The day I see a politician who isn't a manipulator, I'll vote for him or her. That goes doubly for "manipulator of the press."

/gobama

I guess Mr. Columnist has never heard of the New York Times.

How? Isn't he all cripple from the elbows up?

i'm guessing that drowning will either change idea, or never vote. the only guy more loved by the press is obama, who will probably become the next president. and we can salivate over that, but eventually people will wonder why we just accepted it as given. next election we can save time by just asking the media who they want. cheaper that way.

proteus_b: and we can salivate over that, but eventually people will wonder why we just accepted it as given. next election we can save time by just asking the media who they want. cheaper that way.

Were you a Ron Paul fan, or a John Edwards fan? Both groups of supporters seem to not be able to accept the fact that part of winning in politics is working the press.

The NY Times digs up a meaningless 8 year old story so they can solidify the base behind McCain. Can you feel the love?

i'm a blues fan, silly.

i voted for obama, if that's what you mean...

milosevic was also marvelous at working the press. so was hitler. working the press is good. it does show competence and experience. it's also good to be suspicious of any anointed candidate, even if he seems so genuine and true, chum.

proteus_b: i'm guessing that drowning will either change idea, or never vote. the only guy more loved by the press is obama, who will probably become the next president. and we can salivate over that, but eventually people will wonder why we just accepted it as given. next election we can save time by just asking the media who they want. cheaper that way.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the media is loving Obama because people are loving Obama? They show what the people want to see.

People like Obama. Media shows Obama. People watch media. Media gets $$. More people like Obama. Repeat ad nauseam.

/I also heard the Pentavirate meets once a month in Quebec
//To discuss how evilly they should control the world

Yes, the mainstream media love to kiss up to John McCain... Until recently, when he stands between them and having a Democrat in the White House.

no, trilinos, i was under the impression that there wasn't a single person who supports obama, noone will ever vote for him (not even me, of course), and that his candidacy is an entire fraud perpetuated by the media.

the bizarre refusal of his "supporters" to look at facts is very unscientific, and worries me much more than his "inexperience".

luckily, he's not a politician, he's a superhuman who can do no wrong, and needn't be scrutinized. we don't need any oversight. we can trust whomever he puts on the cabinet. we can cancel the congress and make him the king. this will eliminate pork spending, that's for sure.

i'm sorry, but there is definite media bias in his favor. if you can't see that, then there's really something wrong with you. i didn't say it was a conspiracy.

So we're about to have an election between to media darlings...

How the MSM defines politicians who routinely don't go along their political party.

John McCain = Maverick
Joe Leiberman = Traitor

MFL: How the MSM defines politicians who routinely don't go along their political party.

John McCain = Maverick
Joe Leiberman = Traitor

QFT

Gregory F. Stuart:

You're an idiot if you actually believe that John McCain doesn't toe his party line.



He goes along with the party on some issues but he doesn't on a lot of them. In the process he has a habit of sticking his finger in the eye of the very people who are normally allied with him. McCain loves the adulation of the NY Times and Washington Post as well as the cocktail circuit. Hopefully he sees what it got him

Gregory F. Stuart
MFL: How the MSM defines politicians who routinely don't go along their political party.

John McCain = Maverick
Joe Leiberman = Traitor

You're an idiot if you actually believe that John McCain doesn't toe his party line.

Wait. I'm talking to MFL. Of course you're an idiot.

Are you still hanging around?

Who are you voting this time around now that Castro is dead?

proteus_b: i'm guessing that drowning will either change idea, or never vote. the only guy more loved by the press is obama, who will probably become the next president. and we can salivate over that, but eventually people will wonder why we just accepted it as given. next election we can save time by just asking the media who they want. cheaper that way.

Call me crazy, but from what I remember the media assured me that the race would be between Giuliani and Clinton.

I don't know where this meme of the media being the Kingmaker came from.

Meanwhile, the Japanese are thrilled with having American military bases in Japan, what with all the free rape.

Can you imagine an American Commander in Chief who says to the military: "Hmmmm...I don't really believe we need to keep that base anyhow..."

Me neither.

What is the 'mainstream media'?

John McCain is the poster child for Washington D.C. tenured politicians.

He scares everyone else on the Hill because the majority of them are a bunch of desk jockeys who never saw a shot fired in anger.

Hang On Voltaire: McCain loves the adulation of the NY Times and Washington Post as well as the cocktail circuit. Hopefully he sees what it got him

What are you talking about? The NYT just pretty much guaranteed that conservatives will love McCain. He can play the victim, and at the same time act like he hates the existence of a free press. He can also appear to be in the pockets of lobbyists and back away from his support of campaign finance reform. The Times just did McCain a huge favor.

