logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Media Bias? Nah....
quick
post Nov 6 2008, 07:47 PM
Post #1


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 824
Member No.: 6,407
Joined: August-22-06

From: USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
Matthews: My Job Is To Make Obama Presidency a Success
By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
November 6, 2008 - 09:35 ET

Just in time for the new James Bond movie, Chris Matthews has earned himself a new moniker: Odd Job. Matthews says he sees his job as a journalist as doing everything he can to make the Obama presidency a success.

Appearing on "Morning Joe" today, Matthews was reluctant to criticize Rahm Emanuel's kabuki dance over accepting Obama's offer to be chief of staff.

The "Hardball" host (and presumptive candidate for U.S. Senate from PA) was equally unwilling to see the Emanuel episode as evidence of a lack of planning and discipline in the nascent Obama administration. Matthews eventually explained why.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that --

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

Matthews wasn't done with his odd new job description . . . An incredulous Scarborough kept pressing, astonished at such a complete 180 from Matthews's repeated insistence during the Bush presidency that he had to hold the government accountable.

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?

MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

Matthews will hardly be alone in that sentiment. Once Obama assumes office, the "speaking truth to power" line we've heard so often during the past eight years will be a thing of the past.

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelst...sidency-success


And:

QUOTE
An unusual source-MSNBC-has provided the latest documentation of the liberal bias in the mainstream media. It came in the form of a Bill Dedman article on its website looking at journalists who have given money in recent years to federal candidates, political parties, or political action committees (PAC).

The investigation turned up donations from 143 journalists, including editors, anchors, columnists, reporters and editorial cartoonists, but not executives or publishers. They came primarily from the 200 largest newspapers in the country.

The findings, based on an analysis of Federal Election Commission (FEC) records from 2004 through the first quarter of this year, were that 125 of those went to Democrats or liberal groups, 16 to Republicans or conservative groups, and two who gave to both. That's a major advantage for the Democrats in the major media.

The investigation has resulted in a New York Times columnist being dropped by a paper planning to carry his columns.


http://www.aim.org/aim-column/msnbc-confir...ral-media-bias/

The above accounts seem self-explanatory.


Questions:


What are we as citizens to do if the private news services we rely upon are so clearly without shame in their bias?

Is there a realistic alternative to the main-stream media?

What is the correct role of public broadcasting services like NPR?

Does the Fourth Estate still warrant the trust inuring to them by virtue of the First Amendment and the critical importance of free political speech?

Does this bias bode poorly for the future of representative government?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
turnea
post Nov 6 2008, 08:07 PM
Post #2


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



What are we as citizens to do if the private news services we rely upon are so clearly without shame in their bias?
You mean commentator Chris Matthews?

Is there a realistic alternative to the main-stream media?

You mean internet sources like "News Busters"?

Or unbiased talk radio or FNC?

What is the correct role of public broadcasting services like NPR?
How'd NPR get in here?

Does this bias bode poorly for the future of representative government?

I would suggest studying the history of the American media or even the history of our representative government.

The media is a virtual paragon of neutrality compared to what it used to be.

We're doing better than we've been in years.

This post has been edited by turnea: Nov 6 2008, 08:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 6 2008, 08:19 PM
Post #3


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Questions:


What are we as citizens to do if the private news services we rely upon are so clearly without shame in their bias?
Don’t rely on them. They certainly will not change.

Is there a realistic alternative to the main-stream media?
There are sources that are less biased in either direction such as FNC – see recent Pew research study’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2126941/posts


Does the Fourth Estate still warrant the trust inuring to them by virtue of the First Amendment and the critical importance of free political speech?

They use their free speech right to give us their biased view. In this industry its now buyer beware.

Does this bias bode poorly for the future of representative government?
Yes. It guarantees a more polarized and less informed electorate imo.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eeyore
post Nov 6 2008, 08:40 PM
Post #4


Group Icon

********
Thaaaaanks for noticin' me

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,483
Member No.: 365
Joined: December-28-02

From: Nashville
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



What are we as citizens to do if the private news services we rely upon are so clearly without shame in their bias?

If you value professional news coverage than consume news coverage that meets your standards.

Is there a realistic alternative to the main-stream media?

We call it the information age. It is buyer or non-buyer beware when it comes to information. But it is still newsworthy when network news coverage is fabricated.
What is the correct role of public broadcasting services like NPR?

For me, the role of NPR is to provide news in a professional way. To me NPR is a great example of unbiased news.

Does the Fourth Estate still warrant the trust inuring to them by virtue of the First Amendment and the critical importance of free political speech?

