The Republican Thread

[lostfan]

far more true than you realize.

 

And I think the #1 reason fox wins is format. They pumped their lineup with vitalic, dynamic personalities, thin on news. I don't need another long post to say what's dangerous about fox news has nothing to do with ideology, but of shallow content. They have only like 3 hours of the day devoted to a news hour.

That's been the trend for the last 5-10 years. Personality-driven journalism. Fox does it better than anybody. It's the equivalent of reality TV - people watch it, but that doesn't make it any good.

[Texsox]

Obama didn't really say anything new, but he did say things the Times agrees with, therefore they printed it. McCain didn't write what they wanted to hear, so they didn't print.

 

Who cares though? It's a liberal paper and they can print whatever they want. But we can laugh at them when they claim to be unbiased news source.

 

That certainly is simple enough. So why don't conservatives ever buy a newspaper and just print what they want?

[NorthSideSox72]

That's been the trend for the last 5-10 years. Personality-driven journalism. Fox does it better than anybody. It's the equivalent of reality TV - people watch it, but that doesn't make it any good.

Definitely, and there are plenty of people who can't think for themselves, and prefer to have someone do it for them. But there is also still a large segment of society who prefers clean reporting, and the ability to make judgements for themselves.

 

[Texsox]

Definitely, and there are plenty of people who can't think for themselves, and prefer to have someone do it for them. But there is also still a large segment of society who prefers clean reporting, and the ability to make judgements for themselves.

 

I believe a certain amount of analysis is important. The world is not as easy to understand as it was 50 years ago. The problem becomes when those lines are blurred and people believe they understand the news by mimicking Rush, Colbert, etc.

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfogMFL7UJo

[Balta1701]

I believe a certain amount of analysis is important. The world is not as easy to understand as it was 50 years ago. The problem becomes when those lines are blurred and people believe they understand the news by mimicking Rush, Colbert, etc.

Anyone who believes they understand the news by mimicking Stephen should be fed to the Bears. Because they're not getting the joke. At some level, you have to understand the news before that show before you can get the joke.

[lostfan]

Anyone who believes they understand the news by mimicking Stephen should be fed to the Bears. Because they're not getting the joke. At some level, you have to understand the news before that show before you can get the joke.

I actually think I get the best news from Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.

[mr_genius]

As for you last statement, I whole-heartedly agree that Obama has had much more press. I can't help but laugh at your assertion. If McCain got half of the critical coverage of Obama and then added on 50% more of the positive coverage he already gets, he'd be in deep s***.

 

So you really think the media isn't pro-Obama? Oh well. I would laugh, but i believe you are studying journalism and if you really think Obama has been treated worse than McCain by the MSM media it's more tragic than funny.

 

The american news has moved with the american people on all of these. It's made up of the people. But the themes I've mentioned have been and continue to be deeply involved in journalism worldwide.

 

The media is made up of a select few people whom consider themselves more informed and elite as compared to the general public. People don't trust the news like they did in the past, mainly because they know the are being preached to half of the time; as compared to watching a news broadcast. One of my favorite things about the internet is how it gives much more people a voice.

Edited July 23, 2008 by mr_genius

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfogMFL7UJo

I'll be darned! Phil Gramm was right! We are a nation of whiners. Apparently most of them live in the McCain campaign.

 

Oh, and when McCain can get the facts about Iraq right, he can start to try and argue the media is biased.

[mr_genius]

Oh, and when McCain can get the facts about Iraq right, he can start to try and argue the media is biased.

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...0&start=150

 

it's already in the other thread

[bmags]

So you really think the media isn't pro-Obama? Oh well. I would laugh, but i believe you are studying journalism and if you really think Obama has been treated worse than McCain by the MSM media it's more tragic than funny.

 

 

 

The media is made up of a select few people whom consider themselves more informed and elite as compared to the general public. People don't trust the news like they did in the past, mainly because they know the are being preached to half of the time; as compared to watching a news broadcast. One of my favorite things about the internet is how it gives much more people a voice.

 

I honestly don't understand where you draw your conclusions.

 

The media covers Obama more. Coverage is huge. Name recognition is gigantic. So yes, Obama has an rather large edge in media. However, McCain whining this soon about media coverage should worry him. Unlike Clinton, he has not had critical coverage of his campaign for months in addition to high coverage of Obama, sans Gramm saga. This tactic will likely bring critical coverage on Obama again. BUT, if the reaction is to raise coverage on McCain, critical coverage will also increase, and that could bury him. McCain is a unique candidate. His campaign is fumed off of 8 years of high praise from the media outlets giving him top name recognition as a free thinker in his own party. This reputation has stuck with him. And because of the pre-established reputation, the lack of coverage hasn't hurt him, IMO, it has helped. In the past few weeks, McCain has essentially adopted every policy of Obama's concerning foreign policy with hardly a blink from anyone. Obama was considered waffling on his own policy for mentioning his tactics are flexible.

 

 

The mainstream media is trying to balance out the heavy Obama coverage by giving credence to every McCain campaign accusation*. I'm not sure if changing this is in his best interest. He's demonstrated the ability to control the narrative in the media with the exception of the past week. He shouldn't panic just because of his trip oversees. What's happened this past week is absurdly positive for OBama, instead of freaking out he should just let the ebbs and flows of the election follow the course and thanks his lucky stars this happened in July and not September.

 

*The media seemed acutely aware of their own overboard coverage of Obama's overseas trip, so they counteracted this with talk shows talking about how the media (in third person) was going overboard in covering this. And the overall theme was that this trip is going to hurt Obama, because with so much attention, any gaffe will clearly get covered, and how Americans don't want to see an American popular over in Europe. Now you could see this as lowering expectations, and to Obama's favor, but with every Obama coverage there was this need to clarify how poor a decision this trip was, how much of a show it was and how it will backfire. Coincidentally, these were the same points coming out of McCain's campaign.

 

The media is made up of thousands of individuals from all different backgrounds and states, specializing in topics from local agriculture and community events, to world issues and specific tribes in Afghanistan. Members of the media have the ability to cover topics so thoroughly (i.e. public schools, jails) that they can end up being experts in themselves, and as two reporters from the Philadelphia Inquirer became, are called upon for governmental hearings just for their information.

 

As for why people don't trust the media. One peculiar aspect is the publics distinction of what media is. When asked if they trust their local media outlet, even if it's a large paper ala the Tribune, largely it's yes. If they are asked if they trust the media, the answer is largely no.

 

Reasons for this? I've read studies that have attributed this to a scandal happy press riding the wave of watergate, that in their pressing to find gov't scandals, became lapdogs for the minority parties. One problem, journalists too willing to use unidentified sources, publishing libel and hiding behind a source with unfortunate motives. Another reason, the extremely popular campaign of the right to vilify the media as liberal. Not only that, their ability to detach themselves from government themselves. People should not trust the government, nor the media, both controls of the leftist groups. This worked effectively in garnering support for a Republican takeover 20 years in the making with the likes of Goldwater in the seventies. In addition, high crime coverage marginalized large groups of people to turn to alternative sources of news, who, while being members of the media, claim not to be members of the media.

 

So, do people trust the media? Depends on what the media is. If it's the media they like, they are not the media. If it's the media, they don't like the media.

 

Once again, if you are to look for a critic of media, journalists are the biggest critics you'll find. BUt these accusations are large generalizations brought on by demagogues and distributed through emails. I'll rip apart any article you bring me and I may very well find a liberal bias in it. And there's no denying that the majority of journalists are liberal. BUt you'd be surprised when you are covering something how unpolitical most reality is. As much as a politician can claim a boy with no leg in his campaign. To interview said boy and the problem he faces, will have nothing to do with democrat and republican.

 

Media will continue to be specialized to everyone and the good and the bad will come of it. People will be able to ignore what we don't want or care about. And I wonder, with the same movement in education, how our democracy will fair.

[mr_genius]

The coverage I've seen on Obama has been mainly positive. I have heard him compared to JFK and Lincoln numerous times. The Rev Wright thing got a lot of attention, but the MSM pretty much defended him and would put on an expert after the news story that would explain away any possible issues with Obama being so close to the guy. FOX news went crazy, of course, and played it 24/7 and trashed Obama; but we aren't arguing if FOX is blatently pro-GOP, as they clearly are.

 

The media also likes to focus attention on stories that will help Obama, such as having a big story about nuclear waste accidents immediately after McCain argues there should be more nuclear power plants. Another example is showing a video of some poor woman dying on a hospital room floor to coincide with why we need Obama's health care plan. That story would not have been national news if it wasn't an election year and they didn't feel it would help the Democrats. Selection of news stories is very interesting, especially when you map it with what Obama is saying in his speeches. There seems to be a direct relation to what the media focuses on as to correlate with a boost for Obama. Of course, there is the argument of "well, Obama is merely speaking to important issues, and the news media is covering these issues." Well, these exact same issues have been around for years, yet they only now decide to go with them and almost always in a way in which the selection will make McCains plans look bad. It's very easy to cherry pick news stories like that to give a politician an advantage. They basically seem to be taking their walking orders form the DNC, even though I doubt they do; they merely are mostly Democrats and think that everyone else should be convinced to see things the same way they do. That is a major problem with having an echo chamber of a newsroom, everyone has the same world view and it is often different than the experiences of the majority of Americans, thus the lack of trust from large portions of the populace.

