Liberal bias exposed and admonished in newsrooms - progress is made!

Maybe it was a booabuster.

 

I like how you throw out the "reporters..." line. It fits in nicely with the argument. See, the word archliberal exists. So if you wanted to argue why someone is labeled with archconservative and someone else isn't labeled archliberal then I can understand. However, due to the conservative meme that liberal=bad, I'm sure that many reporters shy away from such connotations because of the negative inclination that they hold.

 

OK, then, let's say "ultra-, ultra-" or "arch-, arch-." Tomato, tomato.

 

I only respond to uberliberal, myself. I like the ironic Teutonic flavor.

 

You forgot the umlauts.

 

Yes, this was unprofessional.

It was also just another example not of liberal bias, which conservatives have made a cottage industry out of shouting "LIBERAL BIAS" at every non-GOP fellating story, but of the way the mainstream media contorts itself and rends its garments to appease the Right in this country.

Yet, we don't see this coming from the other side, do we?

When John Moody et al at Fox News apologizes for the way it covers news, perhaps I'll pay more attention. Until then, it's like boxing the drummer from Def Leppard.

 

If that's the case, it must not be working too well, because things like this keep happening.

Like I said, when similar adjectives are used to describe Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich, then maybe you'll have a point. Better yet, take Twain's advice on adjectives and don't use them at all.

 

See the reason a reporter wouldn't label a person as "liberal" is because of the connotation. Conservative has no such negative connotation to it. Thus, by using a word with a connotation the author would be adding opinion into an article you claim should be a straight story.

 

The fact it does have negative connotation should tell you all you need to know.

 

THAT, we can agree on.

 

Because of people of your ilk using it thusly?

 

I've always loved how people like Yawn and others think liberal is some BAD thing...check the definitions:

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.


So can anyone tell me why, in America, a land built on the concept of being more free than any place else on Earth, these ideas would be considered bad?