Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » How Obama got elected. (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: How Obama got elected.
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pinochio:
wtf are you talking about? There is documentation that Obama favors everything I just said. Oh yeah, thats right, on your parallel universe he didn't endorse these policies.

Obama said that Coal companies that did not implement clean-coal technology would go bankrupt. Not the entire industry, just those that refused to operate responsibly.

Obama has explicilty come out as being personally opposed to abortion, but understanding the necessity of keeping it legal and fighting it, more effectively, by preventing unplanned pregnancies. On particular procedures, since I'm not completely sure what you're referring to- he voted against a "live birth" law, because the legal protections that it tried to confer were already on the books; on "partial birth" abortions he voted against restriction on them, because, due to the risks involved, they are overwhelmingly only used in cases of dire medical need, and in fact, were developed as a way to give parents closure- to allow them to have a chance to hold their child at least once, after being forced to terminate the pregnancy.

Obama did get taken for a ride by Paulson, along with the rest of our government, we'll see if the same mistake gets made again, but I expect that all future legislation will have better safeguards on it. In spite of that we don't have a what-if machine to say that what Paulson is doing wasn't what was necessary to prevent a complete failure of the credit market; we'll almost certainly a decent return on the investments he made, and the fact that it maintained the market conditions that forced the automakers into probable bankruptcy restructuring may yet be a good side effect.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:

They were biased.

This isn't a case of liberal or conservative based independent investigation and errors of methodology.

This is a case where the papers admit they were biased by their own masthead standards.

But why were they biased? Was it because they supported Obama or was it because they responded to popular opinion?

Here's a pretty thorough analysis that strongly indicates that coverage was in response to the changing polls, not because of it.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13307

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If anyone seriously believes that media bias had an influence on the election, and on the public's views of reality in general....what exactly should be done about it?

I hear complaints but no solutions. It's rather pointless having this conversation unless someone is suggesting a means to improve the situation.

And so...?

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well obviously the only answer if for Obama to make sure the media is "balanced". And that is just what he is already in the process of doing.

quote:
"Charles Benton is Chairman of the Benton Foundation, with offices in Obama’s Chicago as well as in Obama’s Washington. Benton proclaims at his Foundation’s web site, “[O]ur number one national communications policy priority must be the eradication of racial and gender discrimination in media and telecommunications. Our shared goal: seeing the day when all Americans possess the tools to compete in commerce, to contribute to and enjoy the fruits of democracy, to receive unbiased and uncensored news and information, to create our culture. “ [emphasis added]

The Federal Communications Commission has a vague rule called “localism,” which requires stations to serve the interests of their local communities in order to hold onto their broadcast licenses. Obama, who gets to replace FCC Chairman Kevin Martin right away, needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism his way.

Jim Boulet, Jr., the head of English First in Washington, D.C., one of whose projects is www.keeprushontheair.com, has been studying and warning for months about the morphing of FCC localism. Boulet notes to Human Events the following:

• On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing at the Chicago headquarters of Rev. Jess Jackson Sr.’s Operation Push. One month later, an insistent Obama sent a public letter to Chairman Martin stating, “The Commission has failed to further the goals of diversity in the media and promote localism.”

• The head of Obama’s transition team is John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. In 2007, the Center issued a report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, which concluded there were too many conservatives on the radio because of “the absence of localism in American radio markets” and urged the FCC to “[e]nsure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

• Podesta’s choice as head of the FCC transition team is Henry Rivera, a Director and General Counsel of the above-noted Benton Foundation and chairman of the Minority Media Telecommunications Council, which has stated: “Broadcasters must reach beyond the business sector and look for leaders [think community organizers] in the civic, religious, and non-profit sectors that regularly serve the needs of the community, particularly the needs of minority groups that are typically poorly served by the broadcasting industry as a whole.”

• Bowing to this pressure even while Bush is still President, the FCC proposed on January 24, 2008, the creation of permanent station advisory boards comprised of local officials and other community leaders, to periodically advise them of local needs and issues to ensure content diversity on the air.

• Any station that fails to placate these “local community leaders” would then be subject to license revocation by the FCC with an accelerated license review every two years as opposed to the current eight years. This would allow each station license in America to be attacked twice during just one Obama term.

Question: What organization first used “localism” at the FCC in this fashion? Answer: The United Church of Christ, Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s highly-politicized denomination. UCC has an entity called the Office of Communication, Inc., which successfully took a broadcast license away from a Southern station it felt was not covering the civil rights movement fairly. This is just one reason John McCain should have realized Rev. Wright was fair game in the campaign.

This, then, is the historical template that Obama, Podesta, and their FCC maven Rivera intend to use to do something about the curse of conservative talk radio in America: Redefine FCC “localism” to give community activists the right to demand more local, liberal content. If station ownership does not comply, then licenses will be revoked and given to minority owners.

One of the more clever aspects of this “localism” plan is that, should a station lose its license to a liberal owner whose content will reflect his/her views, then there will be no Fairness Doctrine around to require equal time from aggrieved conservative listeners.

Christian radio stations will be saddled with local Muslim “advisory boards” demanding equal time and getting it. The Brave New World awaits."(http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=29566)

[Eek!]

Liberal Washington already has already set a precidence in 2005 when the Judge Wickham punished local radio talk show hosts with fees for having "advertised" against I-912 (a raise in our gas taxes to pay for construction).

"Is this a prelude to a insistance by opponents for equal time, or a matched "contribution" from station owner Fisher Broadcasting?

Does Judge Wickham also believe newspaper editorials endorsing candidates or measures also constitute "in-kind" contributions to campaigns? What's the monetary value of a Seattle Times opinion piece?" (http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2005/07/judicial-ruling-could-silence-talk.html)

Obama and the rest of the liberals wants to rid the country of the only verbal media conservatives have. Liberals have tried the free enterprise route to make it on the radio and failed because no one wants to listen to them. Now they will force their way onto that stage through FCC rules and regulations.

Makes you wonder what they're afraid of.

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pinochio,

Rarely do I get angry on this site, but I am angry at your rudeness and condescension.

quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:

If you have read the books and identified compelling empirical evidence, please present it.

Greg, and I'll attempt this ONE MORE TIME, but am done playing this game. The last 4 books Goldberg wrote are nothing but empirical evidence demonstrating bias in the media --- Its thousands of pages of evidence. I'm not going to re-type thousands of pages.

If you want to learn more on this topic you are going to have to expand your information base and actually go out and read some books on this topic.

If you choose not learn what people who study this subject conclude, and if you choose not to read their evidence and experiences, than you can continue to believe that there is no liberal bias in the media. I'm not going to argue with you.

Thanks for the Amazon link, but I don't think I'll contribute royalties to a guy whose judgment can be summed up by his conclusion that Barbra Streisand was one of 100 people screwing up America in the past decade, but Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush were not. Do you stand behind that conclusion of Bernard Goldberg, and if so, how could a scholar you hold in such esteem come up with such a conclusion?

I also enjoyed your endorsement of Goldberg, that he had written four books filled with thousands of pages of "evidence". It's good to know that your standard for truth is that if books are long then they are true - do you believe that everyone who has written four books with thousands of pages is by definition correct in whatever they assert?

Perhaps we don't share the same definition of the term "empirical evidence". Plural anecdotes are not the same as data. There is the possibility of unintentional bias, flawed methodologies for data collection, and there is also intentional deception. There is also bias based not on political preferences, but what the media think will attract readers, what they are able to tell simple stories about, which politicians they have a personal relationship with, etc. If you had real empirical data of political bias favoring Obama, you could summarize it in a paragraph. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but your response is just rude enough for me to forgo that for the moment.

I have no reason not to believe that Goldberg is a partisan hack who makes money by lying to people and trying getting them to hate other Americans, just like the fine journalists who aired stories about the "terrorist fist bump" and the rest of the sewage that we have had to deal with.