It certainly does. However, once again, I'll stick with the buyer beware philosophy.
Does this bias bode poorly for the future of representative government?

Information is readily available. That is the best service provided by the 1st Amendment. Hopefully, one of the points of emphasis in governance and business regulation in the coming administration is greater transparency.

For the Record, if the context of the above Matthews quote is as you present it, IMHO he is a tool and part of the problem that I thought Tucker Carlson and Jon Stewart had a discussion on Crossfire about a few years ago.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Nov 6 2008, 08:40 PM
Post #5


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



What are we as citizens to do if the private news services we rely upon are so clearly without shame in their bias?

Patronize media you believe is fair, don't patronize media you think is biased. Why bother watching MSNBC or FOX when you already know what they are going to say?

Is there a realistic alternative to the main-stream media?

Realistic? Probably. Easy? No. You can find almost anything you are looking for on the internet, if you try hard enough. But I'd rather sift through the news that's put in front of me, frankly.

What is the correct role of public broadcasting services like NPR?

I've always thought that the role of public broadcasting in general was to work without the influence of advertisers - don't worry about offending them, and don't worry (as much) about your ratings. Just put out quality shows that might not make it if they had to compete for advertising dollars. I certainly don't see any reason for PBS news programs and NPR to do anything different depending on who is in office.

Does the Fourth Estate still warrant the trust inuring to them by virtue of the First Amendment and the critical importance of free political speech?

The media does what it has to do to survive, and that is to get viewers/listeners/readers. If you think that MSNBC, FOX, Limbaugh, or any of the others are somehow at fault for something, what about their audiences? The surest way to high ratings is to appeal to the dummy demographic and give them what they want to hear.

But there are still good reporters out there, doing their job. Things aren't that bad yet that you can't find good reporting. The worst time that I can remember was the post 9/11 period, where it seemed like the media was caught up in the same fervor that we all were, and the reporting suffered. The Bush Administration got way too much of a pass, and for way too long, right up through the invasion of Iraq. But at the time, nobody wanted to hear about what we did wrong, so there wasn't much of a market for those stories. On one hand, you want the media to be above things like adjusting their stories to fit the audience. On the other hand, you realize that they won't survive long if their audience does not want to listen to what they have to say. I think that is far more of a problem with TV and radio - I'm not going to stop my newspaper subscription because there's bad news on the front page, not as long as there is a crossword puzzle inside, but I'll surely change the channel if the TV news is disturbing. But these problems are not a matter of trust, even with FOX news. I know they are slanted as hell, but they aren't making stuff up out of thin air, just framing it in a biased fashion.

Does this bias bode poorly for the future of representative government?

Ideally, you have a press that is always digging for the truth. I think we still have that. Even more ideally, you have a government that accepts that and respects reporters enough to let them do their job. We haven't had that for almost 8 years. I'm hopeful that Obama's administration will be more up front with us.

So I don't really blame the media too much. Once they got past the notion that a wartime president was some kind of sacred cow, the press did a very nice job of calling the Bush administration out on it's mistakes. And I think they will keep it up when the new administration steps in. There might be a honeymoon period, but that's understandable, given how poorly the press corps was treated by the Bush Administration.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quarkhead
post Nov 6 2008, 09:44 PM
Post #6


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



I'm upset that Matthews said this. The media, to fulfill it's role as a real part of our civic life, ought to be oppositional in nature; it ought to be about questioning authority and power. That said, real media critics have always felt this way, whether the government is being run by Democrats or Republicans. So I do feel a sense of blah blah blah about this. The same conservatives who further the "liberal media" meme only seem to 'suddenly' discover the value of oppositional media when their party is out of power. Where have you been for the last eight years? I really can't take seriously the folks who are so late to the game. Our mainstream media, no thanks to these same conservatives, has become milquetoast when it comes to being skeptics of the power structure. Because of course when Republicans hold the fort, "unbiased" news means reporting what the power-brokers say, not questioning it. Once the Democrats take control, of course, these same conservatives are going to be howling for an oppositional media. It's just so predictable!

If the media does its job right, the next 4/8 years will see Democratic diehards complaining about the media's "conservative bias." When it comes to "their guys" most partisans want the media to "just report," not question.

The proof is in the pudding. Complaints about the 'liberal media' over the last eight years focus on Bush. Conveniently, they leave out the MSM's attacks on Clinton during that whole affair (pun intended?). Now, just like with Bush, or Clinton, or anyone else, the MSM will give them a honeymoon, until they get crossed or grumped about something.

Now, all that said, the type of opposition the media ought to represent is that of the rational skeptic, not the agitators of bizarro conspiracies. The MSM should certainly have raised questions about Bush's response to 9/11. That doesn't mean they should have been giving credence to the "inside job" people. The media should have questioned Clinton about his whole ordeal, and they certainly did, but that doesn't mean they should be offering a forum for Vince Foster murder conspiracies.


What are we as citizens to do if the private news services we rely upon are so clearly without shame in their bias?


The market of media consumers will decide the answer to this, as they should. Unless you want to argue that people are too stupid to pick up on bias in this case, and will be somehow brainwashed by continuing to watch it, Matthews will thrive - or dive - based on the ratings he gets. As he is a commentator, his opinion will either resonate with the viewers, or it won't.

Is there a realistic alternative to the main-stream media?

There is tons of independent media out there. The mainstream wires and news organizations, though, are still solid places to get factual information from. Yes, most journalists are liberal - to a degree. The studies show that they are to the left of the public on social issues, but to the right of the public on economic issues. But studies have also pointed out that center-right and centrist think tanks are the most used as sources of "expert opinion." Personally, I'd like to see them stretch a bit farther out to both sides, as the political discourse of the MSM in this country is actually quite narrow. Take for example the man in my avatar. Noam Chomsky, whether you agree with his views or not, is one of the most respected and quoted minds of the last century. And yet, where is his input in this so-called liberal media? Where is the far left? Where is the far right? The NYT may respect Krugman as a columnist, but though he's a Nobel Prize winning economist, he's rarely quoted in the business section.

The real media bias is towards a particular thought/power paradigm. They rarely leave the box.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Nov 6 2008, 11:03 PM
Post #7


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(quick @ Nov 6 2008, 02:47 PM) *
Questions:


What are we as citizens to do if the private news services we rely upon are so clearly without shame in their bias?

Is there a realistic alternative to the main-stream media?

What is the correct role of public broadcasting services like NPR?

Does the Fourth Estate still warrant the trust inuring to them by virtue of the First Amendment and the critical importance of free political speech?

Does this bias bode poorly for the future of representative government?


The answers to your poorly-conceived questions are:

1. Do you mean the private news services you are relying on such as the right-wing Newbusters.org and Accuracy in Media? Both of these "news services" are hard-right with a demonstrable bias toward Republicans and conservatives.

Scarborough is right though. It's not the job of Matthews to help Barack Obama succeed. If he wants to do that he should resign from MSNBC and go ask Obama for a job.

2. There are plenty of right-wing alternatives to the mainstream media. Obviously you've found two that fit into your narrow little worldview.

3. NPR has nothing to do with this debate. Neither Chris Matthews (a journalist for 13 years and a former key aide to Democratic Speaker of the House Thomas "Tip" O'Neal) or Joe Scarborough (a former Republican congressman) have anything to do with National Public Radio.

Or are you just trying to hijack your own thread?

4. Yes.


5. No.

...and shouldn't this obvious slam at the mainstream media be in The Media forum of the board instead of Election 2008? For all intents and purposes, the election is pretty much over. unsure.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Nov 6 2008, 11:45 PM
Post #8


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



What are we as citizens to do if the private news services we rely upon are so clearly without shame in their bias?

Read more books. Think more. Make up your own minds.


Is there a realistic alternative to the main-stream media?

Yes. Libraries. Common sense. The internet. Stuff like that.


What is the correct role of public broadcasting services like NPR?

To broadcast according to their mandate.


Does the Fourth Estate still warrant the trust inuring to them by virtue of the First Amendment and the critical importance of free political speech?

Trust is not something you can legislate into existence.


Does this bias bode poorly for the future of representative government?

The USA has never had a representative government. Its only had government on the basis of popularity.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Nov 6 2008, 11:49 PM
Post #9


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



Just as patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, wild-eyed claims of biased media are the last refuge of hacks, shills and apologists. I don't know about the rest of the sty, but Hannity opened his post-election radio show blaming the defeat of the Mavrick-y team of mavericks on the 'liberal media'.

Of course there are alternatives to the MSM, it's called alternative media....and liberals and independents have been relying on those sources for the last couple of decades.

Ironically, if right-winger's claims of the scary 'liberal media' were remotely true, then they would be in favor of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. If the MSM were indeed biased towards liberals, they are so woefully inept at bringing hard hitting stories to light, why are Republicans even worried?

The media isn't biased in favor of a political party, how can it be? Both major party's are beholden to corporate interests and driven by greed and power.........in other words elected versions of our MSM. The MSM is biased in favor of the lazy pursuit sensationalism and gossip journalism, nothing more.

