Saturday, December 22, 2007
Conservative but "non-partisan": Part deux.
I'm going to toss in my own followup to this insipid crusade against liberal bias, specifically related to Raphael's idiotic description of Blogging Tory Sandy Crux as "conservative, but non-partisan." Let me explain how this works. Pay attention.
If you're a member of the Blogging Tories and a self-described "conservative", then it's going to be pretty hard to simultaneously label yourself as "non-partisan," don't you think? However, technically speaking, it's not impossible.
Even if you're a die-hard right-whinger, you can lay claim to doing something in a "non-partisan" way. In Sandy's case, despite the fact that she's obviously a partisan blogger, she would have the right to say that she's embarking on a non-partisan examination of media bias, but only if she did it fairly and evenly, and showed examples of bias of all kinds. But she's not doing that, is she? No, she's made it clear that she's interested only in anti-conservative bias, which makes one wonder -- what exactly is non-partisan about any of that?
Conversely, if Sandy wants to identify only anti-conservative bias, well, fine, go wild. That's her choice, and no one should begrudge her the right to do whatever she wants. At the same time, though, she shouldn't try to paint that as a "non-partisan" project of hers. See how that works?
Again, it's possible for someone who's thoroughly conservative to still get involved in a non-partisan project. But when someone is a member of the BTs, openly cops to being "conservative" and makes it clear that they're interested in exposing only anti-conservative media bias, well, there's absolutely nothing "non-partisan" about that in any way, shape or form, is there?
So how about you wanks knock off that "non-partisan" nonsense? There's not a whiff of non-partisanship about either Sandy or her current crusade, and all you're doing is demeaning the expression. And to fail to appreciate that implies that you're either a) too stupid, or b) too dishonest to acknowledge that point.
Again, that's a) too stupid, or b) too dishonest. I'll leave the actual choice in your hands.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
They want to be propagandists without being thought of as propagandists.
Why does that cause them such discomfort? Propagandising is what we all do, a lot of the time, and there's nothing particularly immoral about it (as long as you don't lie or cause disproportionate harm).
No...Their problems stem from the fact that:
1. Their agenda (which remains hidden, but we all know what it is) is not popular among Canadians;
2. Their perceptions of social/cultural degradation are largely the consequences of laissez-faire economics and freedom of expression, which they support more than anyone else;
3. They have difficulty reconciling their notions of individual freedom with collective responsibility.
No amount of crying about media and about how we all process information is going to change that fact, and doing so just serves to highlight their ignorance and lack of candour.
This is how sensible conservatives act: They behave conservatively (committed relationships, modest dress, high degree of personal discipline, moderate consumption habits, etc. etc.), they read widely, they support political parties that promote a (clear) conservative agenda and they vote.
Anything else is radical, and by definition, not conservative. And of course, lying, which is by nature incautious, is never conservative.
Post a Comment