Say Anything Blog

From Media Matters

Preliminary Snippet.....

We regularly provide action items based on our real-time monitoring of the media and conduct action campaigns to prevent the spread of conservative misinformation. Thousands of activists like you take advantage of these tools to hold the media accountable for spreading conservative misinformation. What you can do As a news consumer, you can have a powerful voice in the fight against conservative misinformation. Communicating with journalists Many media personalities and outlets make their email addresses available online and encourage audience members to provide feedback. How to write a great letter to the editor A letter to the editor is a highly effective way of making a positive impact on the public discourse in your community. How to call in to a talk radio show Call in to a show as early as you can. If the line is busy, wait a few seconds and try again. Most radio shows have far more callers than can be accommodated on air.

Their story....

Sunday Shows Break Their Silence

Three Days After the Release of Media Matters Report on Sunday Show Imbalance, Two Shows Attempt to Respond

Washington, DC - Three days after the release of Media Matters for America’s report documenting the continued dominance of Republican and conservative voices on the influential network Sunday morning shows, representatives from two of the shows in question, CBS’ Face the Nation and Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday, have finally broken their silence, while NBC’s Meet the Press has failed to respond entirely. In their responses, Face the Nation and Fox News Sunday failed to address the findings of the report, “If It’s Sunday, It’s Still Conservative.”

CBS’ Face the Nation’s Carin Pratt, responding to the study’s finding that her show hosted Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC) nine times in 2005 and 2006, said: “We love Graham. He’s a great guy.” Pratt then offered a defense of the overwhelming number of appearances of administration officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, saying, “It doesn’t matter whether Secretary Rice is a conservative or a liberal. She’s the secretary of state.”

FACT: Face the Nation is the worst offender when it comes to giving solo interviews to conservatives and Republicans over progressives and Democrats. Pratt’s comments about Rice suggest that Pratt believes it is appropriate for Face the Nation to consistently offer those in power, but not those who may disagree with them, access to the airwaves, and to host more Republicans than Democrats overall. And there is another critical question raised by this latest report that Pratt has not addressed: In November 2006, Democrats won both houses of Congress. Either the programs are hosting a debate between two sides, or they are simply interviewing those in power. Either way, the shift of Congress to Democratic control should have brought about a dramatic change in their guest lists, but it has not. Face the Nation has continued the same pattern of giving a significant advantage to Republicans over Democrats.

A Fox representative stated, “We want to thank Media Matters for drawing attention to ‘Fox News Sunday,’ which is the most quoted program in the Monday morning newspapers.”

FACT: Fox News Sunday failed to address the report’s findings entirely. In 2005 and 2006, the program offered twice as many interviews to conservatives and Republicans as progressives and Democrats.

Boo-Hoo...

We judge secular ideologies all the time; why not religious ideologies? Why is it permissible to say that conservatism is selfish and mean-spirited or to say that liberalism is naive and foolish, but one cannot say anything negative about a religion?

I believe that the Judeo-Christian value system as devised largely by American Christians rooted in the Jewish Scriptures is the finest value system ever made—and many people label this view “bigoted” and “intolerant.” Yet, many of these same people have no problem asserting that secular liberal values constitute the finest value system ever made. Why can one say that without any fear of being labeled “intolerant” or “bigoted”?

Those who offer reasoned moral critiques of Islam are not necessarily “Islamophobic,” any more than all moral critics of Christianity or Judaism are necessarily “Christianophobic” (why is there no such word, incidentally?) or anti-Semitic.

The word is used to intimidate the most necessary endeavor of our time—non-hostile, non-prejudiced, respectful, open discussion of Islam. And no one needs it more than good Muslims.

Much of the empty nonsensical rhetoric that we hear today from misguided, illogical social justice appeasers, communist-socialist university professors, ignorant-Hollywood celebrities, harebrained movie producers, radical left-wing politicians, anti-war protesters, and childish, uninformed college kids, was born in the deconstructionist, humanist, philosophy that became existentially popular in the 1960’s.

Two of its most prominent proselytizing proponents are Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn; who happen to be the architects and gurus of the present day viewpoint and belief that democracy, capitalism, and American values and culture are exclusively responsible for all the world’s ills.

This errant school of thought is the major contributor to the severe abuses of academic freedom that are prevalent in a significant percentage of our universities.

It’s the “poisonous fodder” used by power hungry politicians to appease dim-witted constituents, and is the source of ceaseless propaganda offered by fame seeking, “unbiased” reporters who wish to appear “compassionate” before their audiences in order to increase their market share.

It’s this faulty reasoning that allows idiots like Michael Moore to re-characterize murdering terrorists as freedom fighting minutemen.

It’s this defective reckoning that’s the basis of the erroneous belief that “homicidal fanatics” can be reasoned with in sit-down negotiations.

It goes something like this.....

What you think is true is possibly quite different from what I think is true. This means that no-one has the right to say that their version of truth, right and wrong is any better than other people’s.

(more...)