There was that idiotic cartoonist Michael Ramirez who--when his cartoons
made any sense--made Bush look like a commie pinko leftist.

I don't know. I think anyone who begins initiating a KGB-style Justice
department, radically increases the power of the federal government,
breaks down separation of powers and crushes dissenting speech might be
accurately painted as a "commie pinko leftist." Neo-cons sure ain't
conservative, that's for certain.

In article <pan.2003.09.02.14.26.51.404344@eac.org>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 22:11:48 -0700, johac wrote:

In article <pan.2003.09.01.14.06.03.970247@eac.org>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 00:39:25 -0700, johac wrote:

In article <MPG.19bbb6af9d15909598a0e8@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:

During the lead up to the Iraqi war I was involved in protests
involving five and ten thousand people. Yet the news media barely
covered the event and treated it as a small/insignificant
gathering. Now, when anywhere from a few dozen to around 1000
religious zealots continue to loiter around the state courthouse
in talabama, the news media seems to be covering it every fucking
day. For example:
javascript:%20rs("ss","http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?p=news&g=events/
p
l/081503raymoore&e=1&tmpl=sl&nosum=0&large=0&t=1062169280",750,580);


If there is a so-called "liberal" media in this country, as so
many neo- cons continue to dubiously allege, then why is it that
war supporters got virtually ignored and these theocrats are
getting all kind of press?
One would think the "liberal" media would want to cover the war
protesters and ignore the theocrats, but that sure ain't what
seems to be happening.

Maybe that's what they mean by "Fair and Balanced". I recall how
the media ignored demonstrations with tens of thousands of anti-war
protesters and yet when 50 or so people would show up and wave
flags in support of the war, it was all over the 6 O'clock news.

I remember how that went. You could've missed the protests going on
in LA. The local news rushed by the THOUSANDS protesting like flying
down an open freeway only slowing down to cover the about six people
waving flags and signs that approved of god...

Pretty much the same in San Diego. They would ignore the hundreds of
anti-war protesters and focus on the few waving the flags and "We
support the troops" signs. San Diego is a big military town, but I
think that the biggest protests since the Vietnam war deserved more
coverage than that. Not very fair and balanced if you ask me.

And this in what has always been considered a "liberal" state no less.

This media consolidation thing really *is out of hand. And I used to be
such a Libertarian. <wry-g>

But, really, it *is a liberal state. And LA is one of it's liberal
leaning cities (okay, so the Bay Area is so left they almost bumped into
Japan <g>). Yet the LA Times--other than having a real hard on about gun
control--was veering to the right after being bought out.

I read both the LA Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune. I used to read
the Times to get the liberal perspective and the U-T for the more
conservative one (and they do have the local news). Now it's hard for me
to tell the difference bertween their editorial pages. Welcome to the era
of totally homogenized pasteurized news.

There was that idiotic cartoonist Michael Ramirez who--when his cartoons
made any sense--made Bush look like a commie pinko leftist. I never
could figure that one out (like about the half the time I couldn't
figure out what the *hell Ramirez thought he was saying).

Ramirez thinks that everyone except him is a lying, liberal, loony,
commie, fanatic terrorist. And those are just the people that he likes.