Saturday, May 07, 2005

This is What a Daily Supporter Sounds Like

I got this letter from Ivan Rosales, an IT student at the University, and I was so amused at his vain attempt to defend what the Daily is doing, I thought I'd publish it here, just so everyone can see how pathetic the left's argument is. (A nice picture of the author is included.) My editorial comments are in bold.

"I saw your website claiming that the Minnesota Daily has a liberal bias. I certainly hope it does. After all, young people have a liberal bias, as much as 3 in 4 young people consider themselves liberal.

Also, 87% of people use bogus statistics to support their poor argument. Only 54% of people ages 18-29 voted for Kerry in 2005. Additionally, the Daily does not serve only the young; it represents the entire University, including all alumni.

Then, I have no problem with the Daily representing this. The “conservative bias” is currently characterized by fear, intolerance and/or greed, so, I certainly would hope those at the Daily renounce such ideologies.

He's really got the blinders on, hasn't he?

I am unconcerned whether the Daily is liberal, your argument of if the daily is liberal or not could be much more convincing if you can establish the detrimental effects of a liberal bias. After all, liberalism is historically the onset of great, beneficial social change.

Yes, great social changes like filibustering the Senate in the 60s to stop passage of civil rights laws and seceding from the Union to keep their slaves.

It’s also a fallacy to assume that the Daily should be balanced, because the discourse itself is certainly not balanced. i.e. It is actually a disservice for a media outlet to report in a “fair” fashion when it propagates misinformation: “The republicans claim today that gravity does not exist and that the fingers of god are the force of we understand as god, democrats disagree”, this is a disservice to simply “report” what each side says is true. Or a practical example in Kansas: “Christian conservatives want creationism taught in science class, democrats do not.” The “liberal bias” in the latter example could be due to the factual error in the conservative argument, namely that creationism is not science, it’s simply factually incorrect to claim it is and therefore should be taught in science courses. So, when someone reports this for what it is, nonsense, it may appear to be a liberal bias. There just happens to be a lot of factual inaccuracies and/or ideological inconsistencies in the current conservative discourse.

It seems that Ivan here is a shining example of an ignorant liberal. He doesn't understand that describing the religious beliefs of the majority of Americans as nonsense falls under the umbrella of liberal bias.

I don’t belong to either party, but I consider myself very liberal. I would like the same ideological inconsistencies attacked on the liberal side, it just happens that these glaring inconsistencies don’t surface. See, the inconsistencies
of “Compassionate Conservativism”, the “Culture of Life”, etc; it wasn’t liberals who made up that rhetoric.


It appears that Ivan can't tell the difference between a convicted murderer and an unborn child. (When people call the "Culture of Life" inconsistent, they are referencing the fact that many who label themselves as part of said culture are against abortion but in favor of the death penalty.) It is interesting that Ivan has managed to make it this far without being able to distinguish between guilty and innocent.