| Author | Post |
|---|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 520 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 04:28 pm |
|
Monday, October 20, 2008 MSM silent on Jon Stewart 's Palin expletive Mary Katharine Ham reports at the Weekly Standard’s The Blog - - -
Speaking to a college audience in Boston, Mass. Friday, "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart used his stand-up routine to respond to Sarah Palin's comments about "pro-America" parts of the country, shedding the profanity restrictions that govern his Comedy Central show.
"She said that small towns, that's the part of the country she really likes going to because that's the pro-America part of the country. You know, I just want to say to her, just very quickly: [expletive] you," Stewart said to raucous applause.
Palin addressed a North Carolina fund-raiser Thursday night saying, "We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe...that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation."
The comment was quickly picked up by media outlets and the Obama campaign, whose spokesman Bill Burton asked in an e-mail to reporters, "What part of the country isn’t pro-America?"
Stewart didn't let his own harsh language stop him from criticizing John McCain and Palin for divisiveness.
"I can't take it anymore...After eight years of this divisiveness, we're back to this idea that only small-town America is the real America," he said.
The Manhattan native accused the Republicans of "writing off whole swaths of the country," saying "cities are just a lot of towns piled on top of each other in one place."
During the same routine, however, he seemed to write off Palin's rural swath of the country, referring to the governor's home not as Alaska, Wasilla, or Juneau, but as "the woods."
"McCain made an interesting vice presidential choice," he said. "I like the woods...I just don't know if I would pull my vice president out of the woods randomly."
Stewart also joked about Palin's recent statements on Barack Obama's links to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Obama's abortion stances, distorting her statements[.]...
The media has devoted hundreds of stories of late to the tenor of audience comments at McCain-Palin rallies, fretting about "rage" and "incitement" by the campaign, but the only account of Stewart's appearance is a one-sentence mention in the Boston Globe, and his abusive Palin comments are not included.
Ham's entire post's here.
Comments:
You can bet if a prominent McCain supporter had said “Expletive you, Obama,” if would be the MSM’s lead story that day.
|
countrynow
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 588 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 01:40 pm |
|
| And on top of all this- the fabulous Nancy Pelosi stands up the other day and says- we need to bring the "fairness doctrine back." What? This 1940's piece of legislation was enacted at a time when most folks in rural areas had little access to television, therefore, they listened almost exclusively to radio broadcast. The "fairness doctrine" states that equal time and an opposing view point MUST be presented (on radio broadcasts) or they may not air at all. Bringing it back now, will accomplish one agenda only. It will serve to effectively stifle all conservative talk radio. I find this very troubling, indeed. Is the country in danger of losing all the freedoms we have fought for just so the Democrats and Liberals can now step in and tell all of us what is or isn't good for us? What's fair or not fair for all of us? And they're doing it all under the guise of a selected few making all the rules for the betterment and advancement of the masses. What's really going on here?
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 04:29 pm |
|
Here's an interesting post from a Chron.com] <http://chron.com/> reader: 'Listening to the mainstream media these last few days I've learned a few things about the GOP's VP nominee but also had to learn a few things on my own. To wit:
1. From the media I learned Sarah Palin's husband has a DUI conviction from 22 years ago. * On my own I learned that Ted Kennedy (hero of last week's tribute at the DNC) was drunk while driving a car off a bridge in Chappaquiddick. That same crash killed a young campaign volunteer with whom he was having an affair. Oh, and that woman was pregnant with his child. * Mr. Palin's (who is not running for office) DUI came a mere 4 years after Barack Obama (who is running for president) stopped using cocaine and marijuana (by his own admission in his autobiography). Shocking - it's OK for the presidential candidate to use drugs or the party patriarch to kill someone while driving drunk yet the husband of a VP candidate should be demonized for something done 22 years ago.
2. From the media I learned that Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant. * On my own I learned that Joe Biden's (the other VP candidate) son was paid a large amount of money as a consultant to credit card company MBNA. That same company had business before Senator Joe Biden concerning regulation of consumer credit practices. After the compa ny paid a hefty sum to Mr. Biden's son, he voted in favor of legislation to help that company. * That same son, Hunter, is also engaged in a legal investigation and suit for defrauding a former business partner Shocking - it's a crime for the republican VP candidate to have a child who's pregnant even though it's irrelevant to how she performs her job. It's OK, however, for the democrat VP candidate while a senator to vote in favor of a company who paid his son over a quarter of a million dollars.
3. From the media I learned that Sarah Palin should be considered 'selfish' for agreeing to run for VP knowing about her daughter's condition. Knowing that her public role would bring extr a scrutiny on the family is selfish and she should have declined to protect her child (actually heard this on ABC this weekend). Strange - the same people who said Sarah is selfish for running for VP did not seem to care about any impact on Chelsea when Bill Clinton had his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. That was a private, personal matter you see.
