Tag Archives: liberal media

Conversation (continued) …

I’ve told you already about a fellow I met the other morning. We covered a lot of ground in the 10 or 12 minutes we chatted.

It centered mostly on the congressional hearing involving FBI agent Peter Strzok and his role in the Robert Mueller investigation into the “Russia thing.”

He mentioned he has been retired for 20 years. Then he asked me if I was retired. “Yes,” I said. “I’m a retired journalist. I was a member of the ‘Mainstream Media,'” I added.

He nodded. “Ahhh, that explains why you’re a liberal,” he said.

I stopped him. “No, sir. My job didn’t define me. My inherent bias is what informs my world view,” I told him.

He had described himself as a “libertarian,” who wasn’t aligned with Democrats or Republicans.

It dawned on me a long time ago, but his assumption that my more progressive/liberal tendencies are a result of my occupation drives home a key point.

Conservatives are winning the war of ideologies. They have succeeded in tarring media representatives and outlets as inherently “liberal.” The “liberal media” get blamed for all that is wrong with journalism.

My own view of the term “mainstream media,” though takes a different approach. I long have considered the “mainstream media” to be a much more diverse bunch than the way conservatives label them. I include many conservative-leaning outlets among members of the “mainstream media”: Fox News, The Weekly Standard, The National Review all belong to the MSM; I also might throw in Breitbart News just to get folks’ pulse to race a bit.

Indeed, I worked for three newspaper groups with ownership that was decidedly not liberal in its outlook. Scripps League Newspapers was run by an elderly scion from the E.W. Scripps newspaper empire; then I went to work for the Hearst Corp., another right-leaning outfit; my career ended while working for Morris Communications, which was a far-right-leaning organization led by a man who is the product of the “old South,” if you get my drift.

The media are as diverse as any other craft.

The gentleman with whom I had this exchange over the weekend likely didn’t intend to paint us all with such a broad brush … but he did.

I don’t yet know if I’ll see him again. If I do, I might take the time to inform him of my own view of what comprises the “mainstream media.”

I suppose I could ask him: If the “liberal mainstream media” are so powerful and pervasive, how do all those conservatives keep getting elected to public office?

Clinton stiff-arming of media needs to end

hillary and media

It’s safe to say — I truly believe — that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton doesn’t feel “protected” by the so-called “liberal media.”

She doesn’t believe the media have given her a break in all her years in public life. Nor does she believe broadcast and print journalist Ajust stand around looking at their shoes when the subject of the myriad controversies come up regarding her life on the public stage.

Why else, do you suppose, does she keep the media at such a distance?

My response to all of that is: too bad, Mme. Secretary; it’s time you start letting the media do their job.

According to Politico, Clinton’s relationship with the media is about to undergo a fundamental change. I believe it’s for the better.

After Labor Day, the media will be allowed aboard “a ‘Stronger Together’-wrapped 737 from New York to Ohio to Iowa, and remain flying companions for the final stretch of the campaign.”


Clinton distrusts the national media, believing that they have been unfair in covering her and her husband, the 42nd president of the United States. Until now, she has flown separately from event to event without the media aboard her campaign plane. She can afford the luxury of doing so, given the huge amount of campaign cash she has socked away.

She remains the favorite to win the election this year and become the nation’s 45th — and its first female — president.

But those of us in the media — and that includes those of us who used to work in this field full time — want her to speak to the public through the media. It’s been damn near a year since she had a full-blown news conference where she fields tough and probing questions from reporters.

I don’t need to lecture Clinton on this matter, but I’ll say it anyway: The media serve as the public’s eyes and ears on matters of public policy. Seeking the highest political office in the nation is of compelling public and national interest. The media are entrusted with reporting how these candidates seek to govern and the only way to get anything resembling a definitive answer is to ask them directly.

Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, to his credit, has been more accessible to the media than Clinton. Indeed, he’s gladly seized the spotlight as Clinton has been content in recent weeks to let Trump’s troubles dominate the news cycles.

Hillary Clinton certainly cannot govern this way if she’s elected. Nor should she be think she can continue to stiff-arm the media as she campaigns for the world’s most visible and powerful public office.

So, she thinks she’s been mistreated?

Get over it. Talk to us … through the media.

‘Liberal media’ become target of the right


It’s always been this way.

The so-called “liberal media” do all they can to conspire to sway public decisions, policy and the actions of those in power … allegedly.

We’re hearing it again in social media circles: The “liberal media” want to elect Hillary Clinton!

I believe I shall call a time out for a moment or two.

The so-called “binary choice” features Clinton, the Democratic nominee, and Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee. One of them will be elected president of the United States on Nov. 8.

The “liberal media,” according to those on the right, are giving Clinton a pass on all those hideous scandals that have rocked her political history. Isn’t that interesting? How do those on the right even know about the scandals/controversies/dust-ups? They read about them in the media.

Clinton’s past has been covered over and over again. She’s been scrutinized, examined, vetted and interrogated by more reporters than anyone in public life in the past 20-plus years. Congress has investigated her to the hilt and those investigations have been covered — also to the hilt — by the media.

As for the liberal media conspiring to elect her, I want to offer this brief rejoinder. The print media in particular don’t have the time, let alone the inclination, to concoct such conspiracies. I used to adhere to the truism while working as a full-time journalist that producing a newspaper every day was little short of a miracle, given all the things that can go wrong during a given production cycle.

One final point …

If the media were truly conspiring to elect either Trump or Clinton, I would put my bet on the media wanting Trump to win. Think of it: Whenever he shoots off his mouth, he draws a crowd; he attracts viewers to TV news shows and readers to print publications.

Those readers and viewers all mean the same thing to media moguls: money, lots of money.

Liberal media conspiracy?

Give me a break. There. I’m out.

‘Liberal media’ take no prisoners


Ben Carson has counterattacked the “liberal media” for what he calls a “witch hunt.”

Questions about his past have become all the rage. CNN keeps poking around in the hunt for corroboration that he once stabbed someone in a fit of anger. The network can’t find anyone to back it up. Now we hear that Dr. Carson, um, didn’t exactly get offered a West Point scholarship in the manner he said he did.

The media want to know the truth.

The counterattack points to what the doctor/Republican presidential candidate said is a double standard as it regards Democrats running for president. The media don’t look quite as intently at them as they do Republicans, according to Dr. Carson.

Hold on, doc.

Barack Obama faced intense scrutiny over:

  • His relationship with a fiery Church of Christ pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
  • His friendship with anti-Vietnam War activist William Ayers.
  • His place of birth and whether he was constitutionally qualified to run for president of the United States.
  • His academic records at Harvard, which Carson brought up again this week.

And, oh yes, Hillary Clinton, the current Democratic frontrunner has, throughout her public career, faced down matters involving:

  • Allegations that she covered up information about Benghazi.
  • Her involvement with her husband, the 42nd president, in the Whitewater real estate matter.
  • The death of her good friend, Vince Foster, who some in the media have suggested was murdered.

So … let’s take a breath, shall we?

I also should mention the names of other prominent Democratic pols who’ve wilted under the media glare.

Do the names Gary Hart and John Edwards ring a bell? How about Anthony Weiner and Barney Frank?

Let’s get back to the story at hand. Did a leading candidate for president of the United States misrepresent whether he was offered a West Point scholarship?

Well … ?


RNC fights back: severs tie with NBC

horse race

Can it possibly true that the Republican National Committee doesn’t like its party’s presidential candidates to answer tough questions?

Someone, tell me that’s not possible.

The RNC has lashed out at CNBC and its parent network, NBC, by severing its relationship with the media outlet because of the nature of the questions asked by CNBC moderators this week at the GOP debate in Boulder, Colo.

This means NBC won’t take part in future Republican debates.

The questions weren’t “fair,” according to RNC chairman Reince Preibus. They were of the “gotcha” variety, he said.

I happen to agree with the view that the CNBC moderators did a poor job during the debate. My issue with them was that the debate became a madhouse during its two-hour duration. Candidates were interrupting each other; they were interrupting the moderators; the moderators were interrupting the candidates. Then came the attacks from the candidates against the mainstream media and CNBC.

One of the candidates, Ted Cruz of Texas, then said he thinks Republican debates need to be moderated by pundits who are friendly to the GOP. Donald Trump said more or less the same thing.

Look, the issue shouldn’t be the toughness of the questioning. What on Earth do any of these folks believe will await them if any of them gets elected president next year? Are they — and their political party apparatus — really fearful of tough questions that seek to determine the candidates’ ability to think on their feet and deal with unexpected occurrences?

I cannot believe what’s happening here. The Republican National Committee needs to get a grip on what it is demanding of the media that cover its candidates’ quest to assume the most powerful office on the planet.


Rand Paul plays 'standard shtick'

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul had a prickly interview with an NBC News reporter the other day.

According to another NBC news celeb, the Kentucky Republican is treading on some tricky territory if he keeps it up.


Paul objected to a question posed by Savannah Guthrie and then proceeded to lecture her about talking over him while he tried to answer the question.

It’s not the first time Paul has done that, particularly with female reporters. Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd noted that conservative politicians like baiting the media because it “gins up” their base. Paul, of course, recently announced his candidacy for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2016.

This, of course, plays to the guts of the GOP’s criticism of the “liberal media,” which it contends treat progressive/liberal politicians with kid gloves while they don the brass knuckles when confronting conservative politicians.

Interesting, yes? I don’t believe Bill Clinton would agree with that. Nor would Jimmy Carter. Or former Congressman Anthony Weiner. And, yes, there have been other liberals who’ve taken their share of hits from their so-called “liberal brethren” in the media.

Sen. Paul has enough to offer Republican primary voters — and perhaps the general electorate — without getting in the face of reporters whose job is to probe and push for answers to difficult questions.

Memento returns home

When you spend a career in daily journalism, you are able to collect some mementos.

I thought one of them was gone after I left my last full-time journalism job. Silly me. I got it back just the other day. I feel strangely whole again.

