"...what many Americans, if not most, have long believed: that our country's major news organizations are self-styled elitists with liberal/progressive views and are condescending toward most other Americans."
Well, many Americans have believed that since the Right made a concerted effort to assert that the media is liberal. By framing any future arguments thusly, any time a news story critical of the Right is published, right-wingers can simply dismiss it as bias. If people think the media is condesceding, maybe it's because they are stuggling to maintain thier bubble of ignorance in the face of data that challenges their pre-conceived notions/political talking points.
And really, let's think about this: The goal of any media organization IS NOT to deliver news/information. The mission statements of most of these organizations is to bring audiences to advertizers, and to make money by doing so. The vested interests of most corporations do not at all dovetail with those of the progressive movement, so why on earth would the media (money-making corporations that make money by advertising to other money-making corporations) act as a mouthpiece for progressives? The claim that any of the mainstream media presents the progressive viewpoint shows nothing but ignorance of what progressives stand for on the part of the claimant. An easy example: all major media outlets spend dedicated hours every day reporting on the staock market (capital), but labor is not given a similar forum. That suggests a pro-corporate bias, if anything.
Seriously? You guys didn't really read Romero's rambling, did you?
Danehy made a simple point: "Mexican" is not a race, it's a nationality. "Hispanic" or "latino" may well be races. (Many) Mexicans are one flavor of hispanic/latino, just as a white frenchman is one flavor of "white"; under Romero1984's paradigm, hating on the French is racism against whites. It's as silly as saying "the Canadian race".
Yes, scientifically races don't exist, blah blah - but just like Jesus, actual existence does not preclude social construction, and so for all intents and purposes, races do exist, and are based on simple observations. Right or wrong, that's how it is. The human brain loves to create simple categories based on appearance. An "us"/"not us" test that was probably pretty useful at some point in our evolutionary history, even if it provides the framework for the present silliness.
Romero1984: "You're also wrong about the use of "anti-immigrant" terminology...The majority of the 10 million undocumented immigrants...came through legal channels and simply overstayed their visas."
So? It's illegal to overstay your visa, and thus their presence in the country is an illegal activity. If they have to intent to leave, they are immigrants: this makes them people who have immigrated via an illegal act (overstaying), also known as an "illegal immigrant". Shortening it to "illegal" is only a matter of convenience, though I concede that "alien" is and ugly, dehumanizing word.
ALSO: Ricardo: Do you do PR work the state of Oregon? By my count, you have only once posted a comment that did not mention the superiority of your new home (and the fact that you live in said new home). Don't get me wrong, I agree with your assessment of Oregon's badassedness. Just curious.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation