GOP Primaries/Candidates thread

[Texsox]

The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction.

 

The only question is how to solve the problem.

[mr_genius]

They aren't biased... they're lazy and incompetent.

 

"Ohhh, this report wasn't biased, I'm just lazy." I call BS on that.

 

How come they are always "lazy" when it comes to a hit job on the GOP. You rarely, if ever, see a "lazy" report trashing a Democrat.

[Texsox]

^^ ^^

 

Just look at CNN's political page

 

Picture of Obama,

Clinton Dismisses Critics

Why Washington Doesn't Get Thompson

 

and of courese another Craig story. Disgusting.

[NorthSideSox72]

"Ohhh, this report wasn't biased, I'm just lazy." I call BS on that.

 

How come they are always "lazy" when it comes to a hit job on the GOP. You rarely, if ever, see a "lazy" report trashing a Democrat.

Are you serious? Look at the main page for the news sources. Clinton announced her health plan, and today its criticisms of it. That's what happens.

 

[mr_genius]

Are you serious? Look at the main page for the news sources. Clinton announced her health plan, and today its criticisms of it. That's what happens.

 

 

What and where? Examples please.

 

You think a legitimate look at a major change to health care shouldn't be looked at? How is talking about Clinton's health care program some example of a unfair political attack?

[mr_genius]

^^ ^^

 

Just look at CNN's political page

 

Picture of Obama,

Clinton Dismisses Critics

Why Washington Doesn't Get Thompson

 

and of courese another Craig story. Disgusting.

 

 

I think the government may have transferred NUKE to the counter cyber-terrorism department and he is practicing by hacking Texsox account

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

What and where? Examples please.

 

You think a legitimate look at a major change to health care shouldn't be looked at? How is talking about Clinton's health care program some example of a unfair political attack?

Of course it should, and of course its not an unfair attack. What are you talking about? They attack ALL the candidates, and as far as I see most of the time, they give equal B.S. to both parties or very close to it.

 

[mr_genius]

Of course it should, and of course its not an unfair attack. What are you talking about? They attack ALL the candidates, and as far as I see most of the time, they give equal B.S. to both parties or very close to it.

 

What am I talking about...?? I've replied to atleast 30 posts from you about media bias, you should know "what I'm talking about". I know you aren't this dense. And no, the MSM does not attack ALL candidates equally, not even close. The magic (D) will get you off 90% of the time. Only the most spectacular or grievous of offenses are covered.

 

Also, your posts contradict themselves. In another thread you admit to a left bias in the media, but when you post here you claim no bias.

[NorthSideSox72]

What am I talking about...?? I've replied to atleast 30 posts from you about media bias, you should know "what I'm talking about". I know you aren't this dense. And no, the MSM does not attack ALL candidates equally, not even close. The magic (D) will get you off 90% of the time. Only the most spectacular or grievous of offenses are covered.

 

Also, your posts contradict themselves. In another thread you admit to a left bias in the media, but when you post here you claim no bias.

OK, two things. One, I said almost the same or the same. And I'd agree the MSM tends a bit left - even showed a graph. But I really do mean a little bit. Your claim that the magic D gets them off 90% of the time seems ludicrous to me.

 

Two, I asked what you were talking about because you leapt from criticism of candidates to unfair political attacks on them, which wasn't what I was talking about. Clinton getting grilled isn't an attack. And let's look at the two stories we discussed today... Clinton's health plan gets articles on the front page of CNN.com where numerous people cite their criticisms, and she responds. Thompson is quoted for not knowing about the Everglades, which gets a much smaller mention and if you read the text (not the post), its just matter of fact statements. Seems about right, yes? Clinton is the bigger target right now, so she gets more follow. And I can't tell you how many times we've read in the MSM about the mistakes of Edwards, Obama, etc. Probably even more so than the GOP candidates, in fact.

 

[mr_genius]

OK, two things. One, I said almost the same or the same. And I'd agree the MSM tends a bit left - even showed a graph. But I really do mean a little bit. Your claim that the magic D gets them off 90% of the time seems ludicrous to me.

