English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If they actually were not biased for certain "Top Tier" then they would report EQUALLY on ALL of them!

2007-11-19 12:46:46 · 17 answers · asked by Fedup Veteran 6 in Politics & Government Elections

17 answers

MSM's !!!! I have given them some thought over the past few years, and their 'presenting the news, in the way THEY see fit'.
I Prefer to address the 'news media' this way:
The "NEWS MANGLEMENT NITWIT NETWORKS" !!!!
At the every best, the 'news' is "MANGLED" by the time it is 'FED' to us !!!
How many times have you heard a news report, and the reporter starts a statement : "I THINK---****---"
THAT 'REPORTER IS PRESENTING HIS / HER OPINIONS, VIEWPOINT, POLITICAL IDEOLOGY,' ETC.
I WANT THE - THE NEWS, NOT SOME ASZ HO*ES OPINION ABOUT THE STORY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2007-11-20 04:30:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

It's sad that money talks. You know if you took the candidates with the most experience, then it's hands down for the democrats Biden and Dennis K and for the Republicans McCain and Paul (guess you should throw Gully in the mix but more lib). Now i am not talking about junior senate members that are getting more lobbyist money than most of the older members or that the same junior member may be getting $20,000 vs their $500,000. Doesn't that make you think that they are already bought, signed sealed and delivered?

Polls are funny. Washington Post has Obama, Clinton and Edwards. Why?

As far as I am concerned the people who have been around the most and not been thrown in jail or either honest or lucky and these people know the system and could pick cabinet members that might know what they are doing.

Check and see how many have been appointed that are from clubs like the skull and bones. President Carter put Rhodes scholars in his cabinet and look what happened.

I feel that Americans are tired of being murdered, raped and robbedand drugged becasue the former and present presidents will not protect them .

What a joke, hey let's let the illegals become Americans. Do you know any person that took over five years of back breaking trouble to become an American citizen and what they think aobut it? They are livid and eel like they hve been raped. Ask them. Too many have sacrified for this country. One more thing, it may surprise you when they pass ths and we find out that it's more like 40-6- million form all over the world.

Two books I suggest you go and check out, Outrage by Dick Morris and How Satan turned America against God by William Grady. Both will help you know the truth and make up your mind for the election and they are well researched and documented. Take care. I think I will ask the question which candidates have the most experience to run the country.

2007-11-19 13:51:05 · answer #2 · answered by R J 7 · 4 0

I feel like money is the bottom line and it shouldn't be. Candidates should have equal air time but in truth this presents a problem. Right now there are over 288 people running for president. You would have to have an entire channel dedicated to presidential debates. With all the money thats wasted they could pay for it though.
I also feel like too many people watch TV. Older more political people are somewhat engrossed in network news and what they report. A politically dedicated channel would be the best thing to do. After all we have C-Span why can't we have a P-Span.

2007-11-19 13:14:00 · answer #3 · answered by Enigma 6 · 6 0

I've decided to stop calling it main stream media, and start calling it mass media. Everyone I know, younger than me (and a few older than 35), gets most of their news from the web, not the TV. It's not "main stream" anymore, and will become further irrelevant as time passes.

You know who the web chooses as the candidate to look out for, and I agree with that choice.

2007-11-19 12:54:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6 0

The media choices are the ones who are most biased against the people and in favor of the elite. That is the reason they are the front runners in the first place. To determine what and who a candidate REALLY stands for, you have to first look at where and from whom they are getting their campaign financing, and then you have to look at their voting records on the issues that you consider most important. The media is most definitely biased in favor of the front runners. *sm*

2007-11-19 13:42:59 · answer #5 · answered by LadyZania 7 · 6 0

I'm not sure. I am a lifelong Libertarian, though. I can say for myself though, that when there is no libertarian candidate in a given race, I write in the name of a cartoon character. It *is* possible that I wrote in Donald Duck's name once. He would certainly do a better job than the usual suspects.

2016-05-24 06:28:34 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

It makes me angry because the best candidate may not necessarily be one of the so called "top tier", maybe not have raised as much money as the others, etc., All candidates should have equal coverage.

2007-11-19 15:48:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

When I was younger, it was policy (or election rules maybe?) that each candidate was afforded equal time on the air. If one got a 10 minute interview, that same station was required to allow the same for the others. I guess that policy is no more, sadly.

2007-11-19 14:18:50 · answer #8 · answered by Lev8mysoul 6 · 6 0

Main Stream Media with the exception of Fox news, are the mouth pieces of the Progressive Liberal Democratic Party. Better know as the former Communist Party of U.S . McCarthy was right after all. With the like's of Senator's Clinton, Shumer,. Pelosi, Reid, Rangle,former Daschle, Kennedy, Feinstien, Feingold ect. just to name a few. Well try to make people believe their chose for President is the best choice that every liberal should vote for. They have dictated for decades when there was no other network to challange their opinion. But now their is and they can't deal with that. After having complete control over these issues since the begining of news on TV. They had the monopoly of the news networks;, Till Fox news came along as well as the Internet. Now they can no longer decieve the American people from the true facts on issues with the Networks bias agenda's. With the like's of Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite and ect. for decades and who the American people had trusted and who didn't have any other choices to pick from to watch, but who had their own agenda's. When they found that they could sway public opinion by what they reported to them. They felt the power they held in their words. Which Cronkite stated in his own word's in a documentary. And used it to to shape the World we now live in. Which in my opinion is not better now then it was 60 years ago. With moral values gone. Our Country is need of help. Thanks, to the agenda of the Liberal Main Stream Media's.

2007-11-19 13:39:26 · answer #9 · answered by Sketz 1 · 4 2

Drives me nuts! Fox is in love with Giuliani and CNN is all for Clinton. It is awful.

There is a legitimate top tier in both parties (especially the GOP), they should cover them like it.

http://www.dryflypolitics.com

2007-11-19 12:59:21 · answer #10 · answered by sbay311 3 · 6 0

fedest.com, questions and answers