Media Campaigns Hard for Obama

[kg_veteran]

Media Campaigns Hard for Obama
By Tony Blankley
link

The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight-out propagandists for the Obama campaign.

While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08, for the first time, the major media consciously are covering for one candidate for president and consciously are knifing the other. This is no longer journalism; it is simply propaganda. (The American left-wing version of the Völkischer Beobachter cannot be far behind.)

And as a result, we are less than seven weeks away from possibly electing a president who has not been thoroughly or even halfway honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs -- the press. The image of Obama that the press has presented to the public is not a fair approximation of the real man. They consciously have ignored whole years of his life and have shown a lack of curiosity about such gaps, which bespeaks a lack of journalistic instinct.

Thus, the public image of Obama is of a "man who never was."

I take that phrase from a 1956 movie about a real-life World War II British intelligence operation to trick the Germans into thinking the Allies were going to invade Greece rather than Sicily in 1943. Operation Mincemeat involved the acquisition of a human corpse dressed as "Major William Martin, R.M.," which was put into the sea near Spain. Attached to the corpse was a briefcase containing fake letters suggesting that the Allied attack would be against Sardinia and Greece.

To make the operation credible, British intelligence concocted a fictional life for the corpse, creating a letter from a lover and tickets to a London theater -- all the details of a life, but not the actual life of the dead young man whose corpse was being used. So, too, the man the media have presented to the nation as Obama is not the real man.

The mainstream media ruthlessly and endlessly repeat any McCain gaffes while ignoring Obama gaffes. You have to go to weird little Web sites to see all the stammering and stuttering that Obama needs before getting out a sentence fragment or two. But all you see on the networks is an eventually clear sentence from Obama. You don't see Obama's ludicrous gaffe that Iran is a tiny country and no threat to us. Nor his 57 American states gaffe. Nor his forgetting, if he ever knew, that Russia has a veto in the U.N. Nor his whining and puerile "come on" when he is being challenged. This is the kind of editing one would expect from Goebbels' disciples, not Cronkite's.

More appalling, a skit on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" last weekend suggested that Gov. Palin's husband had sex with his own daughters. That show was written with the assistance of Al Franken, Democratic Party candidate in Minnesota for the U.S. Senate. Talk about incest.

But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply have not reported on Obama's two years at New York's Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks, the media have focused on all the colleges Gov. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago, and the close criticism of the political opponents Gov. Palin had when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

But in two years, they haven't bothered to see how close Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.

Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Obama's rise in Chicago politics. How did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great -- and unflattering -- details on Obama's Chicago years presented in David Freddoso's new book on Obama, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, The Economist, to give Freddoso's book a review with fair comment.

The public image of Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Obama, his publicist (David Axelrod) and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.

Perhaps that is why the National Journal's respected correspondent Stuart Taylor wrote, "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis."

That conspiracy not only has Photoshopped out all of Obama's imperfections (and dirtied up his opponent McCain's image) but also has put most of his questionable history down the memory hole.

The public will be voting based on the idealized image of the man who never was. If he wins, however, we will be governed by the sunken, cynical man Obama really is. One can only hope that the senior journalists will be judged as harshly for their professional misconduct as Wall Street's leaders currently are for their failings.

[purplefrog]

It's truly ridiculous. This lovefest started during the primaries and only gets worse with time. Imo, this is the most blatant and intentional favoritism by the media toward a political candidate in the history of the universe, and maybe even a bit before that.

I loved that SNL skit showing a debate between Obama and Hillary:

First question for Senator Obama: "Are you feeling OK? Is there anything we can get you?"

Second question: "Are you sure you're alright?"

That says it in a nutshell.

[Mavdog]

"the man who never was"? it's a book originally (read it btw, great story) before it was a movie, and that's not the only error in the write up.

according to this writer the entire legion of journalists in our country are sucking up to obama and fail to dig into his past, fail to spend the time to uncover what MUST be skeletons in that closet of his.

from chicago? must be a part of the corrupt chicago machine. served on a board with ayers? must be a "terrorist sympathiser". a community organizer? must be a "socialist".

hey, guess what? not all the journalist and reporters out there support obama, and maybe the writer just doesn't get it...people looked, people pried, people looked under all the rocks. there is not a smoking gun, there are no skeletons.

have we heard the speeches where obama stutters to get out his thoughts? why yes, we have.

did we read about the rezko affair? why yes, we have.

what about the scurrilous attempts to tie obama in with the "terrorist" ayers? why yes. we have.

there's not been any kidglove treatment, there hasn't been any conspiracy to annotate and repackage obama. it's all out there to see.

the right is sure whining a lot about this fabricated issue, maybe, just maybe, the right just doesn't grasp that this candidate is beating their candidate, is going to win because this candidate is what america wants..

