This is actually a response to the most recent comment on this blog, which totally misses the point.
It is a red herrring--dhishoenst, really, if you are smart enogh to even realize what you are doing--to suggest that this blog says CNN "takes orders" from Obama, or Democrat politicians. orstrategist. Why should the people of CN have to "take orders?? They are PARTISANS, promoting Obama because that is their AGENDA. They think like Obama. They are leftists to their very core (to one degeree or another).
Let me make this clear enough for even a leftist to follow. Does Rush Limaubh TAKE ORDERS from the GOP. If you believe so, then you should apply to work at CNN. You are both stupid enough, and dishoenst enough . Rush Limbaugh (generaly) promotes the GOP because he thinks that the GOP will take this country in the direction he wants it to go (sort of, and Limbuagh and I agree that the GOP establishmment does NOT want to take this cout=ntary in the way we want it to go). Even more importantly, Limbuagh knows that Brack Obama, and leftist Democrats, will take this country in the WRONG direction. However, Liimbaugh is MORE HOEST abut hwere he is coming from. He TELLS you. CNN pretends to be "objective". That is one of the reasons I call CNN "The Liar Network". Then there are the specific lies, and lies of omission, which I regularly point out in this blog. Both of my daughters (lawyers in Boston and New York City respectively) keep telling me: "Daddy, why do you get so upset at CNN. Everyone knows they have agenda that leans to the left: Democratic. What do you expect? If yo listen to CNN, you know what you are going to get, just like you do when ou listen to Rush Limbaugh.".
You should be able to see the problem. My daughters are smart ehough to know PROPAGANDA when they see and hear it,, but the people of CNN are still massively DISHOENST. They portray themselves as "neutral journalists", when they are no such thing. And are most lpeole smart as my daughters? I don't think so. Some people actaully believe tlhhe idea that the peole of CNN at least try to be "objective". That is simply not true. Even my daughters--at least my older daughter, who voted for Obama--probably buy into the idea that CNN is "more objective" than Rush Limbuagh. Again, that is simply not true. In fact,, as stated, CNN is more DISHOENST than Rush Limbaugh. I wil go further; Rush Limbauhh, in general, is MORE ACCURATE than CNNin his FACTS. Sure, Limbuagh will sometimes let his partisanship distort the "facts" that he "reports". But Rush Limbaugh is occasionaly INTERESTED in what the facts are. The mainstream media, including CNN, is NOT INTERESTED in the facts. This blog PROVES that almost evelry Thursday, when I expose the LIES in the way ALL of the media "report" the datal on new unemplylment claims released by the government every Thursday. Rush Limbaugh has recently pretty much gotten this right (although not to the extent this blog gets it right). And Rick Santelli, of CNBC, SOMETIMES gets it right. (including the FANTASY that all of this government employment data is "concrete numbers, rather than the subjective estimates these numbers really are. I have seen NO ONE else in the media do anything but LIE about these numbers, and what they mean. Go back TWO YEARS, and read the article posted on this blog almost every Thursday (sometimmes lFriday, or on the weekend), and you will see the most extensive, complete chornicle of media LIES ever put together on this planet. For a decae and more, thi sblog has exposed the LIES of the despicable Associated Press (that fuktile, Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest, competent AP reporter that He stuck me with, jsut to punish me for being an agnostic). If lyou want to understand more about the modern media, see Michael Crichton's NOVEL, "Airframe", which tells you exactly how being UNINTERESTED in the fats results in LIES. This blog can almost be regarded as an unpaid 'watchdog" of the mainstream media, even though I never really intended--and still don't intend--for this blog to be limited to that. Obvioiusly, I don't need to be a "watchdog" for Rush Limbaugh (although this blog has published multiple articles critical of Limbaugh), since the mainstream media performs that functin (one of the aspects of The Liar Network,being its dishonest hpocristy, wherein the GOP is responsible--"guilt by association"--for EVERyTHING Limbaugh says, while Obama is hardly responslbe for what HE says, much less people much closer to him than Limbaugh is to the GOP, as a lpolitical lparty).
