Why Liberals Will Willingly Fool Themselves into Thinking the Media is Conservative

I got into a debate not too long ago with a British socialist, who feels that I represent a direct threat to his well being because he's a homosexual. The debate, or what I could coherently decipher from his idiotic ramblings, was that apparently the British media was more liberal than the American media, and as a result, the British media was less biased and therefore more truthful. Amusingly, I couldn't figure out just how he meant that the British media is "less biased" when they admittedly favor one point of view over another.

The evidence he decided to bring up was that the American media only called the word "shoah" used by the Israelis as a threat to the Palestinians interchangeably with the word holocaust a few times, whereas British media referred to it "many times". In essence, my British opponent saw fit to point out that the only way you can be a liberal media is if you lie through your teeth and intentionally change the meaning of words, as anyone who hasn't decided to promote an agenda knows that shoah is simply a reference to a great calamity or other such events, the Holocaust, of course, being the worst of them.

Not in the Newspeak world of liberal politics however, apparently. But the pervasive encroachment of 1984 style Newspeak is for another article on another day, to say nothing of the fact that the British media would willingly lie to its readers in order to evoke a certain reaction.

The fact is, this epidemic of sophistry is not entirely uncommon in the liberal world; in fact the very kind of idiocy that led to the kind of nihilism that swept over Greece and convinced an entire plethora of people, and even an entire sub-sect of Christianity, to become convinced that they "don't really exist", is once again leading hearts and minds into the notion that if you can think it, it's better than what was here five minutes ago. We expect such frugality from teenage girls over a dress that is "so yesterday", but when it comes to politics and civilization, I'm not as ready to abandon a thought process or philosophy on the grounds that we've "already tried it".

The 80's and 90's were a wonderful time when we began as a whole to reject this idiotic notion of ultra-liberalism, thus giving rise to the notion that we need to call them Progressives, in the same vein as Teddy Roosevelt. Of course, they are loathe to admit that their thought processes would cause Teddy Roosevelt to crawl out of his grave and proceed to beat them with the big stick he used in his diplomacy.

This perpetual state of being an underdog gave liberals a format of debate that they were used to. They were constantly having to fight an uphill battle against people who thought with their heads instead of their hearts, and considered all of the facts before coming to a conclusion, instead of simply parroting whatever their professor had to say for them. Unfortunately, those days are coming fast to an end, to the point that largely any liberal argument can be debunked just by waving a candle in front of how thoroughly they dig themselves into a form of logic that instead of requiring a straight line of simplicity as Okham would suggest, has to do loopy loops and cart wheels in order to come to their conclusions.

But, to liberals' both rejoicing and to their chagrin, a terrible new wave of media began to sweep over the nation. It is not altogether new in the 21st century, as many seem to think it is. As far back as the 70's, Peter Jennings had the audacity to cover the entire Munich Massacre and avoid labeling any of the Palestinians terrorists through the entire duration, bringing us full circle today to Gordan Brown's refusal to call Islamic Terror what it is, instead opting to refer to it as "anti-Islamic terror" - sans the anti-Islamic nature of the attacks of course.

But with a media dominated by idiotic left wing thought, suddenly your average liberal is having a hard time coping. Gone are the days when they could argue that they are being unfairly discriminated against in popular media, to the point that FOX News itself has become a pinata of liberal scorn because it won't just fall in line - goosetrot in line if you will - with the other big companies and just ignore the successes in Iraq, just ignore the successes of interrogation in Guantanamo Bay, and it won't do what other companies do and talk about all the really down and dirty, the real bad stuff. Because FOX News won't ignore that Anbar, once the most dangerous place arguably on the planet, is now among the safest in Iraq, suddenly, not only is this a representation of the entire stream of media, it is also a representation of how something is inexorably wrong with this country.

I guess we can turn back to my British socialist buddy (ha ha just kidding, he's not my buddy) who has the audacity to argue that American media can't be trusted because it doesn't lie to its readers, or follow Hezbollah around and beg them for photo ops of a 10 year old girl who died when the roof of a building collapsed on her - all the while omitting that rockets were being fired from that roof.

It truly is a thing of almost divine comedy to watch liberals rail against the mainstream media - all the while refusing to admit that they've effectively cuckolded it, and allow American victories to go unsung because it is politically inconvenient to their declarations of virtual sedition from Washington, all because they don't like the guy who lives there at the moment. It is the epitome of unable to win, so taking your ball and trying to go home. I do so recommend, however, that you pick a game you can just up and quit that doesn't cost Americans their lives.

But for all that said, there is a genuine group of Americans who are so hopelessly out of touch with reality, so far left that Lenin himself would be condemned as a "Neocon" (a word, amusingly, meant to describe former liberals who were aghast at what the Democratic party has become, not an "ultra conservative right winger Nazi Space Mutant" as some would have you believe), that they actually do have a semi-legitimate claim to the conservative base of the mainstream media. From their political blogs, these people who condemn the presence of nuclear weapons, while participating in rallies that literally turn violent during their "peace marches" because they attack people who dare to disagree with them, the media really is more conservative...than them.

Keith Olberman really is more right wing than some of the people who have burrowed themselves into the demographics of our country, enhanced by the silence and otherwise apathetic President who doesn't seem to treat every attack as a need to waste his time with dialog. Bill Maher really is more conservative than some of the nutjobs who absolutely believe that universal disarmament (universal as in, Britain and the United States') is the only morally acceptable response to their demands.

The fact is, for those that are simply uncomfortable actually not being outnumbered and simply lie between their teeth, there really is a group of people for whom the media is too conservative for them.

And may God have mercy on our souls if they ever get into a position of power.