 

The MSM has treated Obama as the next great president, and he may well be, but currently he is largely a creation of the media (as McCain was). Unfortunately for McCain, the media has found someone new to gravitate towards and has already begun the hero worship. McCain was a favorite as he was challenging G.W Bush; your enemies enemy is your fried, I suppose, in the MSM. It's another election year and the MSM swings into full American Idol mode, and Obama is their new favorite crooner.

Edited July 23, 2008 by mr_genius

[southsideirish71]

The coverage I've seen on Obama has been mainly positive. I have heard him compared to JFK and Lincoln numerous times. The Rev Wright thing got a lot of attention, but the MSM pretty much defended him and would put on an expert after the news story that would explain away any possible issues with Obama being so close to the guy. FOX news went crazy, of course, and played it 24/7 and trashed Obama; but we aren't arguing if FOX is blatently pro-GOP, as they clearly are.

 

The media also likes to focus attention on stories that will help Obama, such as having a big story about nuclear waste accidents immediately after McCain argues there should be more nuclear power plants. Another example is showing a video of some poor woman dying on a hospital room floor to coincide with why we need Obama's health care plan. That story would not have been national news if it wasn't an election year and they didn't feel it would help the Democrats. Selection of news stories is very interesting, especially when you map it with what Obama is saying in his speeches. There seems to be a direct relation to what the media focuses on as to correlate with a boost for Obama. Of course, there is the argument of "well, Obama is merely speaking to important issues, and the news media is covering these issues." Well, these exact same issues have been around for years, yet they only now decide to go with them. They basically seem to be taking their walking orders form the DNC, even though I doubt they do; they merely are mostly Democrats and think that everyone else should be convinced to see things the same way they do. That is a major problem with having an echo chamber of a newsroom, everyone has the same world view and it is often different than the experiences of the majority of Americans, thus the lack of trust from large portions of the populace.

 

The MSM has treated Obama as the next great president, and he may well be, but currently he is largely a creation of the media (as McCain was). Unfortunately for McCain, the media has found someone new to gravitate towards and has already begun the hero worship. McCain was a favorite as he was challenging G.W Bush; your enemies enemy is your fried, I suppose, in the MSM. It's another election year and the MSM swings into full American Idol mode, and Obama is their new favorite crooner.

 

Another example of balanced media being objective. You can read about the rock stars world tour and get up to the minute information from O-Bama one. The suntimes I am sure is going to have McCain one with his rockstar tour as well. Sure they are.

 

Edited July 23, 2008 by southsideirish71

[EvilMonkey]

Yeah, the MSM sure seemed to miss his staff's presumption of victory the other day.

At a morning background briefing, reporters parried with senior advisers on the characterization of Obama’s speech Thursday in Berlin as a campaign rally. The outdoor speech at the Victory Column could draw thousands of people, similar to the size of Obama events in the United States.

 

“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.

 

“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uui...02034DF88C14E66

[Texsox]

So McCain has an opportunity to either write a piece with some new information or opinion and get it published, or recycle something and have it rejected. Which is better for his campaign?

 

I believe getting rejected was far better. And this is one reason he will be the next President. He is a proven campaigner, has won many times, and knows when what looks like a defeat is a huge win. Nothing whips up Republicans quite like getting snubbed by the evil, leftist, media. He could have been published, his advisers, and McCain himself, understood how. They wanted to get rejected and they did. Brilliant.

 

This is now a world where if an article either adds the ® or eliminates a (d), it proves how evil the media is and exonerates Republicans from anything and everything.

[Rex Kickass]

Just to see if I can make anyone's head explode...you know...if there was a fairness doctrine in the law, covering newspapers, I think that would have required the NYT to print that piece no matter what McCain said in it.

Actually, the fairness doctrine would not have required the NYT to print the same piece, if it had been applied to newspapers the way that it was applied to broadcast outlets.

[southsider2k5]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelst...fake-interviews

 

Andrea Mitchell might be a doyenne of the liberal media, but she has her reporter's pride and principles, which have been trampled by the way the Obama campaign has managed the media during the candidate's current trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Mitchell let loose on this evening's Hardball, speaking of "fake interviews," and decrying that she was unable to report on pertinent aspects of the trip because the media has been excluded and that the video released is unreliable because it's impossible to know what has been edited out.

 

Before Mitchell made her displeasure known, Roger Simon of Politico, Chris Matthews's other guest during the segment, depicted the images coming out of the war zone as all Obama could have dreamed of.

 

ROGER SIMON: The optics are all very good on this trip. I mean, the beginning of this trip is so good, Senator Obama might just want to call off the end and just keep running the videotape.

 

He goes into a gym, everybody, all the service people there cheer. He shoots a basket, you know, it goes through the hoop. He's obviously standing there with troops, they seem to be liking him, smiling. They don't seem to feel that Barack Obama wants to desert them, to leave them in Iraq. This is exactly what the Obama campaign hoped for, and this was supposed to be the tough part of the trip. The meatiest part of the trip in Jordan and Israel may be tough in terms of foreign policy, but the back end of the trip to cheering European crowds will certainly be as good if not better than this. So I think he's feeling very good right now.

 

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Andrea, I want to get ethnic a little bit here --

 

ANDREA MITCHELL: This is message --

 

MATTHEWS: Yeah, go ahead, please.

 

MITCHELL: Let me just say something about the message management. He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you're seeing is not reporters brought in. You're seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they're not interviews from a journalist. So, there's a real press issue here. Politically it's smart as can be. But we've not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before.

 

When Matthews inquired about the atmospherics of the trip, Mitchell made clear her frustration as a reporter.

 

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about access to the troops, Andrea. A lot of African-American faces over there, very happy, delighted faces. Is that a representation of the percentage of servicepeople who are African-American, or did they all choose to join someone they like, apparently? What's the story?

 

MITCHELL: I can't really say that. Being a reporter who was not present in any of those situations, I just cannot report on what was edited out, what was, you know, on the sidelines. That's my issue. We don't know what we are seeing.

 

Good on Andrea. Now, will the rest of the MSM press the Obama campaign to release the outtakes from the war zone?

[kapkomet]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelst...fake-interviews

 

 

 

I'm shocked.

 

But it's ok, this guy has more teflon around him then anyone in recent history.

 

[southsider2k5]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/070...York_Times.html

 

House Republicans fire off letter to New York Times

 

Roughly a hundred members of Congress have signed on so far to a letter to David Shipley, op-ed page editor of The New York Times, objecting to his recent rejection of an opinion piece by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). The Times didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment, but when it does, we’ll update this post.

 

The full letter after the jump…

» Continue reading House Republicans fire off letter to New York Times

 

July 23, 2008

 

Mr. David Shipley

 

Op-Ed Page Editor

 

The New York Times

 

620 Eighth Avenue

 

New York, NY 10018

 

Dear Mr. Shipley:

 

We write to you out of great concern regarding the New York Times Op-Ed page's recent decision to reject an op-ed submitted by Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate for President. Senator McCain's op-ed was in response to one published by the Times on July 14th by the presumptive Democrat nominee, Senator Barack Obama, regarding his plan for Iraq.

 

This unfortunate and alarming decision occurs at a time when the candidates, and the nation they are campaigning to serve, are engaged in a critical debate regarding the future of Iraq, and particularly whether there should be a timetable for withdrawal or a measured troop presence for the foreseeable future to maintain stability in the country and the region.

 

A timely opinion piece by a presidential candidate is an important piece of information that Americans can use to measure the candidates and their respective positions. Moreover, a national publication such as the Times has a clear obligation to provide equal access to its Op-Ed page to both candidates, regardless of whether the Times' Op-Ed editors personally disagree with the content of their submissions, to convey fairness by the paper and to help further the national debate.

 

In his op-ed, Senator Obama addresses the differences between his position and Senator McCain's position on Iraq, and responds to the criticisms leveled by the McCain campaign. The Times readership, and indeed the public, deserves an equal chance to read Senator McCain's response on the same editorial page. Instead of providing that opportunity to your readership in the Op-Ed page, your email response to the McCain campaign rejecting the Senator's opinion submission stated:

 

"It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece… It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory – with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the Senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan."

 

While it is commonplace for newspaper editorial pages to limit the topic and length of submitted material, your email crosses the line by presuming to tell Senator McCain how and what to write in his submission in order to win the favor of the Times Op-Ed editors.

 

The perceived lack of fairness and equal access shown by the Times Op-Ed page in this incident is particularly unfortunate, as it comes at a time when polls show that a sizeable percentage of Americans identify a clear Democrat bias in the national media. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows that 49% of respondents believe the media will actively attempt to assist Senator Obama's campaign, compared to just 14% who say the media will try to help Senator McCain. With this in mind, one would think conveying impartiality would be particularly important in this specific instance for an op-ed page currently edited by a former speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton.

