Anyone else pissed off at this...

[GotWake88]

I always hated when people would bitch and bitch about the media yap yap.

But has anybody else been pissed off lately at how CNN and Faux News have been treating Ron Paul and Mike Gravel like complete shit. I don't give a rats ass whether or not you agree with their platform, but the people should decide the nominees, not the media outlets.

When Chris Matthews was just laughing in Gravel's face and not letting him finish one sentence. Then how the absolutely useless peice of shit Sean Hannity wouldn't even let Ron Paul answer his damn questions. How the fuck does Hannity have a job? I felt like jacking both of them in the face.

Does nobody else get pissed off that CNN and Fox is practically hand selecting the candidates??

GotWake88 Reviewed by GotWake88 on 06-11-2007. Anyone else pissed off at this... I always hated when people would bitch and bitch about the media yap yap. But has anybody else been pissed off lately at how CNN and Faux News have been treating Ron Paul and Mike Gravel like complete shit. I don't give a rats ass whether or not you agree with their platform, but the people should decide the nominees, not the media outlets. When Chris Matthews was just laughing in Gravel's face and not letting him finish one sentence. Then how the absolutely useless peice of shit Rating: 5

[Psycho4Bud]

I'm no big fan of Ron and I really don't know that much about Mike but I hear what your saying. IF this were a true system I think that ALL candidates should have equal time on all stations to promote their views, commercials, etc...

The media makes enough cash off the "tabloid" stories, we viewers should have the right to see what ALL of these people are about without the special interests of others influencing what's on. There are roughly 20 candidates between the dems and republicans right now. A half hour for each person just to state their platform wouldn't even touch the amount of time media has spent on Paris Hilton.

Have a good one!:s4:

[aardvark]

First, all debates should be broadcast on PBS. That would take the Murdoch's, Time-Warner's, GE's, Westinghouse's, etc., out of that scenario.

Second, a neutral moderator. Meaning one that is longer working for the networks, or even the mass media. Someone similar to a Walter Cronkite.

Third, each candidate may only answer a predetermined number of questions. Place all the participating candidates names in hat say 4 times for each, and draw 3 (or however many names) to answer. If the same candidate, gets picked to answer the first 4 questions, then he/she is done answering individual questions for the night.

Fourth, candidates get a specified time limit to answer questions. 120 seconds, and at 90 seconds they get a warning that they only have 30 seconds remaining. After, 120 seconds, the microphone automatically cuts off.

It is not that difficult to run a "fair and balanced" debate if someone really wanted it to be fair and balanced. I want to hear the fringe candidates put some new ideas out there instead of the soundbites one gets 90% of the time from frontrunners.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Yeah I noticed on the last republican debate they asked more questions to the more popular candidates. Everyone should get equal time.

[stoner spirit]

Yep... I'm pissed at this crap as well. They've been talking about this dumb girl for days. She's in jail! The media needs to get over this shit already, and focus on real important issues at hand right now. The bitch is in jail for stupid shit, and it has been the latest gossip for a few days, and for me... it got old very quickly.
The mass media giving any candidate a fair amount of time to speak... that's not gonna happen any time soon. The day this happens, is the day that I mary the Elf Queen's daughter.