4. From the media I have learned to be 'concerned' that Sarah Palin probably won't be able to manage her family and do an effective job of being VP at the same time. Funny - I never heard anything about Hillary's ability to support Chelsea while re-doing healthcare or any of the other feminist icons who say you can balance work and family. They also nev er mention that Barack will have to balance time with his children while meeting with heads of rogue nations or how Joe Biden's kids don't even have a mom and will be fighting for his time while he hosts white house coffee fundraisers and sells nights in the Lincoln bedroom.
5. From the media I have learned that Sarah Palin is 'too inexperienced' to be a heartbeat-away from the presidency. * Apparently taking on corruption in your own party and running a state that's the same size people-wise as delaware (hint hint: that's where Joe Biden is from) is not really experience. * However, time spent as a 'community organizer' and less than 180 days in the senate where you've authored no significant legislation is just the type of 'change' we're looking for from the top of the ticket. Funny - inexperience at the top of the ticket is a mantra for 'change' and 'hope' while strong practical everyday experience as the #2 is cause for concern.
6. From the media I learned that Sarah Palin's husband once got a ticket for fishing without a license. * I haven't heard much about the fact that if he were still a practicing attorney, the VP candidate Joe Biden would be disbarred for plagiarism not once but multiple times. It's ok to break the rules if you're a democ rat candidate but not Ok if you are the spouse of a republican candidate.
7. From the media I learned that Sarah Palin doesn't know much about Iraq ; in fact we wonder if she even knows where it is. * Sarah's son volunteered into the US military and is now deployed in Iraq . I guess that doesn't count. Sarah has spent more time with troops in Iraq (as commander of the Alaska National Guard she visited Iraq last year) than Obama has even while running for president. In fact, when Sarah went to Iraq she spent time with the troops. When Obama went there, he skipped a base visit to instead go work out at the Ritz Carlton.
8. From the media I learned that Sarah Palin is a 'lightweight' and she better be a 'quick study' to keep up with this team. Funny, nobody is talking about how, after Barack Obama had 'visited 57 states' according to him he only had '5 more to go' or e ndless other stupid gaffes that expose who he really is.
9. From the media I have learned that (gasp!), Sarah Palin's husband was once a registered member of a 3rd party that favored states' rights (man, this is really bad stuff). * That same media has been silent to the story that when Barack Obama announced his first senate run, he did so in the home of William Ayers. Mr. Ayers is an un-repentant terrorist convicted for bombing the pentagon. This same Mr. Ayers said on 9/11 that he and his group did not do enough to harm our military and he wished he had done more. During the same time as that comment, he was serving on a board with Barack Obama. All notes and information about their serving together is now locked up by the corrupt Chicago machine and reporter access to those records are being blocked by the Obama campaign. If we've had any doubts about the bias of the media, it's pretty clear now where they stand. Pass this on to some of your friends who are on the fence and who get all their information from Katie Couric, Wolf Blitzer, Tom Brokaw and the gang. This is egregious and corrupt. The only way to stop it is to spread information using other outlets and make these guys irrelevant.'
Posted to Houston Chronicle by: Luis Morales at September 27, 2008 08:25 AM
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 8242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 10:38 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: The media needs Obama bcause the current administration has refused to cow-tow and entertain them at dinners and events. Obama needs the media, because without them he is only fluff.
Really? Have you seen the clips of Bush at the White House Press Corps dinners? There are quite a few of them entertaining the media with his monologues. You are once again your usual wrong self.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19th, 2008 04:20 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: The media needs Obama bcause the current administration has refused to cow-tow and entertain them at dinners and events. Obama needs the media, because without them he is only fluff.
You need your pm meds.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19th, 2008 02:17 am |
|
| The media needs Obama bcause the current administration has refused to cow-tow and entertain them at dinners and events. Obama needs the media, because without them he is only fluff.
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1256 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19th, 2008 12:48 am |
|
McCain is a racist!
The media went crazy when people questioned Barack Obama's friendships---they defended their savior and said it's a distraction from the issues--yadda yadda yadda. They, for the most part, ignored Obama's shady friends, but when it comes to John McCain's great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather (what's that, like 489 AD?) who owned a slave. Of course that is front page news!
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 520 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 08:19 pm |
|
Published: October 06, 2008 11:40 AM ET
NEW YORK Today it’s tough to find a major newspaper that isn’t looking to cover the latest on the slowing economy. People want to know how we got ourselves into this mess, and journalists are on the case. In his latest column, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz argues that reporters may not have to look much farther than the newsroom for the culprits.
As news organizations are being asked, “Why didn’t they see this coming,” Kurtz offers some possible explanations. Kurtz suggests that though some journalists realized the dangers of the housing bubble back in 2000, no one wanted to hear about it then, and when it was covered, it focused on home-buyers, not banks.
Another challenge for journalists, according to Kurtz, is their relationship with business industry sources. PBS’ David Brancaccio told Kurtz, “When I would cover these very issues about problems with regulation, problems with 'is this a disaster waiting to happen?' people would say: 'Well, young man, you don't have an MBA like I do. Trust us. We went to business school.'"
Other reporters are taken under the financial sector’s wing so much so that they become blind to the “obvious,” Kurtz wrote.
Covering CEOs could also use some editing. Kurtz offers that the media “have a tendency to lionize CEOs and turn them into celebrities.” This is worst when these movers and shakers in money matters are discovered to have played key roles in the economic downturn.
Looking at the newspaper industry today, Kurtz sees more of the problem. With staff cuts and job resignations, it will be even more challenging to increase the integrity in covering the economy — and that’s if newspapers have the staff to do the leg work.
Dexter Hill is a reporter for E&P.
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18th, 2008 06:29 am |
|
| So Bill O'reilly spent 10 minutes tonight discussing how Palin can entice voters. The substance was to take the bun out of her hair, tone down her accent and to dress in brighter colors. Didn't hear anything regarding the meltdown of this country and the "executive experience" they were once raving about. Good grief what a scam!
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1118 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18th, 2008 04:14 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Have you noticed TErrance the Toucan's bananna beak lately? Look at the bottom half, it has distinctive red tones like lipstick.
Or raspberry jam.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18th, 2008 01:03 am |
|
| Have you noticed TErrance the Toucan's bananna beak lately? Look at the bottom half, it has distinctive red tones like lipstick.
|
Idaho Observer
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 08:05 pm |
|
A no substance response by Terrance. Only a continued insult.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1118 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 07:19 pm |
|
Vindicator wrote: “Charlie Gibson got it wrong. There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration—and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. He asked Palin, ‘Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?’ She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, ‘In what respect, Charlie?’ Sensing his ‘gotcha’ moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine ‘is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.’ Wrong. I know something about the subject because... I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, ‘The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,’ I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: ‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.’ This ‘with us or against us’ policy regarding terror... became the essence of the Bush doctrine. Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world... Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know—while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and ‘sounding like an impatient teacher,’ as the [New York] Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.” —Charles Krauthammer
Talk about spin. A pig with lipstick...
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 558 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 06:57 pm |
|
“Charlie Gibson got it wrong. There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration—and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. He asked Palin, ‘Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?’ She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, ‘In what respect, Charlie?’ Sensing his ‘gotcha’ moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine ‘is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.’ Wrong. I know something about the subject because... I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, ‘The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,’ I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: ‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.’ This ‘with us or against us’ policy regarding terror... became the essence of the Bush doctrine. Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world... Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know—while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and ‘sounding like an impatient teacher,’ as the [New York] Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.” —Charles Krauthammer
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1256 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 06:55 pm |
|
The latest "Real Time with Bill Maher" show erupted into a vicious 4-against-1 bashfest of conservative columnist John Fund and Republicans in general, culminating in one left-leaning guest, comedienne Janeane Garofalo, calling for all Republicans to be "jailed."
Read the full story right now at WorldNetDaily.com!
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75431
MUST-READ WND NEWS:
Prof tells students: 'Undermine' Palin
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75426
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 8242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 04:08 pm |
|
I think what Terrance is saying is that corruption is in the eye of the beholder.
Take Tom "the Bugman" Delay. Is he corrupt? I tend to think he is, but his defenders will point out technical aspects that "prove" he isn't guilty (switching, of course, the discussion as to whether or not he is corrupt).
Take FreezerMan, Bill Jefferson. I am convinced he is corrupt, regardless of his trial results. The problem is that Right Wingers will jump up down in agreement on this one, but start hemming and hawing as to Delay...and lefties will tend to do the opposite.
I am clear-headed enough to say that they are both corrupt, and our country would be better with both of them in jail, but I suspect there are one or two here who will say "You are absolutely right about X, but here is why the media is out to get Y".
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1118 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 03:25 am |
|
Habanero wrote: Terrance wrote:
It aint gonna happen to your satisfaction.
Au contraire - it won't happen to anyone's satisfaction, except possibly for the media who rely on headlines to sell advertising.
Very true about the media, but you're not open to certain things no matter how they're presented.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4822 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 01:43 am |
|
Terrance wrote:
It aint gonna happen to your satisfaction.
Au contraire - it won't happen to anyone's satisfaction, except possibly for the media who rely on headlines to sell advertising.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1118 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 15th, 2008 11:56 pm |
|
Habanero wrote: Jurisprudence wrote: Corruption in government must be rooted out at all levels regardless of party affiliation and whose in power. Media must discern the seriousness and pertinence of issues that affect the citizenry.
I agree, but I am also realistic enough to know that it ain't gonna happen.
It aint gonna happen to your satisfaction.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4822 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 15th, 2008 11:37 pm |
|
Jurisprudence wrote: Corruption in government must be rooted out at all levels regardless of party affiliation and whose in power. Media must discern the seriousness and pertinence of issues that affect the citizenry.
I agree, but I am also realistic enough to know that it ain't gonna happen.
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 902 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 15th, 2008 07:04 pm |
|
On June 27, 2008, the US District Court for the District of Columbia awarded Judicial Watch attorney fees in the FOIA lawsuit against the Bureau of Land management. [Judicial Watch v. Bureau of Land Management, Civil Action #07-1570 (RCL)] The agency was sued for documents related to a massive real estate development project in Coyote Springs, Nevada involving Senator Harry reid. The investigation was launched after news reports suggested Reid greased the wheels for the real estate deal in exchange for campaign contributions and other favors from lobbyist and long-time friend Harvey Whittemore. In addition to donating $45,000 to Reid’s campaigns, Whittemore also hired Reid’s son Leif to handle negotiations on the Coyote Springs deal. Reid even called his father’s office to talk about obtaining the proper permits, a clear conflict of interest.
It’s not only Democrats that Judicial Watch is focused 0on in the Coyote Springs project. Senator John Ensign (R-NV) and then Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV), who now serves as Governor of Nevada, are also implicated in the deal. Both of them supported the project at key stages and also received campaign contributions from Whittemore.
The media coverage given these serious investigations were minimal, to say the least. Instead, excessive coverage in an attempt to find something wrong with an Alaskan governor, now a VP candidate, takes precedence. Corruption in government must be rooted out at all levels regardless of party affiliation and whose in power. Media must discern the seriousness and pertinence of issues that affect the citizenry.
Last edited on Mon Sep 15th, 2008 07:06 pm by Jurisprudence
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10th, 2008 03:56 pm |
|
| Just watching the Obama response to the lipstick on a pig statement. Since it is Fox news that seems to always make the arguments for the Republican party I assume that it was them who they felt were actually being responded to. As soon as the statement itself was addressed the speech was no longer televised on the channel and they went right to one of their strategist lackies. I guess Fox news does not care or the party in which they represent does not care about the REAL issues so I had to flick over to the other 4 channels to hear the rest of the speech. Whether you agree with the man's views or not at least be fair and balanced in the form of airing the whole speech Fox news. Then again I don't hear Mccain or Palin saying anything about the REAL problems and how they need to be fixed. At least Obama recognizes those issues and in no way wants to leave it the way it is like the Bush lackies slithering around talking nonsense.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10th, 2008 02:31 am |
|
Special: Obama Abolishes Rush, Imus, O'Reilly?[
http://w3.newsmax.com/a/jan08/?s=al&promo_code=6972-1]President
Last edited on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 02:32 am by Bixby
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4822 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 05:01 am |
|
Fred wrote: What about the non-stop intense inspections of every aspect of Obama's life, and the continued whisper campaign?
Fred, he has been publicly running for President for nearly 2 years. About the same amount of time he has been in the US Senate.
You have stated in the past about your dealings ith the media, as have I, but there is one difference in our experiences, I've been on both sides of the microphone/notepad/camera lens. I have a different perspective.
Look, we've got 3 US Sinators and a state Governor running for the 2 top offices of this country. On one side we've got 2 Ivy League lawyers, one with a few years in the state legislature and 2 years in the US Senate and the other with acouple years on county council and 35 years in the US Senate. On the other side we have 2 non-lawyers, one a former military officer with 20+ years in the Us Senate and the other a former small town city council member and Mayor and 2 years as a Governor.
We've got 2 long time Washington insiders, and 2 basically unknowns -- so the press feels it is their duty to vet the unknowns. The thing is those 2 unknowns are not running against each other.............Obama is NOT running against Palin and Biden is NOT running against McCain.
You don't like the going after the families and private lives, and neither do I, however it has become an issue, but one we look at differently. Sen. Obama wrote a book about his family, that makes looking into what he said in the book fair game. Both of Sen. Biden's sons are public figures, that makes them fair game. What Sen. McCain wrote in his book is also fair game. What Gov. Palin has done in office is fair game as are the positions she has taken on issues and how she has handled her responsibilities.
