+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Hypocrite liberals (/thread-220744.html)
- calling_the_hogs - 09-16-2003 08:58 AM
'Now for one of the most outrageous things I've ever seen in journalism. The ultra-liberal Los Angeles Times printed a column today by rabid left-winger Michael Kinsley (search) entitled "Whether It Happened or Not, It's Still Disgusting." The column rips [Republican candidate for California governor] Arnold Schwarzenegger for his sex talk in a magazine 25 years ago. Other newspapers ran the column as well with less inflammatory headlines.
Kinsley writes, "Some sexual habits reflect an attitude toward other people, especially women, that is worth knowing about in the voting booth. It's also worth knowing if a politician is a liar and a hypocrite..."
Now this is the same Kinsley who passionately defended President Clinton during the Lewinsky episode, the same guy. Back then, Kinsley wrote this in Time magazine.
"The most significant political story of 1998 is not that the President had oral sex with a 22-year old White House intern. The most significant political story of the year is that most citizens don't seem to think it's significant that the President had sex with a 22-year old intern. Yes, Yes, he lied about it. Under oath, blah, blah, blah..."
Can you believe this? This guy diminishes the Clinton episode, but smears Schwarzenegger, who was single at the time he dished about sex?
In the interest of full disclosure, you may remember Kinsley spread misinformation about me, so I have no use for him, but this situation is revolting. Did The L.A. Times (search) not know that Kinsley was a Clinton cheerleader during the sex scandal? Why on earth would that newspaper allow this guy to blast Schwarzenegger in the same context?
Now I write a syndicated column. My company creators would never let me do something like that. Even if you love Clinton and Kinsley and don't like Arnold, you have to see the rank intellectual dishonesty in this. At least, I hope you do.
I mean, just how partisan is journalism going to get in this country?'
Good question Bill... I dunno
This is how the joebordens and Shads of the world work. Hypocrisy to its fullest. There is no excuse for this bs...or any reason in trying to defend it.
WPS
- rickheel - 09-16-2003 11:38 AM
Do you have a link to that?
- T-Monay820 - 09-16-2003 07:12 PM
Typical of a liberal.
- Schadenfreude - 09-16-2003 08:30 PM
What you describe sounds pretty hypocritical on the part of Kinsley, who is the editor of Slate and a columnist at the Washington Post.
But "far left" sounds like just so much bluster. I'm not that familiar with Kinsley's writing. I can say Slate doesn't strike me as "far left" Left in an ideosyncratic way? Yeah. "Far left?" No.
That said, the only reason I'm really posting here is to disabuse people of the idea that the Los Angeles is"ultra-liberal."
To say such a thing reflects real ignorance about the newspaper's history.
Up until about 1960, the Los Angeles Times was rabidly conservative and unfair to its opponents in a way rarely seen these days. In labor disputes, the paper wasn't just unfair. It simply refused to quote representatives of labor at all. That was its stated policy. In political campaigns, the Los Angeles Times would only cover Republican candidates. Period.
In fact, to be a public official in southern California, one effectively needed to get the approval of the Los Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times essentially created Richard Nixon by giving him flattering coverage and not covering his opponents at all (save, perhaps, an occasional hatchet job).
(I've always believed that part of Nixon's problem, that image of paranoia he always projected, was the fact that the Times was able to get him all the way to the Senate without ever having to take tough questions from the press. Once Nixon received normal press coverage, he was really inept at handling it.)
Anyway, Otis Chandler was named publisher in 1960 by his father, and these tendencies soon changed. Nixon was soon shocked to discover that the Times would ALSO be covering the Kennedy campaign.
And you know that quote about not having "Dick Nixon to kick around any more?" That was really aimed at the Times -- because, again, Nixon was shocked that the TImes had dared to write hard-hitting stories about him. It had never really done so for most of his career.
I don't read the LA Times, but I have no reason to think it is anything other than what it presents itself as: A major American newspaper trying to play it straight.
The fact that it carried a Kinsley column about Arnold -- however unfair -- does not make the LA Times "ultra liberal" any more than my hometown paper is conservative because it carries Jonah Goldberg (who is a creep and hypocritical on a weekly basis).
When measured against its history, "ultra-liberal" just doesn't make any sense in describing the LA Times.
- T-Monay820 - 09-16-2003 09:09 PM
Schadenfreude Wrote:When measured against its history, "ultra-liberal" just doesn't make any sense in describing the LA Times.Yet its OK to ignore what Bush did in the past (Yale) and to describe him as dumb. Sure, its Ok to use an idea one way and not the other, as long as you're a liberal. How pathetic.
- The Peoples Champion - 09-17-2003 03:08 AM
T-Monay820 Wrote:Could you explain how this is happening?Schadenfreude Wrote:When measured against its history, "ultra-liberal" just doesn't make any sense in describing the LA Times.Yet its OK to ignore what Bush did in the past (Yale) and to describe him as dumb. Sure, its Ok to use an idea one way and not the other, as long as you're a liberal. How pathetic.
- calling_the_hogs - 09-17-2003 11:09 AM
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96720,00.html' target='_blank'>Kinsley the Big Fat Hypocrite</a>
There ya go
WPS