Posted by onetwothree on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:17 | #

Journalistic manners: I remember years ago an incident in which a hostage was taken, and forced to state some gibberish on camera: “The evil devil of the United States must blah, blah, blah.” (I don’t remember what the occasion was…it may have been the first gulf war.)

Anyway, I’m watching this thinking—they beat him, tortured him into saying laughable nonsense, and he’s got black eyes, mumbling monotonously, etc.

So, the TV switches back to the talking head, who says, “And there you had the statement from the captured soldier.”

No comment. You would think they’d…at least say, “The obviously false statement from the caputured soldier.”

Right? No—because that’s opinion/analysis, and that goes into a different part of the news. All well and good, but the problem is that, when journalists suppress their own opinions they _quote other people’s opinions as fact_. And that is much worse than saying, “Here is my opinion, take it or leave it…”

It’s much, much worse with the president. “George Bush today said that Iraq is a menace to blah, blah, blah” ... even though every single CNN employee realizes it’s more laughable nonsense.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:57 | #

Although I hate t.v. and rarely turn it on, a recommendation from the Great Wintermute merits serious consideration.

Posted by Count Sudoku on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 03:22 | #

Wintermute is the man! He was quoted on

http://spiritwaterblood.com/

“A conservative is a man who can look upon the end of his people and culture with equanimity, and the mass murder of Germans with equanimity, who can look upon his nation’s alliance with Stalin with equanimity, but who cannot - and will not - be faced with the facts about the Jews.” ~ Wintermute

http://spiritwaterblood.com/

is essentially Little Geneva relaunched.

“We will do our very best to deliver the news stories that you’ve come to expect here, and in the same familiar, scattershot style. The only difference that comes to mind is that in the past, LG was far too charitable to the lying bastards who pretend to be ministers of Christ.”

Kinist Principles

Kinism is the belief that the ordained social order for man is tribal and ethnic rather than imperial and universal. Mankind was designed by God to live in extended family groups. The Jacobin doctrine of Equality is destructive, is antithetical to liberty, and is ultimately unachievable. Blood ties are the only natural and workable basis for a healthy society not subject to the ideologies of fallen man. We believe this is the normative system for our people.

We believe that our White people have a God-given right and duty to seek their own prosperity and existence as a distinct nation. This is primarily to be achieved by converting our people to the religion of our only Savior, Jesus Christ. Therefore, we denounce the sin of miscegenation as a violation of God’s created order which has permanent consequences for every heritable trait. We appeal to God’s creation mandate of kind after kind. It is the obligation of both church and state to forbid mixed unions according to biblical laws prohibiting unequal yoking.

We advocate a natural, chivalric, hierarchical social order. We honor and celebrate the shared history and distinctives of our people, and we stand or fall with no other.

We believe in treating all men with decency and justice. In life and in death, we oppose all enemies of Jesus Christ and all who seek our collective displacement, dispossession, or subjugation.

Perhaps MR could link to this site?

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 06:28 | #

Bible freaks. I find these people very tiresome.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 08:17 | #

I agree, Friedrich, although I do wish that the Christian clergy were populated by men like this one:

http://www.fatherfeeney.org/

Posted by Igor Alexander on Tue, 01 May 2007 05:26 | #

“Right? No—because that’s opinion/analysis, and that goes into a different part of the news. All well and good, but the problem is that, when journalists suppress their own opinions they _quote other people’s opinions as fact_. And that is much worse than saying, ‘Here is my opinion, take it or leave it…’”

“It’s much, much worse with the president. ‘George Bush today said that Iraq is a menace to blah, blah, blah’ ... even though every single CNN employee realizes it’s more laughable nonsense.”

What the news media is *supposed* to be doing is presenting a balanced set of opinions to the public. For example, if George Bush said Iraq was a menace, they should have spent an equal amount of time on what Saddam had to say in his defense, etc. But they never do that, do they? What people get on their TV screens is rather more like.. propaganda, isn’t it?

People need to wake up and realize that the mainstream media is completely, totally, absolutely controlled.

Posted by illiberal bias on Tue, 01 May 2007 15:09 | #

Fred, that example really trivializes liberal bias and political correctness.  According to Goldberg, political correctness is something silly; it causes television networks to refer to non-Americans as African-Americans.  In the grand scheme of things, what does that really mean? It’s a way for deracinated white conservatives to laugh at liberals without bumping up against any uncomfortable issues.  What does this say about Goldberg that this was the example he gave? Just look at the context of the story: it’s a brutal white-on-black hate crime! No subtle reinforcement going on there!

  The fact is that the pervasiveness of liberal bias and political correctness has far more serious and egregious consequences than the one Goldberg mentions.  I want to hear someone go on radio and talk about the discrepancy in media coverage between the Don Imus non-story and the Knoxville double rape/torture/murder case when asked about liberal bias.  Or how about the difference in attention given to the Duke hoax versus the thousands of black-on-white rapes that occur each year? Or how about mentioning the guy who lost his job for attending the American Renaissance conference last year as an example how political correctness works?

  Goldberg’s anecdote is worse than useless, it’s actually counter-productive.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 01 May 2007 16:22 | #

“Illiberal bias” of course makes all excellent points, and in posting my comment I never meant to imply that the example Goldberg gave was comparable in importance to tons of others he could’ve given, as “Illiberal bias” points out.  Good comment, “Illiberal.”

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 01 May 2007 21:17 | #

“A conservative is a man who can look upon the end of his people and culture with equanimity, and the mass murder of Germans with equanimity, who can look upon his nation’s alliance with Stalin with equanimity, but who cannot - and will not - be faced with the facts about the Jews.” ~ Wintermute

Is it true in its reflected form? A man who cannot look upon these things with equanimity then is not a conservative? This is not about conservatism, this is about tribal enmity. Why does he not just come out and say he hates the English and its diaspora for, in his mind, aligning with the Jews to destroy his people, the Germans in WWII?

Posted by Igor Alexander on Wed, 02 May 2007 21:14 | #

“I’d like to know the ethnicity of that CBS higher-up:  what he did reflected a certain kind of ideological commitment, in relation to a certain kind of topic, which is commonly seen in one particular ethnicity but distinctly uncommon in others.  His ethnicity is easily guessed.”

Fred, I’m going to suggest that that higher-up might well have been a white man. Why? Because no one has been more deeply immersed into the culture of political correctness than a white man with a university degree. That sort of rigidity is typical of whites who have undergone the brainwashing known as “sensitivity training.”

Another factor to bear in mind is that you now have special-interest groups scanning the media 24/7 for anything that they can cause a stink about. As we all know, white guilt has become something of an industry, and there are a lot of people making comfortable livings sniffing out “racism” wherever there’s a potential for extorting white guilt money. It could be that this higher-up was simply making a practical business decision, rather than acting on an ethnic/racial bias.

Political correctness has become self-perpetuating at this point. It’s the rule. You can’t infer anything about a person’s race or ethnicity from their subservience to it.

A better question might be, How did political correctness come to be the rule? Are there any special interest groups that invested a considerable amount of time and resources into perpetuating the myth that races don’t exist, that men and women are the same, that heterosexuality and homosexuality are morally equivalent, that “diversity” is a strength? What special interest groups had the means to propagate such messages to a mass audience?

At any rate, if we want to put an end to political correctness, we’re going to have to do what Bob Whitaker suggests and go straight to the source—the universities. Getting rid of political correctness without cleaning up the universities is like trying to get dry while standing in the shower.