Then there is that amazing assertion that CNN is subject to "orders" by its CEO. That is simply absurd. Oh, the CEO could demand that CNN "reporters" start acting like real '"journalists", instead of partisan political hacks. Don't hod you r brath. The CEO just sets overall policy. Even the ersatz "journalists" of CNN would never stand for a CEO telling thm what to report. Nevertheless, the CEO could "crack down" on the partisanship, and try to get people uncer him to act like "real journalists". . It ain't going to happen, excpet as people "vote" with their "remote", and DON'T WATCH CNN. It is no accident that CNN has such abysmal ratings. That is the real "crime" in modern "journalism" (althugh, perversely, modern Journalists" make this crime more and more common): BAD RATINGS.
No. Yu canot "drop" the Fox name and have any effet on this blog (just as this blog does not, and will not, support Mitt Romney for President, even as the blog recognizes jsut how very bad Barack Obama is). In fact, I have granted a WAIVER to myself to even mentin the "Fox" name. For some time, this blog has urged a BOYCOTT of Fox "News"--including refusing to use lthe very name in thhis blog. In this blog, Fox is known as the "unfair and unbbalanced network".. "Unbalanced", in this context, does not refer to political imbalance. Fox actaully has much more POLITICAL BALANCE than CNN (or tghe rest of the mainstream media). By "unbalanced", this blog means the non-political meaning of that word (as in "insane", in the sense that basically all modern "journalists" are mentally "unbalanced"). You would have to read the various blog articles on Fox to get an understanding of exactly why Fox make me so antgry. To the extent Fox has a political bias, it is toward the GOP establishment. Readers of this blog know what I think of the GOP establishment. Fox gets the economic data, including this employment data released every Thursday, ,just as wrong as CNN, and the rest of the media. Fox never explained the FACTS of ObamaCARE. Fox never explained the FACTS of teh fraudulent "payroll tax cut". Fox is just as uninterested in FACTS as CNN. in fact, Fox will generally use the same type of story--from the same "source", usually the AP--that CNN uses. The only difference is that Fox will SOMETIMES feature stories that CNN (The Liar Network) will not coer at all. It is no accident that CNN refused to really "cover" Reverend Wright until OBAMA was forced to address the subject. Yet, CNN (The Liar Network) has regularly featured stories on Romney's Mormon religin, to the pont of even going into the THEOLOOGY of that religin (and the "issues" some evangelical Christians have with the Mormon relig). Is it a LIE when you are this hypocritical? Of course it is. John Knig, LIAR AND HYPOCRITE, even gave a lecture on how terrilbe it is to even talk about "how a person prayrs" in a lpolitical campaign, and then CNN tried to make how "Romney prays' a major issue in this electin. Nope. Th epeolle of CNN are LIARS--because they are porpagandists. It does not affect the fundamental LIE in propaganda, whether some of it may be literally true. It is the exaggerated importance that proppaganda gives to insignificant "truths" that makes "good" propaganda. (By the way, Bill Maher and I--noted agnostics both--agree that Barack Obama is NOT a Christian, but a "seuclar humanist"., but John King assures me that I shoulkd not make an "issue' of htis, while CNN is free to make an "issue' of Romney's Mormon rleigion.). Fox is "unfair" in the sense that ALL modern "journalism" is unfair, and because the "news" peole of Fox are really pretty much the SAME as those at CNN. The people of Fox have cable TV minds, jsut as the people at CNN. They are not "journalists"--at either nettwork. And thaat especialy includes the peole who CLAIM to be "journalists" (as, for exmple, Hannity and O'REilly do not claim to be). Th eproblem is that the entire universe of mainstream "journalism' now features people with cable TV minds. Real "journalism" no longer exists. In some sense, of course, it never did, but it once was better than this. These people are WORSE than Willim Randolph Hearst ever thought o fbeing (worse than the worst "yellow' journalists" who ever lived).
Q.E.D. (although the YEARS of articles in this blog really represent the demonsrations). The people of CNN are partisan, politial hacs, and CNN is The Liar Network.
My waqiver has expired, and I will go back to referring to the "unfair and unbalanced network". Yuo will note lthat both CNN and MSNBC (again, a more honest CNN, althoyth dishonestly still paying lip service to being "journalists") have conducted a CAMPAIGN to support Governor Walker's recall in Wisconsin, includng CNN's orgasm over Bill Clinton's appearance. The unfair and unbalanced network, while Hannity may have obviously favored Walker, adn the network may have given more of Walker's side than CNN or MSNBVC, did NOT feature this kind of FULL COURT PRESS for one side. I wuold aslo note that Erin Burnett, on CNN (who I have not YET cast into the outer darkness, even though she often shows herself to be a partisan political hack) did venture away from the CNN party line this evening (because Walker appears to be--maybe--a WINER?). She said that she did not understand why a "recall" is appropriate here, when Walker was voted in for a four year term. She suggested it was "inappropriate" to use a recall jsut becauwse of policy differences after you LOSE an election. Now she did not go so far as to note the ACIEVEMENTS of Walker in Wisconsin, and I have this sneaking suspicion that this is the "fall back" CNN positin that ny "victory" for Walker is not a "vicotry" for Walker policies, or endoresement of those policies, but merely people rejecting this use of a recall. Erin was quick to feature John King saying that Wisconsin is STILL not a "battleground" state, even if Walker wins tomorrow, although it remains a "possibiity" it will become a battleground state. Remember, the MAIN CNN agenda here is to re-elect barack Obama. Barack Obama, himself, did nto go to Wisconsisn to support the unions. Am I too much of a cynic? With the media, I don't think so. I have found, to may amazement, that I am often not cynical enough.
Oh. This blogg will continue to refer to CNN as The Liar Network. CNN has earned thaqt nickname. And this blog swill continue to point out the lies and hyppocrises of CNN, and the ret of the mainstream media, even if my daughetters think they are merely to be expected. And this blog will continue to refer to the "unfair and unbalanced network", as I have seen no indicatin that real "journalism" (or even real thinking) is occurring there (despite more "political balance" than most of the rest of the media). Waht abut those "conservatives" on CNN and MSNBC? Here, you need to remember Mark Twain's famous essay on the literary "crimes" of James Fenimor Cooper. Twain suggested that a "Cooper Indian" has no relationashiop to a real Indian (Native American). "Conservatives" on CNN and MSNBC are mere TOKENS. Further, they are "CNN conservatives", or 'MSNBC conservatives". Any rellationship to real conservatives, out in the wild, is merely coincidental. This is true even if they were previusly accepted as "onservatives". "Conservatives" on CNN are fully aware thaat they have to seem 'reasonable', and not really l"push back" againsst the obvius CNN agenda, except in the mildest way. It is not gong too far, I think, to say they have been "gelded. Am I being too cynical again? I don't think so. Ash yourself:; Would a "conservative" on CNN ever, ACCURATELY, refer to CNN as The Anti-Christian Network? (r even substantivelly suggest that CNN is pushing an anti-Christian pont of view? I don't thinks o. And, if they did, I don't think they would continue to appear on CNN. I don't know of ANY religious "oncservative" who regularly appears on CNN or MSNBC, unless CNN is usng th eperson as a surrogate to attack Romney on his religion.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). You will note, form the title of this blog, that I don not claim to be "neutral", as CNN FALSELY does. However, you will also note that I AM "netural", in a sense, on several matters. I will, for example vote for NETIERH Obama nor Romney. I amn a true AGNOSTIC (rather than a militant, anti-Christian atheist like Bill MaHher, regularly featured on The Anti-Christian Netwokr). I am an "independent", in that I left al allegaiance to the GOP (Grand, Outdated Party) YEARS ago (at least as afar back as 20066, when this blog DISOWNED President Bush). In my former life, I was a PLAINTIFFS' TRIAL LAYER (primariy). Yet, I have been a conservative at least since supporting Barry Goldwater in 1964, and Ronald Reagan