Text Size

No Holds Barred

How the media is bastardizing this election

Need to get something off your chest? Have a topic that doesn't fit one of the other forums? Rant away in here. Mature audiences only, not for the easily offended.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner

How the media is bastardizing this election

Unread postby skatingtripods » Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:27 pm

Something became really evident to me this morning. If anyone has watched the debates, there is a very clear chasm between those asking the questions to Republicans and those asking them to Democrats.

Watch a Republican debate. The issues center on immigration and foreign policy. By and large, without some research into the candidates, it is hard to gauge what their true economic principles are. Health care comes into play once in a while, but the large questions center on the two issues I mentioned above. They also skirt around the social issues. Probably because the majority of Republicans are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and so forth on those issues.

Nevertheless, here is where the greatest divide lies. 80% of the country finds illegal immigration to be a problem. Most people who I have talked to who watch the bulk of the donkey debates aren't even clear as to what the Dems plan to do about illegal immigration. Why is this? Because it would be impossible for them to justify socialized health care that covers the illegals that the Democrats would give amnesty to. The Democrats consistently get asked about the economy and have their policies lined up. Meanwhile, independents and moderates voting solely on an economic platform gravitate towards Democrats because the plans for Republicans are not outlined as clearly, if at all.

The pro-liberal media is bastardizing these primaries and further, will bastardize the election. It is clear that they are setting the Democrats up for the issues that will attack the emotional appeal of the common voter. Hell, the Dems turned down a televised debate on Fox News, while the Republicans have had one on each of the major cable news networks. That double standard can be directly contributed to the liberal controlled media.

This isn't just a shot at Democrats, or the media as a whole. As a mass media major, it's a field I will be going into, despite my issues with it. Nevertheless, this double standard is hurting the Republican candidates. While they fight about illegal immigration and border control, the liberal media hammers them on borderline amnesty or chastises them for plans to deport illegals. Meanwhile, we barely hear how Democrats feel about it and what they plan to do. These generalities appeal to people because they are non-binding, they just sound good. Everybody wants change, but if nobody knows what the change is, they can't be against it. Hence the Barack Obama strategy.

Simply, the media, outside of Fox News, brandishes their anti-conservative bias in all aspects of their coverage. You will never hear CNN or MSNBC mention that a Real Clear Politics poll says that 70% of those polled think the Democratic-run Congress is doing a poor job. Why is it that such a divide exists and that the liberals are the only ones to take advantage of it?

According to Pew Research Center, 36% of the next generation, ages 18-25, consider themselves moderate. That's a very substantial, very manipulative and impressionable group of people. Preying on those people, as the media does, may end up costing the GOP the 2008 election, and that's just not right. In a country with freedom of the press, I understand that is the risk taken. But the fact that a media can bastardize an election this much is a sad commentary on the way people get their information.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:36 pm

Nevertheless, here is where the greatest divide lies. 80% of the country finds illegal immigration to be a problem. Most people who I have talked to who watch the bulk of the donkey debates aren't even clear as to what the Dems plan to do about illegal immigration. Why is this?



Not only the health care issue but at this point none of the Democrats want to piss off the Latino voters in this country. The Hispanic vote will be key for Democrats especialy in the Soutwest.

Simply, the media, outside of Fox News, brandishes their anti-conservative bias in all aspects of their coverage. You will never hear CNN or MSNBC mention that a Real Clear Politics poll says that 70% of those polled think the Democratic-run Congress is doing a poor job. Why is it that such a divide exists and that the liberals are the only ones to take advantage of it?


I think you underestimate Fox News they are a cable news powerhouse. They promote such a Pro-rightwing bias that MSNBC and CNN have to counter as hard as they can. Im a MSNBC fan I love Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann the harder he beats on that Fox News/Anti Bush drum the better. Roger Ales pushes Alan Colmes off as a liberal and FNC fans buy it as "fair and balanced".
Dont get wrong the left has some real shitsacks and that should be laughed at, Paul Krugman is one for example. MSNBC also has Pat Buchanan (sp?) who I really like he might be the best debater on cable news. The Democrats are doing a beyond shitty job in congress they have no spines. The reason we voted them into congress was we were sick of the way this administration was running amok with no end. We voted them in because people were sick of the Iraq war and all the other countless scandals this horrible Bush Reich has plagued us with.


I understand that is the risk taken. But the fact that a media can bastardize an election this much is a sad commentary on the way people get their information.


We are a nation of consumers, much like swine we eat whatever slop is thrown our way. Welcome to politics in the new era of dumbness.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Unread postby HoodooMan » Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:37 pm

By and large, without some research into the candidates, it is hard to gauge what their true economic principles are

Is it really?

I'd tend to think it's about as hard as it is to gauge what the Democratic candidates feelings are on gay marriage.

80% of the country finds illegal immigration to be a problem

80% strikes me as a pretty high number, even for something as overly general as "illegal immigration is a problem."

Most people who I have talked to who watch the bulk of the donkey debates aren't even clear as to what the Dems plan to do about illegal immigration.

I don't think most liberals are particularly concerned about it. Even those who'd say "illegal immigration is a problem" don't have to think it's a pressing issue.

Why is this? Because it would be impossible for them to justify socialized health care that covers the illegals that the Democrats would give amnesty to.

Justify to who? The far right?

Reconcile these two statements:

The Democrats consistently get asked about the economy and have their policies lined up. Meanwhile, independents and moderates voting solely on an economic platform gravitate towards Democrats because the plans for Republicans are not outlined as clearly, if at all.

and

While they fight about illegal immigration and border control, the liberal media hammers them on borderline amnesty or chastises them for plans to deport illegals. Meanwhile, we barely hear how Democrats feel about it and what they plan to do. These generalities appeal to people because they are non-binding, they just sound good. Everybody wants change, but if nobody knows what the change is, they can't be against it. Hence the Barack Obama strategy

Which is it? Is the opportunity to clarify one's position an advantage or is the opportunity to generalize one's position an advantage?

Hell, the Dems turned down a televised debate on Fox News

Hey, did you catch that GOP debate on black issues, led by Tavis Smiley? No? Neither did any of the leading GOP candidates.

Simply, the media, outside of Fox News, brandishes their anti-conservative bias in all aspects of their coverage. You will never hear CNN or MSNBC mention that a Real Clear Politics poll says that 70% of those polled think the Democratic-run Congress is doing a poor job.

I can't even tell you how many times I've heard how unhappy people are with the Democratic-majority congress and how their approval rating is even lower than GW's. And I don't watch Fox News. So I'm pretty sure you're talking nonsense.

The pro-liberal media... the liberal controlled media... the liberal media...anti-conservative bias...

Don't be so naive. Go watch Network, it's a great movie. Or if you don't have that much time, listen to some Wu Tang.

Cash Rules Everything Around Me.

Parroting terms like "liberal media" is just silliness. CNN doesn't give any more of a fuck about what you think than anyone else, not even Fox. Where a news program's content falls on the political spectrum is about as relevant as it is for a sitcom or a melodrama or a reality show or whatever else anyone's watching on TV. They give you what they give you, because that's what sells. The market had a demand for conservative programming, and up popped Fox News. Don't think for a second that Rupert Murdoch, regardless of his political affliliation, wouldn't pull the plug on the network if that demand ceased to exist.

$$$'s are content-neutral.
User avatar
HoodooMan
The King
 
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:04 pm
Favorite Player: Big_Lu
Least Favorite Player: Foldtop Sandwich Bag

Unread postby FUDU » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:06 pm

Hoodoo, what has congress done to balance out the jack ass in the White House?

So see, it is easy to see how people would disapprove of Congress as much or more so than Chimp in Charge.

They are all one in the same when it comes down to it, went to the same schools, go on the same boating trips and misrepresent the same people, us.
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13356
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Unread postby HoodooMan » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:16 pm

Hoodoo, what has congress done to balance out the jack ass in the White House?

So see, it is easy to see how people would disapprove of Congress as much or more so than Chimp in Charge.

They are all one in the same when it comes down to it, went to the same schools, go on the same boating trips and misrepresent the same people, us.


Donny, you misunderstood me. I was simply challenging his assertion that I couldn't have possibly heard about this low approval rating without watching Fox News, which I don't do.
User avatar
HoodooMan
The King
 
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:04 pm
Favorite Player: Big_Lu
Least Favorite Player: Foldtop Sandwich Bag

Unread postby FUDU » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:20 pm

Fair and Balanced always cracks me up, really if one was would they have to say it?

I read you now Hoodoo.
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13356
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:28 am

FUDU wrote:Fair and Balanced always cracks me up, really if one was would they have to say it?

I read you now Hoodoo.


Fair and Balanced Fox News Personalities

Right wing

Bill O'Reily
Sean Hannity
Laura Ingram
Brit Hume
Mort Kondrake
John Gibson
Neil Cavuto
Michell Malkin
Ann Coulter
Charles Krauthammer
Steve Dusey
John Kasic
Bill Krystal

Left Wing

Jane Hall
Dick Morris (not really)
Alan Colmes (sorta)
Neil Gabler

Hmmmmm Im not sure if thats balanced......
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Unread postby mrburns » Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:30 am

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:
FUDU wrote:Fair and Balanced always cracks me up, really if one was would they have to say it?

I read you now Hoodoo.


Fair and Balanced Fox News Personalities

Right wing

Bill O'Reily
Sean Hannity
Laura Ingram
Brit Hume
Mort Kondrake
John Gibson
Neil Cavuto
Michell Malkin
Ann Coulter
Charles Krauthammer
Steve Dusey
John Kasic
Bill Krystal

Left Wing

Jane Hall
Dick Morris (not really)
Alan Colmes (sorta)
Neil Gabler

Hmmmmm Im not sure if thats balanced......


Fox News loves to mention that they bring on "liberals", but do they...do they really? Most of the time the left-wingers they bring on are centrists who try to either compromise with the conservative or won't take a strong liberal position because they want to get invited back.

You can say what you want, and MSNBC and CNN are a little left of center, but Fox News is consistently pushing an neoconservative agenda and has been ever since Murdoch created it. At least CNN's making an effort to offer an opposing viewpoint, with a guy like Glenn Beck, but Fox News has no equivalent. Any network that will put a guy like Bill O'Reilly on the air loses all legitimacy with me.
User avatar
mrburns
 
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:55 pm
Location: Erie, PA
Favorite Player: Rusty Branyan
Least Favorite Player: Rapist QBs

Unread postby ProgRocker » Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:37 am

Wait a minute, Tripods -- didn't the Republicans themselves make immigration an issue by trying to push through a reform bill that they themselves actually stopped? And look at who your front runner has become -- immigration and foreign policy (in the form of his support of The Surge) are pretty much his signature legislative issues! What else do you think they were going to debate last night, except how distracting that damned plane was behind them?!

I've been listening to all the reports as best I can (if you have XM Satellite Radio, they have a station that's 24/7 election coverage; it's great), and the fact is your candidates haven't been discussing things like health care out on the stump all that much, except to attack Mitt's plan in MA.

That the Democrats are talking about health care (and is a central part of the debate) can easily be explained by the fact that Hillary was the point person during the last attempt to reform health care. She's there, it would be silly not to ask her and the other candidates about it -- and I have no worries that both candidates will be asked about all of these issues during the general election in September.

That's also where we'll see which issue -- immigration or health care -- is really more important to most voters. My guess is health care, and at that point McCain or whomever will have a chance to catch up on health care while Hillary or whomever will also have to talk about immigration (and both have had problems talking about the other's issues).

I sense a lot of frustration that you're trying to take out on reporters, but I would like to propose that it's a misplaced frustration. I don't exactly know where it is other than perhaps a disquiet over McCain as the nominee ... ?
User avatar
ProgRocker
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Unread postby skatingtripods » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:19 pm

HoodooMan wrote:80% strikes me as a pretty high number, even for something as overly general as "illegal immigration is a problem."


http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1436

More than 76 % of the online poll respondents said a candidate's position on immigration is a "very important" or "somewhat important" factor in their decision on who to vote for in the presidential elections of 2008.


Sorry it's not 80%, I guess that's not close enough for you. The sample size was 7,186, a pretty big number.

I don't think most liberals are particularly concerned about it. Even those who'd say "illegal immigration is a problem" don't have to think it's a pressing issue.


Really? A pro-labor party isn't concerned about an issue that is taking jobs from American laborers? They aren't concerned with the fact that they have to justify giving socialized health care to people who are here illegally. No wonder I hate the Democrats as much as I do.

Justify to who? The far right?


Justify to everybody. Why should people who aren't going to be paying the taxes that will fund socialized health care get the same benefits as everyone else?

Which is it? Is the opportunity to clarify one's position an advantage or is the opportunity to generalize one's position an advantage?


Care to explain this further? I think that all positions should be openly stated and not have to be researched, since many voters just skim the surface by watching news networks. Don't be so naive to think that the questions aren't planned. The Democrats are purposely asked questions where they can speak in generalities and not have to pick a platform on the controversial issues. Everyone wants to fix the economy, no shit.


Hey, did you catch that GOP debate on black issues, led by Tavis Smiley? No? Neither did any of the leading GOP candidates.


Don't play the race card. I'm talking about reaching a broad audience. The GOP reaches out to viewers of all the major networks while the Democrats don't.

I can't even tell you how many times I've heard how unhappy people are with the Democratic-majority congress and how their approval rating is even lower than GW's. And I don't watch Fox News. So I'm pretty sure you're talking nonsense.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ ... id=18#data

I guess if all of those polls are nonsense...

