open it and blow everything up.â
        Â
OâReilly: âYou mean I have to go, too?â
        Â
Leno: âThereâs got to be something in it for us.â (Big laugh, and I have to admit the timing was great.)
        Â
Although mostly harmless entertainment, the cumulative effect of the late-night programs does have a political message: Liberals are smart and conservatives are dense. Johnny Carson, who was much more of a traditionalist than any TV host working today with the exception of Regis Philbin, ran a fairly evenhanded ideological ship. But, letâs face it, the S-Ps have a huge advantage late night (and even on the daytime shows) in getting their message out.
        Â
Now letâs take a closer look at the cable news networks.
CNN:
This network, which has never had a traditionalist anchorperson with the possible exception of business guy Lou Dobbs, tilts way left. Again, it is not on an S-P jihad, since parent company Time Warner is not on board with extremism, but the prevailing wisdom at CNN is the Ted Turner liberal, politically correct template. That stance has, by the way, hurt the network badly in the marketplace, causing traditionalist viewers to flee to Fox News.
Remember, the polls say that traditional Americans outnumber progressives about two to one. And, from what I can determine, there is absolutely nothing going on at CNN that would appeal to traditional Americans. This is another venue where secular-progressives are given an easy timeâand they take full advantage of it.
MSNBC:
The audience for this news network is so low it doesnât matter what they do. For the record, there are a few traditional people on the air there, like Monica Crowley and Joe Scarborough. But this outfit is not a factor in the culture war or anything else. Quite simply, it is one of the largest failures in broadcast history and, generally, an awful place in almost every way.
So add it up and you can see that the dominating influence in TV news, on the chat shows, and in print is S-P by a big margin. This is the great hope of the secular-progressive forces: that they can use the media to further their cause and diminish their traditional opposition under the guise of news coverage and entertainment. The positive media spin the S-Ps get does, indeed, influence some Americans, especially young people who may not have a strong frame of reference. Of course, Hollywood also trumpets the S-P agenda. So traditionalists are really up against it in the mediaâwith two huge exceptions: talk radio and Fox News, which we will analyze forthwith.
And, as you read the following pages, please keep this in mind: Even though there is no question the S-Ps hold a huge media lead over the traditional forces, the brutal attacks on the traditional media are unrelenting and unprecedented. The vitriol hurled at so-called conservative media people by others in the press is almost comical. The next time you see the adjective âconservativeâ put in front of my name or someone elseâs, simply ask this question: When was the last time you saw the adjective âliberalâ used to describe a journalist or pundit? Good question, right? Hereâs another good question: The S-P philosophy frequently touts âopenness.â They want all voices to be heard, they love freedom of speech. The ACLU is the freedom-of-speech poster group, is it not?
But the truth is far, far different from the S-P rhetoric.
Iâm going to give the âlast wordâ in this chapter to ABC newsman John Stossel, a libertarian and an honest guy. Stossel is basically a fearless investigative reporter, and after publishing a book that debunked some liberal myths, like the baloney that massive educational spending means a better educational environment, he learned something very interesting about the