How America ends up losing

[therealUT]

Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion."

Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues.

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

Deborah Howell - An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage

The question now: Are national newspapers such as the Post, NYTs, LA Times, etc. going to run stories that highlight the Messiah's faults? I highly doubt it.

[allvol123]

We'll have to rely on LG to watch the media for us.

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by allvol123

We'll have to rely on LG to watch the media for us.

Honestly, the McCain camp should have just handed out free copies of Dreams from my father throughout their campaign. I cannot imagine that any white person who read that book voted for BHO.

[allvol123]

Originally Posted by therealUT

Honestly, the McCain camp should have just handed out free copies of Dreams from my father throughout their campaign. I cannot imagine that any white person who read that book voted for BHO.

I never got past Obama surviving the Wright tapes. I was sure that would end his campaign. I have too much faith in the reasoning abilities of people. I will have to work on this flaw.

[MG1968]

the media never turned against Bill Clinton, so I don't see any change in their behavior now that the Lightbringer has been elected.

[TreeGreen]

Originally Posted by therealUT

The question now: Are national newspapers such as the Post, NYTs, LA Times, etc. going to run stories that highlight the Messiah's faults? I highly doubt it.

The media controls both major parties, and what we see and hear. They rarely give us all the information we need to make informed choices for any candidate in any given election.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by TreeGreen

The media controls both major parties, and what we see and hear. They rarely give us all the information we need to make informed choices for any candidate in any given election.

that's odd. Palin was pretty quickly vetted and asked the same questions repeatedly to the point that the world believed her inexperienced. Obama was actually less experienced and never got similarly blistered by idiots like Couric and Gibson. O'Reilly was too concerned with appearing objective to do something similar. The imbalance was glaring. Probably didn't matter, but anyone any longer relying on the major media outlets for info is a certifiable idiot.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

[TreeGreen]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

that's odd. Palin was pretty quickly vetted and asked the same questions repeatedly to the point that the world believed her inexperienced. Obama was actually less experienced and never got similarly blistered by idiots like Couric and Gibson. O'Reilly was too concerned with appearing objective to do something similar. The imbalance was glaring. Probably didn't matter, but anyone any longer relying on the major media outlets for info is a certifiable idiot.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I don't see how you said anything different than what I just did, other than acting like I'm spewing off liberal nonsense. I already pointed out that you rarely get the information you need about either candidate to make an informed choice, which logically holds true for Obama.

[notverycrucial]

Originally Posted by MG1968

the media never turned against Bill Clinton, so I don't see any change in their behavior now that the Lightbringer has been elected.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by TreeGreen

I don't see how you said anything different than what I just did, other than acting like I'm spewing off liberal nonsense. I already pointed out that you rarely get the information you need about either candidate to make an informed choice, which logically holds true for Obama.

the part where you pretended that the conservative candidate gets comparable treatment is where you ran askew. I don't recall you correcting that little oversight.

Hence, you and I are saying nothing remotely the same.

[TreeGreen]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

the part where you pretended that the conservative candidate gets comparable treatment is where you ran askew. I don't recall you correcting that little oversight.

Hence, you and I are saying nothing remotely the same.

Or you just read what you wanted to instead of what I actually posted. No where did I imply there was equal treatment or unequal treatment, all I said was they control both parties (IE: CNN tends to be liberal FOX tends to be conservative).

[MG1968]

Originally Posted by notverycrucial

laugh all you want, I notice you didn't provide any examples of the media turning against him.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by TreeGreen

Or you just read what you wanted to instead of what I actually posted. No where did I imply there was equal treatment or unequal treatment, all I said was they control both parties (IE: CNN tends to be liberal FOX tends to be conservative).

are you kidding me? You're the clown that said you and I were saying essentially the same thing. I said we weren't. You follow that up by saying I'm putting words in your mouth? That's ludicrous, but you just keep on trying.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

[Chemvol]

Originally Posted by MG1968

laugh all you want, I notice you didn't provide any examples of the media turning against him.

He would have been unable to post any examples b/c they would have an insufficient number of characters.

[TreeGreen]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

are you kidding me? You're the clown that said you and I were saying essentially the same thing. I said we weren't. You follow that up by saying I'm putting words in your mouth? That's ludicrous, but you just keep on trying.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

So saying I "pretended that the conservative candidate gets comparable treatment" when I clearly didn't isn't putting words in my mouth? And you disagree with me on the fact that American's can't get the coverage they need to make an informed decision? You were the one who made a mountain out of mole hill.