This post has been edited by Dontreadonme: Nov 6 2008, 11:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EuroBlack
post Nov 7 2008, 01:33 AM
Post #10


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 196
Member No.: 5,095
Joined: June-5-05

From: Europe
Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



oh, the neocon mamby pambying, and whining and victimization about the mythical liberal media!

The same 'liberal' media that gave Mccain a total pass on:
- working now with the same people that racially abused his daughter Bridget ("Did you know that john mmcain has an illegitimate black child?") in the SC 2000 primary.
- flipflopping on torture!!!, abortion, ANWR and 49 other flipflops :
- the fact that McCain could not have CHOSEN to go home while being a POW, since they had standing orders not to do that unless all his fellow POW were released
- Keating5!!
- the Rashid Khalidi backfiring: since you apperantly only watch fixed n0news you prolly don't know that mccain gave MORE dollar to this man than Obama: $480,000 vs $81,000 or something in that ballpark.


What are we as citizens to do if the private news services we rely upon are so clearly without shame in their bias?
If there's no balance to report, there's no balance. stop confusing balance with opposing viewpoints.

Is there a realistic alternative to the main-stream media?
no. deal with it. your guy just really sucked.


What is the correct role of public broadcasting services like NPR?
To broadcast according to their mandate.


Does the Fourth Estate still warrant the trust inuring to them by virtue of the First Amendment and the critical importance of free political speech?
I'm sorry, but didn't you guys just bankrupted the country and lost millions of Americans their houses and millions of Europeans their savings and millions of Argentinians almost their pensions? Oh, sorry, it was the poor black people who did that, by going into banks, holding guns to the head of lone officers and demanding bad loans! My bad.

Does this bias bode poorly for the future of representative government?
Since the bias is mostly your way, yes. Clinton was a centrist, Obama will be and is that, in many ways.
The only liberal thing he stands for is abortion.
Not gay marriage, not anti-gun, not anti-capital punishment etc etc. the culture wars have been won by the leeching, free loading, red states.
Repubs just can not be trusted with the economy, as they have proven now for the THIRD time! When will American ever learn not to call the fire dept when the house is already burning? It's almost too late now.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Nov 7 2008, 04:20 AM
Post #11


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,832
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Questions:
What are we as citizens to do if the private news services we rely upon are so clearly without shame in their bias?

Recognize their biases and if desired, seek out other sources.

Is there a realistic alternative to the main-stream media?
Ironic, isn't it? You're using one of the realistic alternatives..

What is the correct role of public broadcasting services like NPR?
There is no "correct role". Public broadcasting services, i.e. state media, makes as much sense as a state church.

Does the Fourth Estate still warrant the trust inuring to them by virtue of the First Amendment and the critical importance of free political speech? The Fourth Estate is much more substantive and extensive than the biased MSM. The MSM's, falsely representing itself as the Fourth Estate, claim to be objective is a fairly new one, and sustainable only as long as they possessed a near monopoly. The Founding Fathers who argued for the importance of an independent press had no expectations and made no claims that the Fourth Estate would be unbiased. 'Tis a modern conceit.

Does this bias bode poorly for the future of representative government? Only if it continues without being countered. The MSM's performance this election cycle has done a lot to send folks to other sources, thereby reducing the impact of the bias in the future.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post Nov 7 2008, 06:56 PM
Post #12


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



What are we as citizens to do if the private news services we rely upon are so clearly without shame in their bias?

We are to rely on our intellect - little of which was evident in the composition of the questions for debate here. Does the "we" in this question imply that quick "relies upon" Chris Matthews as a source of unbiased news? I somehow doubt it. I somehow doubt that anyone here "relies upon" Chris Matthews for anything aside from comic relief. As there has never in the history of this country been an unbiased press, I'd much prefer that reporters be "shameless" about their bias than covert - but that's just me.

There are only two things that the Dedman blog entry tells us: that only 143 journalists (including editors, anchors, columnists, reporters, and editorial cartoonists) out of thousands, if not tens of thousands, could be identified as having made political contributions at all and that, of that tiny minority, Democratic or left-leaning journalists were more likely to make contributions than Republican or right-leaning journalists. The MSNBC investigation "confirms" nothing that can be applied beyond 143 individuals. Using the Accuracy in Media columnist's deductive reasoning*, one could just as easily conclude (and with substantially more evidence) that Republican journalists are just stingier than Democrats. laugh.gif

Is there a realistic alternative to the main-stream media?

There are numerous alternatives to the mainstream media. This, as Bikerdad pointed out, is one of them. Search engines on teh internets would be another - they can lead one to all kinds of news outlets. There are thousands of local publications and television stations, as well as numerous national magazines that cater to a wide variety of prejudices.

