Media's Presidential Bias and Decline (swipe)

[sirwoodz]

- it's gotten to the point where anything said that isn't praising Obama (WHOM I VOTED FOR) is seen as "anti-Obama", so this article will be seen as such by tons who read it.

but this is really the most truthful article I've read about the media in quite some time. and after u read this, you feel compelled to google up the authors name - don't. just acknowledge the truth in this article and let it go.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6099188

 

[Crank_It_Up]

...but this is really the most truthful article I've read about the media in quite some time...

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6099188

hmm... the author complains about CNN and what he labels "traditional media" for being slanted for Obama. But he never says anything about fox news, or every AM radio talk show host being slanted for McCain. Truthful? Hardly.

Furthermore, if fox news and the AM talk show hosts promoted McCain for his policies, that would be one thing, but nothing could be farther from the truth. They continually attack Obama with everything from meaningless trivialities, guilt by association, to half truths and complete untruths. So much so that it sickens me to listen for very long, and according to the polls, I'm not the only one.

 

[QueEx]

- it's gotten to the point where anything said that isn't praising Obama (WHOM I VOTED FOR) is seen as "anti-Obama", so this article will be seen as such by tons who read it.

but this is really the most truthful article I've read about the media in quite some time. and after u read this, you feel compelled to google up the authors name - don't. just acknowledge the truth in this article and let it go.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6099188

Okay, I read it; now what exactly about the article leads you to conclude that it is "the most truthful article [you've] read about the media inquite some time."

???

QueEx


`

 

[Zero]

Maybe the media has been "biased" because McCain has run a horribly disorganized campaign that was extremely hostile towards the media for no good reason (considering the media loved him until he shit all over them).

Maybe Palin has gotten bad press because she is dumb as a box of rocks and woefully incompetent to do the job she strives to get.

Maybe Obama has gotten positive press because he is a master of controlling his own image, has run a damn near flawless campaign and has played fairly clean and still managed to pull ahead in one of the dirtiest races ever. Or maybe the fact that he is making WORLD history in the process has something to do with it.

after u read this, you feel compelled to google up the authors name - don't. just acknowledge the truth in this article and let it go.

If this comment didn't kill the authors legitimacy, it damn sure killed yours. So if this article was written by David Duke, I should just ignore the author's background and accept it's "truth"?

Bruh, your credibility and name is all you really have in the real world, I hope you learn that before you do your real life like you have done your online one.

 

[AristotlesOwn]

I never understand threads like these. During the primaries and at the beginning of the general election, media outlets were ripping Obama apart in many cases (see George Stephanopolous). Now that the media is more pro-Obama shit like this comes out. We know that Obama isn't the be all and end all.

And you can't write a piece like this without also damning Fox News' continued smear tactics. It destroys your credibility.

I'll give him credit for the condemnation of the allowance of opinion pieces becoming NEWS. As much as I like Olberman, his rhetoric can be way over the top sometimes. The same with O'Reilly.

 

[sirwoodz]

Okay, I read it; now what exactly about the article leads you to conclude that it is "the most truthful article [you've] read about the media inquite some time."

- because you have a well respected veteran journalist, giving truthful insight on his own profession.

and anybody arguing that Obama hasn't had a little help from the media is flat out lying...we've all casted our votes for him, but let's not ignore reality.

hell, 3rd party candidates have gotten extremely little to no coverage whatsoever...we've never seen anything like this before, I know this election is important but give the people their choices.

 

[sirwoodz]

If this comment didn't kill the authors legitimacy, it damn sure killed yours. So if this article was written by David Duke, I should just ignore the author's background and accept it's "truth"?

Bruh, your credibility and name is all you really have in the real world, I hope you learn that before you do your real life like you have done your online one.

- you could die 2morrow in a fiery crash and do you really think I would care? shed a tear? so why would I care what you think about me or my credibility?

the article was written by a veteran journalist simply making an observation. and because it has a sentence in there that questions the coverage of Obama, I know most of you cats will run straight to google to try and look up dirt on the author, completely ignoring the point.

I found the article to be pretty straight down the middle...and his comments about Obama in this article aren't even Anti-Obama....

 

[sirwoodz]

a journalist responded to this article over at politico...

"Why Mccain is getting hosed in the Press"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html

And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.

So what?



I know we are all excited to see Obama get in the white house, but I'm not excited to see journalistic integrity fly out of the window - and say what you will about FOX NEWS, that is just ONE media outlet and is exclusive to TV there are no FOX owned newspapers-...the ends don't always justify the means...this is just my opinion though, and you all are welcome to yours as well...

 

[Crank_It_Up]

...I know we are all excited to see Obama get in the white house, but I'm not excited to see journalistic integrity fly out of the window - and say what you will about FOX NEWS, that is just ONE media outlet and is exclusive to TV there are no FOX owned newspapers-...the ends don't always justify the means...this is just my opinion though, and you all are welcome to yours as well...

somewhere I read/heard that fox news has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined... then add to that all the AM talk radio shows, and I'd have to say McCain has gotten the benefit of the media. Obama's just kickin his ass in spite of the media.

 

[QueEx]

Okay, I read it; now what exactly about the article leads you to conclude that it is "the most truthful article [you've] read about the media inquite some time."

???

QueEx

- because you have a well respected veteran journalist, giving truthful insight on his own profession.

and anybody arguing that Obama hasn't had a little help from the media is flat out lying...we've all casted our votes for him, but let's not ignore reality.

hell, 3rd party candidates have gotten extremely little to no coverage whatsoever...we've never seen anything like this before, I know this election is important but give the people their choices.

I think even you can see that your response is completely unresponsive. Instead of pointing out what in the article convinced you, you appear to be trying to make the point that you think the author tried (and perhaps failed) to do. Only thing, you just "opined" without citing examples, etc., to back up what you said.

But since you noted that the author is "a well respected veteran journalist, giving insight . . .", please explain why he spent the first 18 paragraphs of his report talking about himself (instead of media bias) ??? Honestly, I got the feeling he did that to try to convince me of his opinion but, something that the paragraphs that followed would not make a strong a case for.

QueEx


`

 

[sirwoodz]

^^^ I'm not here to sell you on the article or convince you of anything, you read it and that is what you got from it.

 

[QueEx]

Hey, you're the one who "vouched" for the article; and still you haven't pointed out what in the article that has turned you out.

QueEx