There are reasoned, logical conservatives who argue on this site - so far I have yet to see any of that from you. As you flail around and impute that liberals who don't agree with you are ignorant, I am just going to treat that as surrender from someone who cannot back up what he or she asserts.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pinochio
Member
Member # 6367

 - posted      Profile for Pinochio         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

I'm equally offended by your rudeness and condescension.,,, well not really, I'm not as thin-skinned as you appear to be and obviously don't take myself as seriously as you do. I'm sorry that my opinions contradict your world view. I apologizes that I dont hide my feelings or sugar coat my responses,, well, not really again. actually, the only thing that offends me is people who complain about 'rudeness and condescension' without providing a specific example of what I have done which is so different than they way others have acted towards me. I may even report you to a moderator for insulting me like this in public without reason (not really, only a very insecure person would be so ridiculous [Smile] )

I dont expect you to read Goldbergs books or to visit NewsBusters achives or to actually investigate any sources that are contrary to your very close-minded world-view. Its clear that you have no desire to learn anything that may challenge your perception of reality.

What you should do if you want to learn more about this topic is get together with a group of liberal elitist friends and maybe even some journalist from a major metro paper and discuss this issue among yourselves. Be sure not to allow any 'rude' or 'condescending' conservatives into the conversation and make sure you dont read any books or research from anyone who has a different point of view -- this would only detract from the integrity of your debate... I'm sure you and your group will come up with some stunning conclusions....

[ November 24, 2008, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Pinochio ]

Posts: 111 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pinochio
Member
Member # 6367

 - posted      Profile for Pinochio         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I have no reason not to believe that Goldberg is a partisan hack

Of course you dont have any reason to be informed about Goldberg because you admittedly refuse to even look at the books he has written. If you were actually open minded you would learn that Goldberg is a DOCUMENTED life-long democrat who was part of the main-stream media for his entire life. Your post could not be a more perfect example of intellectual dishonesty. It like my 7 year hold who holds his ears and closes his eyes when i tell him he has to do his nightly reading lessons.
Posts: 111 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bernard Goldberg in the WSJ
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That was 522 posts, and the first time someone really pissed me off here (congratulations). Heck, I have even had an extended dialog with Ron Lambert. I have many friends who are both liberal and conservative, and one of the things that attracted me to this site was the opportunity to engage in debate with people who hold different opinions than I do. I feel that I have tried to ask you questions for which I would really like to hear the answers, and in response I have not gotten answers to my questions but instead assertions about me.

Upon consideration, I have to conclude that you were right about one thing. It does not make sense for you and I to engage in discussion any further. So I invite you to respond at the same level of conversation as your previous writing, and you are welcome to enjoy having the last word.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TommySama,

I find it credible that mainstream reporters don't care much for the Flat Tax, as described in the article. It could be politics, it could be that it is different, it could be that some of the advocates of a Flat Tax are considered outside the mainstream (by the way, if you google Greg Davidson and "Flattening the progressive tax" you will probably get a hit on a pro-flat tax article I wrote in 1982 with my boss at the time, James K. Galbraith).

I expect that the mainstream media holds many views that are not impartial, nor representative of America as a whole. For example, what does every political commentator on television have in common? They all have 6-figure incomes (some 7-figure incomes). Even though tens of millions of Americans have not had health insurance for the 20 years, none of the paid political pundits have been in that situation. If the same proportion of pundits had no health insurance as other Americans, I think we would have had a different kind of coverage of this issue.

Does that make the media biased in favor of the conservatives? I don't think it's that simple, just as I don't believe the assertions of media liberalism are all that simple. Sometimes the media obsesses over the deficit (early 1990's), sometimes they ignore the issue for half a decade (early 2000's). They're not fully competent, but they're not totally incompetent as well.

There is a flaw in the notion that if a person at a news outlet says that they are biased, then it proves that they are biased. What happens if one person at a news outlet says "we're biased in favor of the liberals" and another person says "corporate control of this news outlet biases us to be conservative", then which one is true? I've seen books and articles that cull out quotes that cite multiple confessions from both sides. The reality is that news outlets are not monolithic - they are filled with people every bit as argumentative as here at Ornery.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cb,

"Serving the community" has been an essential FCC mandate when it comes to licensing broadcasters since the dawn of the broadcast era. Only in the past two decades has it been all but erased from memory. I haven't heard of Obama's moves before, but they sound like a part-way restoration. You should welcome it - it means that different regions will have direct access to the media to address their needs. As opposed to them big corporate libruls. This is bad?

You need to remember that broadcast networks, even commercial ones, are functional in the first place thanks to govt support and regulation. Always been that way. Always.

A "localist" movement could actually help the conservative movement by allowing a wider variety of homespun and independent voices. Why should humanoid conglemerates like Rush hog all the franchises? Broadcast radio used to be local everywhere - you could drive across the country and hear untold riches, an unbelievable variety of music and culture. Can you do that now? Need I ask?

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and this is hilarious

quote:
One of the more clever aspects of this “localism” plan is that, should a station lose its license to a liberal owner whose content will reflect his/her views, then there will be no Fairness Doctrine around to require equal time from aggrieved conservative listeners.

Anytime I mention the Fairness Doctrine, every conservative here gets their little red white and blue panties in a collective wad as if it's some librul conspiracy. Jeez, there's no pleasing some people!

[ November 25, 2008, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: KidB ]

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Liberals have tried the free enterprise route to make it on the radio and failed because no one wants to listen to them.
And yet oddly enough, everyone wants to see their movies, watch their television, buy their newspapers and magazines...perhaps its dangerous to listen to them while driving. That's the hitch.

(Incidentally, if you think Rush got spread all over the airwaves like warm mucus from a firehose because of "free enterprise," you got a little researching to do. Most local stations are owned by huge conglomerates, thanks to govt. rules changed under Reagan and, ironically, Clinton, which essentially handed public infrastructure over to the billionaires. The little guy never had a shot at competition).

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been around here too many years. I find myself reading threads and comments and constantly thinking, "not that old canard again!"

Or else I'm literally laughing out loud at phrases like "most liberal senator", "media bias", "Bush drinks the blood of waterboarded lambs"...

well, anyway.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Or else I'm literally laughing out loud at phrases like "most liberal senator", "media bias", "Bush drinks the blood of waterboarded lambs"..."


Yeah but us liberals drink the blood of water a-borted fetus's so we're even.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, even gross-er!

I am a little perplexed that a lot of people here still think in terms of "my team". After all this time you'd think that one would recognize the futility of it.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Finvarra
Member
Member # 2786

 - posted      Profile for Finvarra   Email Finvarra       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're only saying that because your team is losing.

(Which team are you on, again?)

Posts: 179 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He's a whiskey drinking Canadian. They don't believe in anything except imprisoning those who dare kill the Mighty Geese!
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
VL

I suggest you read the books then for yourself. You have been told where the source of facts that the opinion was based upon. It is not required of anyone to regurgitate a line by line content of these books for them to be accepted as valid. In this thread so far we have three media outlets outright admitting publicly that they were biased- greatly- during this election cycle. This is then followed by a member stating that his understanding of this is factually demonstrated in books he read, providing you with the author and the links to the works done by that author.

You don't get to piously avoid reality by stating that we can't take another poster's argument as legitimate until all facts from a copyrighted book are presented in sufficient quantity to pass your threshold of response.

This is increasingly becoming a problem on Ornery. If one of us makes a statement that goes against the current middle/left leaning of the active posters, then it is becomming increasingly common to require substantial proof before the argument can even be taken up for debate.

You have the leading ewspapers that represent a weekly combined circulation of 4 million. These three organizations have stated publicly that they were biased. Another member of Ornery offers up a source of published research that confirms bias and describes what bias is doing in the current media and how it is effecting our governance and election cycles.

And you dismiss the study because you have no suitible access to it?

Very close minded and not conducive to discussion.

cb

In the case of my two home papers, Athens Banner Herald and Flagpole both support all the items on the list. And as for the nearest major circulating paper, the Atlanta Journal & Constitution they support all items on that list as well. In terms of editorial boards there is three examples of which Pyrtolin asked.

It doesn't take much work to see if your own newspapers did the same.

No Red. I don't even care about this argument. Pinochio said that if people don't like what he has to say they shouldn't read it. I am just saying that the "just change the channel" argument is a cop-out on a board where the whole point is to discuss. I never dismissed his opinion. If anything I dismissed his dismissal of his opinion.

[ November 25, 2008, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, as you all know, I can't possibly keep up with Pinochio when he's just so totally super-knowledgeable about finance and politics, so I just worship him from afar, now.

[ November 26, 2008, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps this has already been said in this thread, but didn't Obama get elected mainly because he promised 95% of the people a bigger tax cut than McCain did? How many of those people do you suppose thought for more than a second about whether Obama's economic policies would hurt the economy (and themselves) more overall?
Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama got elected for the following reasons:
Offers of hope, and a better life outperform plays to fear. See Reagan.
Things are going badly. When thats the case, the party of the president changes. See November 2000.
McCain couldn't find his ass with both hands for the last 12 months, Obama stayed cool and collected. See 2004.
Obama had a better ground game then McCain by a lot. See Reagan, Clinton, Bush.

Policy? Policy doesn't have much to do with who wins the election.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The extreme, almost universal liberal bias of the American news media, is going to be hard to correct. The problem began in J-school (journalism school), where too many of the professors are somewhere to the left of Karl Marx, and the students are in the most impressionable, brain-washable period of their young adult lives, where they latch onto their professors as mentors. The real reform must come on the collegiate level. But as long as college administrations are going to hire openly avowed Marxists and former terrorists like William Ayers, reform will be hard to implement, without draconian laws that require honesty and genuine impartiality under threat of severe punishment.

In actuality, I don't think real reform will come by this means. So the American public will have to become even more cynical about their news sources, and turn their backs on the more blatantly biased so they go bankrupt, and continue to reward the few organizations like Fox News that at least try to present balanced viewpoints (which is why Fox has long had the highest ratings in the country). More and more people are realizing that it is the most trustworthy (in an admittedly untrustworthy profession).

[ November 26, 2008, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I definitely have to agree with that.

The best way to encourage them to reform is to ignore them. Don't watch them. Don't buy the paper. Starve them out. They need some tough love. Live in reality instead of the little reality bubbles they project.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The best way to encourage them to reform is to ignore them.
God, please. I'll give you each a dollar to never mention them again.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everard

That is something I agree with you on. The only disagreement I have is the press coverage bias could plausibly result in the swing we saw at the polls. I think it did have an effect. There is however no means I know of to confirm it. But I think that since we have a case where even the press < i mean Dan Rather is saying it was biased this time around> is saying they didn't do things right, maybe there is a case to be made that the press is still powerful enough to sway public voting.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Press coverage followed polls, Greg, it didn't lead.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I saw what was to me a compelling counter-argument to the assertion of pro-Obama bias.

quote:
In the campaign trail this cycle, McCain frequently forgets key elements of policies, gets countries' names wrong, forgets things he's said only hours or days before and is frequently just confused. Any single example is inevitable for someone talking so constantly day in and day out. But the profusion of examples shows a pattern. Some of this is probably a matter of general unseriousness or lack of interest in policy areas like the economy that he doesn't care much about. But for any other politician who didn't have the benefit of years of friendship or acquaintance with many of the reporters covering him, this would be a major topic of debate in the campaign. It's whispered about among reporters. And it's evidenced in his campaign's increasing effort to keep him away from the freewheeling conversations with reporters that defined his 2000 candidacy. But it's verboten as a topic of public discussion.

The other point that again goes almost totally undiscussed is McCain's two reinventions of himself over the last decade. From a mainline conservative Republican to progressive reform candidate to Bush Republican. The reporters who have been covering him for the last decade know that there is virtually no public policy issue of note which McCain hasn't made a 180 degree change of position on in the last half dozen years. An ideological shift of that magnitude is far from unprecedented. And such turnabouts or transformations can be a product of searching insights into the changing terrain of American governance. But two such shifts in the course of a decade strongly suggest either instability or opportunism.

Consider the charges of being a flip-flopper that were repeatedly echoed in the media in 2004. McCain's changes in policy were at least as dramatic as those of Kerry (I would argue that they were much more significant), but he got off almost scot-free. If the media were biased to favor Obama, why didn't they simply hold McCain to the same standards that they held Kerry?

Do we all think that the next candidate who repeats all of these flaws of the McCain campaign will get a similar (low) level of scrutiny if they do the same things?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The idea that the press should be objective and serve as an unbiased comentator not an active participant in the democratic process is scarcely 60 years old and seems to be on the way back out.

The predominant press theory in US history has been the marketplace of ideas theory. Basically that people can sort through the various positions and arrive at the truth on their own.

The election of George Bush in spite of a somewhat hostile press in 2000 and an openly hostile press in 2004 would seem to support the idea that the US electorate is quite capable of making decisions on its own.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"somewhat hostile press in 2000"... as compared to the predominantly hostile press that Gore was subject to?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you believe that media confession = truth, there was a wave of stories about a year ago where members of the "liberal" media admitted that they were unfair to Gore in the 2008 election ("We've always known that Al Gore is a serial exaggerator. Say, remind me who invented the internet?" etc.).
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Quinnalus
Member
Member # 6374

 - posted      Profile for Quinnalus   Email Quinnalus       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I've still got a standing offer of $10 for the first conservative on this forum who can come up with a genuinely funny (and original) Obama joke. So far, no one's managed to win it.

On election day Mr. Obama went into the polls very early that morning and spent almost an hour reviewing his ballot. Mr. Biden entered the polls at about the same time, however, he was done in 5 minutes. Several of the Talking Heads actually commented on how long it took Mr. Obama to vote.

When my wife brought this up in conversation, I mentioned that the reasons were Obvious... Both candidates voted in the same manner that they had during their tenure in the Senate.

Mr. Biden obviously voted strait Democratic ticket and was done...

Mr. Obama, however, took more time because he was having trouble finding the box for "Present."

Posts: 177 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
That was 522 posts, and the first time someone really pissed me off here (congratulations).

Way to make a guy feel unappreciated. Thanks for nothing [Wink]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
that was funny Q.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom owes you $10.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
quote:
Liberals have tried the free enterprise route to make it on the radio and failed because no one wants to listen to them.
And yet oddly enough, everyone wants to see their movies, watch their television, buy their newspapers and magazines...
That's because most of the time they are not as obvious about their political orientation. It's why many of us are appalled when Hollywood opens its mouth at election time. I for one am relieved when they go back to making their silly action movies.

On the other hand, we've seen again and again that when someone breaks from the herd and makes a movie or TV show based on a conservative viewpoint, they get rewarded in spades. The lesson breaks through even Hollywood's narcissism. Money talks.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sometimes Gina. Sometimes. Ben Stein's "Expelled" and "American Carol" didn't exactly burn up the box office.

I believe that has more to do with the unattractiveness of putting out polemics, which is why so many of the anti war movies did crap. The fact "Stop Loss" did so poorly was of great personal satisfaction for example.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good job, Quinn. [Smile] Email me your address and I'll send you the money. *grin*
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One thing that's going to be funny as this goes on is watching the media try (unsuccessfully) to salvage their reputation by starting to finally ask of and about Obama the tough questions they didn't seem to have time to get around to before and during the election.

It's just beginning now. And boy is it amusing!
Both the squirming from the people they are asking and the surprise from others in the media, as well as the initial bewilderment and then the uncontained outrage from the administration, that anyone would dare!

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Quinnalus
Member
Member # 6374

 - posted      Profile for Quinnalus   Email Quinnalus       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you, Tom.

With apologies to Pinochio for degrading his thread…

Tom all that is necessary is an acknowledgement that not all conservatives are half-balding church elders with dark suits, red ties and hunter orange hats. In fact, some of us don’t even play golf. Some of us arrived at our ideas and beliefs only because of our sense of humor. Which we, in fact, do have… John McCain notwithstanding… on second thought I’m not sure the Senator McCain actually qualifies as conservative…
Ok… Dick Cheney notwithstanding.

(Come to think of it Mr. Cheney is who I was describing in the first line… oh the Irony)

Posts: 177 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1