How America ends up losing

#1
T

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,191
#1
Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion."

Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues.

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

Deborah Howell - An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage
Click to expand...
The question now: Are national newspapers such as the Post, NYTs, LA Times, etc. going to run stories that highlight the Messiah's faults? I highly doubt it.
 
#3
#3
allvol123 said:
We'll have to rely on LG to watch the media for us.
Click to expand...
Honestly, the McCain camp should have just handed out free copies of Dreams from my father throughout their campaign. I cannot imagine that any white person who read that book voted for BHO.
 
#4
#4
therealUT said:
Honestly, the McCain camp should have just handed out free copies of Dreams from my father throughout their campaign. I cannot imagine that any white person who read that book voted for BHO.
Click to expand...

I never got past Obama surviving the Wright tapes. I was sure that would end his campaign. I have too much faith in the reasoning abilities of people. I will have to work on this flaw.
 
#5
#5
the media never turned against Bill Clinton, so I don't see any change in their behavior now that the Lightbringer has been elected.
 
#6
#6
therealUT said:
The question now: Are national newspapers such as the Post, NYTs, LA Times, etc. going to run stories that highlight the Messiah's faults? I highly doubt it.
Click to expand...

The media controls both major parties, and what we see and hear. They rarely give us all the information we need to make informed choices for any candidate in any given election.
 
#7
#7
TreeGreen said:
The media controls both major parties, and what we see and hear. They rarely give us all the information we need to make informed choices for any candidate in any given election.
Click to expand...
that's odd. Palin was pretty quickly vetted and asked the same questions repeatedly to the point that the world believed her inexperienced. Obama was actually less experienced and never got similarly blistered by idiots like Couric and Gibson. O'Reilly was too concerned with appearing objective to do something similar. The imbalance was glaring. Probably didn't matter, but anyone any longer relying on the major media outlets for info is a certifiable idiot.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#8
#8
BigPapaVol said:
that's odd. Palin was pretty quickly vetted and asked the same questions repeatedly to the point that the world believed her inexperienced. Obama was actually less experienced and never got similarly blistered by idiots like Couric and Gibson. O'Reilly was too concerned with appearing objective to do something similar. The imbalance was glaring. Probably didn't matter, but anyone any longer relying on the major media outlets for info is a certifiable idiot.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I don't see how you said anything different than what I just did, other than acting like I'm spewing off liberal nonsense. I already pointed out that you rarely get the information you need about either candidate to make an informed choice, which logically holds true for Obama.
 
Last edited:
#10
#10
TreeGreen said:
I don't see how you said anything different than what I just did, other than acting like I'm spewing off liberal nonsense. I already pointed out that you rarely get the information you need about either candidate to make an informed choice, which logically holds true for Obama.
Click to expand...
the part where you pretended that the conservative candidate gets comparable treatment is where you ran askew. I don't recall you correcting that little oversight.

Hence, you and I are saying nothing remotely the same.
 
#11
#11
BigPapaVol said:
the part where you pretended that the conservative candidate gets comparable treatment is where you ran askew. I don't recall you correcting that little oversight.

Hence, you and I are saying nothing remotely the same.
Click to expand...

Or you just read what you wanted to instead of what I actually posted. No where did I imply there was equal treatment or unequal treatment, all I said was they control both parties (IE: CNN tends to be liberal FOX tends to be conservative).
 
#13
#13
TreeGreen said:
Or you just read what you wanted to instead of what I actually posted. No where did I imply there was equal treatment or unequal treatment, all I said was they control both parties (IE: CNN tends to be liberal FOX tends to be conservative).
Click to expand...
are you kidding me? You're the clown that said you and I were saying essentially the same thing. I said we weren't. You follow that up by saying I'm putting words in your mouth? That's ludicrous, but you just keep on trying.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#14
#14
MG1968 said:
laugh all you want, I notice you didn't provide any examples of the media turning against him.
Click to expand...

He would have been unable to post any examples b/c they would have an insufficient number of characters.
 
#15
#15
BigPapaVol said:
are you kidding me? You're the clown that said you and I were saying essentially the same thing. I said we weren't. You follow that up by saying I'm putting words in your mouth? That's ludicrous, but you just keep on trying.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So saying I "pretended that the conservative candidate gets comparable treatment" when I clearly didn't isn't putting words in my mouth? And you disagree with me on the fact that American's can't get the coverage they need to make an informed decision? You were the one who made a mountain out of mole hill.
 
Last edited:
#16
#16
TreeGreen said:
So saying I "pretended that the conservative candidate gets comparable treatment" when I clearly didn't isn't putting words in my mouth? And you disagree with me on the fact that American's can't get the coverage they need to make an informed decision? You were the one who made a mountain out of mole hill.
Click to expand...
you started your asinine response with "I can't see how you siad anything different than I did." Regardless of the fact that I said nothin akin to what you did. My commentary was about the imbalance in coverage and yours was about the quality. Those are entirely different premises.

Now you're pointing out that I said something different than you did? You might not have explicilty stated "comparable treatment," but pretending that wasn't implied is senseless. Your Fox v CNN somment doesn't change that, wehn the truth is it's essentially Fox v. everyone else.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top