Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Konovalov
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scandium
They're a shill if they consistently promote the ideology of only one political spectrum while attacking/undermining the other and making a living doing it. That about describes Malkin to a tee. She's a "right-wing" shill because she consistently promotes right-wing ideology while attacking the left-wing. If she were doing the reverse she would be a left-wing shill, but then you wouldn't be posting her commentary here, would you?
|
I would place Malkin in the same group as Ann "Thrax" Coulter and Michael "Moronic" Moore. She is a verbal bomb thrower. |
Michael Moore lies and distorts. Coulter, IMO distorts and has some absurd opinions. But please find me where Malkin does the same? Again, I would prefer a new thread for this issue. |
One doesn't have to lie to be a political shill. To me its sufficient if they make their living on attacking only one political ideology while promoting the other. Consider for a moment that with the right-wing in power, someone who shills for them is essentially shilling for the government - you are reading something they consistently write in order to make the government look good and its opponents look bad. You are essentially reading Pravda, since that was Pravda's job as well.
If the left-wing were in power then left-wing authors who promoted the government's policy while attacking its opponents would, similarly, be Pravda as well. However until that happens those of us who read such left-wing rants will simply be practicing our right to dissent
That is the difference, subtle though it may be.
(in fact all political authors who write with this modus operandi are shilling for one wing or the other, but naturally if we're political and if our politics gravitate to one side of the spectrum especially, then we won't mind those shills who happen to share our world view... whether its ideological or pure opportunism).