Stay Classy, Detroit Edition

Pardon, what is everybody so mad about? Time doing a story titled "Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?" Just HOW left wing do you want the media to be in the first place?
.
This, coupled with the amusing spectacle of the five-ten strong lefty hive mind being overwhelmed by outside posters on the JK racial piece, just further supports my assessment that some people here may be taking this ideology thing just a little too far.

I hear ya. Beck has fans (not me), so to each their own, but I literally don't watch / listen to Beck, Limbaugh, etc. anymore. Ever. I don't take them seriously. The fallout, such as fanning protest fires, I do. But I get the outrage here over TIME mainstreaming Beck. However, quitting this site over this is “letting Beck win” / enabling further bad behaviors by TIME High Chiefs – no rants, I mean, feedback to let them know when they've royally F'd up. Like now.
.
…and also, Amy, kudos for your 9/9 story on Muslim-American acceptance here / not. Do you have more thoughts about the large Muslim population in Michigan and what they go thru every day? Please share. Also please share more of your TIME pieces here. If you're worried about being ripped and torn to pieces by readers here (not me)….well, this may be less of an issue if readers are indeed quitting the swamp thanks to the Beck mess. Thanks again, Amy. Now please do something about Beckgate.

Oh, Yoshi. When I read your drivel, I remember why I generally avoid this place.

Don't you guys see that the writing about Beck is laced with subtle asides? Look at the freaking title, perhaps? As for putting Beck on the cover, well, care about his politics or not, he's a mover in this country. Rhetoric --> results --> influence --> coverage.
.
Exile, you avoid this place because of me? I'm so touched. I only post here a few times a week. Shouldn't you have enough liberal reasoning between Dee, 53, Ivy, jcapan, and grape_crush?

@yoshi: Shouldn't you have enough liberal reasoning between Dee, 53, Ivy, jcapan, and grape_crush?
.
Silly Yoshi - reason is reason, like a fact is a fact...there's no such thing as 'liberal' or 'conservative' reasoning or facts, only reasoning that affirms or negates a proposition considered liberal or conservative (or other) in nature: the ideologically-driven propositon, "unregulated free markets are the best vehicle for creating wealth for the masses" can be proven, disproven, or found inconclusive by the application of reason and use of fact.

Pathetic semantics. Bias is bias. I will also note your use of a strawman.

@ yoshi: Pathetic semantics. Bias is bias.
.
Bias is not reason, however, which was the point of my response.
.
I will also note your use of a strawman.
.
And I will note that your definition of a strawman argument is not the commonly accepted one. I haven't even touched your larger point (i.e. there's enough liberal viewpoints on this blog) by stating that reason and fact are not liberal or conservative in nature.
.
If anything is pathetic, it's your overreaction to someone simply responding to you.

Bias is not reason, however, which was the point of my response.

To posit that pure reasoning can exist free of bias is amusing. How do you suppose that reasoning libs/cons come to different conclusions?

And I will note that your definition of a strawman argument is not the commonly accepted one.

Oh, so this isn't a strawman?

the ideologically-driven propositon, "unregulated free markets are the best vehicle for creating wealth for the masses"

From wonderful wikipedia:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

If you didn't mean near-total or total deregulation by "unregulated free markets," you sure sounded like you were implying it.

" .. and you're stalking Kwamie? .."
She is on patrol. You see, AS, would have credibility blogging about "steamy text messages" if she catches Kwame in the act and the text messages still steaming hot.
[It is like pornography - you have to see it to know it ...]

The House just passed legislation to de-fund ACORN. A vast majority of DEMOCRATS voted along with ALL Republicans.
.
Hello??? Hello??? Is anyone at home?
.
There is a BIG story here folks!!

If we can't have a puff peice on ACORN, could we at least get a funny story on Nancy Pelosi, crying her eyes out and telling about the "terrible days in the late 70's and early 80's in San Francisco. When all the bogey woogies where out shooting up all the liberals?
.
She was very afraid!! She is afraid now??
.
But, it is just "ASTROTURF" Nancy. Why in the name of Barack HUSSEIN Obama's ALLAH would you be afraid of "ASTROTURF"???

And yet they publish an uncritical puff piece about Glenn Beck, Go figure!

IMO, a better description of the story is lazy. Specifically, in resisting the tendency towards equivalency, which is probably as easy to write as it is to hate. I will note, however, that mediamatters' criticism is rather weak tea.
.
1) Beck trumpets an "estimate" from a "university" of 1.7 mil. Oh no Time didn't call him on it! (to be expecting, given the equivalency thing)
2) They call Beck on accusing the ACORN woman of premeditated murder, leaving out the word POTENTIAL (which Beck used) and the further comment "I'm not the jury"
3) They then cite "You know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families? Took me about a year," leaving out the qualifier after the statement.
4) The final two points are justifiable - obviously fantasizing about killing people on air and equating community service initiatives with the Nazi Youth are indefensible.
.
It would be better if the entire indictment concentrated on those last two statements, because, taking in the rest, one can see MM is...wait for it...dishonest.