Media admits it's Bias toward Obama

I am so glad to see someone finally admit to what we've been saying this entire time. After they denied it again and again throughout the election. Although it doesn't matter now since Obama will be our next President in January.

Here's an excerpt from the very end of the article

"Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates. "

If even a reporter in the media can admit that then why can't the rest of America that has seemingly been blind folded?

Washington Times - Wash Post concedes bias for Obama

the same bias existed for ronald reagan, and bill clinton when they, and even george bush after he declared war on anyone that looked at uncle sam the wrong way...the love affair will wear off if obama starts screwing up...but if obama comes through with the goods, it's going to get even sillier



"George Bush is the President. He makes the decisions. He wants me to line up, just tell me where."
- Dan Rather, in the heady days after 911, before he got bitter about being lied to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

the same bias existed for ronald reagan, and bill clinton when they, and even george bush after he declared war on anyone that looked at uncle sam the wrong way...the love affair will wear off if obama starts screwing up...but if obama comes through with the goods, it's going to get even sillier



"George Bush is the President. He makes the decisions. He wants me to line up, just tell me where."
- Dan Rather, in the heady days after 911, before he got bitter about being lied to

---

If that's what you want to believe. Whatever makes you sleep better at night. :hippy:

Well that's quite obvious about the bias with the WP and Obama, given WP has a liberal-leaning slant to begin with. But this story came from the Washington Times, the conservative newspaper in town which is clearly shows bias for McCain. All and all, canceled out.

i've been sitting here, watching y'all act as if you were actually making some important decision. you've dutifully gone to the polls and cast your ballots as you've been told. you seem to believe that you've made your choices based on some rational criteria and all i can do is feel sorry for you. at first i honestly didn't think that the american people would elect a black man named barak hussein obama, but he was packaged so well for you that it seems you really had little choice.

his opposition was vilified through "guilt by association" and made to seem the fool by the media you so blindly follow. they played on your greed, they played on your guilt and they played on your frustrations over an unresponsive government that they themselves were in bed with.

i would probably be more proud of you for electing a man of color to the presidency if it was a man worthy of the office or if you had really had a choice at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

Well that's quite obvious about the bias with the WP and Obama, given WP has a liberal-leaning slant to begin with. But this story came from the Washington Times, the conservative newspaper in town which is clearly shows bias for McCain. All and all, canceled out.

---

oops... sorry

Deborah Howell - An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage - washingtonpost.com

There you go. I was looking at quite a few news articles, must've copied the wrong one ;). There it is from the source published by the source.

"at first i honestly didn't think that the american people would elect a black man named barak hussein obama, but he was packaged so well for you that it seems you really had little choice. his opposition was vilified through "guilt by association" and made to seem the fool by the media you so blindly follow."

- why wouldn't americans vote for barack hussein obama? because he's guilty by association of his middle name to saddam hussein? i bet a more than a few mccain voters blindly followed the fox network on that association

Lots of newspapers openly admitted the fact that they were for Obama, Daihashi, although you seem to think they did not. The ones who endorsed him editorially--a little over half the nation's big metropolitan dailies--were fairly open about that, and the big news weeklies like Time and Newsweek and USNews talked about it too. You'd probably enjoy reading the Columbia Journalism Review sometime. They have talked a lot about the bias, too, and done several case study examples.

There's no doubt in my mind media coverage was biased in his favor. He was someone anyone who likes to watch politics couldn't not be interested in because A, he was racially diverse. B. He was an talented orator. Their bias got stronger after that race speech he gave. C. He is young, and D., He was so unflappable. Just calm, straight, focused and steady. It was because he was so different from the normal old white-guy politician, I think, in the way he looked and sounded. Made us old white guys look uninteresting in comparison. Anyone who's been watching politics a while has seen a good bit of McCain, so he was not as unique seeming. Notice, though, that Palin got a lot of coverage and attention, too, for her differentness.

Anyone else notice that now that Obama's elected, he's getting more media attention than any new president-elect in history? I'm convinced he is--and I expect his administration will be watched more closely than any since JFK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

why wouldn't americans vote for barack hussein obama? because he's guilty by association of his middle name to saddam hussein?

---

i must admit, i thought that bigotry and innuendo would win out over guilt and envy. that was quite early in the campaigning and we had yet to see how neatly packaged the messiah was to become.

Quote:

---

i bet a more than a few mccain voters blindly followed the fox network on that association.

---

i think you'll find that any propaganda from the right was more than outweighed by that from the left by sheer volume alone. conservatism was never even represented by the candidates that were finally given up for the vote. this was a choice between the failures of the bush administration, far from a conservative bunch of fools, and the possibility of anything else. of course the anything else won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Byrd

Lots of newspapers openly admitted the fact that they were for Obama, Daihashi, although you seem to think they did not. The ones who endorsed him editorially--a little over half the nation's big metropolitan dailies--were fairly open about that, and the big news weeklies like Time and Newsweek and USNews talked about it too. You'd probably enjoy reading the Columbia Journalism Review sometime. They have talked a lot about the bias, too, and done several case study examples.

There's no doubt in my mind media coverage was biased in his favor. He was someone anyone who likes to watch politics couldn't not be interested in because A, he was racially diverse. B. He was an talented orator. Their bias got stronger after that race speech he gave. C. He is young, and D., He was so unflappable. Just calm, straight, focused and steady. It was because he was so different from the normal old white-guy politician, I think, in the way he looked and sounded. Made us old white guys look uninteresting in comparison. Anyone who's been watching politics a while has seen a good bit of McCain, so he was not as unique seeming. Notice, though, that Palin got a lot of coverage and attention, too, for her differentness.

Anyone else notice that now that Obama's elected, he's getting more media attention than any new president-elect in history? I'm convinced he is--and I expect his administration will be watched more closely than any since JFK

---

I'm not shocked or astounded or anything. More like I'm offended that the media whom is supposed to be neutral as they are the ones reporting the news, admit to being biased.

When you put your own spin on the truth it is no longer the truth anymore. It becomes your opinion. So instead of getting the news we are getting opinion. Either directly by words in the report itself or indirectly by the author/reporter opting to report or not report on a piece because of their bias.

I'm bothered that everyone else around me seems to be ok with this. I am referring to the media influencing the news that is reported according to their own bias. By the time it gets to our eyes and ears it's no longer the news and we have been stripped of the ability to make our own decision on the matter. That's what irks me.

bleh, but now I'm just ranting.

Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the center around Obama was over the fact that he was the first African-American nominee, who also happened to deliver rousing speeches time and time again?

Obama made better news than McCain. That's why he made the news more often.

And yes, of course the media is biased. That's what happens in a bi-partisan system. That's why you're either supposed to listen to both sides explain their points which MSNBC, my news of choice, did. They had, as far as I could tell, a fair balance between Republican and Democrat guests. True, the big anchors at MSNBC (Olbermann, Maddow, Gregory, and Matthews) are all admittedly Democrat, but they still give people the chance to speak their opinions (except for Olbermann, but I watch him for laughs more than for facts).

Alternatively, you could watch the biased anchors like Olbermann and decide for yourself if something's bullshit or not.

You act as though it's some mortal sin for an article to be biased. Except for the Associated Press, which holds to a standard of unbiased reporting more than any other publication, it's inevitable. The author puts himself into his article, including his opinions, and the editor uses the newspaper to push his agenda. Fair and honest reporting doesn't make money, sadly enough. I think there should be a massive non-profit news organization that uses its money to support fair and honest journalists in its employ. Until then, you have to think when you watch the news or you're going to end up swallowing someone else's ideaology.

EDIT:

By the way, the article in the Wash. Times about the Post's article was biased as well. It's the pot calling the kettle black here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

I'm not shocked or astounded or anything. More like I'm offended that the media whom is supposed to be neutral as they are the ones reporting the news, admit to being biased.

When you put your own spin on the truth it is no longer the truth anymore. It becomes your opinion. So instead of getting the news we are getting opinion. Either directly by words in the report itself or indirectly by the author/reporter opting to report or not report on a piece because of their bias.

I'm bothered that everyone else around me seems to be ok with this. I am referring to the media influencing the news that is reported according to their own bias. By the time it gets to our eyes and ears it's no longer the news and we have been stripped of the ability to make our own decision on the matter. That's what irks me.

bleh, but now I'm just ranting.

---

Theres only one new crew claiming to be neutral and we know how "neutral" they are. Propaganda has been going on before our civilization was born, be it truthful or not it is still second or third hand info

Is it possible to see how much money either campaign spends during the whole election process?

I wonder if Obama's campain spent more, because he did get alot of endorsments, didnt he? Or atleast, I remeber hearing more endorsments towards Obama, than McCain.

And basically all a campaign does is spend money to advertise, right?

Just a thought.. I am going to look those statistics up, now that I'm thinking about it.

I don't actually think that the reporter used the term "biased," although the Washington Post may well be biased --- I don't know, because I don't get that paper or read their website.

Her criticism of her paper's coverage was that it focused too much on the "horse race" (polls), as opposed to issues, and the coverage was "tilted" for Obama, meaning a greater number of stories about him and a greater number of FAVORABLE stories for him.

I agree that almost all media focuses too much on the horse race, and not enough on issues. But the flip side to that is that readers are INTERESTED in the horse race. They want to know who is ahead and by how much. If you don't cover the poll standings, readers will go elsewhere to get it, so all papers spend space on it. I think that is fine, as long as they do cover issues adequately.

One of the things that you see with candidates and polling stories is that candidates love polling stories when they are reported to be in the lead and they hate polling stories if they are down. When a candidate is ahead, the reporting of polling stories can contribute to the "momentum" that candidates seek. But it would be wrong to say that reporting polling stories reveals bias. If a paper runs 10 stories in a row that report one candidate ahead in the polls, that might be counted as 10 favorable stories for that candidate versus none for the other, but it does not indicate bias. If that is what the polls are showing, then the "tilt" in the number of favorable stories for one candidate is a reflection of the reality of the race, not bias. Bias would be if the paper cherry-picked favorable polls for a favored candidate or if they only reported polls when the pollng was favorable for their favored candidate and ignored unfavorable polls.

Regarding the fact that there were more stories about Obama than McCain: I think a lot of this is due to the fact Obama generated more newsworthy stories than McCain. For one thing, McCain locked up his nomination months before Obama, so there was not much to say about the remainder of the Republican Primary --- just one uncontested and inconsequential win after another. In contrast, the Democratic Primary was an exciting nailbiter right down to the very end. So of course there was more coverage of the Democratic primary and the Democratic candidates than there was of the Republican Primaries and McCain --- it was more newsworthy. So again, the "tilt" in number of stories does not necessarily indicate bias.

Aanother factor was that Obama was a more interesting and historical candidate than McCain. There were a lot of stories about whether race would be a factor for Obama, or what it would mean for the country if a black president were elected. There wasn't anything comparable to report on McCain. The "tilt' in number of stories about Obama had more to do with newsworthiness than bias.

The reporter also mentions the number of editorial stories about Obama and the paper's endorsement of Obama. She mentioned these as FACTS, not as a criticsism. An editorial page is the one place in the paper in which the editors and publisher are SUPPOSED to say what they feel about things. You cannot say a paper has biased coverage because they make editorial comments about one candidate or because they endorse a candidate. The editorial page serves a very important function in telling the reader how the editorial staff feels so that the reader can evaluate coverage knowing the POTENTIAL for bias. If you know the paper's editor and publisher favor Obama, then you have a tool with which to judge the neutrality of the coverage. So it's very important for the editorial page to be honest about how they feel. The fact is that everyone, including reporters and editors, favors one candidate or another in an election, but that does not necessarily mean they practice biased reporting. The reporting should be neutral, regardless of how the staff feels, and reporters who go through Journalism school learn a lot about the ethics of reporting. Anyway, back to the point, opinions expressed on the editorial page do NOT indicate biased reporting in the rest of the paper.

Is there anything you people don't spin to justify it and make it ok?

The people who are supposed to be reporting the news.. Information/data so we can make our own assessment on a matter are instead injecting their own opinions and presenting it as news.

This may not bother some of you but it bothers me a hell of a lot. It doesn't just happen during the presidential campaign; but I suppose since no one here cares they conveniently overlooked the fact that this happens in every day news reporting also.

I am not ok with this but to each his own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kshchrn831

Is it possible to see how much money either campaign spends during the whole election process?

I wonder if Obama's campain spent more, because he did get alot of endorsments, didnt he? Or atleast, I remeber hearing more endorsments towards Obama, than McCain.

And basically all a campaign does is spend money to advertise, right?

Just a thought.. I am going to look those statistics up, now that I'm thinking about it.

---

Obama had more money the McCain, spent more money than McCain and even after having a large surplus of money Obama begged his supporters to continue to donate money.

So yes Obama spent a lot of money on campaigning and advertisement.

This post was not so much about the election as it was about the news media themselves. This election just provided an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Is there anything you people don't spin to justify it and make it ok?

---

the faithful are unable to see beyond the agenda they have been fed.

Quote:

---

The people who are supposed to be reporting the news.. Information/data so we can make our own assessment on a matter are instead injecting their own opinions and presenting it as news.

---

welcome to the new yellow journalism. just as hearst and his cronies perverted fact for the sake of the status quo, this latest version of the media power structure is feeding the masses just what is needed to further their latest cause. they induce fear to keep us in line, hope to keep us spending, envy to keep us at each others' throats and inject just enough truth to keep it plausible. they understand the gullibility of the masses and realize the power of the mob. it has always been this way, there is nothing new under the sun, and the people don't really want it to change. we are, for the most part, herd animals and the rigors of individuality go against our apathetic natures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Is there anything you people don't spin to justify it and make it ok?

The people who are supposed to be reporting the news.. Information/data so we can make our own assessment on a matter are instead injecting their own opinions and presenting it as news.

This may not bother some of you but it bothers me a hell of a lot. It doesn't just happen during the presidential campaign; but I suppose since no one here cares they conveniently overlooked the fact that this happens in every day news reporting also.

I am not ok with this but to each his own.

---

I am not sure if you are responding to my post with this comment, but for the record, I am NOT ok with bias in what is supposed to be unbiased reporting.

What I was disputing in my post was your putting words into the reporter's mouth saying she had said her paper was BIASED when in fact she had not done so. And I was clarifying things that are NOT bias --- reporting polls, a "tilt' in the NUMBER of stories about one candidate over another, and endorsing a candidate on the editorial page do not necessarily indicate bias.

You gave a good enough defnition of bias above, "The people who are supposed to be reporting the news.. Information/data so we can make our own assessment on a matter are instead injecting their own opinions and presented it as news."

Where in the article does it say that the newspaper "injected their own opinions and presenting it as news"?

That is exactly the definition of bias, and the article did not conlude that the paper had done that.

I'll give you an example of bias: Taking an article titled "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage" and reporting it as "Media admits it's Bias toward Obama" is an example of bias --- changing facts to support a particular opinion.

By the way, if you go to the original article, there is a sidebar with a link to something called "Stumped," and the topic is why unbiased reporting does not necessarily mean equal amounts of positive and negative reporting. I was going to proivide a link, but now when I go to the Post website it wants me to sign in, which I do not want to do.

In order to benefit from the MSM... we have to realize that News no longer exists. All we are left with are Stories. The people we see on the television screen are responsible for feeding people... not educating people. We all still want to believe that there are intense investigative journalists that seek out the truth in the MSM... even if it risks their life and limb. The truth is, networks don't find stories... they are delivered stories. Neatly packaged, mis-dis-shit-information... that allows us to feel warm and fuzzy knowing that we are learning of a "White House information leak," or a "Secret back room deal," and we rest easy thinking.... "Yeahh, there's someone out there seeking the truth."
This is one of the most crippling elements to a society... ESPECIALLY a society with a government that requires the availability of SOUND information to function.
Any large institution, like a corporation or the government, relies on public relations and opinion. If they KNOW that something they did will become a story... THEY start writing it. Once they have their seemingly neat and precise account of the situation... they shop it around to networks.
To make a long story short... the stories we hear on television are almost scientifically crafted to spin our brains around backwards.
When a network receives a breaking story from say, a pharmaceutical company... the account of the breaking story has already been written up/summarized FOR the network, BY the pharmaceutical company. Then... the network puts their inevitable spin on it. We are essentially getting a spun story from an agenda driven institution... that is THEN re-spun to support ANOTHER agenda driven institution. From there, our brain absorbs what WE feel is most important to us... thus we may disregard some elements into the subconscious, or intensely focus on what we feel is the most important.
This is not necessarily an evil conspiracy... just the nature of the human brain in combination with the nature of an institutional agenda. As humans have primitive impulses to physically protect themselves or defend their character (even if it involves lying)... institutions are equally determined to protect and defend themselves (even if it involves lying).
We perceive the world through an endless series of filtration devices. Some of them external... but most internal.
In most cases, we are guilty of spinning ourselves...

"i think you'll find that any propaganda from the right was more than outweighed by that from the left by sheer volume alone."

- i don't recall any propaganda about john mccain having a racist wife and being a secret muslim terrorist who hates america and plans to abandon israel while teaching american five year olds how to have sexual intercourse...compared to the anti-obama propaganda, the anti-mccain propaganda was quite tame

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I am not sure if you are responding to my post with this comment, but for the record, I am NOT ok with bias in what is supposed to be unbiased reporting.

---

It was directed at the public in general, not even limited to cannabis.com. It was a general 'you people'. Not specific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Is there anything you people don't spin to justify it and make it ok?

The people who are supposed to be reporting the news.. Information/data so we can make our own assessment on a matter are instead injecting their own opinions and presenting it as news.

This may not bother some of you but it bothers me a hell of a lot. It doesn't just happen during the presidential campaign; but I suppose since no one here cares they conveniently overlooked the fact that this happens in every day news reporting also.

I am not ok with this but to each his own.

---

I wasn't saying it was okay. I was saying it was inevitable and you should just accept it as truth and work around it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JakeMartinez

I wasn't saying it was okay. I was saying it was inevitable and you should just accept it as truth and work around it.

---

Complacency shouldn't be an option.

Quote:

---

Obama had more money the McCain, spent more money than McCain and even after having a large surplus of money Obama begged his supporters to continue to donate money.

So yes Obama spent a lot of money on campaigning and advertisement.

This post was not so much about the election as it was about the news media themselves. This election just provided an example.

---

I understand that, and thank you for sharing your information regarding my thought.
But what I was getting to, basically,
Well the media controls the television..
these politcal campaigns spend shit tons of money to the media to play the advertisements.

Maybe, because Obama spent more money on/through the media, he got the spot light because of his "donations" to the media.

What is better than money to these media corporations?....
Once again, just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Complacency shouldn't be an option.

---

Do you have a better idea on how to take on the five families of the media?

Personally, as I stated above, there should be a non-profit news source sanctioned but NOT CONTROLLED AT ALL by the government

calling everyone at cannabis.com:


let's all start our own TV station.


WE will run it, WE will censor it (if at all) and WE will control it.


let's start a cannabis commune on a large property, fitted with TV broadcasting equipment! :D


they switched to digital, so let's get some old analog TV broadcasting equipment for all the poor folks who cant afford to switch to digital!

Cry Cry Cry, the biased liberal media is out to get the conservatives.

