Justin Conley seems to be practicing twisted logic , but why?
He states: "Accusations of censorship on the right ... are not entirely accurate." When were "accusations" ever intended to be "accurate"? Now, conclusions drawn from a comprehensive body of facts might be used to reach "accurate" conclusions, but facts themselves can be distorted.
He calls the Lobo, by insinuation, a voice of the left. Not a very "accurate accusation."
He defines "neocons" as "leftists. According to encyclopedia.the freedictionary.com: neoconservatives "support militant anticommunism, more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives, civil equality for blacks and other minorities, and sympathy with a non-traditionalist agenda, being more inclined than other conservatives toward an interventionist foreign policy and a unilateralism that is sometimes at odds with traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law."
What has this to do with an "overwhelmingly left-biased media"? More telling is Mr. Conley's concluding note that a leftist journalist may face the loss of a job.
Contrary, to Mr. Conley's assertion, the extreme Right certainly has voices in mainstream media (e.g., Rush Limbaugh) which are certainly not without bias. I doubt whether any significant "extreme Left" still exists, except in the extreme Right's scapegoating of criticism, as in Mr. Conley's assertion that "the left is by no means supportive of free speech." Extremists of any political persuasion are not tolerant of free speech, but extremists on the Right have been more prominent lately.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Mr. Conley got a bit confused in his next paragraph: the neonazi revisionist "historians" named by him were "arrested" for violating the law [in Germany, not in the US], and isn't that what the Right advocates, regardless of the justness of the laws themselves?
