How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The Presidential "Race"   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The Presidential "Race"

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


50 posted 10-21-2008 08:27 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Rush has a 50-50? Hardly. I doubt you will find anywhere in his family tree where he has EVER been liberal!

It's not a question of Rush hushing himself. Democrats have been trying, even introducing bills in congress to do away with conservative radio, which didn't fly. When it didn't, they tried to counter with Air America, which didn't fly (pun intended).

Don't be surprised to see conservative talk radio go under fire in an Obama presidency. He has already said in a speech that, if it weren't for Hannity, he wold have at least a 5 point higher advantage in the polls. No, you won't see a direct attack against an individual. It will be more like "subversive talk radio is harmful to the country in this time of economic and military crisis and needs to be curtailed, temporarily." Think I'm wrong? Let's watch.....
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


51 posted 10-21-2008 08:54 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Oh, and Bob,

This quote got my attention:

quote:
What once made sense is now a loosing proposition and digs us into a deeper hole than before.  Please do some research into this on your own.  Try The Economist, in particular, which is a highly regarded right of center magazine, and famous for the quality of its research.  Don't take my word for it.


Please do research the Economist, particularly its owners.

who are particularly in cahoots with our government involving theWorld Bank.

The World Bank has a beautiful outline of duties and operations. But some are very tactical and scary when one digs deeper.

I believe the World Bank secures land for collateral, which includes everything covered under a “protected, reservation, preservation, and wildlife” act, which also extends out and embraces the mega-farming industries.

Perhaps that’s why subsides are a very integral hand-out to mega-agribusinesses which short the small farmer his due, but keep the economy afloat with corn production:

Exports.

quote:
This helps explain why manufacturing jobs are continuing to disappear by the tens of thousands and factories are closing even during a miniboom in exports. While the surge in commodities is a welcome relief, it is an unreliable prop for an industrial power.


Corporate welfare has become a must or else someone else besides us might foreclose and claim the property.

But who’s worrying?

quote:
Criticisms of the structure of the World Bank refer to the fact that the President of the Bank is always a citizen of the United States, nominated by the President of the United States
wiki
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


52 posted 10-22-2008 02:27 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




Dear RWood,

          I didn't know, but am not surprised.  It is a right of center magazine and those are the type of circles many of those folks run in.  Paul Wolfowitz, one of the archetects of the Iraq war, for example, and high in the Republican counsels of the current administration, on retirement from his active U.S. government service, went to the World Bank.  As President, I believe, though I may have that wrong.

     I said that The Economist was a respected magazine; it is, and highly so.  I said they have a respected research department, and they do.  Highly respected.  Their politics and their economics is probably Tory, in the Margaret Thatcher model.

     I try to make a point of trying to go for right of center sources whenever I can when I talk with folks with a right wing bias, as Baladeer does and as you often do, because when I quote folks from my own particular point of view, which is liberal and to the left of liberal, my own sources are often not even listen to.  The Economist is not my choice in terms of political viewpoint, but they are careful about their facts.

     Do you have some source you believe is objective and careful with its facts that I might reference as well?

     These are often hard to find, because folks will often bend the facts to fit their ideology  — left or right — and this makes political conversation difficult.  Wikipedia is generally pretty good about its facts and they try to be clear about biases.  At least they try to identify them.  I've found that you have to watch them over a period of time, to make sure that nobody with an ax to grind has gotten in a poison pill of information for a little while before other people correct it, though.

     And I find The Christian Science Monitor pretty good.

     I like The Nation, but many PiP folks find it too liberal. so I try not to quote it.  The Wall Street Journal used to have excellent straight news coverage and biased toward the right editorial coverage, but I'm not sure about the straight new coverage now that Murdoch has bought the thing.  I'll have to wait and see.

     I don't trust i]The National Review[/i], I think their facts get bent to serve their viewpoint.      

     Which journals do you trust to get the facts pretty much straight?

Curiously,  Bob Kaven

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


53 posted 10-22-2008 12:10 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Hello Bob.

All sources of thought/input can be of value. No direct degradation of the Economist meant, just a heads-up for you in light of the controlling “Comp-Trolls” who are behind much of the warped ideology and bent reporting offered us. Sorry, I’m ranting. But I’m one that sees surface issues as the showy parts of plant matter. So I dig and I dig until I can see where the roots are. I guess that why I prefer independents.

As for a source, I came across several Blackwell journals during my thousands of hours of JSTOR research in college. Blackwell is now Wiley-Blackwell, still an independent, but their journals and resources are vast. Vast! And they came to be a name I could “respect.”  I say respect instead of trust because as one of my mentors told me: “Trust every word to be from a human who makes mistakes.”

“1,400 scholarly peer-reviewed journals and an extensive collection of books, major reference works, databases, and laboratory manuals in the life and physical sciences, medicine and allied health, engineering, the humanities, and the social sciences. Through a backfile initiative completed in 2007, 8.2 million pages of journal content have been made available online, a collection dating back to 1799.” Wiley

There’s a plethora of choices for you here. Wiley InterScience.

Use their search engines by topic, then choose “summary” for review. There are millions of great articles and authors in reference who have their own sites, many times. Such as: Robert Higgs. You might enjoy some of his articles. He’s the Senior Fellow in Political Economy for the Independent Institute, a journal that’s not supposed to “lean” either way. You can judge for yourself.  

Wiley-Blackwell tends to publish the best they can. Paul Krugman holds the Nobel Prize for Economics, 2008. They published his “Will There Be a Dollar Crisis,” 2007 along with a few others. I mentioned his name because I think you may have in the past, not sure. He’s also a contributor of the Economist and New York Times. Not everyone agrees he’s a prize winner.

I love the Wall Street Journal, though I read it with the same eyes I do everything else. Discernibly.


Good day to you, Sir and happy journaling,

always,
reg

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


54 posted 10-23-2008 02:39 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

ATLANTA (Reuters) – Black Americans could vote in record numbers for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, potentially giving him an edge in some states that are tightly contested with Republican rival John McCain.

Blacks make up around 12 percent of the voting population and are the Democratic Party's most reliable ethnic constituency, although historically they have voted in lower numbers than other groups.

This year, opinion polls show that more than 90 percent of blacks who vote could cast a ballot for Obama, in part because of racial solidarity with a candidate who would be the first black president in U.S. history.

"There is every indication that black turnout in 2008 will surpass all existing records both nationally and in individual states," said a report this week by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081023/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_blacks_1
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


55 posted 10-23-2008 05:47 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

And, from the same article Balladeer quoted above:

"Craven described himself as a disgruntled Republican who voted for Bush but plans to vote for Obama in part because he thinks McCain would likely continue Bush's policies. Race played little or no role in his decision, he said."

I've also read that there are many Republicans who won't be voting for McCain because of his choice of VP. They feel Palin just isn't qualified.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


56 posted 10-23-2008 08:58 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Palin isn't qualified, but Obama IS? I don't get it.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


57 posted 10-23-2008 10:19 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The thing is, Denise, that the press won't put Obama's inexperience under scrutiny but they will for Palin....simple enough.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


58 posted 10-23-2008 12:32 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I agree Michael.

I guess unless someone watches Fox, they don't really get the whole story. Such a pity. I hope more people start watching the REAL news, where ALL sides are presented, when so much depends on being informed.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


59 posted 10-23-2008 09:18 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



DEAR MIKE,

            I read your post number 54 above, about the number of blacks likely to vote for Obama.

     Why is this an issue?  I don't understand.  It seems like a sort of a given to me.  

     When Eisenhower ran, a very heavy proportion of WWII vets voted for him; they saw Eisenhower as one of them.  When Kennedy ran, he got an extra large proportion of the Catholic vote, even in Ohio, where I lived and which was heavily Republican in my area.  Kennedy was one of them, and they were pleased.  Bush was a bible based literal word-of-God kind of guy and he brought those folks in for him.  He was not only one of them and they wanted to support him on those grounds, but he went courting them as well.

