I feel like I'm reading Joe Klein, if Joe Klein did nothing but watch FOX News all day.
For instance, if you were to read her tripe today, you'd never guess that Clinton did not, in fact, give an entire sermon in a faux-drawl, but instead was merely quoting a southern writer. You would, however, get the sense that the media really is liberal, contrary to a number of Media Matters studies which show a persistent conservative slant in all major networks' coverage of news and in their talking head lineups, contrary to the lack of a motive for a corporate news agency to espouse liberal views, and despite the lack of any evidence for her case whatsoever-- as well as contrary to what everyone saw with their own eyes in election 2000. You'd have just read her argument that if FOX News just admitted they were a propaganda outlet for the GOP like Rush Limbaugh then it would be hunky dory for them to host a Democratic debate (because FOX News treated the Dem debates in '04 so fairly, dontcha know-- and does she actually think that Rush Limbaugh would be a valid person to host a debate?). And, as the fly on the turd, you'd have been told flat-out that Ann Coulter is a "feminist."
Then there was this:
"Of course, any Salon readers who still follow the mainstream media out of numbed habit will never have heard Hillary's most extreme flights of faux gemutlichkeit. All that Sunday, network radio news, for example, betrayed its liberal bias by running clips of only her noblest phrases. Heaven help any Republican who had made so lurid a gaffe!"
Yes, this is clearly an example of liberal bias, because if a conservative running for president ever made serious verbal gaffes or put on a comicbook accent, the media would make sure he could never win.
That quote was right before a "Thank God for Matt Drudge!" moment that really says all that needs to be said.
Seriously, what does she offer that we don't already get from every preening, uninformed conservative in the media today?
1 comment:
I agree with el ranchero.
Paglia is a sub-par public intellectual who ceased to be interesting long ago. Why they put up with her wrongheaded and casual musings is not much of mystery to me (they are journalists, what would they know from intellectuals beyond obvious identity-based contact points), but their enthusiasm (CIt's Camille! Camille is back!!!!" is stupefying.
Post a Comment