Skipjack wrote:Same here, but that does not mean the masses do so and I am just saying it again: I am not the one who started this thread.
I didn't start this thread either. I really don't think it matters who started the thread, I think it matters whether or not people understand that they are being lied to and manipulated by the people who bring them the News and Entertainment.
Here is another example of so called "Journalists" NOT reporting information that damages their preferred side.
Did Halperin and Heilemann Change The Game in ‘Game Change’?
Hypothetical #1
Harry Reid made his
“light-skinned”, “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”
Had the reporters (and I use that title intentionally) reported what they heard, that may or may not have had an effect on the outcome. Some voters might have been so disgusted with Reid, they may have taken it out on Obama’s opponents at the time, or stayed home altogether.
Hypothetical #2
Had the comments about the Edwardses come out earlier,
What the world saw in Elizabeth: A valiant, determined, heroic every-woman. What the Edwards insiders saw: An abusive, intrusive, paranoid, condescending crazy-woman.
that may have had an effect on fundraising, as people might have stopped wasting their money on John, not wanting to risk another Teresa Heinz Kerry drama, and diverted money to other candidates. Edwards may have been long gone earlier.
Hypothetical #3
Had it been revealed in a timely matter that Senator Ted Kennedy was at odds with Bill Clinton because he said of Barack Obama,
… a few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee.
along with reports of Bill ‘ridin’ dirty’ again during the campaign, Hillary’s campaign may have been sunk early on.
During the campaign we heard all about the infighting within the McCain-Palin camp, thus the revelations in the book aren’t new news. Almost all the juicy stuff coming out now via “Game Change” is about Democrats and (under the umbrella of being book authors who apparently whored themselves out) none of it came out until a year and a half after the 2008 presidential election.
Hey guys, I did start this thread, and I am enjoying every post. Just keep up the good information. It's politics after all, so every opinion is a valid opinion. My opinion is that the biased reporting did throw the election, or at least made it not close ... Consequently, it concerns me when I see reports of middle east oil money buying up the news services.
If the news reports sway the elections, then who will be in control of our country? I doubt the news services see the consequences of having their jobs dependent on the "Right-thinking" bias of their reports, as measured by foreign ownership. Especially since the control need not be blatant, rather it can be exerted simply by hiring the right people in the first place.
Hypothetical #2
Had the comments about the Edwardses come out earlier,
What the world saw in Elizabeth: A valiant, determined, heroic every-woman. What the Edwards insiders saw: An abusive, intrusive, paranoid, condescending crazy-woman.
that may have had an effect on fundraising, as people might have stopped wasting their money on John, not wanting to risk another Teresa Heinz Kerry drama, and diverted money to other candidates. Edwards may have been long gone earlier.
My mom (90 yo) loved Edwards. Went to a rally he held in mid-Iowa from Omaha, Nebr. He put his arm around her when she mentioned she had lost a son. Charmed her totally. So much that she made me blog about her experience. (Yeah. I know - what a son)
She never mentions him any more. But she hasn't asked me to take down the blog post either.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
During Tuesday night's coverage of the Massachusetts special election, CNN and MSNBC aired only a fraction of the Republican candidate's speech. Fox News Channel aired both candidates' speeches in their entirety.
‘That’s Why We Have Fox’ — Mika Brezinski Admits the MSM is Liberal
I’ve worked in the mainstream media for all the networks and I will say what people aren’t saying. It’s got a liberal world view. There are great people working at the networks, and they’re mostly Democrats, ok?
I think honestly what needs to happen, is we need to stop pretending about who we are and every journalist should tell us what their political affiliation is, who they voted for, and we go from there.