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Media Campaigns Hard for Obama
By Tony Blankley
link

....

More appalling, a skit on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" last weekend suggested that Gov. Palin's husband had sex with his own daughters. That show was written with the assistance of Al Franken, Democratic Party candidate in Minnesota for the U.S. Senate. Talk about incest.

....

sorry but this article is overall a whiney piece of crap.

Have you ever noticed how every mavs fan, and every lakers fan, and every hornets fan, and every ***** fan thinks the media is out to to get their team (which never gets any of the respect it deserves). THere is a scientific term for this: lilly-livered-pussy-whineyness. The same term can be applied in politics... however while this condition usually arises in a spontaneus groundswell of individual boo-hoo-ing, in the case of conservative america it is explicitly abetted by a concerted coordinated effort from consertave pundits etc, which has led to a huge boohoopalooza. <snif>


but on a specific point: the above quote-- whineing about an SNL skit that made FUN of journalists fervor by going into absurd terrritory with parody illustrates either an idiot, or a someone cynical enough to believe he can still sell an idiotic stawman argument because the slackjaw target audience's mouth is wide open and waiting to be pissed into... chances are it is a case of both.

[mary]

Loose Change: Part 2?

[rabbitproof]

Damn, the Republicans have become pussies.

Now McCain is calling in sick for the debate.

[GuerillaBlack]

“Of course Senator McCain wants to cancel the debate. Republican politics got us into this mess and he knows it, so Senator McCain wants to distract America from his party’s fault. If Senator McCain wants to prove he is a responsible leader, then I challenge him to stand up to the American people and defend the policies his party has enacted and he will continue in a public debate. We won’t let Bush and McCain hide THIS TIME.”

- What Obama should be saying right now.

[rabbitproof]

Cool comment from another board:

John McCain is stopping his campaign not on the day the bailout was announced but on the day the polls showed him way behind.


----

McCain said he has spoken to Obama about his plans and asked the Democratic presidential nominee to join him.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid issued a statement saying the debate should go on because "we need leadership, not a campaign photo op." Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., agreed that the debate should go forward and argued that McCain's return to Washington may not preserve the nonpartisan atmosphere he said is needed to find a way out of the crisis.

"He'll be bringing the presidential campaign with him to Washington," Durbin said of McCain on the Senate floor. "Bringing in all the lights and cameras to Capitol Hill, bringing the campaign here, is not going to be the answer."

The University of Mississippi said it was going forward with preparation for the debate in Oxford. "We are ready to host the debate, and we expect the debate to occur as planned," the school said, adding that it had received no notification of any change in the timing or venue.

The Obama and McCain campaign put out statements describing the timeline of private talks that led up to McCain's challenge.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement that Obama had called McCain around 8:30 a.m. Wednesday to propose that they issue a joint statement in support of a package to help fix the economy as soon as possible. Later, McCain spokesman Brain Rogers said in his own statement that although Obama called in the morning, he couldn't reach McCain and did not leave a message about what he wanted to discuss.

McCain called back six hours later and agreed to the idea of the statement, Burton said, and McCain's statement was issued to the media a few minutes later. But Rogers said it was McCain who "asked Senator Obama to join him in returning to Washington to lead a bipartisan effort to solve this problem."

McCain's statement was an effort to show leadership on an issue that has spread economic fears across the country and overshadowed the presidential campaign just six weeks from Election Day. Recent polls showed Obama with an advantage with voters in handling the economy.

rest of it: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

[u2sarajevo]

failure

[Arne]

When discussing media bias the focus is always on television media, which doesn't show the whole picture. Radio is pretty much full of right wing media personel, as far as I know.

[rabbitproof]

I guess this would be exhibit A:
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

hey, guess what? not all the journalist and reporters out there support obama, and maybe the writer just doesn't get it...people looked, people pried, people looked under all the rocks. there is not a smoking gun, there are no skeletons.

I've always found you to be an honest sort, so I find this response from you to be quite surprising, since it is so blatantly untrue.

what about the scurrilous attempts to tie obama in with the "terrorist" ayers? why yes. we have.

In what way is the investigation into Obama's relationship with Ayers scurrilous?

there's not been any kidglove treatment, there hasn't been any conspiracy to annotate and repackage obama. it's all out there to see.

Ha!

the right is sure whining a lot about this fabricated issue, maybe, just maybe, the right just doesn't grasp that this candidate is beating their candidate, is going to win because this candidate is what america wants..

I'm not whining, just stating fact. I don't particularly like McCain, to be honest, but to suggest that America is getting to hear the real story about Obama is absolute nonsense.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

sorry but this article is overall a whiney piece of crap.

Nice machismo and all (the pissing in the mouth thing was a little bit over the top and bitter), but calling somebody a whiner or fisking certain lines in the article doesn't in any way detract from the truth of the overriding point of the article. I'm disappointed that educated and intelligent folks like you and Mavdog are trying to seriously debate it, to be honest.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I'm disappointed that educated and intelligent folks like you and Mavdog are trying to seriously debate it, to be honest.

And I'm disappointed that an intelligent guy like you thinks the media is out to bring you down. Gimme a break. First of all, the media can't exist if there are not stories. You know that. They follow stories. They followed the Palin choice like so many hungry dogs at a trough of raw beef. That's probably why McCain did it, after all!

Obama is himself a story, to be sure. Why does this seem unusual to you?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

And I'm disappointed that an intelligent guy like you thinks the media is out to bring you down.

Not out to bring me down -- out to get their man elected.

Gimme a break. First of all, the media can't exist if there are not stories. You know that. They follow stories. They followed the Palin choice like so many hungry dogs at a trough of raw beef. That's probably why McCain did it, after all!

Obama is himself a story, to be sure. Why does this seem unusual to you?

Your assumption, though, is that they are unwilling to invent or mold the story to fit their narrative. That's where you are wrong, my friend.

[chumdawg]

See, that's the rub. You think they have a narrative. I think they are only out for themselves. That's why the whole Jeremiah Wright thing crossed your radar in the first place.

Because otherwise you wouldn't have known, would you have?

I think it is safe to say that the media ferrets out the truth about all candidates. That is their job, after all.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

See, that's the rub. You think they have a narrative. I think they are only out for themselves. That's why the whole Jeremiah Wright thing crossed your radar in the first place.

Because otherwise you wouldn't have known, would you have?

I think it is safe to say that the media ferrets out the truth about all candidates. That is their job, after all.

What I learned about Jeremiah Wright came from reading up on him (and the church) on the Internet.

If John McCain attended a church that held such radical views, do you think that he would get away with saying, "I didn't realize they felt that way..."? Really?

The only interviewer that I have seen seriously question Obama about his affiliation with Trinity and Wright was Bill O'Reilly, and even he let him off the hook without answering the questions.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

What I learned about Jeremiah Wright came from reading up on him (and the church) on the Internet.

If John McCain attended a church that held such radical views, do you think that he would get away with saying, "I didn't realize they felt that way..."? Really?

The only interviewer that I have seen seriously question Obama about his affiliation with Trinity and Wright was Bill O'Reilly, and even he let him off the hook without answering the questions.

If O'Reilly let him off the hook, it's because he knows what every reasonable person knows, which is that Obama joined the church for the political standing it gave him. You go where the important people are. That may seem Machiavellian to you, but it is what it is. Politicians of all sorts have to rub elbows on their way up.

That's the way the world works, for better or worse.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

See, that's the rub. You think they have a narrative. I think they are only out for themselves. .

yeah. they are


http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...01702713742569
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Obama is himself a story, to be sure. Why does this seem unusual to you?

And John McCain isn't a story too? That's the issue in my mind. The coverage of the "Obama Story" far outweights the coverage of the "McCain story". I learned more of McCain's past (Vietnam) from listening to his convention speech than I ever learned from reading media reports.

And as I have said before, I don't particularly like McCain. I simply dis-like Obama more than I dis-like McCain. I said before that I was voting for McCain as a vote against Obama. Now I'm voting for Palin.

[chumdawg]

What is your point exactly? That the Republicans are so horse-feathers-all stupid as to not throw some bones?

How did it happen that they gave no money to FoxNews yet own it as a propaganda mouthpiece?

What are you saying, that FoxNews is the cheapest of cheap whores?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What is your point exactly? That the Republicans are so -all stupid as to not throw some bones?

How did it happen that they gave no money to FoxNews yet own it as a propaganda mouthpiece?

What are you saying, that FoxNews is the cheapest of cheap whores?

Is your point now that democrat media members look out for themselves, but republican media don't?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

And John McCain isn't a story too? That's the issue in my mind. The coverage of the "Obama Story" far outweights the coverage of the "McCain story". I learned more of McCain's past (Vietnam) from listening to his convention speech than I ever learned from reading media reports.

And as I have said before, I don't particularly like McCain. I simply dis-like Obama more than I dis-like McCain. I said before that I was voting for McCain as a vote against Obama. Now I'm voting for Palin.

Of course McCain is a story. But in bad news for him, he was a meaningful story eight years ago. His story has been covered, it's been done. He's not a fresh face in American politics.

Still and all, if you watch CNN like I do, you get full reports on the candidates--including the VP candidates--and you can make up your mind accordingly. Trust me, Mac's story is being told.

If other Republicans are voting against Obama as you are, then this race is already over. And if they are voting for Palin, it's even more over.

You can't win by voting against the other guy. And you certainly can't win by voting the lower half of the ticket over the top half.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Is your point now that democrat media members look out for themselves, but republican media don't?

No, my point is that you can't control what the media do. They will skewer you all to hell if you deserve it, and they will most certainly chase the most newsworthy story.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

No, my point is that you can't control what the media do. They will skewer you all to hell if you deserve it, and they will most certainly chase the most newsworthy story.

well, since the media are the ones who decide who "deserves it" and they decide which stories are newsworthy (and why, and what spin to put on them), and since most media who are willing to lay down money for their party (this is often breaking the rules) are democrat, why do find it so hard to believe that more would act pro-Obama than pro-McCain?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Of course McCain is a story. But in bad news for him, he was a meaningful story eight years ago. His story has been covered, it's been done. He's not a fresh face in American politics.

Still and all, if you watch CNN like I do, you get full reports on the candidates--including the VP candidates--and you can make up your mind accordingly. Trust me, Mac's story is being told.

If other Republicans are voting against Obama as you are, then this race is already over. And if they are voting for Palin, it's even more over.

You can't win by voting against the other guy. And you certainly can't win by voting the lower half of the ticket over the top half.

A vote for "the lower half of the ticket" is still a vote for the ticket. Who cares if someone votes for the ticket based on the top half or the lower half? A vote is a vote.

And I have said all along that it's Obama's race to lose. I haven't changed my mind. Obama will most likely win. If he doesn't, it will be his own fault.

[Flacolaco]

why do find it so hard to believe that more would act pro-Obama than pro-McCain?

He doesn't find it hard to believe. Even the most intelligent liberal wack jobs in the country know that the majority of (print media, internet media, bloggers, network news, cable news, etc...) are MOSTLY liberal, and that talk radio is mostly conservative. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which group is most likely (100% likely, actually) to shape a greater percentage of public opinion.

It's funny that liberals shy away from it actually. Shouldn't you celebrate it? The media covers liberal candidates like ESPN covers the Yankees. It pisses most people off, and yet it continues unabated, and no one in their right mind would contest that fact it's going on.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

well, since the media are the ones who decide who "deserves it" and they decide which stories are newsworthy (and why, and what spin to put on them), and since most media who are willing to lay down money for their party (this is often breaking the rules) are democrat, why do find it so hard to believe that more would act pro-Obama than pro-McCain?

No, bro. You are the one who decides who deserves it. You can watch all the media and all the ads, and in the end you decide how to make up your own mind.

And in those moments when you second-guess yourself, you can always listen to Rush and put on FoxNews.

But in the end, YOU are the only thing responsible for your own vote.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

A vote for "the lower half of the ticket" is still a vote for the ticket. Who cares if someone votes for the ticket based on the top half or the lower half? A vote is a vote.

Who cares? The people who think that Palin is a cracker-jack politician, that's who cares. The people who think that folks are voting for Palin rather than McCain, that's who care. The people who take the election seriously, that's who cares.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

No, bro. You are the one who decides who deserves it. You can watch all the media and all the ads, and in the end you decide how to make up your own mind.

And in those moments when you second-guess yourself, you can always listen to Rush and put on FoxNews.

