Teacher Opposed to Gay Marriage Could be Fired

Probably not Sean Hannity.com. Probably not Rush Limbaugh.com. Probably not Ann Coulter.com.

Do you seriously believe there is no outlet for social conservatives to voice their opinion in this country? They have the top-rated cable news channel. All of the top-rated cable talk radio shows. The Wall Street Journal. And on and on and on.

And, just to make sure, you do understand the distinction between the government shutting down your views and a private person responding to your views, no? I assume you do, but I'm beginning to wonder.

If you think you're being drowned out, there are two reasons:

(1) You aren't talking loud enough or, more likely, coherently enough to get any traction.
(2) There are more people in this country right now who support gay marriage than are against it. A recent Gallup poll confirms. Hence, no surprise that media opinion pieces would probably reflect that reality.

I ask again: What is your specific complaint? Who is stopping you from voicing your opinion? Who has taken away your "right" to opine against gay marriage? Who?

 

But not the Wall Street Journal or Fox News?

They don't count?

Does Ross Douthat not write for the New York Times? Does David Brooks not write for the New York Times? When people gripe about the New York Times, they are largely griping about 1/2 of one page of the entire newspaper - the left side of the final facing pages of the A-section. I think their editorials are over the top, too, particularly the way every Supreme Court case is analyzed from a policy instead of a legal standpoint.

But, again, it's 1/2 of one page of a newspaper with more than a hundred pages a day.

 

You didn't answer the question. And David Brooks is more liberal than you. I was asking about the three major networks...and the two so-called "newspapers of record" in this country. I am just curious if you see them as having a liberal bias or if you think said bias is overblown.

 

The Wall Street Journal is not a "newspaper of record" in this country?

 

I saw that MSNBC has a new contributor who is a radical liberal: Michael Steele.

 

If you do not want to answer the question, feel free to say so. No big deal. I think your responses give me your answer, anyway.

 

In the context of 'liberal media,' please define the word 'liberal.'

I.e., do you think it means 'leftist?' Do you think it means 'Democrat?'

 

I gave my answer. The answer was too nuanced for you to accept, but I gave it. I guess if you want a yes or no answer, I would probably say that those sources are biased, editorially, in favor of liberal stances on social issues. At the same time, however, I can find several features a week in each one in which someone's religious faith is used as a proxy for what a good person they are.

And you haven't answered my question, either: Are the Wall Street Journal and Fox News not "mainstream media" sources?

This all kind of circles us back to the Ryan Lizza-Michele Bachmann story. In Bachmann's world, there were plenty of people to support every word she uttered about homosexuals. Jeff Toobin's story this week about Clarence and Ginni Thomas kind of parallels that. Ginni Thomas was shocked that people reacted the way they did to her phone call to Anita Hill because the Thomases run only in conservative circles where every word they utter, every stance they take, is supported.

A lot of people in this country insulate themselves comfortably from dissenting opinions. When they are exposed to them, it's like a fish on the shore.

 

I'll make that contention, sure. Absolutely.

 

And the New York liberals that could not believe Nixon defeated McGovern because they "did not know a single person that voted for Nixon." Yes, people do insulate themselves from opinions that differ from their own. But my problem comes when the so-called objective media carries the water for one side so obviously and consistently, while opposing the other side.

Yes, Fox and The Wall Street Journal are mainstream media outlets. And I would say they are far more impartial than the networks, the NYT and the Wash. Post. They do have a conservative bent, but they tend to be more even-handed about their coverage. The NYT, especially, has lost virtually all of its credibility...and that's a shame because it used to be an exceptional paper. Now it is completely anti-Israel and anti-conservative to the point of being distracting. There is a reason the NYT's circulation numbers are swirling around the drain.

 

And thank you, Carlton, for a textbook example of how confirmation bias leads people to see slant where it does not exist, and underestimate it where it does.

 

Every time we have this argument, it inevitably comes back to "Fox News is balanced!!!!!!!" "Fox News is totally mainstream!!!!!!" About a network that SPONSORED AND GAVE RISE TO THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT.

I don't know which is sadder: That you believe that, or that you expect us to.