Friday, July 15, 2011

Global Progressives Ripe for Ridicule

Loony Left Lampooner

You don’t want to mess with sarcastomatic Brit James Delingpole. I mean, just look at him. You can tell he’s a smartass extraordinaire by his picture. But he’s our smartass, and boy does he whack those lefties good.

Don't let the snark fool you; he's also a serious reporter.  His short article at Breitbart's Big Government explains what really happened in Britain with the Rupert Murdoch empire's phone hacking scandal.  Bottom line:  Britain has no Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, and the lefty establishment was deathly afraid Murdoch would bring it. 

Delingpole goes after the climate change "warmists" with particular zeal:

They think that the naughty yellow pixies who pull the special, magic Climat-O-Levers which control the weather have been paid by evil capitalists with fat cigars in their mouth and $ signs on their pinstripe suits to make the world’s climate all horrid so that poor, underprivileged and disabled people and endangered creatures suffer – and that the reason we don’t know about it is because the media is run by evil Conservatives who want to keep this truth a secret. (The Science is Settled)
He gleefully reminds us what Michael Mann (of the "Hide the Decline" Mann-made crisis) and his ilk tried in vain to hide: There has been no global warming since 1998...
Why then am I mentioning it now? W-e-l-l, because just as ze war is to the Germans, Chappaquiddick is to the Kennedy family and that Portland masseuse incident to Al Gore, so the recent lack of warming is to the, er, Warmists.

They hate it. It’s an affront to everything they believe in. Damn it, if the world isn’t warming with the alacrity they’d prefer, how are they going to keep the funding gravy train going, and how are they going to persuade an increasingly sceptical populace that the “science” is “settled”, the debate over and the time for action is now?

That’s why they can’t be reminded of the truth often enough. It’s like salting the slugs that are ruining your garden: necessary, but also kind of fun too. ( Delingpole – No Global Warming)
Blogger buddy Mark Adams recently observed here that Alinsky rightly says that ridicule is the most potent weapon. There’s no defense against it and it enrages the target, making the fun even funner. Well, Delingpole’s incessant needling of the left is a beautiful and hilarious thing to behold.

You can stay plugged into his fact-filled snark and laugh uproariously at each punctured liberal balloon by visiting JamesDelingpole.com.

42 comments:

Ducky's here said...

"Thanks to the BBC, the people of Britain are poorer, more highly taxed and regulated, less able to control their own political destiny and considerably less free."

---------------------

This mama luc has the BBC confused with Margaret Thatcher.

Bd said...

Go ahead. Deny what is happening all around you.

conservativesonfire said...

And to think that our progressives want us progress toward the UK style of socialism. We will not let that happen!

Fredd said...

I'm just curious as to what "Bd" stands for. Probably 'Big Doofus.'

jez said...

Warning: the following remarks contain dangerous levels of bile.

"Britain has no Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, and the lefty establishment was deathly afraid Murdoch would bring it."

You're right, although in place of "lefty establishment" just put "thoughtful people". Yes, We don't have Fox News or Limbaugh, and I'm fiercely proud of that, as well as relieved and thankful for it. You don't have Jeremy Paxman or John Humphreys and thanks to the criminally low standards you've become accustomed to, you don't even know why you should want them.

The quality of American TV news (not just Fox & Rush) is dreadful. It is a remarkably versatile punchline to almost any joke you might care to make. If Murdoch wants to bring that type of journalism to the UK, then frankly he can shove it up his ass. (Please notice I'm using the American "ass" there, rather than the British "arse" -- I don't want him to become too native. I don't know which the Australians use, I just don't want him using the same one that I would. The Great British arse is a beautiful thing, and I won't stand by idly while that man sullies it with his unscrupulous money-grubbing lips.)

