auster’s 11:08 PM post. There is one major news station, kicking all others’ rear ends in the ratings—Fox Cable—that is decidedly pro-Bus! I gave my other ha;f a rare gift a few weeks ago (FK would cringe as we too were non-tv-ers since the 2000 election, but I will let the subscription run out in 14 days)—cable tv for one month! We couldn’t believe the pro-Bush bias on Fox. AND what is unbelievable, is suddenly pro-Bush bias on ABC!! So, that old horse of a concept—that the major media is anti-RINO or anti-Bush—is simply no longer the case. Tony Snow, Sheppard et al are clearly enjoying Bush’s win.

There is no question that most news broadcasts are part news and mostly entertainment. It is a breath of fresh air when viewing vintage new reports from as recent as twenty years ago in America, the bias was significantly more subtle and the pressure of the 24 hour news cycle was less a factor making for greater quality in the reporting. Movies of the time satirized the presumed impossibility of an out-of-control media in absurd terms, movie goers laughed and said no such Orwellian future was indeed possible.

What distinguished the evening news then from a TV show was the straight reporting of the news. That is why I always hated when my grandfather would plug the TV set at 10pm, it was so boring, only facts-blah. Yes, he would _plug_ the black and white TV in because it was not allowed in my house to watch TV anytime you wanted to. I was allowed to watch TV from 8pm until maybe 10pm maximum if I was extremely lucky. In that case, my grandfather did not have to plug the tube in, he would just change the channel to the news.

On Saturday mornings I was _allowed_ an hour or two of Saturday morning cartoons. My favorite memories from the 1970’s morning line up was School House Rock. You know, “Conjunction Junction” and “I’m “Just a Bill” and “Three is a Magic Number”. Even then there was at least an effort on some level to provide some useful educational value from a cartoon directed to children. The good thing about not being raised on TV was that I read a lot of books.

I’m not saying the reporting was not biased then, but definitely not to the shameless extent it is today. Germany is unique in their presentation of the news today as well, it is very similar in style and appearance to 1980’s America and the content is presented in a non-sensational fashion.

The vaunted, privileged 4th Estate is said to be the guardians of democracy and defenders of the public interest, but who is watching the 4th estate?

Howard Beale had something to say about this:

NETWORK 1976

“You people and sixty-two million other Ameicans are listening to me right now. Because less than three percent of you people read books. Because less than fifteen percent of you read newspapers. Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube. Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn’t come out of this tube. This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation. This tube can make or break Presidents, Popes, Prime Ministers. This tube is the most awesome, god-damned force in the whole godless world. And woe is us if it ever falls into the hands of the wrong people…”

Howard Beale then beautifully sums up what in 1976 was satire, but today is reality:

“We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds - we’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here. You’re beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God’s name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion. So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off. Turn them off right in the middle of this sentence I am speaking to you now. Turn them off!”

Is Beale saying that we have the power to save America by boycotting it? He then collapses on the stage in an epileptic-like fit after his exhaustive plea to stave off the inevitable, unstoppable power of the mass media. Something I can relate to after witnessing one network outrage after another in an endless race to the bottom.

http://www.filmsite.org/netw2.html

My apologies, Mr. President—I meant “pro-Bush”.

I forgot to add the following Fox Bush supporters (obvious): Neal Cavuto and at least one of the female anchors (Lori Dhue?). The only one with the poker face who seems “fair and balanced” continues to be Brit Hume, whom I continue to believe is the best anchor in on teevee.

To Michael Jose, we won’t hold it against you (being an admitted paleo-con)! Just kidding, just kidding.

I respectfully submit that Mr Auster is skirting irrationality with respect to P. Roach’s criticisms. P. Roach shouldn’t be excluded for raising a few good points. Maybe Mr. Auster should change the name of the site from “View From the Right” to “The World According to Mr. Auster”. In fact I might boycott this site and start posting somewhere better like nationalvanguard.org

It is simply an incomprehensible distortion to propose Mr. Auster is intolerant of differing views. I cannot think of a more tolerant, refined site. Maybe that’s it—the site is too refined for some. Mr. Auster tries to maintain high standards of conduct here, and persistent personal attacks is unrefined conduct not to mention it is something we are expected to give up once we become adults. Maureen Dowd was a perfect example when she posted here. She insisted on being unrefined even though she has a lot of talent. I think that when this occurs repeatedly, we are dealing with a mental pathology. No not necessarily nuts, just diagnosable.

Usually just reading but now posting,

Al Jazeera has a sale on used nazi uniforms and other useful accessories.

The so called “paleo-conservative” crowd cannot be dismissed, nor can their attempt to stigmatize “neo-conservatives” as brainless Bush brown nosers go unchallenged.

Some years ago, I read a book entitled “Rules for Radicals”, by the late Saul Alinsky. To be brief, “Rules” was the handbook for 60’s style community organizing, boycotting, protesting, etc…and by “Radical”, Alinsky was not referring to Evangelical Christians. This tome was the left’s handbook and guidebook writ large.

Anyway, I am contemplating an attempt to rip off Alinsky’s tract and write my own guidebook for todays neo-Right Wingers. It will be titled “Rules for Neo-Cons” (honest truth: this literay agenda was in the planning stages long before I began posting on this site). One idea I hope to expound upon has been broached in this thread: Neo-conservatives must not let themselves be pidgeonholed by paleo conservatives, and vise versa.

What I mean is this: there has been some honest exchange between Mr. Auster and others regarding Buchanan, and the rest of the paleo conservative crowd. At the same time, why must those who find legitimate fault with said Paleo Pat be stigmatized as neo conservatives, as if they belong to another species?

I think it is very important that the differences between those who are ostensibly neo and paleo be debated in on open forum. At the same time, I strongly object to the tendency of neo-cons to blow off the paleo crowd as if they are irrelevant to conservative ideas. To all of those who generally classify themselves as neo conservative, let me say this: The Pat Buchanan/Taki/Lew Rockwell crowd that either writes for, or subscribes to The American Conservative magazine is not going to simply evaporate. While it pains me that many of these folks are anti-Israel bigots (Buchanan in particular), many of their criticisms of Bush, the federal buracracy, the endless encroachment of government on our personal liberties are valid debating points. I happen to enjoy Pat’s columns because he happens to be a great writer who places current issues in historical perspective with great intellectual acuity. And there is little doubt that paleo’s like him are very influential. So they are a force to still be reconciled with.

Many Jewish (and philo Semitic) conservatives tend to immediately dismiss Buchanan and his ilk as anti-Semites, with almost no regard for the simple fact that there are other issues in the conservative lexicon aside from Israel. And, with regard to Israel, remember this truism: Buchanan, et.al, say what many others think. And they will continue to spit out the diatribe-on sundry issues, including, but not limited to Israel, whether we like it or not. So I, for one, would much rather have their arguments, ideologies, and dare I say, bigotries, right out on the table so they can be debated, or even obliterated by people a hell of a lot smarter than me. At least Arnold won’t be able to accuse us neo Con’s as “girley men”.

The problem with the anti-Auster postings is their refusal to simply address exactly what Mr. Auster has said instead of what he did not say. For example, the idea that Mr. Auster has blown off neocons or paleocons is untrue. He addresses their ideas and says or implies some of the ideas are nonsense and might even refer to such behavior as typical. Instead of mounting a boring attack on Mr. Auster as prejudiced, defend the idea attacked rationally and offer specific evidence in defense of the proposition that the behavior is atypical.

If one can’t mount a rational argument but has the natural human urge to express himself, simply say, “I feel angry that Mr. …thinks….” Unless one is a talented satirist such as Ann Coulter, personal attacks are just plain boring not to mention completely inappropriate in an intelligent discussion. There is nothing shameful about expressing emotion, but it needs to be done appropriately.

I agree completely, and that is why I do my best to avoid hysterically accusing anyone who is remotely critical of, say, Israel or Zionism as being anti-Semitic. Many of my co-religionists have adopted the methods of certain African American leaders who reflexively condemn dissenting opinions as “racist”. One of the worst ways to fight actual bigotry is to automatically accuse people of being anti-(fill in the blank) simply because they express a sentiment not fully concordant with your own.

I agree completely, although I am not perfect, to say the least.