BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[Whelland]

I'm sure most everyone is familiar with the song and remembers that fateful day.

Now we can also remember the day that journalism died. Journalism is dead in America.

John McCain made 6 trips to the middle east with barely a photographer in tow. Now, Barack Hussein Obama takes a trip and has the liberal media following him with starry eyes. All 3 of the major networks sent their anchor's to follow the story and coddle the far left wing liberal senator with the Democratic nomination.

The left wing rag New York Times also ran an op-ed piece written by Obama, but refused to run McCain's op-ed story just days later.

We all assumed the major networks and newspapers were liberal and biased. Now they've proved it.

Yes my friends, true journalism is dead in America. It is a sad day.

[csumerall]

The ironic thing is that most of the major networks are losing viewership like crazy, newspapers like the new york times are losing circulation like over 100k already this year. A month ago vantiy magazine ran an editorial with john mccain in a walker and his wife with a hand full of pill bottles, not one word said but the new yorker editorial with obama and his wife doing the terrorist fist bump gets page one news coverage for how many weeks.

[bitmasher]

Journalism isn't dead it just depends on what you read and watch. The New York Times is a liberal paper that caters to a liberal readership.

The nightly news stations have long since succumbed to just reporting sensationalism (murders, bad news, with the occasional story about aunt bee turning 102), tv investigative journalism is mostly a thing of the past.

What is interesting to me is how broad media is on the internet, when you step out of the bounds of "main stream media". One interesting foundation that has cropped up recently is Pro Publica. It ran a story recently about an Islamic newstation funded by our tax dollars. You can read it here:

http://www.propublica.org/feat.....minds-622/

[csumerall]

yes, I realize that the new york times is a liberal publication, but so is the new yorker. My point was that because these media outlets are no longer balanced they are losing viewers and subscribers.

[jfrench]

You definately can not take media for face value. You have to look deeper. I was upset about the overseas coverage as well. As far as the networks, they appear to be bought and paid for a majority of the time. It's amazing how much power the media has. They can play the hand either way, and somehow have become a tool of emotional power for those dealing the cards.

[expatriate]

The media has completely devolved into a propaganda machine for the Democrats, and they're becoming increasingly blatant about it.

They're devoting almost all of their coverage to Obama. I might buy into the idea that it's just because he's fascinating if they were objective about it, but they're not. He steps in it on a regular basis and they give him a pass time after time. The only time they talk about anything negative is to raise a negative and analyze why it's not a problem, or show how he has overcome it. They're actively working for the guy. They're playing to his strengths and spinning his weaknesses.

Sure, every once in awhile they'll talk about McCain. But when they do, it's like they're doing it out of pity or some sort of coerced obligation. So every once in awhile they'll stop and say, "But enough about Obama -- what does McCain think about Obama?"

Then there's the little things -- like every photo published of Obama makes him look heroic and powerful, and every one published of McCain makes him look like a confused little old man.

They're doing the same thing they did when Hillary was their candidate. But then one day it was like a switch flipped and they completely turned on her. Now he's the inevitable candidate that can do no wrong.

I really don't think they care about declining reader/viewership, because they're elitist and think they're blessing us with their knowledge and we're too ignorant to appreciate it. So declining readership is a personal failing on our part, rather than a reflection of them being out of touch.

Personally, I hope that there will be a backlash. But I doubt it. Sadly, I think they're right about most of the population -- Americans are too shallow to notice and will just go with whatever most of the media sources say. So as long as they all say the same thing, we'll buy it.

[WesternHunter]

I don't care what side the media takes. They never get the facts right anyway, no matter what!!! Even when they have all the facts, they can make the story go either way they want bases on how they present it and what spin they want to give it. Nothing is objective in the media.

[SoCoKHntr]

The following is from Sam Stein and is entitled GOP Insider Eviscerates Bush and Party: Just "Phenomenal arrogance"

"There is wide-spread acknowledgment, even within the party itself, that the Republican brand is currently poisonous. Faced with massive losses in November, GOP leadership has green-lighted a save-yourself mentality, allowing its endangered members to go against the party line if it means helping their electoral chances.

But if the situation seems bad on the electoral level, insiders warn that it's even worse when you get down to infrastructure and machinery. Facing an avalanche of losses, the GOP is stuck with an antiquated system of fundraising, a tired leadership, and a president many Americans loathe.

"There is a phenomenal arrogance like a fog that has clouded people's thinking and ability to see what is real," said Nicole Sexton, a longtime Republican fundraiser and former Director of Finance for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "We have to go down in history as some of the worst messengers. And President Bush has been horrible. Everything he does deems calculated and insincere. The same was true with Bill Clinton but he at least had the ability to seem sincere. With Bush, people are throwing stones and tomatoes at him [and he hasn't changed]."

Sexton, the author of the new book, "Party Favors" (a fictionalized look at the life of a GOP fundraiser), offered a fairly dire assessment of the party in which she used to be a major figure. A native of New Orleans, much of her scorn was saved for Bush, who she derided for his ignorance of the scope Hurricane Katrina's devastation.

"He should have been in a row boat in the middle of the 9th ward, helping families," she said before adding, when prompted, "like Sean Penn... Instead, there were all these resources put to his press conference."

As the chief financial officer for the NRSC, Sexton did not put the blame for the GOP's current problems strictly at Bush's doorstep. She talked openly (later admitting that her former colleagues weren't too pleased with her frankness) about how political figures she had once admired had become consumed by the prospect of reelection.

"We need some new blood in the party," she said. "But the problem is that the younger candidates, like John Sununu, are real in danger of losing their seats."

The GOP's outreach is also aging. "We are a direct marketing and a direct mail party and that's a dinosaur in the fundraising world," she said. "Just look at our presidential candidates [this cycle]. Huckabee was the only one that came close to have an Internet presence like Obama. All his money came from the web and he was able to stay in the race till the final hour. Giuliani, I don't know if he was seeing straight... For McCain to literally have imploded twice and still be the candidate is a phenomenal statement about the party."

If anyone should know about the intersection of money and politics it is Sexton. Starting as an intern for the White House Office of National Service she quickly rose to prominence within the sometimes-sordid world of political fundraising. At her post at the NRSC from 2002 through 2005, she played an instrumental role in helping the GOP regain control of the Senate, only to grow disillusioned. "I realized I really didn't know these people," she said. "I was a cog in the machine and hadn't connected with any of the candidates I was helping elect."

She also grew wary of the role that fundraising played. Noting that politicians were spending disproportionate amounts of time raising cash, she called for the system to be scrapped in favor of caps on the amount candidates could raise as a whole (not to be confused with a cap on the size of the individual donations) and restrictions on the time period during which they could raise cash.

Now employed by the ONE Campaign, Sexton still is connected to, and eagerly following, the GOP. Before ending the interview she predicted that her party would lose five seats in the Senate this cycle -- an optimistic estimate in a down year. She also projected that McCain would eventually best Obama though her admiration for the latter's political prowess were clearly evident.

"Usually the youth will go to politically rallies and concerts and never show up and vote and they certainly never contributed" she said of the Illinois Democrat's appeal to younger voters. "These people now are leaving college and giving to Obama. It is phenomenal. If you are giving up your beer money for three nights it means you are invested in the guy."


Do you guys think any of this as stated by a Republican fundraiser has anything to with Mcain's poor showing or is it just the 'EVIL' liberal media casting spells wholly and completely?

Also, hey guys don't sound so glum we've still got fox to show us the light and truth.

[csumerall]

Soco, a few things first what poor showing are you talking about, would it be mccain almost matching fundraising of obama and carrying less debt? No one is accusing the evil liberals of casting spells we all know they would create a government program for that. I think that a lot of people are seeing the media as being biased and the fact that they arent even trying to hide it. Also I heard about the yellow cake they found on fox and you know where else? No where, It seems to me that that would be front page news but I guess we were still reeling from the "very conservative" new yorker magazine editorial. Depicting his Majesty and his wife, suited up for another adventure with william aires.

[SoCoKHntr]

The 'yellow cake' in question was reported but wasn't very big 'news' due to the fact we knew about it since Desert Storm and it wasn't the same as the supposed 'Nigerian enriched yellow cake' Saddam supposedly was attempting to purchase. The Spin some tried to put on it was that it was one in the same and therefore wasn't part of the deceptive 'intelligence' put forth by the Administration.

From another post I made regarding yellow cake:

"Iraq had an active nuclear research program in the 70s and 80s. That's not exactly a secret. Israel bombed the (very primitive) reactors as early as 1981. Yellowcake is extremely easy to make. You just dig it up and have a chemist crudely process it at the ore to yield mainly uranium oxide. That's something any country can do.

We all knew he had this pile of yellowcake. We also all knew that his nuclear program was unsuccessful and that he wouldn't be able to enrich it for a regular reactor (let alone weapon-grade!) anytime soon. UN inspectors found these back in the days of the 1st Gulf War, tagged it all and left it in some hangar.

To refresh your memories, there has never been mention of this yellowcake by the White House prior to the invasion. There was, however, plenty of talk about Saddam buying uranium from Niger. Turned out to be concocted evidence that gullible and/or unethical journalists fell for. "


And yes, you are right Mcain does seem to be gaining ground in recent polls.

What do you make of the views held by the Republican fundraiser I posted above?

[expatriate]

Fox News just published a poll that said 7 out of 10 Americans believe members of the media want Obama to be elected, and just 1 out of 10 think the media is objective in its coverage of the presidential race.

Oops -- presidential campaign. Can't use that other word anymore.

Would you believe the oil industry would do everything it could to advance a candidate that supports its interests? Of course. Do you think the defense industry would get behind a candidate that supports a strong military? Absolutely. Would solar and wind power organizations do what they could to promote someone like Al Gore? Positively. If any of these interests had the capacity to wage an information campaign to steer public opinion in their favor, would they take advantage of it? Without a doubt.

Then why not the media? The media is an industry controlled by few hands. Numerous studies have also shown that its employees are overwhelmingly left-leaning. The only difference between the media industry and others is that the media has enormous capacity to shape the opinions of the nation.

This isn't some sort of conspiracy about people weaving spells. It's fact. There are enormous differences between the way the media is covering the two candidates, and it becomes more obvious with every presidential election. I've worked in the business, and know how the game is played.

Here's a prediction for you: now that the media got its hand caught in the cookie jar, they're going to try to diffuse the criticism by running a few stories about Obama struggling with something and McCain surging. They did it when they got caught pandering for Hillary. It's like someone saying, "Ok guys, we need to slow down and make it look like he's struggling to take the perception of inevitability off him." Hillary's campaign started tanking when the outcry about inevitability peaked and they shifted coverage to Obama.

Here's another prediction: over the next few months, the only polls referenced by the media will be those that show Obama ahead. Sure, they'll fluctuate, but the point is to add to the drama by showing the two horses neck and neck, with Obama in the lead fighting ff a challenger. You'll know McCain is pulling into the lead when opinion polls stop referencing "who would you vote for" and start talking about a particular issue. But no matter what happens, in November the media will not be reporting anything to suggest that most Americans favor McCain.

[SoCoKHntr]

I feel your frustration at the media, I really do. That is how I felt for the last eight years as I watched them gladly and eagerly help the current Admin. push what I saw as deception after deception and get 'W' re-elected.

Just seems like there's always an excuse when someone's losing from the other side, I guess we both do it. Seems like it's just hard to say a great many Americans are pissed off and don't like the direction our country is currently headed in.

[expatriate]

Are you kidding me? Trying to use the 2000 election as evidence of pro-Bush coverage? I beg to differ. They played the same game then, as well, complete with flattering pictures of Gore in print, and every Bush photo looking ridiculous. They were in the tank for Gore, and were downright complicit in the recount issue.

Mr."Every Vote Must Count" Gore was throwing out military absentee ballots, which were statistically heavily Republican. Meanwhile, he wasn't interested in counting every vote -- he only wanted to count the votes in heavily democratic precincts.

It's quite simple. Find a precinct of, say, 100,000 people who vote 80 percent Democrat. If you can look at enough chads to get one percent more votes to count (both Democrat and Republican), then statistically Democrats will gain 800 votes, and the Republicans will gain 200. That's a big deal when the margin is only a few hundred votes to begin with. Gore was selectively picking precincts to recount to gain advantage, and using a process that wasn't even in Florida law to do it.. The Republicans argued it wasn't fair and got it stopped through the court system. If Gore had wanted to recount the whole state, I might buy it -- but that's not the case. He only wanted to count areas that would help him.

And the media? They made it look like Gore was trying to help disenfranchised voters and the Republicans were trying to stop the vote. The mainstream media just repeated Gore rhetoric, rather than actually explain what was going on, because if they did it would devastate his case. Thank goodness the judicial system doesn't rely on the media for its information. No...Bush won in spite of the media, not because of them.

[bitmasher]

csumerall wrote: My point was that because these media outlets are no longer balanced they are losing viewers and subscribers.

That is entirely possible.

When I read accounts of the media slant, generally folks seem insulted that the "truth was not told" as if some sort of right has been violated. (I've posted such accusations myself in the past on this forum).

I tend to think that with freedom of press the founding fathers understood that anyone media outlet was by and large biased. Rather the hope was that by not allowing the government to abridge private speech (thus controlling it) that a flourishing media market would on the sum get the story right. In other words a critical reader could view several stories from several outlets and decide for themselves what the truth in the story is. (A tangent to this would be the importance of having a literate, critical thinking populace).

The problem is this system is contingent on a flourishing market for media. Lots of journalists, lots of media outlets, all independently owned. However the last twenty years has seen heavy consolidation in the major media outlets where there are not a large pool of independent reports and journalists. This has generated more bias because the tv, print, and radio news we consume is controlled by fewer and fewer entities.

Running opposite of this trend has been the explosion of the information provided by the Internet, much of which is not controlled by the major media companies. Therefore I think it is still possible to get the truth or at least different perspectives on a news story. There are some publications I still respect to give a fairly unbiased account of the stories they choose to cover, one of which is the WSJ, although it is now owned by News Corp as well...

[expatriate]

I agree with all of that, Bit, which is why I get the heebie jeebies when the Democrats start talking about imposing limits on the internet, or reimposing the "fairness doctrine" to rein in conservative talk radio.

The web is becoming the great equalizer that challenges big media's control of information. For example, it was the internet, not big media, that destroyed Dan Rather's National Guard story by showing the documents that the media was just talking about. It's a lot harder to stifle opposing points of view, and a lot more likely that chicanery will be exposed.