Pages: 1 2

 

2008-07-24 08:15:37
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6778|CA, USA
Source:  http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles … 2713742569

Summary:  Political contributions by journalists to Democrats vs Republicans is 100:1 ratio. 

I find it hard to believe that they could remain objective in their reporting given the disparity of their investment.  Media bias in election coverage?
2008-07-24 08:16:07
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6764|tropical regions of london
more like shitty campaign bias
2008-07-24 08:28:17
PureFodder
Member
+225|6706
Find out who the reporters bosses give their contributions too, it's far more important than the reporters.
2008-07-24 08:45:37
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6778|CA, USA

PureFodder wrote:

Find out who the reporters bosses give their contributions too, it's far more important than the reporters.
From the article:

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.
2008-07-24 08:48:47
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6963|Texas - Bigger than France
I wonder if this is the journalists or the publishers.

My guess is the publishers might be more likely to be republican, journalists democrat.
2008-07-24 08:51:58
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6764|tropical regions of london

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Find out who the reporters bosses give their contributions too, it's far more important than the reporters.
From the article:

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.
but yet, the republicans won the last two presidential elections.
2008-07-24 09:13:13
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6778|CA, USA

God Save the Queen wrote:

but yet, the republicans won the last two presidential elections.
i see what you are saying however one of the main reasons Bush won the second time is that it's really bad strategy to switch leadership in the middle of a war.  Plus, in 2004, there was Kerry as a challenger - epic fail.  he probably still 'has a plan'. 

Now, the left really has a charismatic Kennedy-like appealing candidate that they think can win against a republican.

what is discouraging is that they are using the 'media' to help in this endeavor.
2008-07-24 09:26:18
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7111|Tampa Bay Florida
So the "Media" is owned by the Democrats?  ROFL

Some of you people srsly need a reality check
2008-07-24 09:28:45
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6950|Global Command
Bias? What bias?
2008-07-24 09:35:14
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6778|CA, USA

Spearhead wrote:

So the "Media" is owned by the Democrats?  ROFL

Some of you people srsly need a reality check
it would be helpful if you substantiated your beliefs rather than use the tired tactic of minimize and discredit without proof
2008-07-24 09:42:44
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|7096|Belgium

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

but yet, the republicans won the last two presidential elections.
i see what you are saying however one of the main reasons Bush won the second time is that it's really bad strategy to switch leadership in the middle of a war.  Plus, in 2004, there was Kerry as a challenger - epic fail.  he probably still 'has a plan'.
In the middle of a war? I doubt the US was 'in the middle of a war' in 2004, unless the media covered Bush as a 'war president' thus following the political advisors of Bush.

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

Now, the left really has a charismatic Kennedy-like appealing candidate that they think can win against a republican.
what is discouraging is that they are using the 'media' to help in this endeavor.
Why is that discouraging? They are using the same techniques as the other: 'keep him in the spotlight, talk about change'.
2008-07-24 09:44:46
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7111|Tampa Bay Florida

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

So the "Media" is owned by the Democrats?  ROFL

Some of you people srsly need a reality check
it would be helpful if you substantiated your beliefs rather than use the tired tactic of minimize and discredit without proof
The example you gave was crap.  If the media were owned by the Dems, they'd have won the last two elections, ESPECIALLY the 2004 election. 

You are using the old tired tactic of plugging your ears when you hear something you dont want to hear, and using facts only when they advance your argument.
2008-07-24 09:45:21
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|7096|Belgium

ATG wrote:

Bias? What bias?
rotfl

article wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if McCain becomes a spokesperson for Viagra just to get some air time.
2008-07-24 09:50:58
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6778|CA, USA

Pierre wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

but yet, the republicans won the last two presidential elections.
i see what you are saying however one of the main reasons Bush won the second time is that it's really bad strategy to switch leadership in the middle of a war.  Plus, in 2004, there was Kerry as a challenger - epic fail.  he probably still 'has a plan'.
In the middle of a war? I doubt the US was 'in the middle of a war' in 2004, unless the media covered Bush as a 'war president' thus following the political advisors of Bush.