 

If, despite this alarming indictment of the media's integrity by the American public, you refuse to provide Senator McCain the opportunity to explain his views as he wrote it, as opposed to how you want it, we would strongly urge you to permit a third party the purchase of ad space in your newspaper as a second-best means of responding to Senator Obama's essay, so that Senator McCain's views can be read unfiltered, perhaps at the same reduced rated enjoyed by the liberal 501©(3) group MoveOn.org when it ran its disgraceful ad regarding General David Petraeus last September.

 

Given the critical importance of the nation's Iraq policy in the context of the upcoming Presidential election, Senator McCain – and the American people – deserve nothing less.

[Texsox]

Interesting that the most conservative of institutionns, the US military, would help out the Obama campaign like that.

 

If someone wants their full, unedited, piece published, they should take out an ad. To appear outside an advertisement and in the editorial section, it can, and should, be edited. Now that may mean nothing is changed, or it is changed by the author, but to expect a newspaper to print something verbatim, is just not right.

[mr_genius]

If someone wants their full, unedited, piece published, they should take out an ad. To appear outside an advertisement and in the editorial section, it can, and should, be edited. Now that may mean nothing is changed, or it is changed by the author, but to expect a newspaper to print something verbatim, is just not right.

 

McCain is making the right move not changing his stance to mirror Obama's as to appease the NYT. He would be a fool to give in on this and he knows it. Honestly, this is a win for McCain, as the media digs itself deeper and deeper in a hole. They have been hemorrhaging credibility for a while now; from their front page tabloid story on McCain to insisting he be more like Obama in order for the paper to publish any retort in their paper, the NYT comes out as the loser.

Edited July 23, 2008 by mr_genius

[Texsox]

McCain is making the right move not changing his stance to mirror Obama's as to appease the NYT. He would be a fool to give in on this and he knows it. Honestly, this is a win for McCain, as the media digs itself deeper and deeper in a hole. They have been hemorrhaging credibility for a while now; from their front page tabloid story on McCain to insisting he be more like Obama in order for the paper to publish any retort in their paper, the NYT comes out as the loser.

 

My understanding is the NYT wanted fresh material, not a rehash of the previous year, which makes sense.

 

You are correct, any time the GOP can make it seem like the media is screwing them, it is a win. The underlying suspicion is anything negative about REPs is made up and there is vast amounts of great positive stories that the media is sitting on and not printing. Of course when they publish an article on Dems, the suspicion is the opposite. Vast amounts of negative stuff isn't being reported and the positive is made up.

 

The GOP would be fools to really want any changes from the media. The GOP has managed the media far better than any organization in history.

[kapkomet]

My understanding is the NYT wanted fresh material, not a rehash of the previous year, which makes sense.

 

You are correct, any time the GOP can make it seem like the media is screwing them, it is a win. The underlying suspicion is anything negative about REPs is made up and there is vast amounts of great positive stories that the media is sitting on and not printing. Of course when they publish an article on Dems, the suspicion is the opposite. Vast amounts of negative stuff isn't being reported and the positive is made up.

 

The GOP would be fools to really want any changes from the media. The GOP has managed the media far better than any organization in history.

And so have the Democrats. They know how to play that fiddle very well as well.

 

[Texsox]

And so have the Democrats. They know how to play that fiddle very well as well.

Media relations has been huge since Kennedy v. Nixon. I think today, the GOP has easily won the battle. From the GOP radio network to Fox News. They are the front runners, yet are portrayed as underdogs. It may be decades before it is recognized, but I think this will be studied in political science and journalism classes for a long time. I would even venture to say that in the present environment that Nixon would have a better than 50-50 chance to have finished his term and Woodward and Bernstein would have been discredited as liberal biased reporters.

[mr_genius]

Media relations has been huge since Kennedy v. Nixon. I think today, the GOP has easily won the battle. From the GOP radio network to Fox News. They are the front runners, yet are portrayed as underdogs. It may be decades before it is recognized, but I think this will be studied in political science and journalism classes for a long time. I would even venture to say that in the present environment that Nixon would have a better than 50-50 chance to have finished his term and Woodward and Bernstein would have been discredited as liberal biased reporters.

 

Well, I think having CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and most of the nations news papers filled with pro-Democrat journalists has historically been a win for the Dems. Currently, the media is so over the top biased, it could actually hurt Obama (in theory). The coverage is totally pro-Dem. I had a similar debate with someone, but she was convinced that FOX news is completely unbiased; nothing could convince her otherwise. Oh well. And this will be studied and the analysis of the MSM will be obvious; a strong pro-Democrat bias in the news media. As The Gorace would say, "The debate is over".

Edited July 23, 2008 by mr_genius