The reason why we’ve got these extremes is a reaction to the “objective” mainstream media that is so not objective when you have most of them being Democrats or liberals running it. Ok, that’s why we have FOX. Because it [the mainstream media] wasn’t honest and because there was reaction out there to this and now what I’m saying is let’s pull it all back together and let’s start from a base of honesty and then work toward fairness and objectivity and maybe we’ll cut against these polarizing extremes that we are seeing on television that are drawing people and galvanizing them in ways that are not all constructive
OBAMA OWES HIS PRESIDENCY TO A LYING PHILANDERING SACK OF CRAP: JOHN EDWARDS
THE BIG STORY REALLY ISN'T ABOUT THE MSM PROTECTING A DEMOCRAT LIBERAL FROM SCANDAL - (A SCANDAL WHICH THEY WOULD'VE CEETIANLY SCHMEARED ALL OVER THE FRONT PAGES IF HE HAD BEEN A REPUBLICAN).
THE REAL STORY IS THAT EDWARDS RAN FOR POTUS DESPITE KNOWING THAT HE HAD FATHERED A CHILD OUT OF WEDLOCK, AND KNOWING THAT THIS SCANDAL WAS JUST BENEATH THE SURFACE OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.
HE RAN ANYWAY.
AND EDWARDS RAN A STRONG CAMPAIGN IN IOWA AND HIS SHOWING THERE IS THE ONLY REASON OBAMA WON IOWA, AND EVENTUALLY WON THE NOMINATION, AND THE WHITE HOUSE.
THE ONLY REASON HILLARY LOST IOWA AND THE NOMINATION WAS EDWARDS.
OBAMA OWES HIS NOMINATION TO A SELFISH PHILANDERING LYING PIECE OF CRAP
.
And why wasn't Edwards in Trouble in Iowa? Because the Media would NOT cover the story. Why? Because he was a prominent Democrat, and therefore an ideological ally of the people who work in the Media.
In 2008 - despite the fact he was running for president - or because of it, only the National Enquirer would cover the Edwards infidelity story... and they deserve a PULITZER.
Now they're all covering it because Edwards is ADMITTING IT!
This is why having a monolithic ideology in the News and entertainment industries is a greater threat to the United States than is Terrorism. If you control the sources of information for the American public, you control how they will vote. (The dumber ones, that is.)
BBC scriptwriters tried to use Doctor Who to bring down Margaret Thatcher
Left-wing scriptwriters hired by the BBC during the 1980s tried to inspire a 'Tardis revolution' by using Doctor Who as propaganda to undermine the Tory prime minister.
In one serial they caricatured her as a vicious and egotistical alien ruler who banned outward displays of unhappiness among her downtrodden people and used a secret police to oppress dissidents.
Former actors and writers on the show admitted yesterday that there was also thinly veiled support for the miners' strike and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
I think it matters whether or not people understand that they are being lied to and manipulated by the people who bring them the News and Entertainment.
Yes, but it is important to realize that this goes both ways. Once you do that, you will look at each and every media outlet in a different way. My first reaction is always to doubt everything that is presented to me and to wonder "what is said media sources agenda and how does this benefit said agenda?". Then I strip off everything that I can see benefiting said source. I then get other sources and do the same and compare the results. What is then left over is somewhat near the truth.
I think it matters whether or not people understand that they are being lied to and manipulated by the people who bring them the News and Entertainment.
Yes, but it is important to realize that this goes both ways. Once you do that, you will look at each and every media outlet in a different way. My first reaction is always to doubt everything that is presented to me and to wonder "what is said media sources agenda and how does this benefit said agenda?". Then I strip off everything that I can see benefiting said source. I then get other sources and do the same and compare the results. What is then left over is somewhat near the truth.
This does not address the issue of other people making dangerous decisions because they were not as astute as you. Many people grow from young and ignorant to mature and indoctrinated into believing things which are not true, and likewise disbelieving things which are true.
When a mob acts out of ignorance, or because it has been misled, they might not just injure themselves, but others as well. I think that no sane or sensible person would have voted for Barack Obama had they been able to see what lies behind that door. Thanks to the interference that the media engaged in, people were blinded to the truth.
I think that no sane or sensible person would have voted for Barack Obama had they been able to see what lies behind that door.
I looked both the options and while I did not particularily favor him, he looked much better than the alternative. So far he has not done any big mistakes either. At least not in my opinion. The biggest problem I have had with him so far is that he has not really done much at all.