     Is Obama supposed to be a more inept politician than these guys?  or incapable of learning from them?  or incapable of making his own decisions on these matters?

     As a former secretary of Defense might have said, "Jimminy Cricket, Mike, What do you expect?"

     Holy Cow!  Balladeer!

Yours, Bob Kaven

Curiously,

Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


60 posted 10-24-2008 01:43 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Gingrich: CNN Misquote in Palin Interview Shows 'The Fix Is In'

Thursday, October 23, 2008

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record ," October 22, 2008. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Tonight, we have Governor Palin who's getting the hits. The hits on Governor Palin -- they just keep on coming. Thirteen days to the election, neck-and-neck horse race, and Senator McCain's running mate continues to be slammed, some of it grossly unfair.

Yesterday, CNN was either incompetent or really dirty. Check this out. CNN reporter Drew Griffin asked Governor Palin this question, supposedly -- yes, supposedly quoting a "National Review" column.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DREW GRIFFIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Governor, you've been mocked in the press. The press has been pretty hard on you. The Democrats have been pretty hard on you. But also, some conservatives have been pretty hard on you, as well. "The National Review" had a story saying that, you know, I can't tell if Sarah Palin is "incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, or all of the above."


GOV. SARAH PALIN (R-AK), VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Who wrote that one?

GRIFFIN: That was in "The National Review."

PALIN: Who wrote it?

GRIFFIN: I don't have the author, but they were...

PALIN: I'd like to talk to that person.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: Here's the problem. The CNN reporter took the quote completely out of context. The column was actually an indictment of the media, not the governor, but of the media. Here's the quote in context. "Watching press coverage of the Republican candidate for vice president, sometimes hard to decide whether Sarah Palin's incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, backward or, well, all of the above."'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443712,00.html


Right now CNN is working on damage control after being caught. Denise, you are absolutely right  about the media...



Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


61 posted 10-24-2008 03:31 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:
  Balladeer:
The thing is, Denise, that the press won't put Obama's inexperience under scrutiny but they will for Palin....simple enough.



Dear Mike and Denise,

                           Why not compare apples and apples, oranges and oranges?  

     If you compare the two Presidential candidates on experience, the Republican candidate clearly has more of it, doesn't he?  On the other hand, this for some reason doesn't seem to matter to the voters as much as you might think it would, given the poles.  Apparently other factors come into play here.  I don't want to try to stack the deck either way by offering a biased view.  Obviously, you could stack for either McCain or Obama if you wanted to, but a clear explanation as to why things really stand the way they do right now is not one I can actually offer.

     There is a left wing eqivalent to the complaints about the press offered here, by the way.  The left believes that McCain gets too much of a free pass on tough questions from the press because he's been courting them heavily for the past ten years or so.

     The other comparison would be Palin and Biden.  That would be your more oranges to oranges comparison.  If that was the experience comparison you were trying to make, I suspect that the Republicans would be wanting to change the point of comparison to something else.  Biden is much more experienced and knowledgable about national and foreign affairs.

     The logic of a comparison between Obama and Palin is really interesting, though.  It turns the campaign into an even more fruitless comparison of personalities than before, while avoiding any actual discussion of issues.
I am certain there must be Republicans who want to talk about issues as well, rather than these more unprofitable comparisons.  I don't even like fantasy football, though, so what do I know?

Sincerely,  Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


62 posted 10-24-2008 03:45 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Very interesting on the comparisons, isn't it, Bob? Here we have four nominees, two with a lot of government experience and two with a lot less. Problem is that of the two with less, one is a presidential candidate and one is the vice-presidential one. Actually, the Democrats have been the ones to compare Obama and Palin. Why? That's easy enough. If they were to compare the two presidential candidates, Obama would not even come close in the experience arena. That's why they can't do it. So, to counter Obama's lack of experience they attack Palin's, which isn't even the smartest thing to do, since she has been a mayor and a governor whereas Obama is a one-term senator.