Obama brought the Ayers, and Wright, and Pflegler stuff himself, just as Biden brought the lying and plagiarizing himslef, and McCain the cheating on his wife and attacks about trampling the 1st amendment. All justifiable --- what is not justifiable were the horrendous smears over the weekend about Palin that practically forced her to thrust her 17 yo daughter in the public eye before the time was right.
There are family matters that are fair game, then there are family matters that are not.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 802 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 5th, 2008 05:44 pm |
|
Legends457 wrote: Amazing..... Fox News the most far right fair and balanced news agency going.... Murdock tells these clowns the days agenda...... they can't think for themselves..... thats why during the convention they had the lowest ratings  You had better check the Excellence in Broadcasting group because they have FNC rated the highest. The lowest ratings were given to MSNBC followed by NBC, CBS, and ABC. CNN for the most part have had almost equal viewership slightly lower than FNC. For example, they gave the figures on the amount of viewers that Obama's speech gathered and compared them to Palin's viewing audience. Obama beat her out by a mere 1.3 million viewers. The amazing thing is that the Democratic Convention was carried by 10 netwroks while Sarah Palin's speech was only carried by 6 networks. Wetre she carried by the same 10, she very well mnay have drawn a larger viewership than Obama.
|
Legends457
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 20th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 506 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 5th, 2008 05:24 pm |
|
| Amazing..... Fox News the most far right fair and balanced news agency going.... Murdock tells these clowns the days agenda...... they can't think for themselves..... thats why during the convention they had the lowest ratings
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 802 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 5th, 2008 05:01 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Duncan...tell me which liberals said that. I've heard it much more from conservatives or those conservatives who want to make it a much bigger and talked about issue then it is. How about Keith Olberman? Campbell Brown on CNN. Sally Quinn. Read the kooks on the DailyKOS and the Huffington Post.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 8242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 5th, 2008 03:46 pm |
|
| Duncan...tell me which liberals said that. I've heard it much more from conservatives or those conservatives who want to make it a much bigger and talked about issue then it is.
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 481 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 5th, 2008 02:53 pm |
|
Biden lauded, Palin scolded
The press fell in love with the Biden family at the Democratic National Convention---and even after he was picked they could barely see anything wrong with the man. Yet, Sarah Palin gets respected media hosts to suggest she won't be able to juggle her mom duties and the job duties. Interesting, that's not the take the media had on Biden---who, after his wife tragically died in a car crash (despite his instincts telling him otherwise) decided to still go to Washington as a newly single dad. Why is it okay to praise Biden for being the heroic single dad---yet bash Palin for wanting to work and be a mom?
|
Zymergy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 5th, 2008 02:33 pm |
|
Sad when you only get a rational voice from the Comedy Channel.
http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html
|
leapforward2gethelp
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 112 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 05:36 pm |
|
| TB you are correct. Obama said he did A LITTLE BLOW. How's that for a comment. The media comparing a VP's spouse's 20 year old DUI to a presidential contenders Cocaine use. It just BLOWS my mind.
|
Tinkerbelle
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 319 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 05:30 pm |
|
Fred wrote: What about the non-stop intense inspections of every aspect of Obama's life, and the continued whisper campaign? Non-stop? Intense? The MSM has not nearly a fifth of a job investigating Obama and his Chicago machine politics as they have in attempting to dig up any dirt on Palin by an army of reporters. Any revelations that have been made about Obama were not, by and large, done by any of the network "journalists" or print media reporters. Tell me once again you don't see an obvious bias against Palin by NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN.
Small case in point: Todd Palin's DUI at age 22 had big play. Obama's drug use at age 22 received relatively little play. The husband of a candidate receives more news than the opposing candidate himself? No bias?
Last edited on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 05:33 pm by Tinkerbelle
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 8242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 02:58 am |
|
What about the non-stop intense inspections of every aspect of Obama's life, and the continued whisper campaign?
The DUI is, and should be, non-news, but EVERY candidate gets this kind of crap dug up. Is Obama's half brother that he has not seen in 20 years any more newsworthy? Bill Clinton's brother George's issue? This falls into the same catagory.
It is intense because there was nothing done before so it was virgin ground. News crews thought there might be a good story, and there was...and I suspect still is.
Boy, I hope I never get picked to be a VP..it would make the Palin thing look like a picnic. My underage drinking, my blogging, those military junkets to the Orient, those trips to the American Legion dancing in Little Rock with women old enough to be my grandmother (hey, the beer was cheap and the light was bad......).
It is a ploy. The media initially gave her a great plug on day one, but stuff started coming out on day 2, and has continued. Maybe the "vetting" thing is over-rated, but do you honestly think that McCain's team knew EVERYTHING about this pick?
One good thing might come about tonight...a bunch of Republicans might actually cheer instead of spit on an underage pregnant girl, which will confuse them later.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4822 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 01:22 am |
|
Fred, I have to agree with Tinkerbelle and Insyder on this, the attacks on Gov. Palin have been over the top.
Reporters looking into to her background is one thing, but for crying out loud what does her husband's 20 year old DUI have to do with ANYTHING?
I absolutely loved how the Mayor of Wasilla is dealing with the influx of national and international media in the town. She told them they can call in the morning, interviews limited to 10 minutes and record search questions must be formally requested. She said it is a small town with a limited staff and the first priority was to the citizens of the town, not outsiders. I can't think of her name, have no idea of her party affiliation and don't care, but I love her attitude.
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1256 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 09:55 pm |
|
I do believe that Tinkerbelle was referring to media bias such as these tidbits illustrate:
From the very first moment that John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin for his Republican running mate was announced, the MSNBC news network was engaged in a deliberate attempt to smear the Alaska governor, according to Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.
Find out exactly how and take the related poll at WorldNetDaily.com!
and this:
[url=http://news.newsmax.com/?K6CvaZmaj-rYCosH5Vqjt5UvDxbzxfRAK&http://www.newsmax.com/lowell_ponte/?s=al&promo_code=6917-1]Fairness' and the Smearing of Sarah Palin[/url]
Rabid attacks against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin continue by liberal mass media. Is this the "fairness" they speak of? [url=http://news.newsmax.com/?K6CvaZmaj-rYCosH5Vqjt5UvDxbzxfRAK&http://www.newsmax.com/lowell_ponte/?s=al&promo_code=6917-1]Read the Full Story — Go Here Now.[/url]
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 09:07 pm |
|
How can we be sure that Obama's children are his without DNA testing? Will Joe Biden submit to a fidelity test to his current wife? Give it a break Fred.
Fred wrote:
Oh, you mean like the Enquirer team that "investigated" Edwards now headed to Alaska.?
No...she was an extremely unknown quantity and her background WOULD be looked into. It is NO different than any other politician gets. She has been treated EXACTLY as every other politician would, with every uncomfortable fact laid out in the light...and it hasn't really begun yet.
Can you tell me the difference between investigating what Barrack's minister said and what her minister said? Can you tell me the difference between groups that he didn't belong to and her (or her husband's) membership in an Alaska seperatist movment?
She will be a scapegoat for the right wing....they will blame "the media" for the ticket going down, when it is apparent that McCain really didn't know her that well.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 802 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 06:43 pm |
|
Fred, if you say she was treated "EXACTLY" as any other candidate, I would hate for you to measure my carpets. You have this idiot Mark Shields demanding that the Palin's produce DNA and birth records and hospital material to "prove" that the special needs child is indeed Sarah's or daughter Bristol's. Where are such demands to produce the alleged Edwards baby? How many reporters have or are digging into the Obama background as compared to the Palin background? Come 0n, Fred, you have to be kidding. This woman is being politically raped and pilloried by the left-wing press. How about that Campbell Brown statement as children being "fair game?" No self respectting Democrat would defend the news media on this one. Even Obama and Biden agree that family, especially children, are off limits.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 8242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 05:36 pm |
|
Oh, you mean like the Enquirer team that "investigated" Edwards now headed to Alaska.?
No...she was an extremely unknown quantity and her background WOULD be looked into. It is NO different than any other politician gets. She has been treated EXACTLY as every other politician would, with every uncomfortable fact laid out in the light...and it hasn't really begun yet.
Can you tell me the difference between investigating what Barrack's minister said and what her minister said? Can you tell me the difference between groups that he didn't belong to and her (or her husband's) membership in an Alaska seperatist movment?
She will be a scapegoat for the right wing....they will blame "the media" for the ticket going down, when it is apparent that McCain really didn't know her that well.
|
Tinkerbelle
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 319 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 05:23 pm |
|
I have never in my life witnessed a shameful display of the MSM engaged in a deliberate attempt to destroy a candidate for office as they are doing to Sarah Palin. The sexist remarks, the attacks on members of her family, and the blatant smear tactics perpetrated by an army of reporters in Alaska "researching" Sarah Palin for any dirt or any hint of an impropriety so they can puff it up and spin it in such a way that it is totally opposite from reality. The absurdity of Keith Olberman and his favorite nesting place, the Daily KOS, for implying that Trig, the Down's Syndrome child is really her daughter's child and she is covering her daughter's "indiscretion." Do the math, moron. How can she have been pregnant with two children at the same time, delivering one, and remaining months with the still-developing second one? CNN's Campbell Brown openly stated that the children of Sarah Palin are fair game" and that she is not entitled to privacy. Campbell was one of my favorite's until now. CNN, by allowing such trash attacks have sunk into the depths of the sewer along with the other decidedly left broadcast media and the print media. The stench is unbearable. Anyone who claims that the MSM is fair and balanced and is not biased is either blind or stupid.
