More Evidence of Media "President-Making"

Jefferson · 02-14-2007, 08:21 AM

So over 600 reporters showed up, in an orgasmic frenzy, when Barak Obama officially announced his candidacy for President.

200 showed up for Mitt Romney's announcement.

Hmmmmmmm... I WONDER... Who might the mainstream media be pulling for here? Gee Wally, I dunno!

The Obama-Romney Media Rundown - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

Katczinsky · 02-14-2007, 09:28 AM

Yeah, it could be a big liberal conspiracy at choosing the next president through the media....but then again it could also be due to the fact that Obama has more name recognition...and that not too many people even know who Mitt Romney is....but a large liberal conspiracy sounds better...

Wait, what's that? On the next page? A story on Obama apologizing for saying American troops lives were 'wasted' in Iraq? Wow, I should call up CNN and tell them that that's not in accordance to our conspiracy.

Get real Jefferson. The media are like a bunch of kids on Christmas morning when it comes to Presidential races...they're going to be all excited long before it even comes. If the media truly has a Democratic bias, and 'chooses' presidents, then they sure do a crappy job; I would demand a refund for the bad job they did in the last two elections.

If it was any media that "chose" a president...it would be Fox News in 2000.

Jefferson · 02-14-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Yeah, it could be a big liberal conspiracy at choosing the next president through the media....but then again it could also be due to the fact that Obama has more name recognition...and that not too many people even know who Mitt Romney is....but a large liberal conspiracy sounds better...

Wait, what's that? On the next page? A story on Obama apologizing for saying American troops lives were 'wasted' in Iraq? Wow, I should call up CNN and tell them that that's not in accordance to our conspiracy.

Get real Jefferson. The media are like a bunch of kids on Christmas morning when it comes to Presidential races...they're going to be all excited long before it even comes. If the media truly has a Democratic bias, and 'chooses' presidents, then they sure do a crappy job; I would demand a refund for the bad job they did in the last two elections.

If it was any media that "chose" a president...it would be Fox News in 2000.

Hahaha! You're so blind to it that you actually believe it!

One word comes to mind when I think of what you need, Kat: Discernment. You have none, and you desperately need some!

But carry on!

Katczinsky · 02-14-2007, 09:56 AM

I have poor judgment because I don't infer a large liberal media conspiracy out of the single fact that more reporters showed up to a a presidential announcement of a more well-known person?

Do you have anything to to contribute to this debate other than patronizing and making large rash presumptions?

Jefferson · 02-14-2007, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

I have poor judgment because I don't infer a large liberal media conspiracy out of the single fact that more reporters showed up to a a presidential announcement of a more well-known person?

Do you have anything to to contribute to this debate other than patronizing and making large rash presumptions?

I STARTED the thread.

Now... as to the "debate" you believe you've stumbled across. There is NO question that the media is overwhelmingly liberal in its bias. Media Research proves this out. There is NOT question, based on their voting records, that journalists and reporters vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

Would you like to try to dispute that fact, and walk away with egg on your face again? Or would you like to just do a little Google Search and find it for yourself?

tristanrobin · 02-14-2007, 10:32 AM

whew
first all education is "liberal" indoctrinations
then media is "liberal" dominated
and, of course, the scientists who warn of global warning are "liberal" alarmists

are the conservatives doing anything except organizing anti-abortion and anti-gay rallies? - and starting wars, of course

KnightOfSappho · 02-14-2007, 10:42 AM

Some people go on and on about LIBERAL this and CONSERVATIVE that...

The reality is that most people don't fall into either category because they are somewhere in the middle. More liberal on some things and more conservative on others.

Our media is in trouble. Not because of a particular bias but because of consolidation. About 2/3 of all newspapers, magazines book publishers and radio stations are controlled by FIVE corporations. In short, The coroprate heads of five companies are controlling the majority of what most Americans see and hear.

I find that a MUCH bigger problem than any particular bias.

Antithesis · 02-14-2007, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

whew
first all education is "liberal" indoctrinations
then media is "liberal" dominated
and, of course, the scientists who warn of global warning are "liberal" alarmists

are the conservatives doing anything except organizing anti-abortion and anti-gay rallies? - and starting wars, of course

Yeah, this "liberal world" stuff isn't the most reliable. It seems like one of the standard defenses of falling poll numbers is the "liberal media."

Antithesis · 02-14-2007, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho

Some people go on and on about LIBERAL this and CONSERVATIVE that...

The reality is that most people don't fall into either category because they are somewhere in the middle. More liberal on some things and more conservative on others.

Our media is in trouble. Not because of a particular bias but because of consolidation. About 2/3 of all newspapers, magazines book publishers and radio stations are controlled by FIVE corporations. In short, The coroprate heads of five companies are controlling the majority of what most Americans see and hear.

I find that a MUCH bigger problem than any particular bias.

Two words: RUPERT MURDOCH