I mean, just look at his papers. The man who published the NOTW, and continues to publish the Sun, clearly isn't all that interested in delivering real news. Also look at the Times before and after the Murdoch takeover in 1981 to see exactly what effect Murdoch has on news standards. He peddles sensationalism and ideology, packages bogus moral outrage alongside soft-core porn, and passes it off as news. I repeat: he doesn't care about delivering real news, he clearly motivated by some other impulse, I won't bore you with my theories of what that might be, but I reckon that neither of us would approve. I've hated this bastard for as long as I can remember, I'm glad that everybody else is finally catching up with me.

jez said...

btw, we all look like that over here. It's the glasses -- the NHS just hands them out willy-nilly, whether we need corrective lenses or not. I suppose it's a bit wasteful, but we simply lack the political vocabulary and intellectual building-blocks to do anything about it.

And the "warmist" stuff is risible. I don't recall anyone predicting that every year would be hotter than 1998 from now on. What is happening now is entirely consistent with climate change. What prediction has failed?

Ducky's here said...

Fredd, with that sig picture, be a little circumspect.

Anonymous said...

What might "Bd" stand for? Here are ten guesses:

Bd = Bowel dysfunction

Bd = Belligerent demon

Bd = Boldly destructive

Bd = Blatantly demented

Bd = Baleful denouncer

Bd = Big dope

Bd = Boring drivel

Bd = Bombastic dystopian

Bd = Bimbo deployed

Bd = Be damned

Feel free to Thinke up a more appropriate guess.

Anonymous said...

Over and over again the adage is proved correct:

We do, indeed, learn so much more about Peter from what he says about Paul than we learn about Paul.

Is Jez short for Jezebel by any chance?

If so, you might do well to remember that she wound up being fed to the dogs, poor dear.


~ FreeThinke - avowed Anglophile of the Old School and devoted admirer of Winston Churchill

Anonymous said...

Aha! I think I've got it:

Bd = Biliously derisive

Yes, of course. That's IT.

~ FreeThinke

Bump said...

Silver . . . Great Britain somehow reminds me of "The Little Mouse That Roared". It happens that I don't like Limbaugh's radio style but usually agree with his comments. I don't like Mark Levine's radio style either, but Mark has written perhaps the finest (and easiest to read) book on Conservatism that exists. Now both of these guys consider 2011 Britain to be a puffed up example of 2021 America - IF - we don't find a Thatcher-like leader to return America to it's traditional Constitution based government. Bump

Leticia said...

I just recently heard of this scandal and it is due to poor judgement and to a people who lack morals.

Sounds like the MSN here in the states.

Why can't the media just stick with the truth and tell the story like it is, and let the people decide?

Joe Conservative said...

Jiz also likes to put her fingers in her ears and chant, "NaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNa" during Prime Ministers Questions unless Ed Miliband or his confederates are speaking.

jez said...

There's some irony there if you look for it, FT. That matter aside, wth are you talking about? I have not murdered Murdoch to take his property, so why the comparison with Jezebel? (not my name: I'm a Jeremy).

My complaints against Murdoch are entirely justified. Go read any edition of the Sun, then tell me how anything I've said against him is unfair.

Anonymous said...

BBC = Bullshitters Boosting Communism

BBC = Blasphemers Bashing Christianity

BBC = Boring Biased Commentary

BBC - Brainwashing Britain's Children

BBC = Believing Bullshit Counts

BBC = Begetting Bastard Children

BBC = Bastardizing British Culture

BBC = Blatantly Bigoted Commentary

BBC = Bamboozling British Citizens

BBC = Bedeviled By Corruption

Feel Free to Thinke up additional -- and hopefully superior -- possibilities to explain the true meaning of these infamous initials.

Ducky's here said...

Let me get this straight. This douche thinks Britain is in trouble because it lacks a belching gas bag who is such a castrated cretin that he had to send his freaking maid out to cruise a Denny's parking lot to score his drugs?

I'll submit that rabies radio cretins are a good part of the reason we are in our current condition.

Anonymous said...

Oh, sorry, Jeremy.

