Wednesday, September 26, 2007

McBride's Gotcha

Playing on the theme of the great liberal conspiracy theory, McBride lays out the nefarious schemes of the left to portray a conservative celebrity, Bill O'Really?, as a victim of a smear attack. But the posting in itself isn't the highlight. The real fun starts in the comment thread.

First McBride fan(atic) and/or possible student, i jeff, writes:

Jessica explains this very well. I will only add that conservative leaning pundits could never pull off this scam on a liberal. MSM media outlets and all their liberal allies should be ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately, it takes some semblance of honesty and integrity to do that. Not sure if anyone has ever asked this question, but what happens when the media goes a step beyond bias? I believe it would be called corruption. A free press that becomes a corrupt media no longer serves any useful purpose.

To this, McBride witfully rejoins with:

I Jeff, You are so right. If conservatives tried this on liberals, the MSM would write scathing pieces about the dishonest smear tactics of the conservatives.

Apparently, neither of them have ever watched Fox News.


  1. It must be very disconcerting indeed, for an alleged university lecturer in journalism to suddenly be confronted with the effects of rivalry and competition among press outlets.

    Awhile ago, you posted the item with the Maclean's magazine cover featuring the photoshopped composite of Bush and Saddam.

    Over at McBride's heroine Michelle Malkin's blog, Malkin triumphally linked to an item in the Globe and Mail, criticizing the magazine cover.

    Maclean's is a national newsmagazine in Canada, and the Globe is a Toronto-based daily with national circulation.

    They are owned by two different companies, much like CNN and Fox.

    I too was shocked, shocked and appalled, I tell you, to find this example of competing media organs sniping at one another.

    Anyway, another wholesale outrage will be along soon enough, and this one will be forgotten.

    O'Reilly, incidentally, has referred to the Globe and Mail as a "far-left" paper, which is more ridiculous by several orders of magnitude than his latest remarks about the Harlem restaurant.

  2. Her post starts with the premise that O'Reilly's comments "would offend few."


    It's not offensive for O'Reilly to express his surprise that black people seem somewhat civilized when eating in a restaurant? (Some apparently even used silverware.)

    In context or not, O'Reilly's comments would -- and should --offend many.

    The idea that he is being "smeared" with his own words is an interesting concept, too.

    Apparently, he's being smeared because he says he's being smeared.

  3. Bill-O should pay a visit to Michael's on W. Wisconsin, where white people actually serve fried chicken to black people.