 

Two, I asked what you were talking about because you leapt from criticism of candidates to unfair political attacks on them, which wasn't what I was talking about. Clinton getting grilled isn't an attack. And let's look at the two stories we discussed today... Clinton's health plan gets articles on the front page of CNN.com where numerous people cite their criticisms, and she responds. Thompson is quoted for not knowing about the Everglades, which gets a much smaller mention and if you read the text (not the post), its just matter of fact statements. Seems about right, yes? Clinton is the bigger target right now, so she gets more follow. And I can't tell you how many times we've read in the MSM about the mistakes of Edwards, Obama, etc. Probably even more so than the GOP candidates, in fact.

 

 

Please post a link to this article that criticizes Clinton's health plan.

 

Also, there is no way a mistake by a Dem gets the same coverage. Hillary Clinton takes 800k in contributions (and is pals with) some guy forcing people to give donations, and is a blatant rip off artist. Half a day news. Some gay Republican is charged with a misdemeanor lewd conduct, BOOM! top news for atleast a month.

 

Republican says "maccaca" or whatever the hell that is and it's news for months, top news.

 

Hillary Clinton makes racist jokes about Indians and Ghandi. Nothing.

 

There's a billion more examples. News rooms are 90% Democrat, and they support Democrats and attack Republicans. It fits there world view. Yes, they think they are objective, but they are not even close. You know what? Thats fine, but you also need to realize that a right wing news station was eventually going to come along and counter balance. FOX has tons of viewers sick of only pro-Democrat news, they are very successful because they offer an alternative view. Deal with it.

Edited September 19, 2007 by mr_genius

[Rex Kickass]

Please post a link to this article that criticizes Clinton's health plan.

 

Also, there is no way a mistake by a Dem gets the same coverage. Hillary Clinton takes 800k in contributions (and is pals with) some guy forcing people to give donations, and is a blatant rip off artist. Half a day news. Some gay Republican is charged with a misdemeanor lewd conduct, BOOM! top news for atleast a month.

 

Republican says "maccaca" or whatever the hell that is and it's news for months, top news.

 

Hillary Clinton makes racist jokes about Indians and Ghandi. Nothing.

 

There's a billion more examples. News rooms are 90% Democrat, and they support Democrats and attack Republicans. It fits there world view. Yes, they think they are objective, but they are not even close. You know what? Thats fine, but you also need to realize that a right wing news station was eventually going to come along and counter balance. FOX has tons of viewers sick of only pro-Democrat news, they are very successful because they offer an alternative view. Deal with it.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/hea...care/index.html

 

The bottom half of the article and then there are two decent size paragraphs near the top that talk about her last foray in this field and why her initiative was killed off in 93-94.

 

Your comparison to Clinton/Hsu and Larry Craig isn't a valid one.

Story One: A Clinton fundraiser turned out to be a crook, there was weirdness around his actions and he tried to run from the law. Clinton returns the money raised by Hsu. Clinton shuts up about it, the story dies.

 

Story Two: Larry Craig gets arrested for soliciting sex in an airport bathroom, keeps it under wraps for two months, and when it leaks out - goes out of his way to proclaim his innocence after pleading guilty in court, resigns and then publicly floats the idea of rescinding his resignation, goes to court to fight his guilty plea and does more to keep this story in the news than anyone else involved. The story initially floats longer than it should because the man in question actively votes and encourages intolerance towards the team he bats for, at least part of the time. Then it keeps floating because the good Senator doesn't know how to keep a low profile after. BTW: Larry Craig was also the co-chair for the Romney campaign.

 

Speaking of Mitt, how many of his fundraisers are under indictment these days?

[mr_genius]

Your comparison to Clinton/Hsu and Larry Craig isn't a valid one.

Story One: A Clinton fundraiser turned out to be a crook, there was weirdness around his actions and he tried to run from the law. Clinton returns the money raised by Hsu. Clinton shuts up about it, the story dies.

 

Story Two: Larry Craig gets arrested for soliciting sex in an airport bathroom, keeps it under wraps for two months, and when it leaks out - goes out of his way to proclaim his innocence after pleading guilty in court, resigns and then publicly floats the idea of rescinding his resignation, goes to court to fight his guilty plea and does more to keep this story in the news than anyone else involved. The story initially floats longer than it should because the man in question actively votes and encourages intolerance towards the team he bats for, at least part of the time. Then it keeps floating because the good Senator doesn't know how to keep a low profile after. BTW: Larry Craig was also the co-chair for the Romney campaign.