I never can resist taking cheap shots. It was only tongue-in-cheek, however -- surely you realized that? If we can't learn to laugh at ourselves, we might as well give up on life altogether.

Living is too serious -- and too wonderful -- a business to be taken seriously.

As to Rupert Murdoch I'm well aware that he is first and foremost a businessman who has little or no allegiance to any ideology and is probably amused at the amount of power he has been able to gain by catering ostensibly to conservatives. I said not long ago on these pages that I believe FOX News was cynically created to serve a highly lucrative niche market.

HOWEVER, whether his motivation be pure and noble or merely based on cupidity and megalomania, the fact remains that Murdoch -- and Rush Limbaugh and several others for whim you, apparently,have contempt -- have served a noble purpose in breaking the blackout mainstream news organizations like your BBC and our NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc. had put on Conservative views and opinion for several decades.

News Media worldwide is so biased in favor of Marxian philosophy and so self-righteous about it, that it took the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh to break the lock on Freedom of Expression once enjoyed by media who have long served NOT as honest, unbiased purveyors of News and Information, but as PROPAGANDISTS for Socialist Doctrine and the unlimited growth of Centralized Power.

IF we are to have any freedom at all, we must learn not only to tolerate but to WELCOME the expression of any and all ideas -- even the ones we hate.

~ FreeThinke

PS: And yes, I was fully aware of the irony inherent in the little parable about Peter and Paul. That doesn't make it any the less true. - FT

Finntann said...

Jez, given that the NOTW has been a tabloid broadsheet since 1843, and "It quickly established itself as a purveyor of titillation, shock and criminal news. Much of the source material came from coverage of vice prosecutions, including transcripts of police descriptions of alleged brothels, streetwalkers, and "immoral" women."

As well as the fact that the UK pretty much invented tabloid journalism through the efforts of Alfred Harmsworth, 1st Viscount of Northcliffe.

I don't think you can blame Rupert Murdoch.

One is constantly left wondering how in the country that gave us the BBC, your nations largest daily circulation newspaper is The Sun, the equivalent of our National Inquirer, although page 3 always seemed to be a hit at the office.

While you're at it you can lose the affected British haughtiness, I mean we only naturalized him, the Commonwealth spawned him.

And p.s. luv, it's not the glasses and the arse you're famous for, it's the teeth and ankles.

Cheers!

jez said...

I realised it was tongue-in-cheek, but i still don't know what it means. Explain the joke please?

"[RM] is first and foremost a businessman who has little or no allegiance to any ideology"

Given that he makes his money by spreading divisive cancerous bilge (don't take my word for it, read the Sun for yourself), I fail to see how not believing in it makes him any the less a despicable cunt. (sorry if you have a policy on language, SF, but my choice of words is reasonably considered.)

He bankrolls that shit, so I hate him.

"...breaking the blackout mainstream news organizations like your BBC and our NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc. had put on Conservative views and opinion for several decades."

I can only speak for the BBC, but I don't believe it is biassed. Examples?

"...it took the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh to break the lock on Freedom of Expression"

No. This goes beyond mere freedom of expression. What I'm doing now, talking basically just to you, that's freedom of expression. Broadcasting my opinion on TV or publishing it in a paper, that's freedom of expression on a large scale. But Newscorp controls 37% of all the national newspaper circulation in the UK, and Murdoch wants *more*. How much freedom of expression does one guy need? What is there he could possibly have on his chest that 37% circulation is insufficient to get it off?
Every prime minister we've had since Thatcher has felt the need to cosy up to Murdoch. Every single one. This isn't freedom of expression, this is power, concentrated in one man, undemocratically. Can you actually claim that this is a good thing???

That's why this is such a big deal by the way. I can't impress upon you how reluctant our whole political class was to cross Murdoch, and the fact that they all have is an indication of how rotten Newscorp must be.

I bet it's even worse than it looks, and it looks bloody awful.