But there are "mainstream" sources that are more or less unbiased. If one looks beyond the op-ed pages, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Christian Science Monitor (now only available online), and the Chicago Tribune are relatively okay - as are The Economist, Foreign Affairs, and Atlantic Monthly. The New York Times is still exceptional in terms of primary sources.

The best "alternative", however, is to read a variety of sources rather than just the ones that suit one's own prejudices (like, say, NewsBusters sour.gif ) - and the wire services are a good place to start.

What is the correct role of public broadcasting services like NPR?

As John mentioned in his response to this non sequitur, NPR is the only major news outlet which does not depend on corporate sponsors or corporate ownership to survive and should, therefore, be the only national news service to be free of a corporatist slant. They are clearly not doing their job in that regard.

Does the Fourth Estate still warrant the trust inuring to them by virtue of the First Amendment and the critical importance of free political speech?

Absolutely. As I mentioned earlier (and here I agree entirely with Bikerdad) the notion of an "objective media" is a recent fantasy: "unbiased media" is, and always has been, an oxymoron. This is especially true in the United States where, ever since Publius first published an essay in The Independent Journal, journalism has been married to advocacy. Thomas Jefferson, a prime mover behind the First Amendment, claimed that "the man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers" and that "advertisements... contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper." Norman Mailer was pretty near the mark as well when he wrote (in 1960), "Once a newspaper touches a story, the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonists."

But it makes no sense to me - no sense whatsoever - to highlight "the critical importance of free political speech" and, in the same breath, condemn journalists for exercising their right to speak freely about politics. I'll make the same argument here that some make regarding the establishment clause: the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, not freedom from the press. tongue.gif

Like DTOM, though, I find it very curious that there is serious overlap between those who condemn the "liberal media" and those who condemn the notion of the Fairness Doctrine. That, to me, tells one all one needs to know about the reality of "press bias".

Does this bias bode poorly for the future of representative government?

Nope. It only bodes poorly for those who can't tell the difference between Chris Matthews and news.

_________________________
* His name, by the way, is Roger Aronoff and he demonstrates as little "shame" in his patently biased reporting - er, sorry, columnizing - as Chris Matthews. Nice source for such a thread, quick. rolleyes.gif


This post has been edited by Wertz: Nov 8 2008, 02:20 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EuroBlack
post Nov 8 2008, 05:11 PM
Post #13


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 196
Member No.: 5,095
Joined: June-5-05

From: Europe
Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



By the way, for all the supposedly liberal bias, none of them asked Sarah Pallin'-Around when she thought the world was created.
Total pass.

I think it would have been important to ask candidates these questions.
Also, nothing on responsible parenting.

Also, the socalled liberal media gave MCcan't gave him a total pass on:
Bob Allen!!!! McCain’s Florida co-chair (also a Republican state Representative) was arrested yesterday after he was caught offering a blowjob for 20 dollars in a public rest room:


"Just as the media judge a candidate to have "won" a debate if s/he "exceeds expectations," the fact that McCain's coverage hasn't been as hagiographic as expected has led many to conclude that it has actually been unfairly negative.


Remember Cindy McCains cold chill down her spine, claiming that Obama voted against funding her sons military whatever? His dad, his own FATHER voted against funding troops too, because it had a timetable. Obama opposed funding a mission that had no timetable, which gave a blank check to Bush.
McCain got a total pass on that one, after Obama craftily took that argument away from him in the first debate.
You might even think reporters would have noticed Cindy's blatant hypocrisy, and finally ask the McCain campaign if Cindy McCain got a "cold chill" when her husband voted "to not fund [her] son." But there is no indication that any reporter has done so. None. What a liberal bias.

Obama:
QUOTE
"Senator McCain opposed funding for troops in legislation that had a timetable, because he didn't believe in a timetable. I opposed funding a mission that had no timetable, and was open- ended, giving a blank check to George Bush. We had a difference on the timetable. We didn't have a difference on whether or not we were going to be funding troops.


Also:
McCain got away with being upset about Obama balking on town halls because Obama doesn't really care to push back, which shows how unimportant the issue really is.

Remember Steve Schmidts rant against the NYT, calling it a pro-Obama advocacy organization without any specific examples? But then, later: "Sarah Palin says she uses the Times as a news source then relies on its front page reporting on Obama and Ayers to raise questions about McCain's opponent."

The sad thing is, McCain made his deal with the devil SS, and .... he lost.

This post has been edited by EuroBlack: Nov 8 2008, 05:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 13th, 2018 - 02:12 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.