My career in daily journalism came to an abrupt end on Aug. 30, 2012. I resigned — unhappily — from my job and was gone. Company “restructuring” can be a bitch, you know?

What did I leave behind? It was a silly bumper sticker I’ve been packing around since my older son was a sophomore in high school. A teacher of his gave him the bumper sticker and asked him to give it to me. He wanted to stick it in my ear with the bumper-sticker slogan, “I Don’t Believe the Liberal Media.”

I’ve carried it around with great pride ever since.

How did it find its way back to my hands? The librarian at the paper where I worked for nearly 18 years called me on another matter. I e-mailed her back with an answer to her call, then asked if the bumper sticker, which was pasted on the door jamb to my former office, was still there. “Yes,” she said. I asked her if she could return it to me, which she did.

My friends and others who know my political leanings know the bumper sticker is meant to be self-deprecating. They know I’m one of those “liberal media” types. I display it with pride.

This artifact, though, once was a source of tension with some colleagues at the newspaper where I worked — or so I was led to believe.

My office at the Amarillo Globe-News had been in what we called “the old building,” next to the publisher’s office. The fellow who replaced the publisher who hired me decided to make a change: He decided to move me and my staff out of that office to another location. We eventually ended up in the newsroom, across the parking lot in the newer building.

As I moved into my new digs, I put the “I Don’t Believe the Liberal Media” sign on my window, thinking my colleagues would know that I was poking fun at myself.

Not everyone, I guess, understood the irony of the sign. One of them approached me the morning of my first full day in the newsroom and informed me that “some of us” took offense at the sign. My jaw dropped. She didn’t understand the intent of the sign, which was to poke fun at myself, not to make any serious political statement. My colleague then informed me she would take the matter up with our human resources director if I didn’t remove the sign.

I relented. The sign came down and I would resent the individual for the rest of the time she worked at the newspaper.

That’s in the increasingly distant past now.

I see bumper stickers occasionally with that “I Don’t Believe … ” message on the back of vehicles driving around town. When I do, I cannot help but smile. They’re intended to convey a serious message.

I take it as a joke. I’m just glad to have my little keepsake back home.

Spotlight gets hot as it shines on Gov. Christie

Welcome to center stage, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Now that he seems to have implied an interest in running for president of the United States in 2016, the media are looking at him with intense attention to everything he says or does, or doesn’t say or do.

That’s how it goes.


This is nothing new in politics. The media are trained to do this kind of thing, irrespective of party. My friends on the right can spare me the “liberal media are out to get Christie” nonsense.

I will remind them of what happened to Sen. Barack Obama when he ran for president in 2008. You’ll recall the Rev. Jeremy Wright mess and his association with a Church of Christ pastor who said God should “damn America.” Also recall all those questions about the senator’s birth and whether he was constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president. Let us nor forget, either, the associations that young Barack had with the likes of William Ayers and other members of the infamous Weather Underground anti-Vietnam War crowd.

The media were quick to pounce all over him.

John McCain got the treatment during the 2008 campaign, as did Mitt Romney in 2012. Bill Clinton’s love life became media fodder during the 1992 campaign. Michael Dukakis and convicted murderer Willie Horton were joined at the hip — so to speak — during the 1988 campaign because of a furlough that Dukakis granted Horton while serving as governor of Massachusetts; the furlough ended tragically, if you’ll recall.

The media’s mission is to report these things, to expose candidates to the people who will decide whether they are the right fit for high office.

The bridge fiasco in New Jersey is a legitimate news story insofar as it will determine whether Chris Christie is a bully. It also might determine if he is truthful when he said he didn’t know in advance that key staffers ordered the lane closures of the world’s busiest bridge to get back at a political opponent.

The media will tell the story. It will be up to individual Americans to determine for themselves if it’s a story worth telling.

That’s the way it is, the way it’s been and the way it always will be.

Frenzied shoppers declare war on Christmas

You almost can set your calendar to it. This time of year brings the usual phony contention that the “liberal media” have declared a “war on Christmas.” The charge comes from the conservative media, led by the Fox News Channel, which keeps harping on the bogus assertion.

They contend that liberals insist we should say “happy holidays” to be sensitive to our non-Christian citizens.


No, the real war on Christmas is being waged on another front.

Check out this link.


Therein lie the actual combatants in this war on Christmas. They are the Black Friday shoppers — and the retailers who promote the daylights out of this event. The morons recorded in the attached videos have done more to sully the sanctity of this holiday than anything the so-called “liberal media” have done or ever will do.

My wife blurted out a suggestion yesterday when she saw some of this hideous behavior being played out. “Lock up anyone charged with a criminal act until after Christmas,” she said. By the looks of some of the videos shown around the world, that could fill our jails to the brim and beyond.

But I get her point.

Jesus Christ himself was known to have a temper. I suspect strongly that the Son of God is quite angry at what has happened to the holiday intended to honor His birth.

As for the conservative media, focus your anger on the real — not the phony — warriors against Christmas.