Response to Another Right Wing Wacko Jacko...

Ah, another delusional right wing wack guided by moronic bs fed to him by the media and other sources of right wing jackoff we love power and will keep it at any cost socialisation. 

First, the media is corporate. They are owned, in other words, by oligarchs. And oligarchs, notes Jack, aren't and never have been, generally speaking, "left wing". Jill likes the mindless mantra you ditto, however. Since those who are empirical generally provide examples, unlike the right which is delusional and guided by a reality that is manufactured along politically and ideologically correct lines, here are two: Sinclair, which owns Channel 6 in Albany, and Fox News are both right wing. So, so much for the right wing the media is "left wing" bs.

Second, as Jill notes, the media want to reach as broad an audience as possible. In the old days of the three network monopoly, that meant everyone. Since the rise of media targeting specific demographics, however, that means particular demographics. Since the corporate media sells product, as Jack notes, i.e. commericials, they don't want to offend those they are targeting because if they do, as Jill notes, they may lose the sheep they target their product at. That means, for example, that Fox News broadcasts emotionally driven fear mongering bs because that is what their delusional and sociopathic "consumers" want. Wants, of course, as research has shown, are constructed so propaganda like commericials work.

Third, as any historian and social scientist, neither Jack or Jill are either, knows the right wing has little sense of history and what they do have is mythic, i.e., bs. So, what does history show? It shows that Conservatives reacted to capitalism and democracy. They were not fond of either. Liberals, of the "right" and "middle", embraced the Enlightenment and thinkers like John Locke (the dude in the Declaration of Indpendence) and Adam Smith (the utopian who focused on deus ex machinas and economics). We now know the former as laissez faire "liberals". In time what we might call social liberalism arose and laissez liberal would  morph, rather oddly given some of their Enlightenment ideological predilections, into "conservative". Both were apologists and polemicists for oligarchic capitalism. The Left, by the way, is characterised by anti-capitalism mentlities and are thus not "liberal".

The right is a reaction to the Enlightenment though it has Enlightenment elements within it. It is grounded, historiclly speaking, in Christian anti-intellectualism. It is an anti-intellectual ideology grounded in authoritarianism, intolerance, self-righteousness, terror, inquisition, and delusion. The conemporary looney right is, of course, cut from the same cultual cloth as Dixiecrats and the John Birch Society. One of the ironies of history is that the party of free labour and anti-slavery, the Republican Party, is now, thanks to George Wallace, Richard Nixon, the National Review crowd, and others of their ilk, the heir of the Dixiecrats and they still, like the Dixiecrats, are characterised by emotionally red faced bs.

I know, of courst, that facts are irrelevant to people drugged up on bs, so, bsing goob dude, just keep calm, ignore reality, and keep on bsing. That seems to suit right wing wacko jackos.