This entry was posted
on Saturday, October 25th, 2008 at 2:32 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Someone please point to where Barack gets his executive experience.
Also did the daily show do any interviews about her executive experience as governor. Again what is Barack’s experience as an executive?
Also where is the Daily Show segment interviewing those that ran the Anneneberg challege goofing on the idea that to Barack, Ayers was simply some guy in his neighborhood.
What I have found particulary interesting during this time of obvious MSM bias is the fact that they have not gone after John McCain directly. Instead they have been relentless towards Sara Palin. Ever since a few days after the convention they have dug up and made the most out of every little possilbe thing. Going after her instead of attacking McCain because they would know that attacking a War vet/Prisoner of war would not go over well with America. A little jab here and there is acceptable - that is the nature of politics - but if McCain got the same treatment as Palin many americans would get turned off of it and it could have a snap back affect. Hence you attack McCain indirectly by going after his running mate choice. I did not notice this at first. It took me a while. I just thought it was normal to bring up some dirt on somebody we did not know really well. But after day to day relentess attacks for the past 2 months I finally understand their plan. And if you have noticed as Palin’s unfavorable ratings rise McCain’s support has gone down. MSM did their job to get their boy elected and it does not appear mean to McCain because they did it indirectly. Becuase its cool to attack this women nobody has heard of from a state that many have never been to. Its easy to make fun of people from Alaska - they are not really part of the US anyway. No need to take them serious. Just because she has executive experience that does not matter becuase Alaska is really not connected to the US so she could not possilby understand how the US works.
PS. Where are all the women groups who usually come out if one of their own is being mistreated? If a liberal women got the same treatment Sara has there would be an uproar. We would be hearing sexist comments all over the place. But thats okay instead we got to hear this year about racism. Dont talk about (enter whatever taboo talking point you wish) that is racist. Congrats Obama - being black has allowed you to use the race card though noboby was ever using it against you.
The one thing I hope for is that after Barack gets elected Journalism will come back from the dead. It will be nice to see if honest reporting is possilbe again, or if people are just so used to advocating instead of reporting there is no coming back from it.
Anyway - bring on socialism for two years. We will have a snap back during the 2010 election and more republican will be back in the house and then will see whats up for 2012.
Yes, the Daily Show needs more integrity if we are ever to take them seriously. I mean who are they kidding? I’m sure they will be out of business in no time.
“Going after her instead of attacking McCain because they would know that attacking a War vet/Prisoner of war would not go over well with America.”
Nonsense. His war record was worse than Kerry’s and Kerry’s was open to attack. For example:
“McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules”
“McCain began as a sub-par flier[17] who was at times careless and reckless;[18] during the early-to-mid 1960s, the planes he was flying crashed twice and once collided with power lines”
The fact that he got shot down and rescued from drowning by North Vietnamese may promote sympathy, but combined with his history of poor flying doesn’t paint a picture of great competence on his part.
By contrast, the attackers on Kerry’s record in some cases directly contradicted statements they had made before Kerry announced his run for president. More to the point: “virtually all of his former crewmates, have stated that SBVT’s accusations are false”. Despite that, they received much more extensive coverage than any negative commentary on McCain’s war record, which is uncontested even by McCain. I guess the differential coverage means the MSM has a conservative bias? Either that or it doesn’t have a political bias at all, just a bias towards sensationalism.
McCain had been around long enough to know how the media works and try to use that to his advantage. I think he knew perfectly well that choosing an unknown, inexperienced running mate when he had more-experienced alternative options (and had made experience a major point in his campaign) would result in scrutiny of said running mate, and more tellingly, his campaign has on multiple occasions gone out of its way to antagonize the media. I think he -wanted- Palin to be attacked so she could whine about ‘bias’ and energize the base that way.
I’m sick of hearing people on the left complain about conservative MSM bias and people on the right complain about liberal MSM bias. Everyone’s going to notice stuff in the media they disagree with and ignore stuff they agree with, and people on both sides cherry-pick plenty of examples as ‘proof’ of bias. This says more about human biases upon encountering different perspectives than it says about the media.
At this point, only an idiot would maintain the position that the MSM does not lean left. It’s like saying Fox News covers things neutrally and people on the left see bias when none exists.
As to this Kerry nonsense, I don’t remember how the MSM carried the story. How did the press frame it? That’s whats crucial to showing that the MSM was biased only towards sensationalism. Given the press propensity to cover the left more favorably than the right I’m really going to insist that you find evidence that proves the MSM covered the Kerry SBVT’s story from a neutral view point.
Besides, in regards to Kerry, he came back from Vietnam denouncing the war and our purpose there. Certainly he has a right to do those things, but at the same time some thirty years later when he tries to cash in his military credentials to win votes, you can see why some might question his integrity. Just not those on the left.
I doubt very seriously the Daily Show will be out of business soon. They target a lucrative well to do left leaning group of young people. My problem is that the poster, Michael, used this as an attempt to illustrate problems with Palin. However, there is no way one can construe the Daily Show as an honest brokers of politics and therefore makes suspect any information one can glean from it.
Pointing to the Daily Show to make a point about Palin is like pointing to CNN to make a point about the Iraq war or Fox News to make a point about Barack being a Muslim. Its fabricated non-news that is packaged to sell an untrue but popular narrative.
The media isn’t so much biased as it is lazy. They latch on to the easy smear stories in lieu of actual reporting, e.g. Bill Ayers, Stupid Palin, Old McCain, Rev. Wright (Kerry Swift Boat, Edward’s haircut, Gore’s arrogance, the list goes on). However to say the media is always biased one way or the other requires a revisionist view of history. I don’t remember W.’s alcoholism, cocaine addiction, or string of failed businesses being brought up nearly as much as this Bill Ayers silliness. The media goes for the easy stories, and it just so happens that the McCain-Palin ticket is giving it to them more easily, thanks in part to Obama’s near flawless campaign.
If the media wanted to really criticize Barack they would have to do some actual research and not treat their audience like idiots. Describing why Barack’s socialist policies would be bad for the country in the long run is not a 30 second story, and apparently journalists just don’t have the stomach to do some real, thoughtful reporting.
Exactly what I was saying. The Daily Show is here to make fun. It is always easier to attack the failing incumbent rather than the side that doesn’t have the experience. It makes for better humor. If anyone is actually allowing their political views to be swayed by the Daily Show than I feel bad for them. They aren’t a news source - they are a comedy source. Hence why they are on the Comedy Network. GOP sensitivity to this just makes it more humorous.
All that being said, I read a great editorial in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. The woman was mostly making a point about the dangers of Obama not playing well across party lines. However, in 2 of her paragraphs she noted the MSM. What she said is that Republican candidates have always had to deal with a bias. The good ones that have come at the right time have had no problem winning. It only becomes a rallying cry of the right when things are in the tank. This was coming from a right-leaning editorialist and I felt it was well said.
October 25th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Someone please point to where Barack gets his executive experience.
Also did the daily show do any interviews about her executive experience as governor. Again what is Barack’s experience as an executive?
Also where is the Daily Show segment interviewing those that ran the Anneneberg challege goofing on the idea that to Barack, Ayers was simply some guy in his neighborhood.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:02 am
What I have found particulary interesting during this time of obvious MSM bias is the fact that they have not gone after John McCain directly. Instead they have been relentless towards Sara Palin. Ever since a few days after the convention they have dug up and made the most out of every little possilbe thing. Going after her instead of attacking McCain because they would know that attacking a War vet/Prisoner of war would not go over well with America. A little jab here and there is acceptable - that is the nature of politics - but if McCain got the same treatment as Palin many americans would get turned off of it and it could have a snap back affect. Hence you attack McCain indirectly by going after his running mate choice. I did not notice this at first. It took me a while. I just thought it was normal to bring up some dirt on somebody we did not know really well. But after day to day relentess attacks for the past 2 months I finally understand their plan. And if you have noticed as Palin’s unfavorable ratings rise McCain’s support has gone down. MSM did their job to get their boy elected and it does not appear mean to McCain because they did it indirectly. Becuase its cool to attack this women nobody has heard of from a state that many have never been to. Its easy to make fun of people from Alaska - they are not really part of the US anyway. No need to take them serious. Just because she has executive experience that does not matter becuase Alaska is really not connected to the US so she could not possilby understand how the US works.
PS. Where are all the women groups who usually come out if one of their own is being mistreated? If a liberal women got the same treatment Sara has there would be an uproar. We would be hearing sexist comments all over the place. But thats okay instead we got to hear this year about racism. Dont talk about (enter whatever taboo talking point you wish) that is racist. Congrats Obama - being black has allowed you to use the race card though noboby was ever using it against you.
The one thing I hope for is that after Barack gets elected Journalism will come back from the dead. It will be nice to see if honest reporting is possilbe again, or if people are just so used to advocating instead of reporting there is no coming back from it.
Anyway - bring on socialism for two years. We will have a snap back during the 2010 election and more republican will be back in the house and then will see whats up for 2012.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Yes, the Daily Show needs more integrity if we are ever to take them seriously. I mean who are they kidding? I’m sure they will be out of business in no time.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:19 am
P.S. I love the smell of Republican bitterness in the morning.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:38 am
“Going after her instead of attacking McCain because they would know that attacking a War vet/Prisoner of war would not go over well with America.”
Nonsense. His war record was worse than Kerry’s and Kerry’s was open to attack. For example:
“McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules”
“McCain began as a sub-par flier[17] who was at times careless and reckless;[18] during the early-to-mid 1960s, the planes he was flying crashed twice and once collided with power lines”
The fact that he got shot down and rescued from drowning by North Vietnamese may promote sympathy, but combined with his history of poor flying doesn’t paint a picture of great competence on his part.
By contrast, the attackers on Kerry’s record in some cases directly contradicted statements they had made before Kerry announced his run for president. More to the point: “virtually all of his former crewmates, have stated that SBVT’s accusations are false”. Despite that, they received much more extensive coverage than any negative commentary on McCain’s war record, which is uncontested even by McCain. I guess the differential coverage means the MSM has a conservative bias? Either that or it doesn’t have a political bias at all, just a bias towards sensationalism.
McCain had been around long enough to know how the media works and try to use that to his advantage. I think he knew perfectly well that choosing an unknown, inexperienced running mate when he had more-experienced alternative options (and had made experience a major point in his campaign) would result in scrutiny of said running mate, and more tellingly, his campaign has on multiple occasions gone out of its way to antagonize the media. I think he -wanted- Palin to be attacked so she could whine about ‘bias’ and energize the base that way.
I’m sick of hearing people on the left complain about conservative MSM bias and people on the right complain about liberal MSM bias. Everyone’s going to notice stuff in the media they disagree with and ignore stuff they agree with, and people on both sides cherry-pick plenty of examples as ‘proof’ of bias. This says more about human biases upon encountering different perspectives than it says about the media.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
At this point, only an idiot would maintain the position that the MSM does not lean left. It’s like saying Fox News covers things neutrally and people on the left see bias when none exists.
As to this Kerry nonsense, I don’t remember how the MSM carried the story. How did the press frame it? That’s whats crucial to showing that the MSM was biased only towards sensationalism. Given the press propensity to cover the left more favorably than the right I’m really going to insist that you find evidence that proves the MSM covered the Kerry SBVT’s story from a neutral view point.
Besides, in regards to Kerry, he came back from Vietnam denouncing the war and our purpose there. Certainly he has a right to do those things, but at the same time some thirty years later when he tries to cash in his military credentials to win votes, you can see why some might question his integrity. Just not those on the left.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Jamie,
I doubt very seriously the Daily Show will be out of business soon. They target a lucrative well to do left leaning group of young people. My problem is that the poster, Michael, used this as an attempt to illustrate problems with Palin. However, there is no way one can construe the Daily Show as an honest brokers of politics and therefore makes suspect any information one can glean from it.
Pointing to the Daily Show to make a point about Palin is like pointing to CNN to make a point about the Iraq war or Fox News to make a point about Barack being a Muslim. Its fabricated non-news that is packaged to sell an untrue but popular narrative.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Steve: How did you miss Jamie’s obvious sarcasm?
The media isn’t so much biased as it is lazy. They latch on to the easy smear stories in lieu of actual reporting, e.g. Bill Ayers, Stupid Palin, Old McCain, Rev. Wright (Kerry Swift Boat, Edward’s haircut, Gore’s arrogance, the list goes on). However to say the media is always biased one way or the other requires a revisionist view of history. I don’t remember W.’s alcoholism, cocaine addiction, or string of failed businesses being brought up nearly as much as this Bill Ayers silliness. The media goes for the easy stories, and it just so happens that the McCain-Palin ticket is giving it to them more easily, thanks in part to Obama’s near flawless campaign.
If the media wanted to really criticize Barack they would have to do some actual research and not treat their audience like idiots. Describing why Barack’s socialist policies would be bad for the country in the long run is not a 30 second story, and apparently journalists just don’t have the stomach to do some real, thoughtful reporting.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Exactly what I was saying. The Daily Show is here to make fun. It is always easier to attack the failing incumbent rather than the side that doesn’t have the experience. It makes for better humor. If anyone is actually allowing their political views to be swayed by the Daily Show than I feel bad for them. They aren’t a news source - they are a comedy source. Hence why they are on the Comedy Network. GOP sensitivity to this just makes it more humorous.
All that being said, I read a great editorial in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. The woman was mostly making a point about the dangers of Obama not playing well across party lines. However, in 2 of her paragraphs she noted the MSM. What she said is that Republican candidates have always had to deal with a bias. The good ones that have come at the right time have had no problem winning. It only becomes a rallying cry of the right when things are in the tank. This was coming from a right-leaning editorialist and I felt it was well said.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I don’t understand the point of the post if it was not to make a point regarding Palin.