Jon Snow: Call me crazy, but from what I remember the media assured me that the race would be between Giuliani and Clinton.

I don't know where this meme of the media being the Kingmaker came from.

Anyone else notice the unusual speed with which the Giuliani campaign imploded? Near free fall I think it was...

Look, there is no liberal bias or conservative bias or anything bias. If there's a bias at all, it's "toe the company line" bias and "I'm a lazy ass" bias.

This results in irrelevant ultra-liberal warm-fuzzy human interest stories mixed with hyper-right-wing "trickle-down" economic BS that pushes propaganda favoring the companies that own the media -- GE, Microsoft, Disney, etc. Remember how badly Bob Dole lost after opposing the gigantic giveaway of the public airwaves. Oh, and shark attacks and boobies.

McCain? He's a "maverick" only because some lazy reporter called him that eight years ago. Since then he's become a complete panderer (and voila, his campaign is ALIVE!) but the lede doesn't change because reporters stopped doing their farking jobs a long time ago.

\This FARK thing is fun!

proteus_b: no, trilinos, i was under the impression that there wasn't a single person who supports obama, noone will ever vote for him (not even me, of course), and that his candidacy is an entire fraud perpetuated by the media.

the bizarre refusal of his "supporters" to look at facts is very unscientific, and worries me much more than his "inexperience".

luckily, he's not a politician, he's a superhuman who can do no wrong, and needn't be scrutinized. we don't need any oversight. we can trust whomever he puts on the cabinet. we can cancel the congress and make him the king. this will eliminate pork spending, that's for sure.

i'm sorry, but there is definite media bias in his favor. if you can't see that, then there's really something wrong with you. i didn't say it was a conspiracy.

What facts are Obama supporters not looking at? Exactly what has he said that was false? Are you actually attacking Obama for not being specific without being specific yourself? Obama has very detailed policy plans; go to his website to see them. He just knows that his flowery speeches win more votes than droning on about policy wonkiness. Nothing wrong with playing him playing up his strengths.

Crazy_horce: \This FARK thing is fun!

Why can people not understand that the media just loves a winner, just like their viewers? If John Edwards had won 10 straight in February and was polling ahead of Hillary nationally you'd all be accusing the media of being in bed with him and you'd be making fun of his hair.

Breaking news. The media covers who is popular! It's not a conspiracy or bias.
The only thing the media cares about is money and ratings!

(see also: Britney and Paris)

Jon Snow

Right click - save image as...

This will come in handy in the near future.

MFL: How the MSM defines politicians who routinely don't go along their political party.

John McCain = Maverick
Joe Leiberman = Traitor

Joe Lieberman most certainly is a traitor to the Democratic Party. This has nothing to do with the way the media spins things; it's just the truth. One could make an argument either way until recently, but the moment he endorsed a Republican for President (namely McCain) was the moment the jury reached a decision. He's not quite Zell Miller, but he's not only in the same ballpark, he's sitting next to him in the dugout.

Jon Snow

Is that sarcasm or are you serious?


\Sarcasm detector broken...

Speaking of the past. I just HAD to trot this out.


Shaggy_C Quote 2008-01-22 01:46:36 PM
Bah, you idiots. Rudy is falling in the polls because he's been out of the spotlight for the last month with all the hub-bub about the Backwards Hilljacks (Iowa, S.C.) and snooty white people (NH, Michigan). As soon as he's actually on stage giving a victory or concession speech and starts fearmongering 9/11 and talking about how the way to fix deficits is by cutting taxes, the Republican faithful will jump back on board. Just wait and see.


\Hillary has the same strategy

Crazy_horce: I just HAD to trot this out.

Ew...farking stalker! I suppose I was a bit off in my prediction; the day of the Florida primaries, he was still leading nationally. We all make mistakes :(

Crazy_horce: Is that sarcasm or are you serious?


\Sarcasm detector broken...

The sign is an ironic counterpoint to McCain's speech.

Shaggy_C


Post in political threads long enough and you're bound to say something ridiculous. No one is excluded. Being able to admit you were wrong though, sadly, is not something most people here are capable of.

\I was just bustin your balls
\\It is a politics thread after all

Crazy_horce: Post in political threads long enough and you're bound to say something ridiculous. No one is excluded.

I beg to differ.

_{Dildo sasquatch nectarine.}

Crazy_horce: Post in political threads long enough and you're bound to say something ridiculous. No one is excluded.

I'll be the first to admit it. It's a daily occurrence.

Jon Snow: Dildo sasquatch nectarine.

I once heard Bevets make the exact opposite argument!

Geotpf
MFL: How the MSM defines politicians who routinely don't go along their political party.

John McCain = Maverick
Joe Leiberman = Traitor

Joe Lieberman most certainly is a traitor to the Democratic Party. This has nothing to do with the way the media spins things; it's just the truth. One could make an argument either way until recently, but the moment he endorsed a Republican for President (namely McCain) was the moment the jury reached a decision. He's not quite Zell Miller, but he's not only in the same ballpark, he's sitting next to him in the dugout.

McCain was being courted by John Kerry a few years back for the VP spot I my memory serves me right. Look Leiberman was pretty much kicked out of the party because of his hawkish/pro-Isreal stance just because George Soros didn't want that view point in his democratic party. The guy was slimed up and down during his senate re-election primary. The democrats are the ones who left him. He's got a chip on his shoulder and

McCain and Leiberman both courted the middle. The difference is that most of the mainstream media doesn't like democrats who adopt and give credence to some conservative ideals. On the other hand when a Republican bucks his party and adopts a more liberal platform they get smoke blown up their ass.

Swarschwarzenegger, Bloomberg, and McCain are all examples of what the media thinks a mainstream Republican ought to be.

Crazy_horce: Breaking news. The media covers who is popular! It's not a conspiracy or bias.

I dunno, they tried pretty hard to make George W. Bush look better than Al Gore in 2000. And hey, it worked. Gore won the popular vote but all we remember about him anymore is something he never said about "inventing the Internet". Meanwhile, we're stuck with a idiotic megalomaniac with Nixon-esque approval.

I'd say the media not only pushes the candidate it wants over the candidate that's popular, it's frighteningly successful at doing so.

Crazy_horce
Why can people not understand that the media just loves a winner, just like their viewers? If John Edwards had won 10 straight in February and was polling ahead of Hillary nationally you'd all be accusing the media of being in bed with him and you'd be making fun of his hair.

It's not so much that the media loves a winner, they love a democrat who can win.

MFL: they love a democrat who can win.

You mean like Bill Clinton? He was President and a popular one at that.

Oh, wait, they butchered him.

You mean like Al Gore? He won the popular vote.

Oh, wait, they butchered him.

You mean like Howard Dean? He almost won the nomination.

Oh, wait, they butchered him.

You mean like John Kerry? He did win the nomination.

Oh, wait, they replaced Dean with him, then butchered him.

You mean like Hillary Clinton?

Wait, did they ever not butcher her?

I dunno, who are you talking about? I only think they're getting sharpening the knives with Obama. If he wins the nomination, they're gonna tear into him like a pack of wolves.

MFL: It's not so much that the media loves a winner, they love a democrat who can win.

LOLOL. You really crack me up! What about Al Gore? He was a democrat who could win. (did win the popular vote) Yet the media didn't exactly love him.

I know it doesn't fit in with you "liberal media conspiracy" so you'll discount it completely.

Don't make me pull out the corporate ownership chart of the MSM and show you how their political contributions look.
Meh, you wouldn't believe it anyway.

dragonchild: I'd say the media not only pushes the candidate it wants over the candidate that's popular, it's frighteningly successful at doing so.

They do push candidates, but up until the party and public narrow it down for them they don't seem to have as much sway as you think. Just look at Rudy, Huckabee, etc. Wasn't it them Cheerleading Rudy and Hillary from the beginning and then even after Iowa?

Crazy_horce
MFL: It's not so much that the media loves a winner, they love a democrat who can win.

LOLOL. You really crack me up! What about Al Gore? He was a democrat who could win. (did win the popular vote) Yet the media didn't exactly love him.

I know it doesn't fit in with you "liberal media conspiracy" so you'll discount it completely.

Don't make me pull out the corporate ownership chart of the MSM and show you how their political contributions look.
Meh, you wouldn't believe it anyway.

The media loved Al Gore and still does. The had a gorbasm when he got his nobel prize. The guy was a complete douchebag of a candidate. Compare his speeches with the likes of Obama or even Bill Clinton.

Jack Welch doesn't decide who is on the editorial staff. You can show me your chart about who owns the stations and newspapers, and I'll show you my chart that has the contributions of the people that actually produce, editorialize and report the news.

But then again you probably won't care to look at it anyway.

MFL: The media loved Al Gore and still does.

The media didn't like Al Gore until WELL AFTER his Presidential run. They make him seem like a robot in a suit during the election. Hell, i didn't even like him. We had a douche and a turd sandwich running in 2000.

MFL: Jack Welch doesn't decide who is on the editorial staff. You can show me your chart about who owns the stations and newspapers, and I'll show you my chart that has the contributions of the people that actually produce, editorialize and report the news.

I would LOVE to see your chart that has the contributions of the people that actually produce, editorialize and report the news. Make sure to include people from various organizations, not just the ones you disagree with. No cherry picking.
I'll give you some time. I've never seen any evidence of this liberal conspiracy, it would be an interesting read.

\\got any 9/11 truths while you're at it?

\\also if you think that the Management doesn't influence what stories get published or talked about you're quite naive. Your hated NYT sat on the McCain story since Dec because of Mgt.

The NYT did McCain a huge favor by pre-empting LobbyGate, anybody who thinks otherwise is naive. Remember, the NYT wasn't exactly "liberal" when it set Judy Miller up as a White House mouthpiece under no supervision, allowing her to run story after false story about WMDs, driving us to war.

The NYT likes McCain, for ONE reason: Israel.

McCain is the most hawkish candidate when it comes to the Mid-East and Israel. He is AIPAC's first choice, Israel's first choice and therfore - your American Media's first choice.

Once again, foreigners, and those with a foreign allegiance, are deciding what you and the rest of America will see and hear during this election cycle.

I repeatedly predicted from the get-go that the MSM would be pushing hard for McCain and Clinton, and I was correct. CNN didn't stop trying to spin everything towards Clinton until it became simply too obvious.

Enjoy your "democratic process", folks.

Jeffrey Zucker, CEO NBC TV, Zionist
Robert Iger, CEO ABC, Zionist
Leslie Moonves, CEO CBS, grandnephew of David Ben Gurion, Zionist
Jonathon Klein, CEO CNN, Zionist
Peter F. Chernin, President and COO FOX, Zionist

Crazy_horce I would LOVE to see your chart that has the contributions of the people that actually produce, editorialize and report the news. Make sure to include people from various organizations, not just the ones you disagree with. No cherry picking.
I'll give you some time. I've never seen any evidence of this liberal conspiracy, it would be an interesting read.

Certain professions tend to attract likeminded thinking individuals. MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans (new window)

It's no more a conspiracy than it is more of a cultural thing. The type of people that get into the journalism profession tend to be more liberal minded folks. People that get into business tend to be more conservative just like lawyers tend to be more liberal. It's just the way it is.

Crazy_horce also if you think that the Management doesn't influence what stories get published or talked about you're quite naive. Your hated NYT sat on the McCain story since Dec because of Mgt.

Management does have some effect in certain outlets. Escpecially at the NYT and the WSJ. Frank Rich is an open partisan and Murdoch is trying to counter him with the Wall Street Journal. The NYT's has already given McCain "scandal" more prominent coverage without any evidence than it did with Clintons's Paula Jones or Juanita Broderick scandal. McCain was on page #1 without anything other than hear-say. Clinton's stuff was on page 35W and those charges held a little more water.

The NYT's endorsed McCain on the republican side. They sure as hell weren't going to release the story while his nomination was in contention. Their goal was to sink Rudy and they did.

MFL
FTFA
Donations and other political activity are strictly forbidden at
The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN and NPR.

Yeah so these ban donations all together. These seem to be most of the outlets conservatives complain about having such a heavy bias. While other moderate and conservative organizations don't ban them.

FTFA

Many of the donating journalists cover topics far from politics: food, fashion, sports.

Plus their main example is on an Omaha TV reporter, Calvert Collins. I'm sure most of these people are local TVpersonality nobodies who really have no control over what their affiliate is reporting on national politics.

Furthermore the entire country is fed up with the shenanigans of the current administration and the direction of the republican party. Look at overall fund raising between Reps and Dems for this election cycle. Hell the RNC is practically broke. Look at the voter turnout number for democratic (liberal) voters being historicly high while Republican numbers are dismal. Is it maybe that the country is fed up? Or does Reality have a liberal bias?

MFL:
It's no more a conspiracy than it is more of a cultural thing. The type of people that get into the journalism profession tend to be more liberal minded folks. People that get into business tend to be more conservative just like lawyers tend to be more liberal. It's just the way it is.

So your point is that people that go into journalism are inherently more liberal minded and therefore can't possibly report the news in an unbiased manner because of this prevalent psychology?

MFL

Their goal was to sink Rudy and they did.


I'm sure this had NOTHING to do with that...