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

Now, the left really has a charismatic Kennedy-like appealing candidate that they think can win against a republican.
what is discouraging is that they are using the 'media' to help in this endeavor.
Why is that discouraging? They are using the same techniques as the other: 'keep him in the spotlight, talk about change'.
ok what i should have said is that the media is all too accomodating to one side in reporting - hence the perceived bias in reporting.  the left is making use of this - which makes sense of course.  media playing fair giving equal coverage to both sides?  i don't think so.  i didn't think so since i can remember to be honest - it's just more blatant now.

as to the war aspect, we are still essentially in a low-intensity war in afghanistan.  iraq was hugely destabilized in 2004 timeframe.  changing the president would have catapulted both areas into further chaos.  Now, at least for Iraq this is a slightly different situation - yet afghanistan is still somewhat of a problem.  i don't think that people consider these areas to be the hotbed problems they were back then given the new reports of progress we are seeing.
2008-07-24 10:00:32
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6778|CA, USA

Spearhead wrote:

You are using the old tired tactic of plugging your ears when you hear something you dont want to hear, and using facts only when they advance your argument.
seems like an effective tactic that the democrats use much of the time.  eg:  global warming debate, why we should enforce UN mandates and go to war with Iraq but then change their tune when they can use it as ammunition to get rid of a republican president, etc.

as i said before, strategically it doesn't make sense to switch leadership in the middle of a war.  secondly, both wins were extremely close.  Kerry was a weak candidate.  Both Gore and Kerry were perceived as 'elitist' and 'smarter than you are' by the general public - i think this 'aloofness' was what contributed heavily to Bush's favor.  If they would have toned that down a bit, they could have won the first election in the first place.
2008-07-24 10:13:37
PureFodder
Member
+225|6706

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

You are using the old tired tactic of plugging your ears when you hear something you dont want to hear, and using facts only when they advance your argument.
seems like an effective tactic that the democrats use much of the time.  eg:  global warming debate, why we should enforce UN mandates and go to war with Iraq but then change their tune when they can use it as ammunition to get rid of a republican president, etc.

as i said before, strategically it doesn't make sense to switch leadership in the middle of a war.  secondly, both wins were extremely close.  Kerry was a weak candidate.  Both Gore and Kerry were perceived as 'elitist' and 'smarter than you are' by the general public - i think this 'aloofness' was what contributed heavily to Bush's favor.  If they would have toned that down a bit, they could have won the first election in the first place.
It makes strategic sense not to swap leaders in the middle of a war if you want to be in the war and it's being lead highly competently. If the leader is crap, making calls that go against the judgements of the leading military or you believe the war is itself wrong, it makes vast strategic sense to ditch the leader.

I never understood the idea of refusing to vote for a leader because he/she is elitist, like being elite is a bad quality in a leader, you'd rather go with the run-of-the-mill average Joe as a leader. I'd want a leader who is obviously smarter than me, if he's dumber than me or acts dumber than me I fail to see why I want them in charge.
2008-07-24 10:24:40
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6778|CA, USA

PureFodder wrote:

It makes strategic sense not to swap leaders in the middle of a war if you want to be in the war and it's being lead highly competently. If the leader is crap, making calls that go against the judgements of the leading military or you believe the war is itself wrong, it makes vast strategic sense to ditch the leader.
the issue i had here is that we were already in the situation and picking up and leaving before the govt was stable there would be an epic failure given that the sunni/shiite strife was rampant at that time and would have resulted in a civil war.  with a semi-stable govt in place, the govt could at least attempt to establish order.  now, i think we are in this space - but not in 2004.

PureFodder wrote:

I never understood the idea of refusing to vote for a leader because he/she is elitist, like being elite is a bad quality in a leader, you'd rather go with the run-of-the-mill average Joe as a leader. I'd want a leader who is obviously smarter than me, if he's dumber than me or acts dumber than me I fail to see why I want them in charge.
here i think it's the fact that elitists come off as condescending.  also with Gore and Kerry they have the ideal that the govt knows exactly what is best for everyone.  i don't think this is the solution.  To me this sounds too much like Soviets where govt had control over everything including price for bread, etc.
2008-07-24 10:44:26
PureFodder
Member
+225|6706

