Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Nancy's Naïvité on WILK

Nancy's Failquote
Nancy Kaman and her co-host Kevin Lynn have a local talk-show on WILK newsradio which broadcasts over the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton area. To quote a blogger called "BornConservative" from

"Together Nancy and Kevin are responsible for 3 hours of disinformation that they call “News”.Cherry picking headlines from and other disingenuous liberal news outlets (rags)."¹

I refuse listen to N&K, not only because they're left-wingers, but because I've never heard either say anything insightful. However, the other morning I awoke to their show on my alarm clock-radio. Before I could turn it off, Nancy made an excessively naïve statement that went something like this: "The New York Times is the most unbiased source of news in the country."
I feel sorry for Nancy as she has probably never heard of, the website which covers the daily bias in the Times.
For instance, Here is just one day's worth of NYT bias exposed by Timeswatch:

Today's Headlines: 09/15/09

Glossing Over Real Issues of Nazi-Era Enthusiast Working for Anti-Israel Group
Human Rights Watch staffer Marc Garlasco, author of many reports hostile to Israel, was suspended after revelations he is an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia. The Times portrays Garlasco as a victim of the Israeli government's "aggressive approach" to critics and ignores HRW's clear anti-Israel slant.

Oppose Obama? Racist
Maureen Dowd imagines Rep. Joe Wilson shouting a derogatory word at Obama and uses her feverish imagination to slime all South Carolina Republicans as racists: "But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"

Amazing: Times Still Almost Totally Ignores ACORN Scandals
Scandals involving child prostitution results in ACORN losing its partnership agreement with the Census Bureau and the Senate cutting off access to federal housing funds. Yet Times reporters have failed to file a single ACORN scandal story for the paper's print edition.

An examination of the NYT's far-left ideologue columnists like Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman would, to any sensible person, guarantee a certain level of bias in the paper. Most conservatives will admit that Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, etc. are biased--at least in what topics they decide to cover. However, it is sad that libs like Nancy believe that sources like the NYT are completely objective.

More on Nancy's Naivite
Nancy and Kevin regularly gang up on and ridicule any caller who disagrees with them. Furthermore, they calumniate tea party protesters as racist, violent, crazy GOPers, etc. I can understand that the station would have liberal hosts to counteract the nationally syndicated conservatives; I'm just disappointed in the juvenile banter of N&K.
Nancy further displays her political immaturity in her latest blog³ in which she states protesters at the 9/12 event in Washington DC had little coherence since their signs had diverse messages. She then presents some of the more radical sign slogans that some CNN reporter probably selected in order to misrepresent the protesters. Having actually been at the DC event, I can tell you that the signs she quotes in her blog poorly represent the whole of the signs. Furthermore, the signs I saw at the event did not contradict each other. Many of the posters condemned big government, the Fed, govt. spending, government health care, abortion, socialism, individual politicians etc., yet all were drawn in the spirit of Liberty. Moreover, I found that nearly every single sign was unique and creative. I wish I took pictures of some of them.

In her article, Nancy characterizes the DC event as a Republican thing; yet, at the event I did not see any signs glorifying Bush or the GOP. (OK, I saw one McCain-Palin sign but it was only one out of hundreds of thousands of unrelated signs.) In fact, a libertarian man had a huge sign that specifically criticized republican politicians. Nancy should stop thinking in terms of asses and elephants, as it greatly impedes her level of discourse.

To answer Nancy's criticism of the event for having too many messages, I ask: Why should the protesters have had only one cause? The diverse messages on the signs reflect the many interests of individuals from every corner of America. Perhaps this diversity in causes seems foreign to Nancy, as she and other leftists are more familiar with left-wing movements which tend to be more top-down and more centrally controlled than the tea party events. All together, Nancy is mistaken; the protesters did have one implicit message which was that they were tired of the left-wing government gaining more control of their lives and property.

Finally, Nancy states that the protesters didn't really know what they were protesting, and seems to insinuate that the protesters must therefore be racist. After all, how could anybody criticize The One or our caring government? Perhaps a basic lesson in free-market Economics or in Christian pro-life values would clarify for Nancy why people were protesting, yet.... she'll get neither from The New York Times.


No comments:

Post a Comment