To all Liberals who support Obama, you NEED to read this!?

Question

OK, for years we Conservatives have been saying that the media is biased and that it tries to spin the news toward it's own agenda. For years you guys have said that is not true (except FOX News, of course)

However, do you guys not see that the media is already forcing Hillary and Guiliani on us? Do you guys not notice that, not only are our candidates like Fred Thompson and Ron paul being pushed aside, but also your candidates like Obama and Edwards?

Do you guys now see what the media is doing, it is forcing "their" candidates on us? Or have you not noticed that the only candidates getting good publicity this election are Clinton and Guiliani?

The media needs to be stopped. It needs to know that we want NEWS, not commentary. Are you guys on our side now?

I know I messed up my grammar a few times, but try to forgive me.

No, I'm a Fred Thompson fan. However, I would still prefer Barack to Hillary.

Answer 1

It's up to us to unify as a nation of voters and start becoming informed on our own. I personally don't want to see us become a socialist nation, so lets wake up people check the candidates voting records, for both parties. I used to belong to the Democratic Party, then I started checking records, versus what politicians were saying they stood for, and I'm proud to say I helped get Tom Daschle out of office. He was lying to his constituents, and got caught. What he said was what I agreed with but that's not how he voted!!!
Stop reelecting criminals people. Lets let our politicians know we aren't going to take their crap anymore no matter what side of an issue you're on. Also check who is donating to their campaigns and how that matches with their records.
You also need to check bills they are voting on. It's become habit to throw things in that have nothing to do with the majority of a bill.
SCHIP is a fine example- Bush got slaughtered for not signing it but it was going to include "children" up to age 25 and income under $82,000. You can't tell me someone who makes that much can't provide health care for their own families. WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!! GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE SMALLER NOT LARGER, LET THE STATES AND LOCAL GOVERMENTS TAKE CONTROL.

Answer 2

Back up a second here. I know that there are some who love to blame the media for everything. But riddle me this Batman. If the media reports that Clinton and Giuliani are the runaway favorites in the polls, national as well as straw, how is that forcing "their" candidates on us? When they report what is happening out there in Iowa, or New Hampshire, or Florida, etc. how are they skewing the numbers? Should they ignore that those two are in front and just make something up? Maybe that would better, then we could just call them liars and be done with it. I agree that the media loves to tout the favorites, but the fact is that they ARE the favorites - it's not like they are making it up.

Why is it that those whose favorite candidates aren't getting the attention they think they deserve, because they can't catch those two, insist it's all a media conspiracy? The media covers the favorites - maybe too favorably at times lol -but it seems you would like them to ignore the obvious and do the lower tier candidate's campaigning for them.

It is easy to find news and not commentary. For the news you actually watch the NEWS, for commentary you watch political pundit shows. Should the News NOT report that Clinton and Giuliani are on top? Should they just throw the poll news of the day away and ignore it or should they report it as it stands? Does the act of simply reporting what the polls are reading constitute endorsement? Of course not. It's impossible not to notice that the ones who scream the loudest about the media prefer candidates that can't get off the ground. Yes, that MUST be the media's fault - it couldn't be that those candidates have flaws that prevent them from gaining major support.

Answer 3

That's a little too much like saying "the devil made me do it". Yes, the media has tremendous power, but we can't blame them for the rest of us being too complacent to look beyond the "major" media. Alternative media has been around a long time, and now we have The Internet, so there is plenty of coverage available for those who choose to use it.

Fox News and conservative talk radio became popular due to many people not liking the coverage on other media. I wish the next big upstart in the media would be consistent ethic websites like those listed below; but it is up to voters to make the effort to consider ideas. The major media are limited in how much they can cover and will decide on what to cover based on their own perceptions.

The major media are private businesses, and I would think a conservative would let them be, not worry about them, and compete with them as many in talk radio are doing. Competition should be the only way a conservative "stop" the media (as I understand conservatives that is; and I admit I don't understand them very well.).

http://www.consistent-life.org
http://www.democratsforlife.org
http://www.plagal.org

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nonlethalalternatives/
A group to encourage developing nonlethal weapons and nonlethal pregnancy termination technology.

