![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Open season...
Aug. 23rd, 2000 01:02 pmIt appears to be open season on `conservatives', or more to the point, `those who are not liberal'.
As a libertarian, I frankly don't give a hoot about the brouhaha brewing between the Republicans and the Democrats. It is, however, instructive to see how non-neutral the media are when it comes to attacking folks who don't conform to their view of normalcy.
For example, the concern I heard expressed in several pre-convention and convention-time analyses of Gore's vice-presidential choice, Joe Lieberman, to the effect that he was, perhaps, `too conservative' (and thus unacceptable) I found amusing. A little research shows that Lieberman scores a zero when judged by the American Conservative Union (whereas Cheney scores above 90% from the same group). And the numbers are nearly reversed when looking at the assessments made by the Americans for Democratic Action, which many folks identify as "liberal." It should thus be apparent to anyone who cares to think about the issue that Lieberman is, generally speaking, a liberal, while Cheney is a conservative. How anyone in the media (presumably educated folks, yes?) can seriously wonder whether Lieberman is `too conservative' is perplexing.
This witch-hunting ethic extends, apparently, even to interviews of popular authors of technothrillers. Yesterday, during what I presumed was one of those morning-show interviews designed to boost book sales, and which therefore ought to have progressed rather innocuously, Tom Clancy appeared on the Today show and got hammered by Matt Lauer, who read some of what one reviewer had to say about Clancy's new book, to the effect that it subjects readers to a simplistic, conservative political philosophy "whether or not they want it," and compared the book to a Rush Limbaugh talkathon. I particularly liked the "whether or not they want it" crack, as that applies to every writer who ever put pen to paper.
Lauer's followup questions were "Are you too conservative?" and "Do you think you're in step with the feelings of the country?" I can't recall any time that I ever heard a television host question the legitimacy of a guest's liberal views (though maybe, for folks like Lauer, being `too liberal' is impossible...kind of along the lines of "there can never be too much of a good thing")
To his credit, I think Clancy fielded the questions well. I plan to read The Bear and The Dragon, as Clancy is one of the few authors whose stories engage me.
On the other hand, I would not be surprised to hear a call from media personalities for Senate hearings to be convened to investigate the threat that conservatism poses to the country. In the meantime, vote libertarian!
Cheers...
As a libertarian, I frankly don't give a hoot about the brouhaha brewing between the Republicans and the Democrats. It is, however, instructive to see how non-neutral the media are when it comes to attacking folks who don't conform to their view of normalcy.
For example, the concern I heard expressed in several pre-convention and convention-time analyses of Gore's vice-presidential choice, Joe Lieberman, to the effect that he was, perhaps, `too conservative' (and thus unacceptable) I found amusing. A little research shows that Lieberman scores a zero when judged by the American Conservative Union (whereas Cheney scores above 90% from the same group). And the numbers are nearly reversed when looking at the assessments made by the Americans for Democratic Action, which many folks identify as "liberal." It should thus be apparent to anyone who cares to think about the issue that Lieberman is, generally speaking, a liberal, while Cheney is a conservative. How anyone in the media (presumably educated folks, yes?) can seriously wonder whether Lieberman is `too conservative' is perplexing.
This witch-hunting ethic extends, apparently, even to interviews of popular authors of technothrillers. Yesterday, during what I presumed was one of those morning-show interviews designed to boost book sales, and which therefore ought to have progressed rather innocuously, Tom Clancy appeared on the Today show and got hammered by Matt Lauer, who read some of what one reviewer had to say about Clancy's new book, to the effect that it subjects readers to a simplistic, conservative political philosophy "whether or not they want it," and compared the book to a Rush Limbaugh talkathon. I particularly liked the "whether or not they want it" crack, as that applies to every writer who ever put pen to paper.
Lauer's followup questions were "Are you too conservative?" and "Do you think you're in step with the feelings of the country?" I can't recall any time that I ever heard a television host question the legitimacy of a guest's liberal views (though maybe, for folks like Lauer, being `too liberal' is impossible...kind of along the lines of "there can never be too much of a good thing")
To his credit, I think Clancy fielded the questions well. I plan to read The Bear and The Dragon, as Clancy is one of the few authors whose stories engage me.
On the other hand, I would not be surprised to hear a call from media personalities for Senate hearings to be convened to investigate the threat that conservatism poses to the country. In the meantime, vote libertarian!
Cheers...