But in the end, YOU are the only thing responsible for your own vote.

right. and the writers of Heroes don't choose the story lines - the viewers do. With their eyeballs. And the Mavs didn't loose the finals. The fans did - with their purchases.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Who cares? The people who think that Palin is a cracker-jack politician, that's who cares. The people who think that folks are voting for Palin rather than McCain, that's who care. The people who take the election seriously, that's who cares.

you are choosing the president of the United States based on his personality, pretending his legislative record won't be how he governs in the future. How is that serious?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

right. and the writers of Heroes don't choose the story lines - the viewers do. With their eyeballs. And the Mavs didn't loose the finals. The fans did - with their purchases.

The Mavs didn't "loose" the Finals? What the hell are you talking about?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The Mavs didn't "loose" the Finals? What the hell are you talking about?

and there you go. If you can't really defend the media, why not just say so?

[chumdawg]

Defend it against what? Folks comparing it to Heroes and the Mavs loosing the Finals? You could say it doesn't need no defending, against that kind of attack.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

and no one in their right mind would contest that fact it's going on.

Unless they just liked to argue for the sake of arguing.

In other news, the sky isn't REALLY blue -- that's just what your eyes are telling you.

[Usually Lurkin]

How nice would it be if the NYT suspended their campaigning to focus on actual business for a while?

oday the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with...Paul Begala.

Again, let us be clear: The New York Times -- in the absence of any supporting evidence -- has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain's long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006.

To the central point our campaign has made in the last 48 hours: The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide.

Therefore this "report" from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper.

We all understand that partisan attacks are part of the political process in this country. The debate that stems from these grand and sometimes unruly conversations is what makes this country so exceptional. Indeed, our nation has a long and proud tradition of news organizations that are ideological and partisan in nature, the Huffington Post and the New York Times being two such publications. We celebrate their contribution to the political fabric of America. But while the Huffington Post is utterly transparent, the New York Times obscures its true intentions -- to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama -- under the cloak of objective journalism.

The New York Times is trying to fill an ideological niche. It is a business decision, and one made under economic duress, as the New York Times is a failing business. But the paper's reporting on Senator McCain, his campaign, and his staff should be clearly understood by the American people for what it is: a partisan assault aimed at promoting that paper’s preferred candidate, Barack Obama.

http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainrepo...6-53c0c2d88376

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Who cares? The people who think that Palin is a cracker-jack politician, that's who cares. The people who think that folks are voting for Palin rather than McCain, that's who care. The people who take the election seriously, that's who cares.

Exactly. The only people who care if conservatives prefer Palin over McCain are those people who are voting for Obama... or as you put it, "The people who take the election seriously, that's who cares." Sounds to me like you're saying people who vote for McCain/Palin aren't taking the election seriously. Also sounds to me like you're worried McCain/Palin might actually win.

[Flacolaco]

Here's the media continuing their non ()-campaign for Obama....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

[92bDad]

The Media is nothing but a fancy message board.

The fact are that these people are all like the rest of us who post messages.

Since they are in fact people, the majority of them will gravitate to present stories that they themselves support. It's human nature, and with that, we find that an overwhelming majority of the people within the media are liberal-democrats.

To change this would require that people write against their beliefs or that conservatives recruit and build up young conservative journalist.

Think about it...can you imagine if on this board, I and other McCain/Palin supporters where to suddenly write glowing messages about Obama/Biden...and those of you who support Obama/Biden where to suddenly write glowing stories about McCain/Palin.

Would these stories have near as much energy and zest in them. Would they carry 'everything' or would some of the better points be left out either on purpose or not.

To argue that there is not a Leftist Media bias and that their is journalistic integrity is simply to be naive.

We are at the greatest divide that this nation has had since the civil war and again there is a major Ideological divide. Saddly, we watch as the media, mainstream or trash is leaning heavily to the left, simply because that is what they believe.

When anyone actually covers the news in a fair and balanced way, we hear the left cry foul and that such a station is right-wing consipiracy bias.

The left has completely lost its ability to discern between its views and the truth within a story.

Again, the Media has simply become a fance message board.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Here's the media continuing their non ()-campaign for Obama....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

You can tell who is ahead in the polls by which dm poster last posted in this thread: http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showthread.php?t=33297

Likewise, you can tell which candidate a writer is actively pulling for by which polls they cite.