I've felt for a long time that most cable channels that fashion themselves as informational or documentary contain within nothing more than rabid, loony liberals working hard at pushing their warped, twisted agenda on a mostly unsuspecting viewership. This point was exemplified as I, confined to a hotel bed due to what may have been altitude sickness, watched a series entitled, "The Presidents." The series is broken down into five or six presidents per episode beginning with, unsurprisingly, George Washington. The first few were compelling and mostly described the extraordinary men positively, but I also noticed a subtle attempt to vilify them on a personal level. As the series progressed, I noticed that the liberal presidents were presented in a much more favorable manner than their conservative counterparts. It is here that they lose me and I am forced to stop watching at Theodore Roosevelt. I wish I had the foresight to take notes on all the occurrences of
the liberal bias, but I wasn't feeling well enough to sit up, much less
stay focused on the producer's misguided (i.e. wrong) views.
The History Channel also published a two-part series called "Founding Fathers" that I felt similarly about. The producers had more time to "dig up" more "dirt" on these magnificent, prescient men. I watched both episodes in their entirety, but I was angry at the end because of the liberal bias.
I have to admit that their deception is mostly subtle, and they do a superb job of trying to legitimize their agenda by interviewing "academics" who are more than willing to try to lend credibility to something like this. Anybody who has been paying the slightest bit of attention of the past several years knows that academia is infested with lunatic moonbats.
The History Channel also published a two-part series called "Founding Fathers" that I felt similarly about. The producers had more time to "dig up" more "dirt" on these magnificent, prescient men. I watched both episodes in their entirety, but I was angry at the end because of the liberal bias.
I have to admit that their deception is mostly subtle, and they do a superb job of trying to legitimize their agenda by interviewing "academics" who are more than willing to try to lend credibility to something like this. Anybody who has been paying the slightest bit of attention of the past several years knows that academia is infested with lunatic moonbats.
Glad you're feeling well enough to post your concise and accurate thoughts. As usual, the moonbats use subtlety to chip away at history for their own skulduggery.