I grant you that a standard comparison between vice-presidential candidates would show Biden as much more experienced but that doesn't help Democrats, either. The presidential race is supposed to be between the presidential candidates, not the vice-presidential ones. Their comparisons between Obama and Palin are about the only option they have, with the exception of non-comparing, but they weren't smart enough to do that, apparently.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


63 posted 10-24-2008 02:24 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I thought this story was appropriate to this discussion.
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


64 posted 10-24-2008 02:37 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

And I'll bet you won't see this in the New York Times.

Complete with copy of news article & photo...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


65 posted 10-24-2008 02:38 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Very much so, Denise. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. I also read up a little on the author - he's got what it takes to bring the truth to light.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


66 posted 10-24-2008 03:19 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Denise, those are both very good links.  They point out the disparity between truth and agendas.  For the Left to claim there is no bias ignores the fact that 85%-90+% of journalists polled call themselves a 'Liberal.'  Herein lies the rub:  you will write an article based upon the point of view that you know the MOST ABOUT.  Plain and simple.  Most journalists stop digging anymore for facts that disagree with their preconceived notions or premises in their story headline.  The CNN distortion is just another example of how a simple Google search can go terribly wrong if you don't do the research that goes along with the context of the story.  

Let me illuminate something here:  I did my own google search on Mahoney and his s*x scandel, got 150,000 hits.  The story is completely dead a week later by the way, and I TOLD YA SO!!!!  (see my previous thread on Foley/Mahoney.)

I then did a google search on Palin and the word makeover....got 1,500,000 hits, nearly 10 times the articles and blogs that the disastrous Florida Mahoney scandel did.  

Such is the power of the media:  they can make even bigger, the smallest stories, and can minimize the ones they wish to shut down.  And they are doing it with every Pro-Obama story that comes along.

By the way:  October 21st media results:
“By a margin of 70%-90%, Americans say most JOURNALISTS want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4. Another 8% say journalists don't favor either candidate, and 13% say they don't know which candidate most reporters support.”   That's 8 to 1 in favor of Obama, by our beloved media.

APA-New York (USA) The director of the U.S Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ), Tom Rosensteil on Friday told 150 reporters that 70 percent of his compatriots believes the U.S media support Democrat presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

Building on a survey conducted by his organization, Rosensteil revealed that 56 percent of articles by the U.S media are pro-Obama against 14 percent for Republican hopeful John Mc Cain. http://www.apanews.net/apa.php?page=show_article_eng&id_article=78671

How does this compare with 'past' Obama coverage?
In early 2007, before he emerged as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Obama drew THREE times as many positive stories as negative ones.  http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-media23-2008oct23,0,2992953.s  tory
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


67 posted 10-24-2008 04:51 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Maybe the majority of journalists support one candidate over the other.

Maybe the majority of media owners support one candidate over the other and the journalists are towing the corporate line.

Maybe it’s a bit of both, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they only continue to do it because it’s financially practical - what they‘re pushing sells, it‘s popular. The media is a reflection of it’s market, the public gets what the public wants and arguing that it doesn’t reflect what you want is pointless, unless of course you’re willing to abandon the tenet of the free, and popular, press.

Personally I get most of my news from the BBC, their funding and reporting policy ensures an almost totally unbiased service, I haven’t found an American media source that even comes close. Any suggestions?

threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


68 posted 10-24-2008 05:34 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Hey, Grinch!

  Your premise is right: it's your conclusion that I don't agree with.

I look at it this way:  You have a very small amount of people (journalists, etc) presenting the complexion of an election, and its wrong coverage.  You can't be that biased and have it NOT show up.  The disparity in posVS.neg stories Obama/McCain can only do one thing:  prove a bias that has existed in this election PRIOR to the nomination process.

Read it how you wish, Grinch.  We all see things from our own perspective.  

But from my seat, the election looks 'fixed.'
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


69 posted 10-24-2008 05:43 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Grinch,

           I like the BBC as well.  I don't imagine you get American Public Radio or Public Broadcasting Service over there, but they're pretty careful to present a wide spectrum of views as well.

     The right over here has a tendency to confuse fairness and equal consideration.  Thus many folks want our schools teaching about cavemen riding dinosaurs in science class because some folks don't believe in evolution.  They consider this a fair use of school time, and get upset if their views don't get equal time on the news.  Reporters who don't go along with their viewpoints are dangerous radicals.  

     This constituency is well supported in the Republican Party.  The current President even identifies with them.
Almost anyone who is skeptical of their viewpoints about the way the world is put together is a dangerous radical.  Folks who believe that the science around  environmental degradation is wrong belong to the same constituency.  Reporters who don't think their viewpoint is a valid as the more broadly accepted scientific opinion are also considered Liberals because the fringe views aren't given equal weight with the peer reviewed scientifically tested ones.  They too are part of the Republican coalition.

     They've even managed to turn the word Liberal into a negative in this country.  The word once meant open-minded and as near as I can tell it still does.  So you can see why it would be an asset for people who are supposed to gather facts without making pre-judgements about them.  But in the United States, in its current repressive climate, I guess being open minded probably is as close to an obscenity as many folks on the right might imagine.

     In the meantime, the BBC gives a pretty objective view of things from a world wide perspective.  Most of the people you're trying to talk to, though, have their channel selectors welded to Fox News, which is occasionally entertaining as a part of a nutritionally balanced news diet.  As is Rush Limbaugh.

     They simply don't substitute for the whole thing, though they'll make you think they do.

Sincerely,  Bob Kaven
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


70 posted 10-24-2008 05:52 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Oh, one more thing.  I have worked in the media business in one way or another for 35 years.  There is a myth I wish to dispel:

MYTH: Stories get press because it is financially expediant to do so.

The 'types' of stories are subject to that.  (meaning that dog hero stories, murder, etc.  ALWAYS show up as high interest items.)

WHICH stories are totally at the whim of the editor, and journalist writing it.  They don't go to the owner, or the advertisers, or sponsors and try to predict which story will sell the best.  That's only done on the headliner stories or stories that show the sponsor in a bad light (prewarning them, ie.)  The rest of the newspaper is largely accumulated by OTHER reporters, syndicated ones, and the choice then becomes, which story to print, and/or what page number to print it on, and how often will we run updates.  All of these are subjective to the Editor/Program Director.  Generally, space requirements play the biggest role on which story gets played.  The newsroom manager (Program Dir.) also stacks the deck on TV, for instance:  if they wish the slant to look more Republican, they get two Repub commentators and one Dem or Independent (and vice versa for a Dem slant.)  Keith Olbermann, for instance, NEVER EVER has anyone who disagrees with him, and MSNBC never pushes him to do so.  He has 100% syncophant followers that say: You're right Keith, yup.    

So, the bottom financial line for media may be : what makes money, but it doesn't break down individually to each news story, and seldom to politics.  Politics, sorry to say, doesn't sell.  Scandels sell.  Politics, until this election anyways, seldom sells a newspaper on the headline alone.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


71 posted 10-24-2008 06:19 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
But from my seat, the election looks 'fixed.'


Fixed by who?

A bunch of journalists that support Obama? A group of normally competing media moguls? Obama?

They can’t fix anything, unless you’re suggesting that the American people are a conglomeration of dullards who can’t think for themselves and can be swayed away from making up their own mind with regard to their choice of candidate. Media supporters of McCain are preaching to McCain supporters and media supporters of Obama are preaching to Obama supporters, they’re the converted, and the undecided are hopefully ignoring both of them and concentrating on making their own mind up.

The public get what the public want.

