Interestingly enough, I read your comment about the two articles before reading the articles, and yet I still got somewhat of a political "jolt" reading them. I'm neither lib nor con, so I have no real vested interest in whatever point of view you espouse. As far as I can tell your politics, it seems to me, are similar to my own libertarian viewpoints more often than not.
That having been said, I confess I can see why conservatives would get concerned. Supposing that the two stories were published back-to-back it's not really all that much of a stretch to see them as *two* pro-liberal statements in a row.
Here's what I mean: The first story obviously takes a shot at republicans. Fair enough (It's also damn funny, but that's beside the point). If you look at that tag line as *establishing* a position, the second tagline could easily be seen as being consistent with the first and *agreeing* with Graham. Try reading the taglines one right after the other and it's easier to see what I mean.
The ability to count notwithstanding, someone who thinks that you are slamming republicans would be predisposed to thinking you're following up with a confirmation rather than shifting gears and criticizing Graham's inability to count.
I'm not saying that this excuses poor reading comprehension; I'm merely saying that I can understand it.
---
I could too, if those stories are taken in isolation. But when you consider that the first subscriber from 1994 is still there, and the average subscriber has been reading for several years, I can't quite grasp it. One might think that the whiners are all new readers, but anytime I go look them up, that's not the case. It's fairly astounding in context, then.... -rc
Liberal Bias AGAIN?! - Comments
Interestingly enough, I read your comment about the two articles before reading the articles, and yet I still got somewhat of a political "jolt" reading them. I'm neither lib nor con, so I have no real vested interest in whatever point of view you espouse. As far as I can tell your politics, it seems to me, are similar to my own libertarian viewpoints more often than not.
That having been said, I confess I can see why conservatives would get concerned. Supposing that the two stories were published back-to-back it's not really all that much of a stretch to see them as *two* pro-liberal statements in a row.
Here's what I mean: The first story obviously takes a shot at republicans. Fair enough (It's also damn funny, but that's beside the point). If you look at that tag line as *establishing* a position, the second tagline could easily be seen as being consistent with the first and *agreeing* with Graham. Try reading the taglines one right after the other and it's easier to see what I mean.
The ability to count notwithstanding, someone who thinks that you are slamming republicans would be predisposed to thinking you're following up with a confirmation rather than shifting gears and criticizing Graham's inability to count.
I'm not saying that this excuses poor reading comprehension; I'm merely saying that I can understand it.
---
I could too, if those stories are taken in isolation. But when you consider that the first subscriber from 1994 is still there, and the average subscriber has been reading for several years, I can't quite grasp it. One might think that the whiners are all new readers, but anytime I go look them up, that's not the case. It's fairly astounding in context, then.... -rc
Posted by: J in London | November 17, 2007 7:19 PM
Read the article that everyone's commenting on, or post a comment about it.