in 1968. I don't hav much use for banks and "big business", and I call the people of Wall Street The Stupidest People on Earth. I call Bailout Ben Bernake The Wort Failure in the History of Fwold Finance, but did so when President Bush was still President (although, I may have called Bernanke the SECOND worst faiure in the hisotry of world finance, then, reserving the title of "worst" for Bush Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson--Bailout Ben having since eclipsed Paulson in the top sopot). I hve much more claim to be NETRAL than the partisan hacks of CNN. Waht is a "hack", by the way? In this context, it means a person without any real wit or intelligence, merely mouthing politially correct cant in a mindless way. There is no real thinking going on in the minds of thisese political hacks of CNN. They are just mouthing what they have heard, in their leftist classrooms and in the incestuous talking among themselves: among people who all think the same way. I, on the other hadnd,, obviusly never acted like a lemming in my entire life: becoming an agnostic TOTALLY ON MY OWN (no book,, famiy member, or "mentor") by the age of 13. And yet, I had a ltter published in a science fiction maazine, when I was about 18, basicaly OPPOSING NON-MARITAL SEX. That is still my position, as I approach 65. How many CHRISTIANS do you know who still actively take that position, and MEAN it? I now. Cynics say that I only oppose non-marital sex (including premairtal sex) because no sane woman would have sex with me anyway, and because I have already admitted that I am terrified by atual women. How I ever ennded up with two daughters amazes even me-shameful as it is that both of them turned out to be radical FEMINISTS (compunded by the greater shame of myself having to come out of the closet as a closet feminist when the sexists of the left forced it upon me). No. I absolutely guarantee it. I am of a more "independent" mind than ANY person on CN. I am a conservative because my MIND tells me that is the correct overall political philosophy, and not because I am "partisan", or smply gone along with what I have been told. Sure, I have been influenced by what I have READ, and the SUBSTGANCE of what I have heard. But I was a politcal conservative by 1964, believeing pretty much what I believe now, even though my motehr and father were NOT "political"--did not even really talk politics iwwithh me then. My 990 year old mother will taak politis with me NOW, as she has looked with hoorror on both Geoge W. Bush and Obama. In short, I became a conservative, as I became an agnostic, ON MY OWN (no one, other than peole in books, pushing me in that directin). I have long planned to do an article on what I hink it means to be a conservative, and maybe I will get around to it some day. You may sometimes get the impression that I think I am the only "real" conservative left in America. Sometimes, I even find myself thinking that way myself. But I have not yet reached that Obama-level of self-love. But readers of this blog know that I just can't accept GOP estalbishment politicans as "conservative"., and I think GOP politicians in general tend to betray conservatives regularyly (including "Tea Party" politicians)--maybe from WOWARDICE. As a rule of thumb, in figurring out where I stand, you can look at Rush Limbuagh. As stated, I have disagreed with Limbaugh. Howeve,r I believe that LimbaUgh is lhe best prsent model of a modern "conservative". If you think Limbuagh is too "extreme" (in substance, rather than manner), then I surely would not consider you a conservative. Yes, Ronald REagan was the POLITICAN who has best represented a "real" conservative in my lifetime. No modern GOP politician can stand the competition of Reagan's memory. It is not that Reagan was "perfect". But Reagan's INSTINCTS were RIGHT, and he had the kind of personality I realy wish I had. And I majored in physics iat New Mexico Staqte Unversity. Maybe that exlains my CONTEMPT for modern "journalism", and my respect for FACTS. A major in physics, and a minor in mathematics, certainly explains why I can spot th econstant LIES in the way "journalists" report numbers (even though the lies do not involve "mathematics", but mere arithmetic and understanding of the simplest kid of statistics). I have not even gotten into the LIES in the way CNN, and every other modern "news" organizatin", reports POLLS. Nope. if you expect me to stop calling CNN The Liar Netwrok, you are going to be disappointed.