Answer 4

And so thus has been the case for at least 30 years. Believe me, I can take you to school on the culpability of the media in giving us Dukakis, Dole, Bush 43, and Kerry - not to mention senatorial and gubernatorial races around the country over the years.

The issue is not media bias. Let me repeat that - the issue is not media bias.

The issue IS media laziness. I know that sounds too easy, but the media LIKE things to be easy. The media analyze everything as up-down, dark-light, easy-hard, left-right, blue-orange, rich-poor, good-bad, American-foreign... I hope you get the gist.

The media also love a horse race, and as we get closer to the caucuses and primaries - mark my words - we'll be treated to a surge from behind for a different Republican and a different Democrat. (My money's on Bill Richardson being the suddenly surging Dem; have to concede I'm not so sure for the Republicans.)

By the way, I'm for Edwards, Biden, or Dodd in the Dem race - no Hillary supporter at all. So, I hear ya.

But it's not the conspiracy you think it is.

The question, though, is this - which version (yours or mine) is better for America? Damned if I know anymore.

Answer 5

I saw it in 2004 just as bad. Howard Dean was way out front, and Wesley Clark had just declared his candidacy, and the second they got to Iowa, the Democratic Machine and the media had already made Jonh Kerry the nominee.

I have come to think that the media spins news to its own agenda. Where you might think its agenda is leftist, I see it as corporatist, but they're no good.

Turkey's massing troops on the Iraqi border while we occupy that country militarily is news; Britney's haircut isn't.

The bad news (so to speak) is that it is impossible to have objectivity in news. Somebody has to decide which clips get spliced together to form the three-minute report, and everybody has an opinion; from the driver to the cameraman to the editor. I went to film school, and as much as I tried to resist it, I had to finally admit that you can't make any film at all, however long or short, without some kind of agenda.

So we patronize those outlets that have relevance and balance, and try to educate our fellowmen.

I was on your side even when you thought we were on opposite sides....

Answer 6

I agree with you. I think it is because Rudy and Hillary are more marketable.

Obama is actually impressive. All criticism I've heard about Obama has all been crazy talk or speculative to say the least. He actually makes a lot of sense.

Although, the media is here to make money off of ratings. There aren't here to be fair, which is unfortunate.

Answer 7

wow, you didn't even once bash us liberals! i'm impressed. yes, news coverage of ALL the candidates is horrible! i'm a pretty strong liberal, and i'll even admit, you guys have candidates out there that are much better than Giuliani! Let me just say this about Romney: forget his religion! and think about this: the guy was gov. of MA (i'm a ma resident). now, your party called Kerry a "Flip-Flopper" due to his voting record. well, how do you think a republican got voted into office in one of the most liberal states?! he was as far left as a republican can be. so please, please, don't consider romney. the guy is a jerk.
as for the media...we will all take from it what we want. to get true unbiased media, you really need to go online and streamline a non-profit news orginization.

Answer 8

yeah my boys in the media are a bit biased. that's what i want to end when i become a broadcaster. the truth no matter what side of the isle it is good for. Obama dose need more air-time lets hope he gets it!!!!!! and about the grammar its cool I'm from Arkansas so I've seen MUCH worse!!!!=)

Answer 9

Yes I do.
It appears that no one realizes that the owner of FOX news also owns many liberal biased media groups, and pushes bias at us from both directions, so he can play both sides to make money.
That same owner, of FOX, has endorsed and contributed to Hillary's campaign.
Don't know about most folks, but that send up a red flag to me.

True Patriot, you might want to get your facts straight.

Answer 10

Only these two will be good for "The New World Order" candidates like Duncan Hunter wants to keep America in tact, so we never hear of him. people get your heads out of the sand and start to think for yourselves, weigh the pros and cons, you won't come up with HILLARY or Guellian