 

 

I certainly think it is valid. Hillary Clinton is likely to be the next president of the United States and is involved in a major fund raising scandal. She got a total pass, of course she would keep her mouth shut.

 

Graig is an idiot who pleaded guilty to lewd conduct and got destroyed in the media. He should have shut up, but decided to "clear his name" because of all the attention the MSM hit him with. Not as important as what happened with Clinton. IMO, dirty money is a bigger deal in Washington than a dirty old Senator from Idaho looking for gay sex. And there is no way that the news ratio should have been like 300 to 1 in the MSM on this.

 

Edit: I read the article, and it's in no way a bad article for Clinton. There is a little information that "critics don't like the plan" and then the rest of the article explains why Clinton likes the plan or how the plan is actually good. There is no real criticism in the article, just the fact that 'some GOP guy criticized it'. THAT is what you guys are considering a negative article? That article was not negative at all, it gave much more print to the pro of the plan over the con. Actually, the entire article as basically her pro-health care stance, basically no information against.

Edited September 19, 2007 by mr_genius

[Rex Kickass]

So you're saying that covering a Presidential candidate's plan by listing the details of the plan and quoting the candidate explaining why she thinks its a good plan is considered biased coverage?

 

Maybe when the critical response becomes a little more articulated than Romney and Rudy trotting out the "HillaryCare" buzzword again, there'll be more criticism to cover. The bulk of the criticism on this plan has come from the left so far, actually.

 

You didn't ask for an article that portrayed a candidate in any sort of positive or negative light as a basis of the policy initiative that he or she espouses. You asked for an article that contained criticism over a specific initiative that a specific candidate asked for. I provided that.

 

So if Clinton's dirty money was important, what about Romney's?

 

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6818837

 

WASHINGTON - A top Utah fund-raiser for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign - who has links to an organization facing a civil lawsuit alleging child abuse - is no longer part of Romney's state finance team.

Robert Lichfield of La Verkin, who founded the umbrella group called the Worldwide Association of Specialty Schools, brought in some $300,000 earlier this year for Romney during a single Utah event and has donated tens of thousands to the former Massachusetts governor and other Republicans in recent years.

Lichfield is named in a federal lawsuit charging that students of the "behavior modification" schools with ties to WWASPS were subjected to "physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse." The suit had 140 defendants at last count....

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Utah, alleges brazen acts of child abuse, including that students of the various programs had been forced to eat their own vomit, clean toilets with a toothbrush and brush their teeth afterward, were chained or locked in dog cages, kicked, beaten, thrown and slammed to the ground and forced into sexual acts.

 

P.S. Do you know who Alan B. Fabian is?

[mr_genius]

So you're saying that covering a Presidential candidate's plan by listing the details of the plan and quoting the candidate explaining why she thinks its a good plan is considered biased coverage?

 

 

Not at all. Please read the other posts in the thread, it was being used as an example of a negative article against a Dem. I am merely pointing out that it is hardly negative.

 

So if Clinton's dirty money was important, what about Romney's?

 

Of course it is important, if I was in charge of a MSM newsroom it would be a big story. They may be a little gun shy to cover it because they know that Dems are also involved in fund raising scandals, so they probably consider it best to ignore. We'll see, I wouldn't be suprised if this becomes the new huge story and proof of the "GOP culture of corruption" if Romney wins a few primaries.

Edited September 19, 2007 by mr_genius

[kapkomet]

Not at all. Please read the other posts in the thread, it was being used as an example of a negative article against a Dem. I am merely pointing out that it is hardly negative.

You're wasting your time. The media has a "little" bias, but it's not that big of a deal - and "Faux News" is the most despicable organization in the United States when it comes to "reporting." The other side is always prettier.

 

[StrangeSox]

There's a billion more examples. News rooms are 90% Democrat, and they support Democrats and attack Republicans. It fits there world view. Yes, they think they are objective, but they are not even close. You know what? Thats fine, but you also need to realize that a right wing news station was eventually going to come along and counter balance. FOX has tons of viewers sick of only pro-Democrat news, they are very successful because they offer an alternative view. Deal with it.

 

Remember how no one in the media bothered to question any of the administration's rhetoric on the march to war in Iraq? they were the rah-rah cheerleaders for the whole thing.

 

Of course, in their minds, war = $$$, so I'd say it was greed and complete lack of journalist integrity and not a political bent.

