If liberal coverage is unbiased, then conservative coverage is..?

Some things just make you so angry.

I read today about Conservapedia. And then I read over a few articles. And then my head exploded with rage.

Apparently, a young conservative fellow named "Andy Schlafly, son of conservative matriarch Phyllis Schlafly" started this site to correct Wikipedia's 'liberal bias.' (I've never heard of the Schlafly's before, I read this here: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070304-conservapedia-hopes-to-fix-wikipedias-liberal-bias.html)

Liberal bias. From my understanding, Wikipedia's goal is to be like an encyclopedia - unbiased. Opinions do not exist. Opinions that do exist are (hopefully) eventually replaced by more unbiased writing. Of course, Wikipedia, being written by many people, allowing any edits, versions and revisions - stuff can change, be factually incorrect and biased. But not much. The goal is clear.

Let's take a look at Obama's entry on Conservapedia. First, let me add 'Obama' to the Firefox dictionary so I don't have see these obnoxious red lines for the next half an hour.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama

Conservapedia articles are layered with both subtle and in-your-face bias.

This is actually something I've wanted to discuss for a long time. The power that writing has over people. On a subject with an unclear solution, the person with the last believable word wins. Neither could be right, but the person to make the wittiest comment is deemed more knowledgeable. In fact, many time witty comments, wrong or right, are more persuasive than the truth.

In Conservapedia's case, a person that does not pick up bias in writing is subject to unlimited amounts of brain washing. Also, a person that shares those views will quickly ignore bias.

But EVERY SENTENCE in the article about Obama IS NEGATIVE. This website was made with the intentions to counter liberal BIAS. If I'm not mistaken, a writer is considered biased if he or she only points out views that agree with their views.

Let's break down an entry from the article:

"Obama was on the faculty of the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004. He claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer."

First sentence: Fine. Sounds good to me.

Second sentence: 2 words make me want to bang my face against my desk: 'Claimed' connotes a lie - no, a liar. Maybe he flubbed, maybe he lied. We get it. But there is nothing important or historical about this information. It's sole purpose is to make the reader think Obama is a douche bag. That's all there is to it.

And then the word 'merely.' This word is mean, it's obvious and underhanded. Does the sentence lose any factual value without it?

"Obama was on the faculty of the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004. He claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he held the title of "Senior Lecturer."

Did you notice a difference? It looked like I just copied and pasted it, didn't it. Well, yea, I did.

So, as we can see, with 'merely' the facts are the same. That word is pure opinion, meant to stir, I would even say place, emotions in the reader. Imagine a naive reader taking in books of information like this without realizing the sentences are laced with bias. And it grows on them and it becomes the way they think... I could but I won't.

The fact is, I have seen hundreds of books like this. I feel like the only believability they have is the reproducibility of their bias. The fear and racism they evoke.

Speaking of racism, the same article calls Obama the first 'Affirmative Action President."

Oh My God.

From the source: "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (allegedly born in Honolulu,^[1] August 4, 1961) is the presumptive 2008 nominee of the Democratic Party for president.^[2] Obama has served as a freshman Democratic Senator from Illinois for three and a half years. In 2007, Obama was the most liberal Senator.^[3] If elected, Obama would be the first Affirmative Action President."

Note how he is 'allegedly' born in Honolulu, as if he is so untrustworthy we can't even believe he's telling the truth about his birthplace. In fact, I'm sure he has a birth certificate. So who do these 'conservatives' really not trust - Obama or... the government? No, I really don't know.

Back to the racism. Here's the first paragraph from the Conservapedia article on "Affirmative Action President.
"An Affirmative Action President is someone selected for that office based partly or entirely on the person's race or gender. Every U.S. President has been a white male. As of 2008, affirmative action has not yet been successfully used to fill the position of President of the United States. However, in the past blacks and women couldn't vote or run for President, and white males did benefit from their race and gender."

In the word's of Jay-Z:

"What more can I say?"