PS: perhaps I should explain: the irony is, in a comment sandwiched between two others where you vacuously mock BD, you have the gall to take me to task for having a go at Murdoch. What does Peter's pointless name-calling of Paul tell us about Peter in that case?

jez said...

we're famous for ankles, are we? genuinely had no idea.
Americans are famous for teeth too, but for a different reason.

"One is constantly left wondering how ... your nations largest daily circulation newspaper is The Sun ... page 3 always seemed to be a hit"

I think you've answered your own question.
My strong advice to sun readers is to buy a real newspaper, and some real porn. Better standards all round.

"I don't think you can blame Rupert Murdoch."
Good point, tabloid journalism is not his invention. I'm not a historian, but I don't think, prior to Murdoch, that the sensationalist coverage was manacled to the political ideology, which is what makes Murdoch's output insidious. You might start off buying it for the tits and bingo, but before long you're an authoritarian anti-union taxphobe who's desperately worried about yobs and immigration.
Far-fetched? But why else are they bundled together? At least razzle doesn't bombard you with a borderline racist half-cocked political theory.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Jez! C'mon. be a sport. Relax and live a little. It couldn't be all THAT serious, could it?

I never heard of The Sun. What is it, and when did it come into being?

I have heard of The London Times, The Manchester Guardian and The Daily Telegraph. Whatever became of them?

It's useless ever to try to explain a joke. Either one gets it, or one does not. Jokes are not sufficiently important to quarrel over -- certainly not minor quips of that ilk anyway.

Needless to say I have yet to meet a liberal who has a highly developed sense of humor. The trouble with liberalism is a generally bilious temperament, an infinite capacity for a severely judgmental attitude, and a deadly earnestness tedious enough to turn one to stone. Of course, I've known any number of self-styled quasi-Conservatives who are like that too. I've long held that all of us would be tyrants, if we could get away with it. Maybe that's what "Original Sin" really is? Who knows?

Do you think our Wall Street Journal publishes "cancerous bilge" too, because Murdoch owns and operates it now?

Do you realize that sour-mouthed intolerance and the wish to obliterate views you don't happen to share is the very definition of bigotry? That goes for anyone on either side of The Great Divide not just liberals, of course.

"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions."

~ Socrates (470-399 B. C. )


Socrates was a pretty smart guy -- light years ahead of his time. "Partisan" is another word for "bigot." We should try to avoid bigotry, if we ever hope to advance.


*******************************


And while I'm bitching, FINN, what in Heaven's name is NOTW?

You guys toss initials and acronyms around as though everyone who doesn't know what you're talking about must be mentally deficient. Ducky mentioned BIS in that same casual manner not long ago. I see a lot of initials flung about. Frankly, it's a pain-in-the-ass to those of us not in the know who read this stuff and would LIKE to understand what others are talking about without having to do research.

Would typing out a full name once per post be THAT much of a burden?

Thanks for your patience and your perspicacity.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Oh, and Ducky, who is FREDD?

I may be an old stuffed shirt, but I try to write in English. It's the only language I know. Hipspeak, Acronymics, and Cryptic Jargon are beyond my feeble powers of comprehension.

I'd have better luck with French and German, frankly.

Cheerio!

~ FreeThinke

jez said...

"Do you realize that sour-mouthed intolerance and the wish to obliterate views you don't happen to share is the very definition of bigotry?"

Bigotry is utter intolerance for any belief different to one's own. I welcome with open armed affection many opinions that I do not share. My sour-mouthed invective is reserved for the "newspapers" that lure in readers with entertainment fluff, celebrity gossip, soft porn and cash prizes, delivering a trojan payload of dangerous, divisive, fear-mongering drivel, pandering to and nurturing the worst instincts of the worst people.

It is possible for the media to draw deeper condemnations from me, but it would have to be pretty strong stuff to do it. I'm talking really nasty, Goebbels-grade propaganda.

"Needless to say I have yet to meet a liberal who has a highly developed sense of humor."
I intend my comments to be entertaining on one level, but earnest on another. That's the style of comedy I find effective. A jest with no truth to it is unsatisfying. Anyway, if you're missing the humour then maybe what I write is coming on a bit strong.

Ducky's here said...

Oh, and Ducky, who is FREDD?


----------
Fredd, who posted on this thread and has recently waxed eloquent about only letting property owners vote.

Finntann said...

Jez, don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Murdoch or Limbaugh for that matter and I am a conservative.

The UK has its own talk radio and talk radio personalities, left and right Gaunt and Galloway come to mind, you also have your own version of Howard Stern in James Stannage. Your not much that different from us really, more staid in some aspects, more edgy in others. Given Murdochs friendship with Blair, how far right can he be?

What's in Murdochs 37%...frankly, money... the more you control the more money you make. So, money, fame, influence... 3 times in the TIME 100 most influential people, Forbes ranked him the 13th most influential person in the world and he's got a net worth of around 6 Billion. Obviously, he knows what sells.

And what sells is not news, it's infotainment. Personnaly, I wish there was at least one channel that still delivered up news the old fashioned way, more fact, less opinion. I don't watch CNN, MSNBC, or even FOX for that matter. I do occasionally watch BBC. When I lived in Swindon I pretty much split my news viewing between BBC and Sky... not much different from American TV.

FT: NOTW is News of the World, a British Tabloid founded in 1843 and bought out by Murdoch in 1969. The NOTW and SUN are two Murdoch papers in the UK... if you have ever seen the "New York Post" (also owned by Murdoch), you've got a good idea of what they are like. If you don't, think: Tabloid Yellow Journalism.

Cheers!

Jersey McJones said...

I've been patiently awaiting the American consresative response to the Fox story, and here I've found it: 'It's all just whiney libs attacking Fox over petty digresses.'

Good to see your moral compass aligned.

Good to see the consistancy as well.

I could imagine the conservative response to a similar story eminating from that stupidly named "MSM."

Delingpole is a smarmy little lowlife. I'd eat him for lunch in person. He's a pseudointellectual at best.

What Fox did was very wrong and very bad. Own it. You guys love that s#i##y Fox "news" infotainment.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate the clarifications.

FinnTann, what do you think of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, et al.?

What do you think of The National Review, Commentary, American Thinker, The Nation, etc.?

Do you dislike Rush Limbaugh because you think him a poseur and a liar -- or because he's a blowhard?

I am impressed with your intimate knowledge of the British media. Are you British or have you spent a lot of time in the British Isles?

What do you think of late William F. Buckley?

Curiously yours,

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Dammit, Jersey,

Do you never tire of fulminating in response to opinions nowhere in evidence? You ASSUME too much.

If you enjoy shadow boxing with strawmen, fine, but please stop trying to put words in our mouths and ideas in our heads that may never have been there.

We're a collection of individuals each with a different perspective. We are not mindless manufactured cogs in some infernal Conservative Propaganda Machine that doesn't even exist.

What is this conversation supposed to be about anyway? Is about Global Warming or about someone who has satirized doctrinaire liberal views on the subject? Or is it an attempt to refute Global Warming Theory -- or is it all of that or maybe none of that?

And by the way, you called me "childish" or some such rot (I happen to be 70 years old, kiddo!) when I mentioned Obama's ties to Marxism. I doubt if you'll want to look a it, but I left a FIVE PART post listing an enormous number of Obama's dubious lifetime associations many linking him directly to the Communist Movement and to a lot of shady, scurrilous, fiercely anti-American characters on yesterday's thread. Ducky dismissed it as "boilerplate."

Maybe you will use that good, well-meaning head of yours for a change and actually CONSIDER the charges. If you can refute them, I'd be greatly relieved, because I hate to think we have crypto-Communist and a closet-Muslim running the White House.