Last edited on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 05:25 pm by Tinkerbelle
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 10:37 am |
|
Last edited on Mon Sep 1st, 2008 10:43 am by Lavitakus
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 09:44 am |
|
| I just really hate to see the media abuse and improperly use it's power, that's all. With the education system in shambles the way that it is and has been for many years, you have to at some point take regard that these youth will at some point be given the responsibility of voting for leaders. Those contributors in which I spoke of earlier target the (preconfigured)ignorance of these people and present only the parties view in which the network is affiliated for a paycheck and a book endorsement. I could go on and on but you get the jist....It's not about watching a speech wherever , it's simply knowing when the meal is nothing more than a shiny spinner with a sharp hook. As I said before these baffoons are typically attorneys,strategists and people payed to promote a parties propaganda. I left out the most important contributor to the problem which is teachers in the education system. Thanks for reminding me and I'll work on my spelling. Last edited on Mon Sep 1st, 2008 10:47 am by Lavitakus
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 10:29 pm |
|
| Anyone else get the feeling that Leviticus and Mendavor are related?
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4822 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 10:21 pm |
|
Lavitakus wrote: I watched the speech on CSPAN. As soon as it was over I watched a Wyle E Cyote marathon. I suspect that if more people did this as opposed to allowing these strategists/attorneys who are inexplicably the media to thwart their minds with corrupt daydreams of what "patriotism" is and real Issues that affect our futures are, maybe the world would be a better place. These days I'm really wondering if these "news" channels should be considered media at all. Considering the topics and conversations of all these "Contributers"(especially the Fox side) after Obamas speech.More of a political soap opera than an analysis(as if an analysis by these bafoons is what we actually need) of such an important speech. Nothing relavent at all to issues, just stupid rederic regarding nonsense. I would love to see O'reilly's body language segment on Mccain while he nominated his vp though. For such an "experienced" politician he sure did rely on his speechwriter and the obvious opinions of the machine that is the republican puppet show.I don't recall Obama reading a speech yet. Change,change,change. And since he didn't read it like the other idiots, I suspect that it is change that one would want to believe in.That's just me though.
So you are relying on the visual to create your opinion as opposed to actually listening to the speech. There is a difference in perception when one watches a speech as opposed to listening to a speech. I utilize the radio for listening to such speeches and therefore do not rely upon the choice of the camera person as to what I am seeing and thus affecting my perception of what I am hearing.
If for some reason I am unable to actually listen to a speech I am interested in, I do seek out a transcript of it. Preferably an official, not news outlet, transcript.
If you do not recall Obama reading a speech, you have not been paying much attention to his speeches. Senator Obama, just like Senator McCain, is totally scripted. Of the 3 Senators, Biden is the best with unscripted, Obama is the worst and McCain falls in the middle. Sen. Obama totally falls apart without a teleprompter, and he knows it. Even Sen. Clinton, who is never unprepared is superior to Obama when it comes to unscripted.
By the way, could you please define the following from you rant, so the rest of us can understand more clearly what it is you are trying to say?
Contributers
bafoons
rederic
Personally, I know exactly what you were TRYING to say, as I have quite a few years experience in grading elementary school spelling test. I'll leave your grammar and punctuation for another day.
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 08:26 am |
|
Bixby wrote: The interesting part was the analysis where the pundits try to tell us what we saw and heard. Simply amazing.
I watched the speech on CSPAN. As soon as it was over I watched a Wyle E Cyote marathon. I suspect that if more people did this as opposed to allowing these strategists/attorneys who are inexplicably the media to thwart their minds with corrupt daydreams of what "patriotism" is and real Issues that affect our futures are, maybe the world would be a better place. These days I'm really wondering if these "news" channels should be considered media at all. Considering the topics and conversations of all these "Contributers"(especially the Fox side) after Obamas speech.More of a political soap opera than an analysis(as if an analysis by these bafoons is what we actually need) of such an important speech. Nothing relavent at all to issues, just stupid rederic regarding nonsense. I would love to see O'reilly's body language segment on Mccain while he nominated his vp though. For such an "experienced" politician he sure did rely on his speechwriter and the obvious opinions of the machine that is the republican puppet show.I don't recall Obama reading a speech yet. Change,change,change. And since he didn't read it like the other idiots, I suspect that it is change that one would want to believe in.That's just me though.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 03:04 am |
|
We conducted an experiment last night during the Hillary speech. In our communication control center we simultaneously recorded each network's coverage of the speech and the after analysis. We recorded ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and FNC. As far as the coverage of the speech, they were identical except fgfor camera angles. The interesting part was the analysis where the pundits try to tell us what we saw and heard. Simply amazing.
The two closest coverages, and accurate without much bias, was CNN and FNC. As for the rest, although they all spun things to indicate that what we heard with our own ears was in reality something else. The bias and exaggeration and overemphasis was way out in left field. The worst offender was MSNBC. ABC and CBS was decidedly in the tank for Obama and tried to tell us that Hillary made it clear in no uncertain terms that Obama was ready to lead. After reviewing the recordings we heard no such thing, not was it implied. NBC was practically the same as MSNBC and decidedly an affront to fair and balanced coverage.
I give kudos to FNC and slightly a lesser amount to CNN who led the way in fair and balanced coverage, both waaaaay out in front of the others. Who do the Democrats rate as fair and balanced? FNC. Who said so? McCauliff, Wolfson, Morris, Davis, Beckel, Dingle, and a couple of others whose names escape me without watching the tapes again. Let me throw in CNN's Lou Dobbs who confirmed the bias in favor of the Democrats. The media bias is so terrible, perhaps there ought to be an investigation because many of the so-called "journalists" and "news anchors", who are not supposed to be opinionated on the air, violate the bounds of ethics.
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1256 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21st, 2008 02:22 pm |
|
Glad to see that we have some other Glenn Beck TV show watchers. You'll find him on CNN's Headline News.
Vacation Hypocrisy
Maureen Dowd wrote another crappy column this week making the horrible point that Bush has been 'kicking back' at his ranch while Russia invades Georgia. She complains ad nauseam about the vacationing Bush---but tends not to mention a certain political party who is on vacation in the middle of an energy crisis. Read the transcript.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 802 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 11:51 pm |
|
Media Bias
A constant fear in the back of every radio broadcasters mind is the return of the fairness doctrine. This is of course the doctrine that says, basically, anytime someone on radio says 'Barack Obama is so far past liberal in fact he is a Marxist' it has to be countered with someone else saying 'actually, Mr. Obama is the savior of the universe'. Originally given a name so 'fair' sounding so that everyone would agree with it, Glenn thinks that if it does come back Democrats will have to come up with another name for it--one so patriotic that it's impossible to disagree with. Read the transcript here, (Glenn Beck Show)
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1118 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 04:44 pm |
|
Newshound wrote: Barack Obama’s greatest struggle in the primaries was the controversy over his long-time minister Jeremiah Wright and his noxious recorded sermons suggesting America deserved 9/11 and AIDS was a U.S. government conspiracy. But ABC, CBS, and NBC severely limited the 9/11 soundbites and completely censored out Wright’s AIDS conspiracy theory clips. But they gave a whopping 15 minutes of soundbite time to Barack Obama’s race speech in a 24-hour period. When they booked guests to discuss Obama’s racial and religious controversies, liberal guests dominated.
(The Media Research Center)
Press Release: Broadcast Networks Edited Reverend Wright’s Wrongs
I guess you must have been in Tibet during the endless replaying a Wright's sermons over the airwaves. You could turn on any channel and see it just about anytime.
I'm tired of hearing about the media's liberal bias. You people cry and wail about that all the time. Poor John McCain is being treated unfairly - not on this planet. The media has given him a free pass. He's gotten campaign ads played over and over on the news without having to pay for them to air publicly.
Asking us to regard McCain as a victim is just too much. If he is a victim of anything its his own ambition coupled with his willingness to sell out in order to win.
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1256 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 04:27 pm |
|
Barack Obama’s greatest struggle in the primaries was the controversy over his long-time minister Jeremiah Wright and his noxious recorded sermons suggesting America deserved 9/11 and AIDS was a U.S. government conspiracy. But ABC, CBS, and NBC severely limited the 9/11 soundbites and completely censored out Wright’s AIDS conspiracy theory clips. But they gave a whopping 15 minutes of soundbite time to Barack Obama’s race speech in a 24-hour period. When they booked guests to discuss Obama’s racial and religious controversies, liberal guests dominated.
(The Media Research Center)
Press Release: Broadcast Networks Edited Reverend Wright’s Wrongs
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1256 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 12:35 am |
|
Media wonders if Media is bias
Who better to decide if the media is treating Senator John McCain unfairly than the media itself? With the media fawning all over Obama as he visits Iraq and Afghanistan, the Associated Press examines the issue of media bias and strangely enough revealed that Barack Obama indeed is getting some pretty favorable treatment. Thankfully, though, he's only getting the treatment because 'given the newness of the candidate and the historical nature Obama's candidacy, in the end it's probably not fair to Mccain'. So because Obama is so great, McCain is being treated unfairly. Thanks media! Read the transcript
|
Current time is 01:44 am | Page:   1 2 3 |
|