Don't be so naive. Go watch Network, it's a great movie. Or if you don't have that much time, listen to some Wu Tang.

Cash Rules Everything Around Me.

Parroting terms like "liberal media" is just silliness. CNN doesn't give any more of a fuck about what you think than anyone else, not even Fox. Where a news program's content falls on the political spectrum is about as relevant as it is for a sitcom or a melodrama or a reality show or whatever else anyone's watching on TV. They give you what they give you, because that's what sells. The market had a demand for conservative programming, and up popped Fox News. Don't think for a second that Rupert Murdoch, regardless of his political affliliation, wouldn't pull the plug on the network if that demand ceased to exist.


Yeah, I'm going to get my information from Wu Tang. No wonder so much of your post is wrong.

You can honestly tell me that you don't think that the media is biased to the left? I'll be amazed to see you prove that.



Fox News isn't balanced, I won't disagree with that point. But even still, they are the only cable news network, or even network news network, with a conservative bias. There's a fundamental imbalance on television in terms of the number of networks with conservative bias and with liberal bias.

CNN's stories and agenda are far from "offering an opposing viewpoint". Regardless of Glenn Beck or not, CNN is the most liberal of the networks.

ProgRocker wrote:Wait a minute, Tripods -- didn't the Republicans themselves make immigration an issue by trying to push through a reform bill that they themselves actually stopped? And look at who your front runner has become -- immigration and foreign policy (in the form of his support of The Surge) are pretty much his signature legislative issues! What else do you think they were going to debate last night, except how distracting that damned plane was behind them?!


They are his signature issues, but he has been asked about health care. The reasons Republicans aren't asked about health care is because they all prefer a free-market system with private options. There's very little difference among them, except for Romney. Romney's health care policy is too liberal for me, but it's out there and people know it.

That the Democrats are talking about health care (and is a central part of the debate) can easily be explained by the fact that Hillary was the point person during the last attempt to reform health care. She's there, it would be silly not to ask her and the other candidates about it -- and I have no worries that both candidates will be asked about all of these issues during the general election in September.


So why can't they ask Democrats about immigration? Everyone knows that they want out of the war and that they want socialized medicine. I keep up with both sides of the primaries and I have no idea what anyone's immigration policy is for the Dems.

That's also where we'll see which issue -- immigration or health care -- is really more important to most voters. My guess is health care, and at that point McCain or whomever will have a chance to catch up on health care while Hillary or whomever will also have to talk about immigration (and both have had problems talking about the other's issues).


Aren't they hand in hand? Illegal immigration and socialized medicine means taxpayers paying the way for non-American citizens. Is there not a problem with that?

Meanwhile, McCain's health care plan is to fix the free market system and encourage health savings accounts as a non-taxable entity. I would add my own opinion here and say that it should get a reasonably high interest rate as well, somewhere in 7-8% range.

Either way, the real difference I see is this. This is merely an example. CNN will say "30 million Americans are without health insurance." Fox News will say "10-15% of Americans are currently uninsured." Which one sounds better? CNN's because they put the spin on it. 30 million strikes up more emotion than 10-15%. So then people think that the whole system needs to be fixed because a very small percentage of the population is uninsured. The liberal media get what they want and Conservatives are cold-hearted because they are against changing the whole system, which has worked for some time, for a small percentage of the people.

I sense a lot of frustration that you're trying to take out on reporters, but I would like to propose that it's a misplaced frustration. I don't exactly know where it is other than perhaps a disquiet over McCain as the nominee ... ?


McCain was my second favorite candidate after Giuliani, so nice try. My frustration is that the ideologically-driven left wing is controlling the media through manipulation and liberal agenda setting and it is going to sway moderates to the left because they aren't hearing anything concrete. Once again, you can't offend people by speaking in vagueries as Obama does. Like I said, everybody wants change until they know what the change is and what it's going to affect.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby skatingtripods » Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:45 pm

For clarification purposes, I'm talking about the media swaying independents and moderates because of the tunnel vision that the media has of the issues. I would agree that it is happening on both sides, but I see much more of it on the Democratic side. The media's double standard on this is depriving potential Republican votes because of the bias that it operates under.

Like I said, the 10% vs. 30 million argument, or that Democrats get asked about the economy while Republicans are just as concerned about the economy. While nearly 3 of every 4 Americans are concerned about immigration, only the Republicans get asked. If a moderate doesn't agree with a Republican's position, they immediately sway Democrat without knowing their personal feelings. A moderate may feel that a fence is inhumane, but also doesn't agree with total amnesty. They may not know what Democrat supports total amnesty and then they don't know what they are really supporting. The onus should be on the voter to figure that out, but rarely will they go look up a candidate's position. The media's role is to inform the public, and that is not happening equally on both sides.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby HoodooMan » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:53 pm

Sorry it's not 80%, I guess that's not close enough for you. The sample size was 7,186, a pretty big number.

"More than 76 % of the online poll respondents said a candidate's position on immigration is a "very important" or "somewhat important" factor in their decision on who to vote for in the presidential elections of 2008." does not equal "76% of Americans feel illegal immigration is a problem."

It's "very important" to me that we don't elect politicans who want to drain millions of dollars into something as cartoonishly ridiculous as building a wall on the Mexican border.

It's "somewhat important" to me that we don't elect politicans who want to pass some overly generalized immigration law that shuts out immigrants who could come here and contribute to our society.

Yet, I wouldn't say illegal immigration is any kind of serious problem, or at the very least I wouldn't say in the grand scheme of things that it's a pressing issue.

Go figure.

Really? A pro-labor party isn't concerned about an issue that is taking jobs from American laborers? They aren't concerned with the fact that they have to justify giving socialized health care to people who are here illegally.

Yes, imagine that, people with an opposing ideology see the issue differently than you.

Justify to everybody

No, I think it's pretty much the far right.

Does it strike you as the least bit odd that Republicans who've been the closest to the situation like McCain and even Bush are far more liberal on the issue than the far right is?

Care to explain this further?

You don't see the contradiction in simutaneously whining that:

1) Dems get the advantage of spelling out their economic policies, while GOPers don't, and

2) Dems get the advantage of not spelling out their immigration policies, while GOPers don't?

Don't be so naive to think that the questions aren't planned

I never said that.

Don't play the race card.

"Don't play the race card"?

Are you on a cliche scavenger hunt or something?

No one's "playing the race card."

GOPers recognized that debate as something that wouldn't benefit them, so they passed. Dems would obviously see a Fox News debate as one that wouldnt' benefit them, so they passed. Is that really so hard to understand?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18#data

I guess if all of those polls are nonsense...


OK, apparently I worded that part of my response so horribly that both you & FUDU misunderstood what I meant, and then you didn't bother reading our exchange above.

You said:

"You will never hear CNN or MSNBC mention that a Real Clear Politics poll says that 70% of those polled think the Democratic-run Congress is doing a poor job."

1) I've heard those kind of numbers many, many times.

2) I don't watch that ultimate source of Truth, Fox News, so I must have--gasp!--gotten that information from the kind of "liberal-media" news source that you claim I never could have gotten it from.

3) That means your assertion is BS.

Yeah, I'm going to get my information from Wu Tang.

OK, Larry Literal. I'll have to remember to never tell you your refrigerator is running or anything like that.

You can honestly tell me that you don't think that the media is biased to the left? I'll be amazed to see you prove that.

I'd try to explain it again, but I'd be amazed to see you understand it.

Meditate on "$$$ are content-neutral" and maybe it will sink in someday.
User avatar
HoodooMan
The King
 
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:04 pm
Favorite Player: Big_Lu
Least Favorite Player: Foldtop Sandwich Bag

Unread postby FUDU » Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:10 pm

It's "very important" to me that we don't elect politicans who want to drain millions of dollars into something as cartoonishly ridiculous as building a wall on the Mexican border.


I am not going to pursue this any further than this post Hoodoo (mainly b/c I am not interested in possibly ruining any good relationships I have in here), but IMO you are being naive if you think the millions of dollars we'd spend on a "wall" even come close to comparing to the billions of dollars the illegal immigrant community costs this country every year.

If you want the evidence I will provide it through PM.
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13356
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Unread postby ProgRocker » Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:58 pm

You'll forgive me if your argument about liberal media bias kind of falls flat on my ears, Tripods. The Right has one unabahsed 'news' network (Fox), pretty much all of AM political talk, the entire Clinton presidency going after everything Clinton has done and nowhere near the reciprocity against Bush, and have been crying about "media bias" for at least the last 20 years. I don't buy it and never have, and furthermore I think you caught a huge break with McCain as a nominee because it's generally acknowledged that beat political reporters and cable news commentators (outside of Fox) adore McCain and his "maverick" image.

I think fairness was thrown out of the media when Reagan killed The Fairness Doctrine, and was further squashed in 1996 when Clinton passed the Telecommunications Act which allowed more and more centralization of media, which is also why it's so pro-corporate and pro-status quo. Which is really, really bad these days no matter what your party is, IMHO.
User avatar
ProgRocker
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: Chicago, IL


Return to No Holds Barred

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest