No liberal bias?

I think some excellent points re: Palin were raised over at Fat Jack's Erratic Rants.

Regarding how Palin would juggle the responsibilities of being the VP with her family life, Jack wrote:

"It is true that the media did not ask the same questions of Obama, Biden or McCain. The thing that complicates the issue further is that the media did not have to ask Obama or Biden about how they will balance their home lives. Both Obama and Biden freely offered this information in full during the course of their campaign. Palin has not had the opportunity to do so as her pick was sudden and surprising."

Jack goes on to discuss why he believes it's a legitimate question and I don't disagree with him on that point. He also praised Obama's handling of the issue of Palin's daughter being thrown into the fray. Well, okay, but I remember a time when I was much more partisan than I am today. I remember people on the other side of the political divide not letting the Bush campaign off the hook for things said by other people in the party, people who were not part of the campaign. Those people, the very people who wanted to hold Bush and/or his campaign directly responsible for say, the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth's campaign against Kerry, are most likely the very rabid, political animals who are engaged in the attempted character assassination of Sarah Palin. I say this just to make the point that there are people who, from their own partisan positions, will not accept that this isn't a direct part of the Obama "machine." If it was fair for the far left to claim Swift Boat Vets were part of the Bush political machine then, they may have to take a dose of their own medicine.

And, rest assured, I'm not directing this at my good Democrat friends, I actually have some and it's doubtful, to me, they'd be rooting for the continuance of this attempted character assassination of Palin.

Obama shouldn't be held accountable for everything everyone who supports him writes or says about his political opponent(s) anymore than I believed Bush should have been held accountable for everything everyone who supported him ever wrote or said about his political opponent(s).

What I appreciated about Jack's post and where I think this issue is the most saddening is when he wrote the above quoted segment. No one had "to ask Obama or Biden about how they will balance their home lives. Both Obama and Biden freely offered this information in full during the course of their campaign. Palin has not had the opportunity to do so as her pick was sudden and surprising."

Palin didn't have the chance, the vultures descended on her without giving her the opportunity to offer that information freely and voluntarily, as the other candidates have been able to do, and I think I've even heard that some people are proposing that she is unwilling to give that information, when the reality is, she just hasn't had the chance yet.

Certainly, Republicans have every right to complain. Michelle Malkin is doing a bit of complaining today. In Us magazine’s partisan hit job, Malkin pointed out a US magazine headline read: "John McCain's Vice President SARAH PALIN: BABIES, LIES & SCANDAL."

Malkin reminds readers of the June cover of US magazine on Barack Obama: "Michelle Obama, Why Barack Loves Her," further, on the cover, "She shops at Target, loved Sex and the City and never misses the girls' recitals. The untold romance between a down-to-earth mom and the man who calls her 'my rock'"

Precious.

Jason Wert of Life Of Jason, brought up the John Roberts question about Palin's ability to be VP and devote an appropriate amount of time to her special needs child, here. I thought at the time, the level of outrage was a bit over the top but, hmmm, maybe not. I had no idea the media firestorm that was waiting in the wings for Sarah Palin. It would have been nice, as Andy Cline pointed out, if Roberts had asked Palin rather than another reporter the question. Cline agreed, there was a legitimate question that could have been asked of Palin, well, rather than summarize what he wrote, here it is:

"Roberts and Bash are engaging in a practice typical of political reporting on TV today--a practice I object to: reporters talking to each other about issues as if they are experts. They should be reporting news, not engaging each other in speculation.

There is a legitimate question here that ought to be asked of the candidate. I would phrase it this way: What challenges does raising a special needs child present for a vice president?

Palin needs to be ready to respond to this reasonable question. What's unreasonable about the Roberts/Bash conversation is the underlying premise that one might not be able to handle both jobs well."

Certainly, it has provided more fodder for conservatives to declare there is a liberal bias in the media. Andy?

The continuing immigration non-debate

I'm finished (for the time being) with trying to convince people that there are legitimate arguments that are made every single day for non-support of ILLEGAL immigration.

The latest attempt I made to discuss a legitimate argument related to immigration, legal and/or illegal, came in the form of sharing a legitimate reason why Missouri's language law might NOT be "nothing but talk," as the Springfield News-Leader presented it.

That attempt was a perfect example of what I wrote in this blog piece in summation of the intentions of the News-Leader, but it is much broader than just the News-Leader, this attitude applies to just about any non-discussion of the issue between just about any two debate opponents, I wrote:

"By summing up Republicans or those who support an English language law in such a way (as IGNORANT XENOPHOBES), by polarizing people in such a fashion they do not seek debate, they do not seek to truly represent the two sides of the ILLEGAL immigration argument, they do not seek balance or diversity of thought, what they seek are vitriolic and angry responses which they can then use against those who supported the English language laws and would like to see our borders enforced against illegal aliens."

For a further example of this in play read the exchanges in the comment section here.

No matter how I tried to stick to the general topic of non-English speaking legal immigrant voters, my opponent, "hillbilly," tried every way possible to insert Hispanics or, as he called them, "browns" into the discussion, as if it was my intention to single them out when that was never my intent.

In my own opinion the entire discussion on his part was an effort to somehow turn the conversation in such a way as to be able to call me a racist, a bigot, a xenophobe. By doing so he had the luxury of ignoring my legitimate argument supporting an English language law in Missouri. If he could manage to find a single reason to call me a racist, a bigot or a xenophobe then my credible argument would not stand, it would no longer be credible. So instead of taking the argument I made at face value and addressing it, he worked to discern a less than honorable motive for my support of such a bill (and failed).

The discussion was going nowhere and never would have gone anywhere. There can never be real discussion about the ILLEGAL immigration problem we face in the United States or in Missouri when the argument cannot even begin to be about the argument but, instead, always becomes about the motive of the debate's opponents.

Dr. Andrew Cline is continuing his discussion on "What a Quote Means" at The Rhetorica Network, for those interested in that aspect of the discussion. I plan to continue to read his entries, he's a good "source." ;)

UPDATE: For another example of how the immigration debate always turns to anyone who opposes the current comprehensive immigration reform bill is a bigot, read the comment section here.

Dr. Cline replies to my previous entry

Because this is an important issue to me and I want to be fully understood in the position that I am taking regarding the Springfield News-Leader, I have decided to post Dr. Andrew Cline's comment to my previous entry: On Dr. Andrew Cline's "What a Quote Means," here as a primary entry rather than in the comment section, along with my response to him. Cline wrote:

re: "criticized" all journalists as having an agenda

Yes, but not in the way usually meant by those stuck on simplistic ideas of political bias in the news media. The truth is more complex and far more interesting. And, in a very important way, it is far more harmful to journalism's purpose than the occasional instances of political bias (that break both ways). I left that last line--the one you quote--hanging there for a reason, which I hope will become clear as I continue discussing quotes.

Well, Dr. Cline, I don't know what your definition of "simplistic ideas of political bias" means (yet). I don't know that people are as "simplistic" in their opinions or their determinations about media bias as you may think they are. It has been my experience that oftentimes people have a better understanding of what is going on in our culture than they are given credit. At least I am hopeful that this is the case. I like to think, rather than being "simplistic," that not all people are able to accurately articulate their thoughts and are caught in traps set up by their political opposition because they are unable to state those thoughts well. When they inarticulately reply they are then set out for display by their opponents and are misrepresented by their later sensationalized words.

I have been watching the immigration debate for some time. There is no debate. What there is is an effort by those who are sympathetic to the cause of illegal aliens to paint anyone less sympathetic than they as a bigot, as a racist, as a xenophobe. There is an effort to shut debate down, not listen to debate, not consider the views of the other side.

The Springfield News-Leader has been using this tactic for some time. They threw chum into the water over the weekend and then this morning in their most recent Our Voice column they stated:

"It allows us (Missourians, but they have already identified Republicans as the ones who support this bill) to say that we're so afraid of immigrants of a different color, and we're so ignorant of existing state law and how the state conducts its business, that we'll make an unnecessary change to our constitution because it makes us feel better."

By summing up Republicans or those who support an English language law in such a way (as IGNORANT XENOPHOBES), by polarizing people in such a fashion they do not seek debate, they do not seek to truly represent the two sides of the ILLEGAL immigration argument, they do not seek balance or diversity of thought, what they seek are vitriolic and angry responses which they can then use against those who supported the English language laws and would like to see our borders enforced against illegal aliens.

The ILLEGAL immigration debate has nothing to do with race but no matter how many times those who disagree with the News-Leader repeat that it will never make a difference because the News-Leader's ears are closed. They are COMMITTED to continuing the erroneous charge that anyone who is concerned about our borders is a racist, bigoted xenophobe.

When the News-Leader becomes a sensational rag with no respect for its readers who have a differing viewpoint, when the News-Leader's "subtlety" is as subtle as a rhetorical nuclear bomb, one has to wonder if they are in the news biz to educate the public or to propagandize it.

Just look over the flavor of the online edition of the News-Leader over the last weeks. It CANNOT be missed. Unless you happen to be one of those people requiring a brick to the head.

I thank you for your reply. It isn't my intention to drag you into this discussion about the News-Leader but since I have been very disgusted over the last weeks with the News-Leader's coverage I naturally, couldn't help but consider your words from that viewpoint.

On Dr. Andrew Cline's "What a Quote Means"

(or "everyone is entitled to their own opinion...")

Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal: What a Quote Means

Bingo. I found this interesting on a number of levels. Oh, okay, maybe on only one level.

I read it through the jaded eyes of considering our local daily newspaper's recent onslaught of controversial editorials.

Think about that.

If I may quote Dr. Andrew Cline of The Rhetorica Network from the above article:

"...what does a quote mean?

It means whatever the journalist intended by its use."

I'd really like to see Dr. Cline touch on what does the choice of a source mean next...? (and perhaps he has in a previous entry, I'll have to look into that.)

Naturally, I understand an editorial is not the same as a news report and in this particular local paper they publish these editorials under the heading of "Our Voice," but if it is the paper's voice shouldn't they simply give their voice? Give their straight opinion on the matter?

In giving their voice they also try to persuade and manipulate the reader to accept their qualitative sources as reason to join them in the opinion they hold. Their choice of sources can be one-sided to make the point the paper wishes to make or by choice of the quotes used from varied sources, they can direct the reader to draw the same conclusion they hold.

So taking, for instance, this "Our Voice" column, the "Our Voice" writer uses the Southern Poverty Law Center as the paper's sole quoted source. Indeed, they chose to summarize the local Minutemen Chapter member's commentary rather than quote him. At least the paper cannot be charged with taking him out of context, since they didn't quote him in the first place. We finish reading the article not knowing what local Chapter member Tom Franiac said at all, only knowing what the anonymous newspaper writer determined him to have meant by words he said that went unreported.

Now, I could have summarized Andy Cline's article by saying, "it became obvious" that Cline "criticized" all journalists as having an agenda. That would be a valid interpretation of his answer to the question, "What does a quote mean...? It means whatever a journalist intended by its use," but would that really be what Andy Cline meant? I don't think that is what Dr. Cline meant at all and if I wanted to I could ramble on a little longer and this could become an entry about moral relativism, your truth is as valid as my truth...right?

I like this Patrick Moynihan quote, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

Facts are much safer than opinion, facts are much safer than quotes and the truth is the truth when evaluated from the standpoint of fact rather than opinion.

(...and you can quote me on that.)