I remember when the very first stirrings of campaign fever came about, the media was immediately zero'ed in on 2 candidates: Clinton and Obama. My immediate gut reaction: "Damn, in covering these two folks so disproportionately, its already become a no-go for all other candidates."
We unfortunately get our info from the TV--a medium very limited in its ability to deliver complex information beyond soundbytes. The "debates" were anything but. Kucinich was edited out, for example.
I honestly believe that were the mass media to give equal airtime to all candidates, Clinton and Obama would not be leading. I also think the focus is on the female and the Black candidate because people have a natural urge to make history and elect the first ___ president.
Fellow Americans, let's research best we can and come to our own conclusions. The internet is a great place to start. Let's vote without worrying about how pointless it is because "everyone else" is voting Obama, Clinton, etc. anyway.
2007-12-23 07:12:49 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
wow, 11 answers in 11 mins! we've identified the problem, so lets reverse this crap. frankly, you dont have to vote for biden or paul (my faves) Just vote based on YOUR research, to heck with the media! Who's with me?! :)
2007-12-23 07:26:23 · update #1
Okay, so who's the winner?
2007-12-23 07:17:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Boy howdie!
Yes, as someone who also had a Governator foisted on her by the very same mechanism (the media had elected him even before the recall election was a certainty), this has bothered me for a LONG time.
The media appoint the "viable" candidates, and refuse to mention any of the rest.
Not to mention that the nominations have been sewn up long before my state votes in the primary -- which has been the case as long as I remember. (When I was a child, the nominee was actually selected AT the convention!)
And what coverage there is is useless, as it's all "horse race" coverage: Will this hurt him? Has she blown it? What effect will this slip-up have?
Uh, how about elling us something RELEVANT for a change?
silly me
but, yes, now that we have this marvelous new tool, we don't need to rely on the worthless morons who "give" us the "news" -- and I also wish more people would take advantage of it.
Still, the nomination and election processes are far from over.
Although I also like Kucinich, I am supporting Edwards, whom I like very much.
At least the media mention him once in a while.
And yes, the idea of using one's vote to choose the person you think everyone else is going to choose is absurd. You don't "win" by going along, but by ending up with someone who would stand up for the citizenry in general.
2007-12-23 17:11:34 · answer #2 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I feel that way, but only about Clinton. For 4 years ive been hearing: OMG a woman president in 08, everyone should vote for her. This is common about CNN, the Clinton News Network.
Only recently have I seen coverage of Obama, probably because he is gaining ground. Also, this guy is fascinating. He is one of the most intelligent people I have ever seen, and his ideas are so progressive.
2007-12-23 15:23:19 · answer #3 · answered by John 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, unfortunately most people vote for candidates they merely see and hear a lot about on television. Recently I was telling a friend about Ron Paul and he responded with "Is that the girl, or the black guy?"
It is a sad low when people won't research for themselves who their leaders may be, and instead rely on the opinion of the government they say they are against!
2007-12-23 15:18:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if we can just kick this liberally tainted media to the curb and force reform so they will truely be unbiased and just report the news, then we just might have a chance at a fair election.
Everyone in the liberal media has been so ga ga over Hilary when according to her lacking accomplishments , secrative supposed experience and lies she is about the worse candidate out there. But the media loves her. Go figure.
Meanwhile they continue to have supposed "republican" debates, but instead of dealing with conservative / republican issues, they flood them with liberal dribble and democratic issues.
I don't support the conservative side blindly, I merely feel "pushed" there due to the bias in the news, the untold truths, the lies they propogate, leaving information out and spin to steer everyone to a candidate that isn't even really qualified to be a candidate.
2007-12-23 15:21:24 · answer #5 · answered by Nightwind 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
with or without media influence i think america would choose
both mrs. clinton and Mr. obama as their favorite.
on the other side huckabee has little money and little
media on him. most went to romney and guliana, yet
huckabee leads both in the iowa polls.
i do not think the media influences people as to who to
vote for as much as you think. Mr. huckabee is a
prime example. ron paul gets little media attention, yet
has raised a lot of money.
people are smarter than you give them credit for and are
not influenced as much by the media as you think.
2007-12-23 15:21:48 · answer #6 · answered by Jerry S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's hogwash, the same as saying that the candidate with most money wins. It's not so. Huckabee has gotten plenty of attention that HE EARNED it was not given to him by the media.
Your typical liberal reasoning full of stereotypes and conspiracy theories is just concentrated stupidity.
2007-12-23 17:01:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
i think its better because we have more time to see who is the idiot that we should definitely not vote for.
2007-12-23 15:21:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
they may of made their choice , but Ive made mine and its Ron Paul
2007-12-23 15:21:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Da! Ya think?
2007-12-23 15:31:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