Even if the media could, as you suggest, sell a pig in a poke to the American people, how could you stop them?
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


72 posted 10-24-2008 06:29 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Put simply,

the media is literally using a great propaganda technique to get their liberal or left-leaning or whatever you call it, agenda through:

brainwashing.  (and believe me, I am not using this term loosely.)
~~DEFINITION:  Brainwashing (also known as thought reform or as re-education) consists of any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person — beliefs sometimes unwelcome or in conflict with the person's prior beliefs and knowledge,[1] in order to affect that individual's value system and subsequent thought-patterns and behaviors.~~
...and in my opinion, nothing does a better job of 'brainwashing' over time than the medium of video.  If the term 'brainwashing' is distasteful to you, substitute the proper synonymic phrase for it: Marketing thru Subliminals.

Those in the media figure, correctly, that if you show a person 70 times positively
another person only 20 times positively...

...that viewers WILL change their opinion over time if exposed to the same bias.  To be frank with you:  I think most people ARE lazy when it comes to understanding politics.  We must have had a dozen or so televisions in the lounge when I worked for a large corporation.  They were tuned 24-7 to daytime soaps and game shows.  The women ruled the roost!  LOL  You wouldn't believe how irate they were if you came in to watch the news.  The LAST thing I could ever get my coworkers to watch on television was political news, and for some reason, I don't know why, women traditionally hate politics more than men, and don't seem as interested in knowing the specific platforms.  I believe it has something to do with their 'exclusion from the good ol boy' political and job networks from the past.  I've said this before and I'll say it more before I'm done:

There are 2-3 well-studied voters
for every 7-10 voters voting only their political party without knowing issues in any detail.  They cancel out the 'good' votes of someone who took the time to know what the election is about.  And, man, that bugs me to say that, too.  Really bugs me.  

There's been whole episodes of talk-radio devoted to man on the street quizes about politics, and the average person barely knows anything beyond the VP's and Secretary of State.  It's awful....but talking points have replaced knowledge in both parties.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


73 posted 10-24-2008 07:03 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Bob,

Thanks for the heads up regarding PBS and I honestly mean that, at first glance it looks very similar in delivery to the BBC service - I was beginning to think that America didn‘t have an unbiased alternative to the likes of Fox. This was particularly interesting and apt:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec08/campaignmedia_10-23.html

One last question, why the heck do people frequent the biased mainstream when an alternative is available? Is it because they want to be told what to believe, as threadbear suggests, that they don’t want to decide for themselves? Or is it more likely an affirmation of their allegiance?

A case of I’m a Dodgers supporter because I go to Dodger games as opposed to I go to Dodgers games because I’m a Dodgers supporter. There’s a subtle, but important, difference.

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


74 posted 10-24-2008 07:46 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Denise,

The first article, written by Card, was very good. I enjoyed reading his view. He had many points and many great questions. The only thing that bothered me was the generalization of this quote:

quote:
These are facts.  This financial crisis was completely preventable.  The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party.  The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.


I think many on both sides, as well as straight down the middle, partook and benefited all the way down the scale.


The second link lost my respect, as it lacked the very fundamental message that Card was lamenting upon: Honesty.

quote:
According to DSA documents, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, has been a point of controversy for Obama over the presidential candidate's ties to the group.


As far as I’m aware, ACORN has never been convicted of voter fraud. In fact, the Justice Department has prosecuted 120 individual fraud cases over the last 5 years with 86 convictions, which includes all types of voter fraud and not just the registration kind. The numbers are minuscule in a country of 300 million people.

5 year effort

A Pockmark Upon Both Houses

the ACORN hype seems to be hyper-sensational reporting at its best, along with many other slam tactics being used by both parties. Now people are picking on Palin about her wardrobe expense. What’s next? Their kids?  

Maybe everyone oughta campaign in their underwear, in the dark, under a box, after they’ve managed to crawl outta of the hole they were in to not have a single mark against them.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The Presidential "Race"   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors