I’ve never seen it explained better:
If you read the histories of journalists over the past 40 years or so, certain patterns emerge. Most of them — like the folks at Slate — are liberal and got into the business to “change the world.” Further, most of them are losers who did not play sports and could not get dates in high school and college. When Fox came along, with its chutzpah in allowing conservatives an actual voice, its bombshell anchors, its joyful ridicule of the self-righteous left, its outright sense of fun — well, this was just too much. Liberal journalists — now there’s a redundancy — didn’t just see their empire collapsing. They saw the cheerleaders who ignored them. They saw the conservative jock they hated and his country-club parents. They saw these people, these ogres, moving into their turf. And they went absolutely batshit.
And they continue to do so. Liberals can’t just ignore Fox; they find it too fascinating. They are like the kids in high school who absolutely despise the pretty, popular girl, then spend hours on the phone every night talking about her. At the core of it is jealousy, as well as the rage, paranoia and resentment that Tim Dickinson attributes to Fox. I mean, journalists were going to help the left change the world. And you can’t do that by giving dissenters a voice.
In fact, this also explains why lefties get so upset when any conservative wins anything, especially elective office.
Fox News has suspended contributors Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum until they decide whether to run for president.
Anchor Bret Baier announced on air late Wednesday morning that the network “has suspended its contributor arrangements” with Gingrich and Santorum for the next 60 days.
Both, Baier said, “have signaled possible runs for the presidency” and it “is Fox policy” for them to be suspended.
With the suspensions, the network has taken its first big step to address mounting concerns that it could run afoul of campaign finance laws and journalistic ethics by continuing to keep on its payroll people who are maneuvering to run for president. But the suspensions of two contributors also leads to questions about three others on the Fox payroll — Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and John Bolton — who are also weighing White House bids.
Personally, given that they’ve also flirted with running in 2012, Huckabee, Palin, and Bolton should also be suspended under the same terms, which amount to, confirm that you’re not going to run in 2012. Ethics would seem to demand that Fox cease their association with these potential candidates until they take themselves out of the running for 2012 once and for all.
Hat Tip: HotAir.
I think that, for the foreseeable future, CNN needs to retire the slogan above, and not bash any bloggers or Fox News for accuracy, after putting this out on the air:
Let us count the errors:
- Sarah Palin spells her first name with an “h” on the end.
- She was Vice-Presidential candidate, not Presidential.
- That is most certainly not Sara(h) Palin in the picture.
- In fact, that’s not even a woman in the picture.
And these folks want us to trust them to give us the news?
I don’t think so.
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn explains how the Obama campaign controlled the media before and up through last year’s presidential election:
The Obama administration still dictates the direction the so-called “main stream” media takes in reporting on President Obama and his cohorts [Article – Top White House Official Says Obama Team ‘Controlled’ Media Coverage During Campaign].
This explains why Anita Dunn, as a representative of the Obama administration, has attacked Fox News. This is why attacks have been launched against those who dare challenge the most highly esteemed potentate and savior of the world Barack Hussein Obama and his leftist horde. Obama and his lackeys are on the warpath and they are increasing their attacks on those who disagree with him and his systematic destroying of the United States of America. Attacks are not limited to just Fox News, but include Internet blogs, magazine and book publishers, conservative-leaning newspapers, radio commentary and yes, even private citizens.
Censorship and suppression of free speech? Violation of First Amendment rights? That will never happen in the United States, right? News flash: It’s happening now!
White House communications director Anita Dunn, who recently acted as proxy of the Obama administration by making what was tantamount to a declaration of war on Fox News, has particularly chosen one rather infamous individual as an object of her admiration:
For those of you who don’t know your world history, Mao Tse Tung became the leader of communist China. He didn’t just repudiate dissenters, he eliminated them. He murdered millions of people—anybody who opposed him or who were perceived to be a threat to and/or enemy of the “community” or “state”. He claimed to be doing what he did for the greater good of the “community” or “collective” of his country. The freedoms and liberties we have enjoyed and presently enjoy in the United States were non-existent in Mao’s China. Although the government of China has eased up on a fraction of their draconian policies, the people of China are still not free, as we would define it. Why would their government constantly be cited for human rights violations, if they were truly free?
Is one of the most hideous, vile and detestable individuals in human history a person to be respected or admired? Why does Ms. Dunn find Mao Tse Tung to be a source of inspiration? I find it almost sacrilegious that she actually mentions him in the same breath as Mother Teresa. In fact, the two were polar opposites on a grand scale. Leaders like Mao despised people like Mother Teresa. They despised religion and viewed it as “the opium of the people”.
Ms. Dunn invalidates her feelings about Mother Teresa with the praise she gives to Chairman Mao. Did both of their philosophies have valid points that could somehow be extracted, combined and put into application? Mother Teresa’s life was that of love, kindness, mercy, charity and compassionate care. What good ever came from communism? Is oppression good? What good comes from cruelty and mass murder? Why would Ms. Dunn choose Mao Tse Tung’s political philosophy as one to emulate, if she does not share at least some of the same political beliefs as Mao? Wouldn’t that imply that she resides in whole or in part, on the same ideological plane as Tung? Which ideology would that be [Article – Anita Dunn: Mao Tse Tung Fan?]?
Remember, if you want to discover the direction Obama’s policies are taking, look at the people whom he surrounds himself with (his words, not ours).