The Liberal Lie Echo Chamber
January 23rd, 2008 at 07:54pm Matt Margolis
Picture this:
Two studies… the conclusion of the first is supportive of the war in Iraq while the conclusion of the second is the opposite. When the first study comes out, liberals topple over each other looking to see who funded the study, tell us we need to “consider the source” in order to determine any biases. But when the second study comes out, they treat it as gospel and find ways to argue that where the money comes from is irrelevant. In other words, liberals don’t want you to “consider the source” if the study supports their position.
That pretty much sums up what is happening with the latest Soros-funded study that claims to document all the so-called “lies” that we were told leading up to the war in Iraq.
It doesn’t take long to find the flaws in the study, and there’s the whole other argument about all the information that contradicts their assertion that statements were lies. But, that doesn’t matter to morons like Keith Olbermann, who I saw on MSNBC moments ago practically in ecstasies over this bogus study.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Thanks to Matt, I was able to take a look at the “study”. Its just a rehash of the usual litany of liberal/left lies about what happened 2001-2003. Future generations will marvel at all this - how millions of people believed a series of lies which accused an honest man - President Bush - of lying.
Entry Filed under: Democrats, Media
30 Comments
1. js | January 23rd, 2008 at 8:03 pm
I so tired of the gossip.
Journalism has lost thier ethical obligation to be impartial. We live in a nation where headlines are bought and sold like when you drop a few quarters in a pepsi machine.
Its so old.
2. true patriot | January 23rd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
(Ed. Note: comment deleted, deals in paranoid, conspiracy theories)
3. GOP4ME | January 23rd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
True Patriot,
Go away. Please.
4. neocon | January 23rd, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Mark and Matt,
Please, is it about time to put in an idot filter?
5. liberalT | January 23rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
i cannot speak for all liberals - but show me the two studies and I will read them both and judge them for their merits. Matt - grow up and stop blaming liberals for all the worlds problems. Do you see me blaming conservatives for all the world’s ills? People do dumb things regardless of their political views - perhaps when you learn to think outside of your partisan hack box you will learn that. Until then i feel quite a lot of pity for you
6. Diana Powe | January 23rd, 2008 at 10:05 pm
One of the ways that conservatives enjoy whiling away the time is agreeing with each other in the conservative echo chamber about the victim-speak and whining they describe as characteristic of the left they love to loathe. Yet, interestingly, one of the defining characteristics of the right today is their constant insistence on the “fact” that they are ever-suffering victims of an imagined left-wing bias on the part of the media. “If only people got the truth instead of the lies and spin, they’d be with us,” we can practically hear them cry.
Of course, if one were to assume for the sake of argument that it was only, say, the Fox News Channel, the Weekly Standard, the National Review, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly (radio and television), the New York Times (David Brooks and William Kristol), the Washington Post (George Will and Robert Novak), Ann Coulter (columns and all over television), the National Review Online, Townhall.com, Redstate.com, and MichelleMalkin.com that were the only outlets for a “fair and balanced” point of view, it would seem that the conservatives hadn’t quite been reduced to the status of passing out tracts on street corners. In fact, one of the legitimate boasts of conservatives is the profound success of right-wing talk radio especially as compared to the far less successful Air America. Of course, the vast majority of Americans (stable at roughly 2/3 of the adult population) don’t approve of the current President and overwhelmingly don’t identify as Republicans. The explanation? They’re victims of the “filtering” of the “agenda media”.
Of course, this explanation bumps up against another pair of conservative truisms. One is that liberals are elitists who view the populace as pawns who can be led around by the nose. The other is that the majority of American’s are really conservatives at heart. The problem is that explaining Americans negative feelings towards the President and the GOP requires assuming that most Americans are really conservatives at heart who can be led around by the nose. Readers who agree with Matt here sometimes boast of having escaped their previous liberal views or their liberal family backgrounds. Yet, despite their own success in this regard, they apparently view millions of their fellow citizens as too much like sheep to do likewise in the face fo the “liberal media” onslaught.
Interesting.
7. Timothy Horrigan | January 23rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
It seems to me you conservatives have a pretty good echo chamber of their own… way more powerful than Soros’s. Not only do you guys have your own billionaires (Richard Mellon Scaife, for example, is just as rich as Soros), you got the corporate mainstream media on your side, plus talk radio, plus the Republican Party, plus the multinational corporations’ PR apparatus, plus much of the evangelical movement.
I will admit that the left wing’s echo chamber is a bit louder at the moment. Radical leftwing voices like those of Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis, Howard Zinn, Harvey Wasserman, Dennis Kucinich, etc. are inescapable on the mainstream media at the moment. Radical rightwing voices like Ann Coulter, Mike Huckabee, Jonah Goldberg, Bill O’Reilley, etc. are rarely heard at the moment. But that has not ALWAYS been the case.
Of course, sometimes an echo chamber can be a bad thing. In 1998, the Republicans in the House convinced themselves that there was a huge public outcry against Clinton I. Problem was, it was only the echo chamber feeding back on itself… the American people wanted Bill to stay. No one outside the beltway was in favor of impeachment in 1998-1999.
(More recently, however, the Democrats made the opposite mistake by ignoring an actual public movement to have Bush II & Cheney impeached. However, the pro-impeachment forces, and yes there ARE significant pro-impeachment forces outside the Beltway this time around!… are willing to forgive the party, though God help the mainstream Denocrat leadership if Clinton II continues Bush II’s crusade against the constitution.)
8. Tractatus | January 23rd, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Picture this:
Two studies… the conclusion of the first is supportive of the war in Iraq while the conclusion of the second is the opposite. When the
firstsecond study comes out,liberalsconservatives topple over each other looking to see who funded the study, tell us we need to “consider the source” in order to determine any biases. But when thesecondfirst study comes out, they treat it as gospel and find ways to argue that where the money comes from is irrelevant. In other words,liberalsconservatives don’t want you to “consider the source” if the study supports their position.9. Ricorun | January 23rd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
I still haven’t figured out whether Matt’s original post was to be some kind of theoretical thought experiment or if there actually was a “first study” that was supportive of the war in Iraq. If it’s just a thought experiment I guess I could agree, again in theory, with the premise. But if it’s supposed to be an actual comparison, then it would be nice to know what that other study is, so we could… like, ya know… compare them on their intrinsic merits.
Then again, this blog has turned into such a never-ending cat fight that any sort of reasoned comparison is very unlikely. And it’s topics like this — filled as it is with unspecific inferences — that make it more unlikely still.
November can’t come soon enough as far as I’m concerned.
10. Mark Noonan | January 23rd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
It seems to me that as the campaign in Iraq strides from success to success, the left is ever more desperate to discredit the effort…so, Soros and Co have dredged up the leftwing lies of 2001-2003 and put them out as if they were new. Really, it is a bit clever, because the MSM will just report it as new…but, of course, those of us who have been paying attention know the truth of the matter.
11. Diana Powe | January 24th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Since the Center For Public Integrity report can’t actually be shown by any evidence that it is the product of dictation by George Soros, as repeatedly implied by Matt, Mark and multiple commenters, now it is suddenly the product of “Soros and Co” in cahoots with the very dangerous “MSM” which routinely steals the lunch money of conservatives.
12. Ricorun | January 24th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Mark: Really, it is a bit clever
No more clever than implying a comparative study without actually naming it. Please tell us what the heck are we supposed to be talking about? Is this just a thought experiment? Is this some sort of veiled warning of the Phase II report? What?
13. js | January 24th, 2008 at 3:53 am
Since the beginning of time, the only thing it takes to defeat a liberal has been the simple truth.
Thats it.
You know its working when they gather and throw insults, and demean you.
Congratz Matt and Mark.
Its pretty easy, isnt it!!
14. keefer | January 24th, 2008 at 4:50 am
…but show me the two studies and I will read them both and judge them for their merits.
Why, libretardTHC? Your judgement means nothing here. Here’s a common libretardTHC post:
“matt/mark, your so stupid. im the smart one hear, cant you see that.”
Note that I left all capitalization out, and incorrectly punctuated throughout. Just like you would, libretardTHC/kblock77. As I already stated, your judgement means nothing. You’re just a gnat here, or as you’d put it, a nat.
Nothing personal, libblack77, but you’re a moron. I’m sure you’re a nice fella, and all the little boys probably like you a lot. But here, you’re just a nobody…
15. extramedium | January 24th, 2008 at 4:55 am
“In other words, liberals don’t want you to “consider the source” if the study supports their position.”
Uh, thats exactly what conservatives do too. Have a look back at your posts regarding studies that debunk global warming. How are liberals different?
It seems to me that good liberal or conservative debaters can take any statement (fact or opinion) and heap a bunch of spin on it to twist it to their political advantage. It’s pretty much all that goes on here at Blogs for Victory.
16. SEW | January 24th, 2008 at 5:47 am
Extramedium. Hey man, cool science there. CO2 and temperature chart! Al nailed the Repubs with that graph. And this Soros guy, cool dude. Pass the J.
17. js | January 24th, 2008 at 5:55 am
How classic. Throw global warming in thier face. Call the truth spin. Maybe that will get even.
Gimme a break. The reason Global Warming was debunked was because it was not the truth. No spin needed buddy, just the truth.
But thanks for your best shot.
18. extramedium | January 24th, 2008 at 7:44 am
“Gimme a break. The reason Global Warming was debunked was because it was not the truth. No spin needed buddy, just the truth.”
Because conservatives speak the “truth”, while liberals just “lie”? LOL.
Conservatives lie and spin equally well to liberals. And they do indeed demand you not consider the source when the report in question supports their position. Happens all the time here.
19. SEW | January 24th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Extramedium, Try these 2 in addition to Soros’ above lies study. And with parrots like you to disseminate his fraud.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/jake-gontesky/2007/09/26/global-warming-alarmist-james-hansen-shill-george-soros
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01102008/news/worldnews/oros_iraq_death_study_was_a_sham_8493.htm
20. Diana Powe | January 24th, 2008 at 8:28 am
keefer,
If you’re going to insult people (which you will) and ridicule their punctuation and spelling (which you did) you might want to take some care while doing it. Unless you’re writing for an audience in the United Kingdom instead of the United States, we spell the word judgment, not “judgement”. Also, I wouldn’t recommend a comma in front of the conjunction “and”.
js,
I know that global warming has been “debunked” in your mind because of its source, but the world is passing you by in that regard.
I don’t know, I rather thought there was something more than “throwing insults” in my Comment # 6 and I note with interest that there hasn’t been response to the substance of my critique.
(Wait, I feel a psychic response coming from the Conservative Ether…”Speak, O Wise Spirit!” “We know that you’re an idiot so there’s no reason to address any substance of what you wri-i-i-i-t-e…”)
Regardless, it’s still fascinating to see how there’s no evidence beyond guilt-by-association that’s been put forward by any of you that George Soros had diddly to do with the report that caused all of this fulmination and yet it’s still being written about as though it had his name on the cover page. It’s pretty silly, really.
21. SEW | January 24th, 2008 at 8:42 am
”Speak, O Wise Spirit!” And in which country do we use the wrong quotation mark?
22. SEW | January 24th, 2008 at 8:50 am
“The other is that the majority of American’s are really conservatives at heart. The problem is that explaining Americans negative feelings”
I’ll comment. You are confused on use of ‘.
23. Diana Powe | January 24th, 2008 at 9:19 am
SEW,
Did you even hear the roar of the engines as the point flew over your head?
The insulting remarks originated with keefer who made a point of criticizing spelling and punctuation. In those remarks, he made spelling and punctuation errors. Normally, most people here don’t worry about that because this medium is one in which people write quickly and often post before they scrupulously ferret out every mistake. However, if someone is going to take it upon themselves to waste bandwidth on such trivia then they would be well-advised to be careful about how they do it.
Perhaps if you look quickly behind you, you can still catch a glimpse of the point on its way to cruising altitude.
24. SEW | January 24th, 2008 at 9:26 am
“Did you even hear the roar of the engines as the point flew over your head?”
Got it! OK for dian to do it, but not Keefer or SEW.
25. keefer | January 24th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Diana,
Thanks for the corrections; I’m not perfect. However, I’m not as blatantly careless as libretardTHCkblack77. That’s because I’m not stupid like he appears to be.
So, when I use “and” no comma is required?
26. Timmy J. Rooter | January 24th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Two specific situations call for the use of a comma before “and.” The first is created when we have three or more items in a series.
The second situation occurs when “and” is being used to coordinate two independent clauses.
keefer, your use of the comma before “and” is correct; carry on.
27. Diana Powe | January 24th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
keefer,
You’re quite welcome. The rules on commas are much more liberal which is why I only said that I recommended it. I will comment however on the very civil tone of your last couple of posts and I hope this is part of a general uplifting of the level of discourse here. People can disagree without being disagreeable.
28. Timmy J. Rooter | January 24th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Another example would be “Shut up and go away.”
The subject of those independent clauses that issue commands (they are called imperatives) is the understood “you,” as in the clauses [shut up] and [go away] the comma may be used, but, for the sake of clarity, isn’t. After all, we don’t want a pause between the two declarative statements; they’d lose their impact.
29. keefer | January 25th, 2008 at 4:43 am
I will comment however on the very civil tone of your last couple of posts and I hope this is part of a general uplifting of the level of discourse here.
I’m trying to ease my resentments where deserved. You’re a lemming, but a thoughtful one, unlike jane and libretard.
See, Spook, I can be nice as well…
30. SteaM | January 25th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Why, keefer, do you use the word “lemming” to describe Diana? If you are trying to ease your resentments maybe you should try a little harder.