Ya think I WANT to believe that?

GEDOUDDAHERE!!!

~ FreeThinke

Trestin said...

I just have to say comrade Ducky does not measure up to Jersey. Is Jersey crazy? Probably, but he does make an occasional valid point. Duck Brain, just attacks and has no real purpose.

Silverfiddle said...

Jersey: Hacking cell phones is wrong. Nowhere did I defend the practice. Your strawman sparring is second only to the president's.

The British media establishment sat on this scandal, holding it in reserve for Murdoch's attempt at gaining control over another media outlet:

The British government’s culture secretary Jeremy Hunt was due to make a ruling on the issue this week. That’s why the BBC (and its myriad leftist fellow travellers) waited until now to make these “shock” new revelations (using information, of course, they had been sitting on for months if not years). This had nothing to do with justifiable moral outrage – and everything to do with a viciously cynical attempt by the liberal-left to exploit dead schoolgirls, Prime Ministerial children suffering from cystic fibrosis and 9/11 victims in order to protect its hegemonic domination of the media.

You really should read more carefully before shooting off your mouth and embarrassing yourself.

Silverfiddle said...

Jez: No need to ever apologize here for sincere comments, no matter how bile-filled. You make some good points, and I catch you humor. I loved the glasses comment.

Anonymous said...

To say the BBC is not biased is tantamount to saying The New York Times is not avowedly liberal with pronounced Communist sympathies.

You'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind -- or a committed "Progressive" -- not to see and have the honesty and humility necessary to acknowledge that.

One does not have to "prove" that a skunk is present, even though it remains invisible, if the air becomes permeated with a certain characteristic stench, just as one does not have to eat a pound of shit to know for sure that it doesn't taste good.

Bias is like pornography. It's almost impossible to define from a legal perspective, but no one could mistake it for anything else when confronted with it.

~ FreeThinke

PS: All of us are wrong -- liberal and conservative like -- when we are so sure we are right that any and all opposing sentiment automatically gets categorized as "cancerous bilge." - FT

jez said...

I don't want you to define bias, I just asked for examples.

Like I say, it's not just *any* opposing sentiment that gets this treatment from me. I'm proud of the phrase "cancerous bilge" and I apply it carefully and deliberately.

Ducky's here said...

Freethinker -- You set out to demonstrate Obama is Marxist and early it gets bogged down in stuff about Islam. Just too dreary.

Tristin -- Again, are we in a Keynesian liquidity trap? If you don't have a response you shouldn't try to eat at the grownups table.

Anonymous said...

Good morning, Ducky. You're right about one thing -- anything that has to do with Obama is, indeed, "just too dreary."

I didn't set out to prove that he was a Marxist, I just gave abundant examples from his past that amply indicate that might well be the case, since his background reeks of heavy Marxian influence from his grandparents all the way down through his college career (or the little we've been permitted to know of it), his work as a "Community Organizer" (a euphemism for "Communist Rabble Rouser"), his thin record as a legislator and his choice of friends, cabinet members, advisors, and aides.

There was a lot of other stuff posted not directly related to Marxism per se, but all of it indicates that he is a thoroughly bad egg -- UNLESS, of course, you are a committed Marxist, an advocate of radical Islam, and a sworn enemy of upper middle class perquisites, privileged status in general and accumulated personal wealth.

I've asked you more than once, Ducky, to give us your positive vision and personal prescription for a brighter future for our country and its role in the world, and so far you're still just taking pot shots and making snide remarks. I know you're better than that, so please share your fond hopes and prescriptions for a brighter world. Who knows, maybe you'll make a few converts.

Nattering nabobs of negativism (thank you, Bill Safire!) -- more accurately called proponents of Critical Theory -- an invention of cultural Marxists -- are not attracting much favorable attention anymore, which may very well be why Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter are losing much of their appeal. Those supposed champions of conservatism gained ascendancy by turning the tables on the cultural Marxists by practicing "Critical Theory" on the filthy beasts who first proposed then practiced it.

Good for them! BUT it's long past time now to stop all the carping and do the hard work of replacing endless negativity with some vigorous ideas about how we might improve things or at least restore them to the rights we've enjoyed in the past.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Jez,

I'd be interested to know your opinion of Andrew Breitbart.

~ FreeThinke

Finntann said...

FT, I am unsure, given the wide range of periodicals you've cited, exactly what you are asking. Is this a political purity test? If so, simply answered, I find I agree more with socially liberal-fiscally conservative positions than not regardless of what periodical they appear in.

You ask me what I think of the NYT as well as the Boston Globe, yet they are both published by the same company, the NYT Company. The same goes for the LA Times and Chicago Tribune, which are published by the Tribune Company.

What I think is that each company is, shall I say slanted as opposed to bias, reflecting the positions of its owners. While an individual paper may be given fairly free editorial license (or not), the people doing the hiring are hiring people of similar inclination. I think what you will find is that you get a similar slant across a 'family' of papers such as:

The New York Times
Boston Globe
Telegram & Gazette (Worcester, MA)
Gadsen Times
Tuscaloosa News
Petlauma Argus-Courier
Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA)
Gainsville Sun
The Ledger (Lakeland, FL)
Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Star Banner (Ocala, FL)
The Courier (Houma AL)
The Daily Comet (Thibodaux, LA)
The Dispatch (Lexington, NC)
Times-News (Henderson, NC)
The Star-News (Wilmington, NC)
Spartanburg Herald-Journal

I think what is more important to point out is we don't have as independent a press as we may think we have.

How many people who read the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, or Orlando Sentinel actually realize they are all published by the same company.
Or the fact that the Tribune Company owns 22 TV stations spread across all the major metropolitan areas; NY, LA, Chicago, Philly, Dallas, Washington, Houstan, Miami, Denver...and so on and so forth?

We were better served by our press when we had a large number of independent companies in competing markets than the media conglomerates we have today.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Finntann. I am most impressed with your comprehensive knowledge. I could never have come up with that list, myself.

But yes, what you've revealed plays into my biggest complaint and that is the ever-increasing standardization, conglomeration and centralization of nearly everything from Federal Power right down to Fast Food.

As ownership and control of resources and purveyors of goods and services becomes more remote, less personal, less friendly, less approachable, it becomes less sensitive, less responsive, less concerned with individual needs tastes and feelings and more dictatorial.

With this in mind is it any wonder I harp with abject TERROR on the idea of a "New World Order" fashioned by elite central bankers, captains of industry, owners and suppliers of raw materials controlling us after the formation of One World Government -- the ultimate form of centralized power?

In such a world as that envisioned by the "Orderists" dissent, variation, competition, individuality and anything evening faintly resembling the democratic process would be stifled and possibly annihilated. Horrible thought!

If anything is "The Great Satan," it would be Centralized Power of ANY kind.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Well Freethinker, you can label Obummer anything you like but you are what you do.

He has done NOTHING that can be interpreted as Marxist by anyone who is using even a moderately firm definition of the word (left of Ayn Rand doesn't count).

You are what you do and from weakening regulation to dumping billions on the useless insurance companies to military funding to calling for cuts to social security he is a right wingers dream.

MK said...

"Britain has no Rush Limbaugh or Fox News"

And there's a reason for that, unfortunately there's no market for them in the country. We don't have a FOX news, but we do have talk radio and that goes a long way to keeping leftist scum at bay.

Britain is a lot poorer and worse off because they don't have talk radio or a Fox news. It's not really a free country even, just try going against the leftist establishment there and see how far you'll get.

Trestin said...

Ducky, I already responded to that question and you responded to my response. Have you had your pills today?

jez said...

FT: Breitbart -- never heard of him. Do you have any examples of the BBC's bias?