Blade wrote:
>> That's because, frankly, they never do anything interesting. And
>> they're not so much conservatives, but anti-left (which should be
>> close enough in my book, but I still can't get look past their lack
>> of any quality, whatsoever).
>
> Fair point, I actually think they self-identify as libertarians. No
> comment on that, no matter how many jump to mind. ;p
Libertarian covers a lot of ground, too, these days. There are are many who
still haven't left the Anarchist stage. There are others, like myself, who
are slapped with the "Neolibertarian" label (of course, trying to paint us
as a new flavor of Neocon).
>> That being said, Hollywood does have a left-wing bias. Sure, you
>> can pick out some right-wingers, and for each of those, I can give
>> you five leftists. That's fine. That's just the way life is. Just
>> like the military has a right-wing bias. What I don't understand is
>> all the obsession with everybody trying to deny the bias. It is
>> what it is. The left took over a market segment. Good for it. Now
>> let's all move on.
>
> Oh, of course I wouldn't argue that. The arts in general have a
> left-wing bias for reasons that aren't too hard to determine.
It depends on the reasons. The reasons I could think of are
self-aggrandizement and the desire to not have to produce commercially
viable material. I imagine you would agree with both, however I'm sure
there are many who would see the second reason as being as much a merit as I
consider it to be a demerit.
> However, saying that Hollywood would give a crap about parodying
> Michael Moore just because they're leftists is stupid. Leftists
Nah, Moore is only a sacred cow among certain groups, including
DemocratUnderground, DailyKOS, and MoveOn (which started out by saying
"enough of the Clinton Impeachment issue, can we move on now? Talk about a
change in purpose...). I imagine your rank and file look at him about the
same way we right-wingers view Michael Savage. (I won't compare him to
Coulter, since she says what she says specifically to get peoples' goats.
She's a professional troll, he's just a lying sack of shit).
> parody themselves all the time, and Zucker would hardly be the first
> to take a shot at Moore. Assuming that the left is some monolithic
> block who takes things Very Seriously is just silly. They aren't, and
> they most assuredly don't. If there is any outrage about Zucker's
> product, it would be for a more specific reason (y'know, aside from
> the fact he writes terrible, terrible movies).
I can't really comment on that because I don't pay enough attention to
Hollywood to know. In fact, even if I was told, chances are I haven't seen
them (my two most recent theater movies are Speed Racer and the Lion, Witch,
and the Wardrobe).
> And swallowing news wholesale from Pajamasmedia is like swallowing it
> from
MoveOn.org (who Jon Stewart took a very memorable shot at when he
> congratulated them for "10 years of making even people who agree with
> you cringe"). It's certainly true it's not likely to challenge what
> you'd like to think, but it's not too useful for actually finding out
> what really happens in the world. A bunch of openly biased bloggers
> does not a news site make.
My general rule is that I don't link bloggers or talk radio. Though I will
sometimes link Malkin when she's got so many links that it's just a pain in
the ass to copy them all. She generally tries to link to Mainstream Media
sources, or bloggers with a heavy dose of MSM. Additionally, I don't
discredit MSM sources, even if they lean left. An exception to this was
CBS, right after the whole issue with the forged Bush National Guard memo.
On the other hand, I demand that the people I'm arguing with show the same
courtesy by not linking DailyKOS, Huffington Post, or the like.
Additionally, if I'm going to accept CBS and MSNBC, they had damned well
better accept FNC and Washinton Times.
Personally, however, I've found that the Washington Post has, as of late,
returned to their long-lost status of reporting the news. In the 90s, they
were really starting to push the boundaries of journalism. However, I find
that they're about as good a source as you'll find anymore. Between the
WaPost and WaTimes, you'll get a very good perspective. I also don't share
my side's disdain for CNN and Wolf Blitzer. The times I've watched them,
I've found them to be rather professional. However, that being said, there
are biases of omission, as well as commission.