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

I never understood the idea of refusing to vote for a leader because he/she is elitist, like being elite is a bad quality in a leader, you'd rather go with the run-of-the-mill average Joe as a leader. I'd want a leader who is obviously smarter than me, if he's dumber than me or acts dumber than me I fail to see why I want them in charge.
here i think it's the fact that elitists come off as condescending.  also with Gore and Kerry they have the ideal that the govt knows exactly what is best for everyone.  i don't think this is the solution.  To me this sounds too much like Soviets where govt had control over everything including price for bread, etc.
Personally I'd take a condescending candidate if they're condescending and right. I'd take a complete asshole if they tend to know the best thing to do.
2008-07-24 10:52:34
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6778|CA, USA

PureFodder wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

I never understood the idea of refusing to vote for a leader because he/she is elitist, like being elite is a bad quality in a leader, you'd rather go with the run-of-the-mill average Joe as a leader. I'd want a leader who is obviously smarter than me, if he's dumber than me or acts dumber than me I fail to see why I want them in charge.
here i think it's the fact that elitists come off as condescending.  also with Gore and Kerry they have the ideal that the govt knows exactly what is best for everyone.  i don't think this is the solution.  To me this sounds too much like Soviets where govt had control over everything including price for bread, etc.
Personally I'd take a condescending candidate if they're condescending and right. I'd take a complete asshole if they tend to know the best thing to do.
ok point taken.  in my opinion neither of these candidates (gore and kerry) were right for me and my values.  the condescending factor only added to their un-likeability for me.
2008-07-24 10:58:37
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6764|tropical regions of london

ATG wrote:

Bias? What bias?
sounds more like a failing campaign to me.
2008-07-24 11:00:23
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6958|Long Island, New York

God Save the Queen wrote:

ATG wrote:

Bias? What bias?
sounds more like a failing campaign to me.
Pretty much. I'm tired of people trying to make excuses for McCain's horrible campaign. It's not the media's fault that he 1) can't read off of a teleprompter 2) doesn't get as much attention as Obama.
2008-07-24 11:08:42
zeidmaan
Member
+234|6836|Vienna

McCain needs a sex scandal... preferably a sex tape
2008-07-24 11:10:01
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6963|Texas - Bigger than France

zeidmaan wrote:

McCain needs a sex scandal... preferably a sex tape
Great.  I need therapy now.
2008-07-24 11:47:38
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6778|CA, USA

zeidmaan wrote:

McCain needs a sex scandal... preferably a sex tape
Edwards has one of these sex scandals now.  too little too late i guess.
2008-07-24 16:32:29
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6832|'Murka

Poseidon wrote:

Pretty much. I'm tired of people trying to make excuses for McCain's horrible campaign. It's not the media's fault that he 1) can't read off of a teleprompter
True

Poseidon wrote:

2) doesn't get as much attention as Obama.
Utterly, completely, unequivocally...FALSE. Particularly if when you say "attention" you're talking about attention from the media.

Here's something to help put it in perspective for you:

Of course, anecdotal evidence that Obama probably polls somewhere around 95 percent with members of the media has been around for years, but now there are some actual statistics to back it up.

According to the Tyndall Report, a service that monitors the three network news broadcasts, ABC, NBC, and CBS have spent a total of 114 of their national airtime minutes covering Obama since June. They've spent 48 minutes on his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain.

And then you have the almost embarrassing way the media have gushed over Obama's trip to the Middle East. There were 200 requests for the 40 press seats available on Obama's plane, and all three top network anchors (Katie Couric, Charles Gibson and Brian Williams) made the trip and are broadcasting live from each country Obama visits.

You can't buy that kind of publicity. And neither could McCain.

McCain made a trip to the Middle East in March and didn't have to worry about finding seats for any network anchors, because none of them wanted to go. And while Obama was flying from country to country this week in a plane packed with celebrity reporters, McCain flew to an event in New Hampshire. After his Boeing 737 landed in Manchester, he stepped out onto the tarmac and glanced at the one reporter who'd bothered to show up. Yes, one.
As candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain are ironically a lot like the way the media treats them: Obama is the glitzy magazine cover that screams for people to buy the issue, and McCain is the fact-filled article buried inside that makes you glad you did.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard