Do Republicans think books and magazines and newspapers are a liberal plot?

Question

Conspiracy theory run amuck. Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that those who wish to dismiss ideas that challange and inform the public tell their followers books and newspapers and magazines are a liberal plot against America. That way, you have someone tell you it is ok, even patriotic and righteous, to be uninformed. Should Limbaugh and Hannity combine forces and have book burning meetings across the country! Limbaugh, Hannity, UNITE!!!

Answer 1

They think everybody is against them. They think liberals run the media, newspapers, magazines, and even infiltrate our schools! Conservatives see themselves as underdogs, good guys fighting against an opressive machine. That is why they hate the government, yet they get angry when we criticize Bush. They think CNN or MSNBC is biased yet they think FOX news is informative without any bias. To them the word "elitist" is disgusting despite the fact that elite universities have educate some of them. They prefer normal and ordinary to elite. They see liberals are people who choke their freedom and want to abort every born child in America! Then, they say is liberals who have conspiracy theorists. Yeah, right.

Answer 2

The only problem I have with this question is that when one listens/reads what Hannity or Limbaugh have to say that person already knows that they are right wing conservatives. But if I listen/read a news story I should have to to worry about the reporter inserting their politics into the story. Sadly though too many do that. The problem is the majority of journalists are liberals, not conservatives. As a result you do see a slight liberal slant of the news, not extreme but slight which IMO shouldn't be there at all.

I see no conspiracy, but a failure of colleges and universities to teach young journalists how to keep their political views out of what they are reporting. Just my $.02!

Answer 3

finding on the books, I examine 2 a week and on occasion 2-3 books at a time. i'm no longer a mag reader except in a waiting room and newspapers are no longer something yet opinion pages anymore. i'm getting my information from the internet often from distinctive sources. I certainly have an exceedingly in song and clever circle of acquaintances.

Answer 4

very perceptive.

Clearly the person whose false-to-reality doctrinal ideas are threatened by 1. the RESULTS of individual minds thinking about reality, has a problem.
For such a pragmatic--impracticality-based--advocates of pseudo-religious 'tsardom' established for "moral reasons", obviously the next step past 2. opposing individual thinkers who write about the failure of statists' false ideas is: 3. opposition to freedom of thought--freedom from dictatorship over one's content or expression. Then would come 4. opposition to freedom of choice in publishing, reading, etc. And then would come 5. opposition to unpermitted thought--a true thought policing--regardless of the content of that thought; but this would require a 6. monopoly over "mystically inspired, superior sorts of thinking" held by governor-dictators of moral-ethical religiosity/leadership-over-the-slaves collectivism.

You've identified where we are as a nation just now. Having mounted loud and bullying objections to steps 1, 2 and 3, our administration has decided to move on 4 as a necessary prelude to 5 and 6.

I said thirty years since, "In the country of the 'blind', the two-eyed realist is an alien freak and the national enemy". Thank you for another proof that I was write then and have been right all along.

Answer 5

Actually, in the US there is a limited supply of information. The news, the books taught in schools, the political ideas embedded in seemingly apolitical tv shows and movies, even the academics who achieve tenure or get published are all severely limited to a narrow spectrum of accepted opinions.
Now, there is no such thing as a concrete and stable universal spectrum of opinion. It is a very dynamic and subjective thing. So when i say that there is a very restricted spectrum of opinion, I am actually making a comparative statement of variety of opinion in the US and the countries whose media I follow (Europe, Latin America and the Middle East).
For all the fanfare about freedom of expression in the US, there is really almost an official line that every medium follows. In comparison with current political trends the world-round, most things Americans have access to are of a center-right perspective. That is, academia, publishing houses and TV networks limit their output to business friendly messages. Not so far on the right as to mobilize public opinion against outsourcing, consumerism and the separation of church and state; nor far enough on the left to empower the worker's movement, opposition to war profiteering and those who advocate academic independence from business and government.
The outcome is rather ironic since it proves conservatives right for all the wrong reasons. That is, the word 'Liberal' in the US is mistakenly used as a synonym for 'Progressive', or anyone to the left of Rupert Murdoch. The real meaning of "Liberal" can only be explained to its antonym "Conservative". While Conservatives seek to make traditional moral values the law of the land, Liberals seek to separate law from moral principle and tie it instead to the rational pursuit of prosperity. That is the 19th century definition of the terms, and the only definition that has a clear meaning outside of the US, where the meaning of those words has been twisted and manipulated to mean very little.
The Business Agenda can be best described as being liberal, if a meaningful definition of the word is used. The Business Agenda dominates Academia, Publishing and TV/Cinema production because the two latter are privately owned and the first is dependent on Big Business for funding and donations. This is not controversial, if somebody wishes to inquire on Business control over US academia, please post the question and i will be happy to post a few links.
Anyhow, the commitment of the right wing and the left wing to enforce certain moral principles in governance has been defeated and swept under the rug by Big Business liberals. Funny enough, realizing such contradictions in terms, Big Bussiness does much too whitewash its image with both sides of the spectrum by funding propagandists on either side. People like Falwell and even Bush are trying to tie in right wing ideals of family values and patriotism with the Business Agenda while Clinton, Kennedy and Dershowitz try to tie in moderate hopes (there is no mainstream left wing in the US) of pluralism, environmentalism and Middle Class prosperity with Big business.
Suffice it to say that neither side is truly committed to their constituency. Demos selling blacks and union workers every time the CEO want another FTA or another War. Reepos selling out the vast majority of Americans by convincing them that prosperity for the rich is prosperity for everyone and that attacking diversity is enforcing family values. All the while we all get screwed.
I remember during my past schooling having some very heated arguments with some of the most conservative kids i have ever met. And we usually agreed in two things: 1. The Free Competition of ideas is the hallmark of a healthy democracy. 2. The conditions do not exist to foster debate amongst students (let alone the population at large) or even scholars. I know very few people who think the US can boast a healthy democracy.
That said, there is a growing alternative media in the US and access to the internet is bringing about a new era for freedom of speech. My hope is that the US population will lose its fear of paragraphs and its obsession with sound bites so that it can become a meaningful partner in policy making.
So far though, it is very difficult to say whether the US media has a slant that benefits anyone other than Big Business. Whether its FOX or CNN, they are pushing wars and xenophobia, revising history and putting the American population in danger of yet another attack. I suggest the American people look outside for help, you have no friends in your government or Business. That is not an exclusive feature of the US, in all countries the people have to fend for themselves. It's just that in the US the people actually think that foreigners are their enemies... when the enemy is at home.

Answer 6

Nope. I live in a conservative area and am probably one of the few who gets a decent newspaper. A right wing slant wouldn't sell in this area and likely wouldn't be used as kindling, either.

Books, thankfully, are still a choice that we have (unless your in a public school system). My own favorites are anything written by the late Ayn Rand! What a nifty lady she was and so right. Her writings, (although she is an atheist), should be required reading. :)

Answer 7

Someone's been reading Fahrenheit 451.

Suthrnly: You'll be pleased to know at least one of Ayn Rand's books, Anthem, is required reading in NY high schools. Brilliant writer.

Answer 8

Hey, here's a thought: Next time let's elect a president who can actually READ!

That would increase the appreciation of books and newspapers ten fold!

Answer 9

Boy you have a 1 track mind today don't you?

Since 1/3 of liberals believe that Bush did 9/11 you don't have any room to talk about conservatives.

I am willing to bet you that neither Rush nor Hannity would have a book burning.

Unlike what Kerry wanted to do the Swift Boat Vet's books.

Answer 10

Hilarious.

And yes, that is part of the master plan right along with the Federal Reserve. Gosh, I wish people would educate themselves on THAT.

Informed people are dangerous people when the ultimate goal is to have enslaved workers whose only purpose in life is to buy stuff.