What's Mallard raving about today?
The Media
Mallard, people in glass journalistic houses should not throw stones.
Merely stating that something is fact does not make it fact. Even citing a single instance which seems to support your claim, cannot suddenly make it an irrefutable truth.
For example:
I seem to recall seeing something on the front page of the New York Times recently about how Iran is a Big Threat and must be dealt with before Something Bad happens. Given that the source of this information is an Administration which made similar claims about Iraq which turned out to be false, most "liberals" are highly skeptical of this claim and the main supporters of war with Iran are "conservatives".
Ergo: The New York Times is a conservative paper.
See how easy it is to play that game?
13 comments:
As with the "lies" about O'Reilly, he doesn't even try to offer evidence to support his case. I never thought I'd miss Mallard's footnotes.
Come to think of it, I never thought I'd miss Mallard's stabs at poetry. The rhyming at least made his insane rants seem slightly less angry.
While on the topic of double standards:
Why would a newspaper purposely bury a right-leaning story on page 34 if Mallard Fillmore speaks for the average working man who by definition, should be the majority of newspaper clients?
Why the victim minority this week and the morally superior average joe next?
Where are all the atories about Blackwater abuse in the National Review or the WSJ?
Who's the "we"? Mallard's a TV reporter, not a journalist.
For that manner, "our" liberal biases? Mallard certainly switched political idealologies quickly..
Jeez. I can immediately cite an example to disprove Tinny's nonsensical "logic:"
I read The San Francisco Chronicle. By most people's definitions, it would be a "liberal" newspaper.
In Wednesday's edition, the story about the smearing of the families of Graeme Frost and Bethany Wilkerson by right-wing pundits was buried on about page sixteen of the front section, a half-column on the inside, under the fold.
On page two? More nonsense about Britney Spears.
Your move, Tinny...you ridiculous little putz.
(Crooksandliars.com has the details if you haven't heard about Frost and Wilkerson.)
I miss the little asterix Mallard usually uses to rip statements and 'facts' out of context. How am I to learn?
Exanonymous, for that matter, if the press was really trying to push a liberal agenda, why report on the story at all? If there really trying to keep up happy, ignorant, and voting Democrat, why not just bury all conservative-supporting stories on page not even in the fucking paper, rather than page 32.
Seriously though, anyone can find some stories buried in the middle of the front section to support their view point. I know because I've done it. Mallard might not understand this because he works in the 4th circle of he - I mean, television, but there's a finite amount of space on the front page and the Times reserves it for stories of great national or international import. That means war, budgets, disease, major deaths, and occasionally opera.
"umawaexk": Tinshley insisting he's not passed out at the wheel.
That should say "keep us happy, ignorant, and voting Democrat", not "keep up happy, ignorant, and, voting Democrat". Damn lack of comment editor.
Mallard's copy of the New York Times talks.
That's just wrong.
Or, it's been bugged b/c he bought a copy and is now supporting terrorists.
So apparently it's the newspaper talking, and not Mallard.
Is it too much to ask for Tinsley to at least TRY to make that obvious?
It wasn't immediately obvious, but I figured out that papers talk in Mallard's world much too fast for my liking.
I had a birthday card that laughed when you opened it.
I think I still have it. It laughs!
@Natalie: To be exactly as fair to Tinshley as he deserves, the one noise-machine trope he's never resorted to is using "Democrat" as an adjective.
Post a Comment