in two days; I couldn't put it down. Goldberg's argument is that the media skews left not because of some conspiracy but because those in the media don't recognize their worldview as being liberal; they simply see themselves as rational and reasonable. The problem is that a big chunk of America doesn't see the world the way they do.
My husband and I saw a good example of this subtle liberalism in the media on our vacation. We were watching Dateline in the hotel, a segment on gay adoption. The story of two lesbians opened with "It was a fairy tale romance..." My husband guffawed, "I don't know what fairy tales they've been reading!" I personally don't have any problem with homosexuals, and in select cases I don't have a problem with gay adoption, but I do raise my eyebrows at lesbian romance being called "fairy tale". Who wrote that line? And how many people let it slide? Did no one see how odd it sounds? Roughly half of the US population doesn't support gay adoption and probably doesn't consider lesbians to be the stuff of tales and legends. But to the liberals in the media, this statement was unobjectionable.
And then the kicker. The DA's office is discussing whether they should charge this guy under hate crime laws. The police captain says that they should because obviously this man "acted out of hate, that matters." The ADA balked, saying that she hesitates to invoke the hate crime legislation too often because of the slippery slope effect. "What if a black man kills a klansman or a gay man kills a homophobe -- where do we draw the line?"
Obviously I'm not as rational and reasonable as the show's liberal writers. I personally subscribe to the South Park school of thought when it comes to hate crime laws, but if we're going to have them, then of course I think a black man killing a klansman or a gay man killing a homophobe should count. The underlying message this ADA was sending was that there's a right and wrong way to hate: if a klansman kills a black man, well that's atrocious, but if the black man kills the klansman, well that's justified. What a bunch of BS.
Things like this are the subtle liberal ideas that pervade our media. It is accepted as a given that lesbians live happily ever after and black men should be given some leeway if they kill a racist. Those are the little digs that make me want to shut the TV off and stand barefoot in the kitchen.
I seem to be surrounded by gay women (especially at work). I've had gay women as roommates from college and after college. The one theme which seems consistent to me about lesbians is that of a dysfunctional family. Could be abusive father, alcoholism...along those lines. I honesty do not believe the majority of women who say they are lesbians really are, I think it's the safer option for them.
Posted by: tonit at August 17, 2005 09:28 AM (SHqVu)
I can almost see where you're coming from on the "fairy tale" remark - all those cute little happily ever after couples in fairy tales are all straight, so how dare a gay or lesbian couple feel like they're free to see their relationship in those terms. How rude.
As for Tonit's comments, I won't even bother, but it's interesting that they say they are "surrounded by lesbians" but not "friends" with them.
Posted by: Beth at August 17, 2005 12:12 PM (kOF5v)
Rational and reasoned thought has always been lacking, but moreso since Sept, 11th happened. I
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at August 17, 2005 12:23 PM (Sfcu+)
...and with your narrow and bigoted points of view, I can also see a future for you being nothing else more than barefoot and preggars, I thought you were a better person than that...never mind...I can choose to not feel my blood pressure rise by reading your opinion, and that's what I'm going to do.
Posted by: nerdstar at August 17, 2005 12:45 PM (jPvjS)
Romances in fairy tales ususally involve princes and princesses, don't they? So if you are going to be literal enough about what counts as a fairy tale romance, does that mean that the phrase can only be used in connection with royalty? (Not that most of recent royal romances are of what I would call fairy tale quality.)
Posted by: Pericles at August 17, 2005 01:28 PM (hHudX)
Oh lord, everyone. My point is that a substantial number of Americans don't view the world the way it's portrayed on TV. It's not a personal attack on anyone. I never said that lesbians can't be happy or completely in love...only that there are no same-sex fairy tales. My comment had nothing to do with you, Beth; I never even thought of you when I was writing that because I didn't see it as a dig against homosexuals. I simply pointed out that the media doesn't reflect the views of many Americans, even if I don't agree with those people in this case.
Posted by: Sarah at August 17, 2005 02:04 PM (VFn0R)
I didn't take the comment personally, I'm just trying to point out a hetero-normative way of viewing things. Yes, I am aware that the operative part of that phrase is normative which is your point. Would you be offended if someone was saying African Americans couldn't use the term fairy tale because they were written by and for white europeans?
Posted by: Beth at August 17, 2005 02:17 PM (kOF5v)
sarah tv really doesn't and shouldn't in some cases reflect the views of a substanial group of americans.it does it for a reason.that reason ishomosexuality,inter-racial relationships are tolerable,normal and everyday.as far as the hate-crimes aspect goes well it's simple.in nyc white on black crime is racial.black on white crime is crime.not always of course but generally.that's just the way it is.
Posted by: tommy at August 17, 2005 02:20 PM (NMK3S)
Beth, I don't know if for me the analogy works, because I think I, and most people, think of fairy tale as Prince Charming sweeping the girl off her feet. I do realize that we live in a hetero-normative world, so while I have no problem with gay rights/marriage/adoption, I accept the fact that many in our society don't. Same with the way that I accept that our society is highly Christian, even if I myself am not overly religious. But I think the media does NOT accept these facts and reports based on their personal value system instead of trying to represent the value system of a large portion of Americans.
Posted by: Sarah at August 17, 2005 02:42 PM (VFn0R)
The liberals, being much smarter than the rest of us, accepted Better Red than Dead as evidence that fighting made no sense. The intelligent person accepted the inevitable and went on from there.
Gays? Piss off. You are not scaring the horses, you are just disgusting them.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at August 17, 2005 03:30 PM (K6i9N)
WEW, I can't tell whether you are serious or not. If you study 20th century history, though, you'll see that liberals were actually much more willing to fight to restrain communism through most of the period, whereas conservatives tended to be isolationists who weren't worried about stopping the communists until they got to Maine. There is some evidence that Truman nuked Japan not so much to win WWII as to send Stalin a message. It was certainly Truman who sent troops to Korea. And for better or worse, Viet Nam really started under Kennedy and then LBJ.
Posted by: Pericles at August 17, 2005 05:16 PM (hHudX)
The last liberal was Scoop Jackson. You lost your guts in Vietnam and have been looking for them since. That is why most blue collar democrats are now republicans. There are more important things in life than which party will offer you the biggest bribe for your vote. The liberal domocratic party is founded on the idea of how to bribe the electorate to vote for them. They stand for nothing but economic self interest. Hard to convince anyone to do anything difficult when that is their only motivation.
Posted by: Scott McLennan at August 18, 2005 12:24 AM (mXuc/)
Now, now... Clinton cut welfare and balanced the budget. Bush created the prescription drug benefit, spends like mad, and runs up the government's credit cards so that he can still cut taxes. So tell me again who is trying to buy votes.
Posted by: Pericles at August 18, 2005 09:11 AM (hHudX)
Hey Beth - some I'm friends with some I'm not. btw - some were also roommates. Guess everyone lives with people they don't like - right? This wasn't a condemnation of lesbians just my experience with the lesbians I've known.
Posted by: toni at August 18, 2005 09:23 AM (SHqVu)
Umm.. so I wonder if they would have described two male homosexuals as having a "fairy" tale romance. Just asking.
Posted by: Locomotive Breath at August 28, 2005 10:48 AM (pRZAp)
I understand where goldburgs written another book that realy takes down the hollywood and liberal idiots i hope to read it soon
Posted by: spurwing plover at August 28, 2005 03:39 PM (S97cI)
| Add Comment