 

BTW, with Fox's "alternative view," viewers are the least informed. I don't think the study is biased as Limbaugh and O'Reily listeners rank pretty high.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319

A majority of Fox's programming are opinion shows and not news shows, anyway.

Edited September 19, 2007 by StrangeSox

[mr_genius]

Remember how no one in the media bothered to question any of the administration's rhetoric on the march to war in Iraq? they were the rah-rah cheerleaders for the whole thing.

 

Of course, in their minds, war = $$$, so I'd say it was greed and complete lack of journalist integrity and not a political bent.

 

BTW, with Fox's "alternative view," viewers are the least informed. I don't think the study is biased as Limbaugh and O'Reily listeners rank pretty high.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319

A majority of Fox's programming are opinion shows and not news shows, anyway.

 

 

The media was cheerleaders as long as the Democrat party supported the war, once the Dems turn so does the MSM.

 

As far as FOX viewers are "least informed", I will point out that many surveys show Republicans are more educated, successful and smarter than Democrats on average. Also, I'm sure I could conduct a poll that shows people who watch CNN are least informed, it's easy to do. I wouldn't take these things as ultimate proof as there are lurking variables that lead to the implied conclusion. Not to say that all polls are bad, just be weary when they seem to be out to prove a certain political objective.

Edited September 19, 2007 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

You're wasting your time.

 

 

Yea, I know.

[Chet Lemon]

Fox News reported that Obama attended madrasses as a kid. The MSM did not b/c he is a Democrat. At least Fox had the guts to report a story unkind to Dem presidential candidates, unlike the rest of the media (i.e. liberals).

[NorthSideSox72]

The media was cheerleaders as long as the Democrat party supported the war, once the Dems turn so does the MSM.

This is exactly why I was saying earlier that we get the media we want. Notice something about this fact you point out? Its correct in its essence by the way - media showed a lot of positive stories pre-war, and since is more negative. Guess what? The American public's opinion of the war follows that same trend. That isn't a coincidence - it is a market economy for news organizations. They generate the stuff people will read. Its not that they coincide with the Dems - its that they coincide with the current mood of the public.

 

[Balta1701]

The media was cheerleaders as long as the Democrat party supported the war, once the Dems turn so does the MSM.

Quite a few more Democrats in both houses voted against the war than for it.

[Rex Kickass]

Of course it is important, if I was in charge of a MSM newsroom it would be a big story. They may be a little gun shy to cover it because they know that Dems are also involved in fund raising scandals, so they probably consider it best to ignore. We'll see, I wouldn't be suprised if this becomes the new huge story and proof of the "GOP culture of corruption" if Romney wins a few primaries.

 

Great, so fundraising scandals are big stories. So you should clearly know who Alan B Fabian is. Who is he?

[mr_genius]

Quite a few more Democrats in both houses voted against the war than for it.

 

Incorrect. 8 more in the Senate voted for it than against. with major Dems like Kerry and Clinton in favor

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Edited September 19, 2007 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

Great, so fundraising scandals are big stories. So you should clearly know who Alan B Fabian is. Who is he?

 

Let me guess, something to do with Romney. You seem to really be on a kick like that. Of course you brush over Clinton and change the subject.

 

If they put any Mitt Romney fund raising scandal on the front page and go after him constantly thats fine with me. They should do the same thing with H.Clinton

[Rex Kickass]

You're the one that seems to think that the Clinton fundraising scandal is being glossed over. Alan B Fabian was the National Finance Co Chair and key fundraiser for the Romney campaign. He was also indicted for 23 counts of fraud in Maryland last month, about the same time as the Hsu story broke.

 

Hillary Clinton returned both the money donated by Hsu, but also the money raised by him.

 

Romney returned the $2300 donation that Fabian made, but none of the other money raised by him.

 

If you search Fabian and Romney in Google News search you come up with 36 hits, half of them blogs.

 

If you search Hsu and Clinton in Google News search you come up with 3,545 hits, clearly swept under the rug because Hillary runs as a Democrat.

 

Compared to the Larry Craig story, the Hsu story WAS swept under the rug. But not because Hillary is a Democrat, but because given the choice between a fundraising scandal, and a politician soliciting sex in a bathroom - most Americans are tuning in to see what happens between men's room stall walls, and not between the lines in a campaign's ledger sheet.