Tucker Implodes

This is going to be so much fun.

"Where were all the flaming liberals in the media during the run-up to 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'? "

They were still reporting the news. Didn't you see them? Didn't you see all the air time that was being given to talking heads who insisted we try to "understand" the terrorists and their grievances? Did you miss the wags who suggested Saddam wasn't such a bad guy after all? Apparently you weren't watching Fox, because there were liberals all over that network, weeping and moaning about our imperialist motivations, about how we were only invading to steal Saddam's oil, about how we were violating international law by not getting permission from the UN. But wait, Fox is that right-winger's channel isn't it? How could this be? I'll tell you. Selective memory on the part of my favorite Brown Mountain liberal. In fact, CNN devoted more time to left wing European pundits who decried our militaristic behavior than they did to the troop preparations or any of the details of the operation. In fact, MSNBC spent more time letting Chris Matthews screech shrilly at military personnel trying to get them to break ranks than they did to the Administration's motivation for taking the action in the first place. On the broadcast networks, Peter Jennings could hardly contain himself. One evening he did everything but accuse the Bush Administration of outright piracy.

Sorry, just because your favorite media deities didn't go throw themselves under tank treads doesn't mean they weren't still in there pitching.

"I do not recall any members of the mainstream media posing tough questions about those huge stockpiles of WMDs that Saddam must still be hiding."

Let's see. So all the best intelligence agencies throughout the world were all saying that Saddam had the WMDs and was poised to use them, but somehow Dan Rather was supposed to presciently know that they were wrong? I know you liberals hold journalists in pretty high regard, but please! Journalists are what they are because they're no good for anything else.

"I do remember this real hardnosed journalistic query at a prime time news conference just weeks before our illegal occupation: 'Mr. President, how does your faith sustain you in difficult times such as these?' (or something to that effect - a real zinger huh?)"

OK, that's one. Are you saying that no journalistic organization has ever done any other puff pieces during any other time of crisis under any other President? Are you saying that because one moron decided to ask a stupid question that there is no liberal bias in the media? I hope not, because there is absolutely zero logic in that argument.

"Where were the hardball questions when Bush, Cheney, and Rice were spewing either their lies or incompetence? I guess the Laci Peterson story was more important."

Once again, were you expecting ESP? I don't recall any of these people questioning Bill Clinton before he bombed an aspirin factory. I don't recall any of these hard-hitters ragging Bill Clinton about his plans to disastrously involve us in the mess in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And guess what, I sure don't remember any of you liberals screaming bloody murder over that failure. Are they only supposed to have ESP when there is a Republican Administration? Are they supposed to always assume Republicans are lying? And that's not bias?

"The CORPORATE media is all about ratings - bottom line."

You spit this out like it was an accusation. What are they supposed to do, run a news organization for the pure altruism of it? Wake up, you're dreaming!

"The so called liberals in the mainstream seem plenty willing to go along for the ride when it gets the viewers watching."

I don't know what that means or what it has to do with whether there is liberal bias in the media. It sounds like a straw-man to me. I think you're trying to assert that because a journalist pays lip service to ratings, he/she couldn't possibly be liberally biased, but that makes no sense so I'll assume you weren't going there.

"The average American viewer doesn't want hard news, or nuanced journalism that investigates the truth (God forbid an objective truth) - they want condensed, easy to understand BS. Well it's a good thing for them, 'cause that's all I ever see on the idiot box."

Now you're into the truth zone. I think that's one of the reasons it has all become newsertainment, as both Strother and I said earlier. However, that still doesn't preclude the fact that the majority of what little hard news is left tends to be liberally biased. I can produce all sorts of evidence to support that.

"Bombast of the day: Maybe it's the hours in front of the TV that's killing the mind of American children? No, it must be the public schools."

Why are you so certain it is either/or? I'm pretty sure it is both.