So sick of hearing that crap. They are a business. Their job is to make money so they show what they know viewers want to see. Nobody reported on McCain because he is boring. Period. The news wants info that is new, duh
Besides its the same "liberal media" that almost helped bring down clinton as it has done so many other democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zeitgeist

Cry Cry Cry, the biased liberal media is out to get the conservatives.

So sick of hearing that crap. They are a business. Their job is to make money so they show what they know viewers want to see. Nobody reported on McCain because he is boring. Period. The news wants info that is new, duh
Besides its the same "liberal media" that almost helped bring down clinton as it has done so many other democrats.

---

Who said anything about the 'liberal' media. If you noticed the post is about the media. If you take some time out to read through this entire thread you'll see that this thread attacks neither left nor right but rather a 3rd entity known as the media who's action hurt an entire nation.

This discussion isn't necessarily about Obama; he just provided an example that a news publication had indirectly confessed to..

But again you would've had to of looked at more than the thread title that happened to have Obama's name in it to understand that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

i don't recall any propaganda about john mccain having a racist wife and being a secret muslim terrorist who hates america and plans to abandon israel while teaching american five year olds how to have sexual intercourse...compared to the anti-obama propaganda, the anti-mccain propaganda was quite tame

---

propaganda has little to do with the sensational, it is most influential when it steadily drills into the public the fundaments of an agenda until people begin to believe in that agenda without question. by harping on those few things wrong with the workings of capitalism, the media has convinced a majority of the population that the entire system is at fault and has handed us the socialist ideology of the ivory tower left as our only salvation. with that ideology they also handed us our next president.

the desperate attempts by his opponents that you have pointed out were never enough to stem that tide of propaganda and even those were ladled out in such a fashion as to appear ludicrous. the anti-war machine has painted the democratic party as the great opponent of our foolhardy venture into iraq, even though they too profit from each bloodbath, and the republicans as blood crazed fiends, intent only on the accumulation of power through the force of arms. the media has given us our imminent ecological and social demise, blaming both on the uncaring greed of those evil corporations. while showing us the altruistic motives of a liberal establishment, intent on spreading the nations riches and forcing harsh penalties and restrictions on business; they have also given us the conservative faction as the henchmen of a callous capitalist empire, whose only goal is wealth at the expense of nature and the poor. if you cannot see the intent in all this, then i fear you have already become one of the true believers that these streams of information were made to create.

the intent of this propaganda is not merely the election of some temporary political animal, but the promotion of an entire ideology that runs contrary to the goals of this country as a whole and is designed to limit the freedoms of its people as individuals. it is another attempt to end this experiment in individual liberty and replace it with the outmoded concept of each man as just another member of the complacent herd. seldom is any mention ever made of the inherent corruption of the massive bureaucracy needed to control such a herd, that might give us a glimmer of the truth behind the rhetoric of change.

In my experience all media outlets have thier "audience", they cater to thier own demographic and have thier own political bias.
All media is influenced by the beliefs of whoever has the final say in what is to be broadcast , if the editing staff is more inclined to one direction or another then you will see (or hear) that in the final product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity

propaganda has little to do with the sensational, it is most influential when it steadily drills into the public the fundaments of an agenda until people begin to believe in that agenda without question. by harping on those few things wrong with the workings of capitalism, the media has convinced a majority of the population that the entire system is at fault and has handed us the socialist ideology of the ivory tower left as our only salvation. with that ideology they also handed us our next president.

the desperate attempts by his opponents that you have pointed out were never enough to stem that tide of propaganda and even those were ladled out in such a fashion as to appear ludicrous. the anti-war machine has painted the democratic party as the great opponent of our foolhardy venture into iraq, even though they too profit from each bloodbath, and the republicans as blood crazed fiends, intent only on the accumulation of power through the force of arms. the media has given us our imminent ecological and social demise, blaming both on the uncaring greed of those evil corporations. while showing us the altruistic motives of a liberal establishment, intent on spreading the nations riches and forcing harsh penalties and restrictions on business; they have also given us the conservative faction as the henchmen of a callous capitalist empire, whose only goal is wealth at the expense of nature and the poor. if you cannot see the intent in all this, then i fear you have already become one of the true believers that these streams of information were made to create.

the intent of this propaganda is not merely the election of some temporary political animal, but the promotion of an entire ideology that runs contrary to the goals of this country as a whole and is designed to limit the freedoms of its people as individuals. it is another attempt to end this experiment in individual liberty and replace it with the outmoded concept of each man as just another member of the complacent herd. seldom is any mention ever made of the inherent corruption of the massive bureaucracy needed to control such a herd, that might give us a glimmer of the truth behind the rhetoric of change.

---

What, exactly, are the goals of this country? I'll bet you ten bucks my goals are vastly different from yours.

"propaganda has little to do with the sensational, it is most influential when it steadily drills into the public the fundaments of an agenda until people begin to believe in that agenda without question."

- like the way those people at the mccain rally believed obama was a socialist muslim terrorist sympathizer who was going to rally the black to rise up against their white masters...no need to question that!


"by harping on those few things wrong with the workings of capitalism, the media has convinced a majority of the population that the entire system is at fault and has handed us the socialist ideology of the ivory tower left as our only salvation. with that ideology they also handed us our next president."

- i don't recall the media harping that the entire system of capitalism is at fault...i don't recall the media handing us the socialist ideology as our only salvation...i watched CNN quite a bit over the past few months and they reported on the public outrage over george bush's 'socialist' nationalization of the banking system...they reported mccain's 'socialist' plan to buy bum overpriced mortgages from banks and renegotiate them down to a lower amount to the workers could eat their cake and ale under a roof...the usa is currently going through the largest socialist prograrm expansion in the past 50 years and you're complaining about a guy who won't be president for another two months


"the anti-war machine has painted the democratic party as the great opponent of our foolhardy venture into iraq, even though they too profit from each bloodbath, and the republicans as blood crazed fiends, intent only on the accumulation of power through the force of arms."

- the anti-war machine is often the anti-democrat machine, issuing propaganda about the democrat party enabling and supporting the invasion and occupation of iraq, intent only on *appearing* to oppose the occupation without actually doing anything that might be used as proof that dem dum dems are surrender monkeys that don't support the troops...the dems aren't anti-war



"the media has given us our imminent ecological and social demise, blaming both on the uncaring greed of those evil corporations. while showing us the altruistic motives of a liberal establishment, intent on spreading the nations riches and forcing harsh penalties and restrictions on business; they have also given us the conservative faction as the henchmen of a callous capitalist empire, whose only goal is wealth at the expense of nature and the poor."

- except for the bit about "imminent ecological and social demise", i agree with you on that one



"the intent of this propaganda is not merely the election of some temporary political animal, but the promotion of an entire ideology that runs contrary to the goals of this country as a whole and is designed to limit the freedoms of its people as individuals. it is another attempt to end this experiment in individual liberty and replace it with the outmoded concept of each man as just another member of the complacent herd."

- isn't that what george bush and congress have been doing for the past 8 years with the patriot act, homeland security, no knock warrantless raids, snooping on private citizens, free speech zones *snicker*, legalization of kidnapping/torture, undermining habeas corpus, and threatening to add constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage and flag burning? what is the new ideology that is worse than that? i was kinda hoping obama would undo those things and put the liberty experiment back on track

why are people here fixated on george bush, Obama or McCain.

Really this thread has nothing to do with them. Can't everyone here put aside their partisanship and stop saying it's ok for the media to do this?

what about endorsement of candidates by newspapers? is that bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

what about endorsement of candidates by newspapers? is that bad?

---

I don't really thinks newspapers should endorse anyone but that is different from what I am talking about in this thread.

i agree that media shouldn't show a bias too...newspaper endorsements are tricky

The media is bias...?No way. That's why I use to the interwebs for info. No bias. No censor. People still allow themselves to be controlled and there is nothing you can do except suggest that they start thinking for themselves. Tis life.