The Media’s Obama Protection Society

ZHawke wrote: Let's not get into a "tit for tat" argument, please. I could provide just as many on the "other" side of the coin to counter this one, but I'm choosing not to.

Edited to add: MSNBC, CNN, FOX News are 24 hour a day stations that are arguably more "news entertainment" than actual news, in my opinion. There are a couple more outlets that might even be included in that mix, as well. It's been said the younger generation looks to outlets like Comedy Central's The Daily Show and The Colbert Report than they do to so-called mainstream media outlets such as those listed. If true, one has to wonder why that is.

I'll call you out on this one. If you can find such a ridiculous display of a pandering, cheerleading, man-crush on the right from a major news show host during an election cycle go for it. I'd like to see it. A "thrill up the leg"???? The feeling "most people get when they hear Obama speak"???? Honestly, this was so bad I even felt more embarrassed for Matthews than Olbermann did. Waaaay over the top.

I do agree with you about 'entertainment news' there's lots of crap out there, but you can try to brush off media bias to "individual perceptions" all you want, it doesn't change reality.

OmniScience wrote: I'll call you out on this one. If you can find such a ridiculous display of a pandering, cheerleading, man-crush on the right from a major news show host during an election cycle go for it. I'd like to see it. A "thrill up the leg"???? The feeling "most people get when they hear Obama speak"???? Honestly, this was so bad I even felt more embarrassed for Matthews than Olbermann did. Waaaay over the top.

I do agree with you about 'entertainment news' there's lots of crap out there, but you can try to brush off media bias to "individual perceptions" all you want, it doesn't change reality.

Go ahead. Call me out on it. Do your own research (as I've been told to do by others here in The Courthouse). Reality is that all one has to do is listen to the likes of Hannity, O'Reilly, Dobbs, and the like to get an earful of pandering to the right. Shep Smith is arguably the only pundit on FOX News that even comes close to a "fair and balanced" reporting technique as far as I'm concerned. And even that's a stretch most of the time.

Edited to add: All one has to do is listen to the Ben Stein segment on Obama being the worst racist president to get a better idea of what I'm talking about. Many of the "editor's picks" that follow Stein's piece also have a very distinct rightward leaning bent. I'll go ahead and provide the link if you're interested in watching it.

Following the post 9/11 media feeding frenzy, finding anyone who didn't pander to the run up to war with Iraq was labeled as unpatriotic by all the news entertainment outlets. How quickly we forget.

Do you think Stein is wrong about Obama being the most racist president we've ever had? I, myself, have my doubts about that. I think Woodrow Wilson and FDR would give him a run for his money for that honor, but I think he's right on the money with regards to the most racist president in most of our lifetimes, even beating out LBJ.

PrintSmith wrote: Do you think Stein is wrong about Obama being the most racist president we've ever had? I, myself, have my doubts about that. I think Woodrow Wilson and FDR would give him a run for his money for that honor, but I think he's right on the money with regards to the most racist president in most of our lifetimes, even beating out LBJ.

Racist toward whom, specifically? Are you talking "reverse racism"?

Whether Ben Stein believes what he says doesn't matter in the end. Whether I believe Ben Stein is right or wrong on this doesn't matter either. I believe it comes down to our individual definitions of racism.

The post I made wasn't to question whether or not Stein was right or wrong on racism. It was a post to point out the political leanings of FOX News hosts and most of their "guests". Your effort to distract from that is noted.

No such thing as "reverse" racism Z. Either one is prejudiced and discriminates based on race or they don't. Those that do are racists regardless of what their race is.

PrintSmith wrote: No such thing as "reverse" racism Z. Either one is prejudiced and discriminates based on race or they don't. Those that do are racists regardless of what their race is.

You beat me to that one PS. One thing you'll never see is a Democrat or a liberal calling a non-white racist a racist. Al Sharpton has his own show on the most liberal network and the president seems to hold him in high regard (kinda like Rev Wright until he got caught).

You'll see there is a lot of discussion on the issue of reverse racism contained in the Urban Dictionary. So, whether it "exists" or there is no such things is a matter open to discussion based on what I saw. The Moderators in a forum on another website I participate in used the Urban Dictionary to justify their approval of a certain term used by another poster toward me, ergo my position with regard to the term "reverse racism".

Whether you say it exists or not then becomes an issue not of its existence, but, rather, one of how you view the term "racist" and apply it to given situations as far as I'm concerned.

ZHawke wrote: You'll see there is a lot of discussion on the issue of reverse racism contained in the Urban Dictionary. So, whether it "exists" or there is no such things is a matter open to discussion based on what I saw. The Moderators in a forum on another website I participate in used the Urban Dictionary to justify their approval of a certain term used by another poster toward me, ergo my position with regard to the term "reverse racism".

Whether you say it exists or not then becomes an issue not of its existence, but, rather, one of how you view the term "racist" and apply it to given situations as far as I'm concerned.

Why do you need the urban dictionary to define a term that is really dishonest at it's core? If you understand what racism means, you shouldn't even be bringing up a silly term like reverse racism that is just an excuse for real racism.

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote: You'll see there is a lot of discussion on the issue of reverse racism contained in the Urban Dictionary. So, whether it "exists" or there is no such things is a matter open to discussion based on what I saw. The Moderators in a forum on another website I participate in used the Urban Dictionary to justify their approval of a certain term used by another poster toward me, ergo my position with regard to the term "reverse racism".

Whether you say it exists or not then becomes an issue not of its existence, but, rather, one of how you view the term "racist" and apply it to given situations as far as I'm concerned.

Why do you need the urban dictionary to define a term that is really dishonest at it's core? If you understand what racism means, you shouldn't even be bringing up a silly term like reverse racism that is just an excuse for real racism.

There are a number of things I believe need to be addressed in your statement.

First, I don't "need" the Urban Dictionary to define anything. I merely pointed out the Urban Dictionary has differing views on the term "reverse racism", virtually the same views as are being expressed here. The issue, for me, is in how we personally interpret the meaning of "racism".

Second, those of a more conservative bent have arguably (depends on which side of the fence one leans toward on this one) been using racism, not "reverse" racism as their own excuse to try to play the victim and to portray their plight as victim in such a way as to deny that racism toward minority groups still exists.

Finally, third, from my perspective at least, for those of us of a "white" persuasion to apply the term "racism" to anyone of another minority segment of our population, including Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asians, and any other minority populations living here smacks of what I consider to be reverse racism whether anyone acknowledges its existence or not. That's just me, though.

Racism doesn't have a situational definition Z. This perpetual habit the left has of attempting to redefine words to mean what they say they mean is, has been, and always will be utter nonsense. The definition by which one is determined to be racists applies to everyone, everywhere. Non-hispanic whites are a minority in many parts of the world, a majority in many others. Whether one happens to be a minority or not in the area of the world in which they live has no bearing on whether or not they are racists. How they view and treat those of a race other than their own is the determining factor. That is the only means by which people can be judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin.