Cowardly commenters

Last month, I mopped the floor with a liberal on Newsbusters, using the facts as my broom handle.

Here's his comment that triggered my response.  Names have been omitted to protect the galatically stupid:

The Star Tribune is now owned by a rightwing billionaire, but for years its political content has been managed by stealth conservatives who "balanced" the Strib's op-ed pages with movement conservatives and centrists in lieu of liberals. The Strib has been owned by investment groups since the '90s and toes the .1%'s line.
No one who knows anything about the ownership of American news media believes the hard right's asinine "liberal media" talking points anymore. If it was once true, it hasn't been the case for well over two decades. The media is wrapped around the Right's little pinkie, and someday the more honest conservatives among you will admit to this.

 My response, with bullet points.  See, there are sometimes I enjoy bashing someone over the head with examples that do fit their generalizations:

The Star Tribune is now owned by a rightwing billionaire,

Who bought it after the Star Tribune found a surefire way to lose money: Alienate roughly half of your potential readers with the likes of Lori Sturdevant, Doug Grow, Nick Coleman, and the despicable Steve Sack.

who "balanced" the Strib's op-ed pages with movement conservatives and centrists in lieu of liberals

Liberals like the names mentioned above? By the way, what is wrong with balance in the op-ed section? Successful media acknowledges a diversity opinion among potential readers/listeners/viewers (* ahem * Fox News Channel)

If it was once true, it hasn't been the case for well over two decades
Which is why (REDACTED) hardly ever has examples of media bias-- Oh wait...

The media is wrapped around the Right's little pinkie, and someday the more honest conservatives among you will admit to this.

Yes, we've got the media so wrapped around our pinkie, that:
- in 2000, the media called the state of Florida for the Democratic presidential candidate when the polls were still open in the panhandle, a traditionally Republican-dominated part of the state.
- in 2004, a reporter tried to discredit a sitting Republican president with documents that couldn't be authenticated
- in 2008, reporters spent more time vetting a Republican vice-presidential candidate than they did the Democratic presidential candidate.
- in 2012, in the aftermath of the Aurora, CO movie theater shooting, and ABC News' Brian Ross identified a James Holmes who was a member of a Tea Party chapter in Colorado. He had no confirmation this was the shooter and had to retract his comments when it turned out he had the wrong Holmes.
- in 2012, a debate moderator committed an arguably-unethical act in backing up the incumbent Democrat during a presidential debate. Worse yet, she got her facts wrong.
Just a few examples of how the Right has got control of the media. /sarc

My little citation of examples of how the media is not controlled by the right wing earned me accolades from some of my like-minded commenters.  It's not why I do it, but it's nice to get the virtual pat on the back every once in a while.

Now, unlike some, I don't spend every moment on the comment boards.  I figured if my debate opponent had a response, he would respond to me, which would translate into an email notification.

The thing is, he didn't respond to me.  He responded to someone else and "refuted" my examples:

1. Al Gore won Florida but didn't have the guts to fight the fix that was in.
2. George W. Bush walked away from duty but because of a Republican operative's ability to make the argument be about a side issue, Bush wasn't held accountable for going AWOL.
3. Sarah Palin adopted her youngest child. No clue what that was about but she's active in a crazy church and is never held accountable for her truly extremist views. I grew up in rural Iowa so please don't tell me hers are rural views because that defames all rural people.
4. ABC is a very Republican friendly network. I'm sure Ross was punished for slipping up.
5. Sorry, can't unpack that one. I need a name or a date or something to go by.

I comment under my own name and I am proud to be an American, but it shames me as an American when otherwise good Americans think democracy requires vote suppression like in Communist countries.

The biggest shock to me after moving to Minnesota in 1988 was that 1) the Star Tribune was not the liberal newspaper I thought it was, just another pro-corporate, pro big business daily; 2) that the Star Tribune kept visibly moving to the right, yet the insults from the hard right just grew more vicious even as they grew less factually based; 3) that the Star Tribune evolved into an outright Republican newspaper, yet still was abused by MN Republicans who by then had moved all the way into the John Birch Society camp (and I grew up reading John Birch Society literature and do know it when I read it).

The MN Republican party is now bankrupt having elected leadership that talked hard right but governed as kleptocrats and borrowed what they could not raise. They couldn't beat Al Franken (seriously, how hard was that?) because they couldn't do better than to run a former Democrat who had his suits paid for by an Iranian businessman.

But I will vouch for Ultra. He sounds exactly like a MN Republican: unwilling to let facts get in the way of his beliefs. Sadly, MN will keep reelecting people like Al Franken until such time as MN Republicans start trying to win instead of insisting on ideology first and foremost.

Of course, this happened a month ago, so I missed the whole exchange and comments on the thread are now closed.  He and I have both gone on to comment on other blog posts.  But when I saw this today, I smiled and shook my head.  I shouldn't be surprised.  And this blog doesn't get the visibility of others.  So this response is less for any audience, but more a catharsis for me.

Let's dissect this:

 1. Al Gore won Florida but didn't have the guts to fight the fix that was in.

The thing is, he didn't.  You have no proof.  And by the way, what does this have to do with media bias?  Try to stay on topic, please.

2. George W. Bush walked away from duty but because of a Republican operative's ability to make the argument be about a side issue, Bush wasn't held accountable for going AWOL.

Again, where's your proof?  Dan Rather and Mary Mapes levelled accusations against a sitting Republican president with documents that couldn't be authenticated, especially when it looked like they were typed in Microsoft Word in 2004, and not like they were typed in 1973 on an IBM Selectric typewriter.  Once again, however, my point was about media bias.  You seem to want to debate historical events.  It's possible Bush was AWOL.  But the thing is, you can't prove it!  Neither could Dan Rather or Mary Mapes, which is probably why they fired/forced to resign:  They made inflammatory accusations based on shoddy "evidence."  Journalists must be held to high standards.

3. Sarah Palin adopted her youngest child. No clue what that was about but she's active in a crazy church and is never held accountable for her truly extremist views. I grew up in rural Iowa so please don't tell me hers are rural views because that defames all rural people.

Good Lord, do you have a learning disability?  My point was how the media spent so many resources trying to dig up dirt on Palin in Alaska, when they couldn't be bothered to look into Obama's past.  I said nothing about her children or her views.  Further, I didn't say anything about how Palin's views reflected rural values, or anything like that, but maybe my super-secret straw man filter wasn't on.  By the way, I have visited rural Iowa, and I can confidently express this:  You don't speak for rural people, either.

4. ABC is a very Republican friendly network. I'm sure Ross was punished for slipping up.

Really, you're sure?  That's your defense?  Isn't he still working at ABC?  Seems to me his punishment wasn't severe enough.  Like I said, journalists should be held to high standards.  When your job has the potential to endanger a person's like or livelihood, a suspension doesn't necessarily cut it.

5. Sorry, can't unpack that one. I need a name or a date or something to go by.

Well, if you'd responded to me, I could've clarified my example for you:  I was talking about CNN's Candy Crowley and when she moderated one of the debates between Obama and Romney.  In a blatant unprofessional move, Crowley interjected into the debate to correct Romney and side with Obama.  Turns out, Romney had his facts right, and Crowley was mistaken.  Even if it went the other way, she should have not stepped out of her role as a debate moderator.  She gave Obama an unfair advantage in the debate-- he should've been the one to correct Romney!

Then there was this gem:

I comment under my own name and I am proud to be an American, but it shames me as an American when otherwise good Americans think democracy requires vote suppression like in Communist countries.

I'm sorry, what was the point of this?  Was this a dig at me?  Does my use of a pseudonym negate the validity of the points I made?  Maybe I've seen enough stories of people exercising their free speech rights and getting subjected to various forms of retaliation.  Why does it matter to you?  Did I thwart your plans of trying to make the debate personal?  Good, because debates shouldn't be about the people in the debate, they should be about the ideas.

By the way, who brought up vote (fraud) suppression?  I mean, besides you?  Once again, you're probably lucky I didn't see your response until it was too late.  I'm not sure your psyche could withstand the public trouncing.

The biggest shock to me after moving to Minnesota in 1988 was that 1) the Star Tribune was not the liberal newspaper I thought it was, just another pro-corporate, pro big business daily; 2) that the Star Tribune kept visibly moving to the right, yet the insults from the hard right just grew more vicious even as they grew less factually based; 3) that the Star Tribune evolved into an outright Republican newspaper, yet still was abused by MN Republicans who by then had moved all the way into the John Birch Society camp (and I grew up reading John Birch Society literature and do know it when I read it)

 Where to begin?  If this guy thinks the Star & Sickle is a right-wing newspaper, I'm guessing he thinks Lenin was a moderate!  By the way, I read his crack about MN Republicans moving all the way into the John Birch Society as "Republicans to the right of Arne Carlson, the only Republican governor the DFL ever halfway liked."  And he grew up reading JBS literature, huh?  Funny how he can't distinguish from viewpoints to the right of William F. Buckley, and the viewpoints of the Tea Party, which is as far right as the S-T could (theoretically) go.  Or does my opponent think the Star Tribune should look a little bit more like the Worker's World Daily?

The MN Republican party is now bankrupt having elected leadership that talked hard right but governed as kleptocrats and borrowed what they could not raise. They couldn't beat Al Franken (seriously, how hard was that?) because they couldn't do better than to run a former Democrat who had his suits paid for by an Iranian businessman.

The thing is that Norm Coleman did beat Al Franken.  On election night.  It wasn't until the recount produced a statistically unlikely reversal under the supervision of SoS Mark Ritchie, a politician whom was supported in his run by ACORN, an organization that "accidentally" ran afoul of various laws, including those pertaining to voter registration, more than once.  And I'll point out that Coleman was an incumbent U.S. Senator running for re-election against Franken.  Coleman had won in 2002 after populist Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash five days before the election, and the DFL scrambled to put Walter Mondale in his place.  The polls showed Wellstone in the lead, and voter sympathy should've made it a landslide for Mondale.  But then there was that memorial-turned-political-rally that so disgusted voters that they voted for Coleman out of spite.  Coleman's bad fortune in 2008 was the wave of anti-Bush sentiment among voters.

But I will vouch for REDACTED. He sounds exactly like a MN Republican: unwilling to let facts get in the way of his beliefs. Sadly, MN will keep reelecting people like Al Franken until such time as MN Republicans start trying to win instead of insisting on ideology first and foremost.

Seems to be the first rule of debate if you're losing as badly as this guy:  Attack your opponent!  For the record, asshole:  Yes, I did live (past-tense) in Minnesota.  Yes, I tended to vote Republican.  No, unlike you, I'm not only open to new facts and information, but I'll actually cite them when making my argument.  The only "beliefs" I hold are related to my faith.

And pardon me, but stuff your unsolicited advice:  What is it with leftists and their need to advise their opponents on "how to win"?  Evidence to date shows running Republicans as Democrat-lite is a consistently-doomed approach.  In 2010, we saw what happens when the GOP runs on its principles (not ideology, moron:  Ideology implies the gulf between Republicans and Democrats as akin to Capitalists and Marxists).