Quantcast

Historically, 80 percent of news reporters vote Democrat. Would this be a significant reason for skewed news reporting?

Rochelle 2008/09/06 22:47:53
You!
Add Photos & Videos
It's surprising how many don't know this..
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • YourObamaUpdate.com 2008/10/24 17:30:11
    Undecided
    YourObamaUpdate.com
    Rochelle.... could you tell us where you got this information from (provide link)?

    Thanks
  • Rochelle YourOba... 2008/10/25 07:21:47 (edited)
    Rochelle
    Political science 101 University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND. 1983

    Backed up many times and many places to be factual.
  • Truth 2008/10/23 23:09:21
    yes
    Truth
    Slanted NBC Profiles Boost Obama, Malign McCain
    Thursday, October 2, 2008 9:35 AM

    By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
    You might have to read between the lines or, well, lies, to discover the intent of presidential candidate profiles NBC has been running lately. The intent seems to be to cast Democratic Sen. Barack Obama in a positive light, and Republican Sen. John McCain in a negative one.
    “NBC Nightly News” host Brian Williams described the “profile” piece on John McCain at the end of Tuesday night’s broadcast as part of an occasional series looking at people who had forged the presidential candidates’ lives.
    For a previous profile, of Obama, NBC had sent a film crew to Indonesia to interview his classmates at the Besuki Primary School, a state-run institution that taught Islamic studies as part of its core curriculum.
    The subtext of the report was subtle, but clear: Obama is not and has never been a Muslim. The Obama campaign is desperate to get that message out.
    NBC reporter Ian Williams opined that the fact Obama lived in Jakarta as a child “has really captured the popular imagination. It’s already working wonders for America’s battered image here.”
    Introducing the McCain profile Tuesday, Brian Williams announced that NBC would tell a “formative experience in John McCain’s ...









































    '





    Slanted NBC Profiles Boost Obama, Malign McCain
    Thursday, October 2, 2008 9:35 AM

    By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
    You might have to read between the lines or, well, lies, to discover the intent of presidential candidate profiles NBC has been running lately. The intent seems to be to cast Democratic Sen. Barack Obama in a positive light, and Republican Sen. John McCain in a negative one.
    “NBC Nightly News” host Brian Williams described the “profile” piece on John McCain at the end of Tuesday night’s broadcast as part of an occasional series looking at people who had forged the presidential candidates’ lives.
    For a previous profile, of Obama, NBC had sent a film crew to Indonesia to interview his classmates at the Besuki Primary School, a state-run institution that taught Islamic studies as part of its core curriculum.
    The subtext of the report was subtle, but clear: Obama is not and has never been a Muslim. The Obama campaign is desperate to get that message out.
    NBC reporter Ian Williams opined that the fact Obama lived in Jakarta as a child “has really captured the popular imagination. It’s already working wonders for America’s battered image here.”
    Introducing the McCain profile Tuesday, Brian Williams announced that NBC would tell a “formative experience in John McCain’s life, when as a young naval aviator he found himself shot down and taken captive.”
    Instead of telling the extraordinary story of McCain’s five and a half years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, however, NBC played revisionist history that set a new low for broadcast journalism.
    Reporter Ian Williams traveled to Hanoi to interview people who knew McCain during his POW years.
    One, 81-year-old Nguyen Tietan, is introduced in stellar terms as a “nurse in a nearby clinic [who] put splints on McCain’s broken arms and legs and gave him antibiotics.”
    She tells NBC that she saved McCain from an angry mob that wanted to lynch him after he was shot down on a bombing raid over North Vietnam.
    “I told them I was a nurse. I had to save lives,” the heroic grandmother recalls telling her neighbors.
    The subtext is clear to anyone who has “lived through the 1970s,” as Brian Williams explains: The evil American pilot, who was bombing and strafing innocent Vietnamese civilians, was treated humanely by the very victims he was trying to kill.
    America, bad. Heroic North Vietnam, good.
    That’s the same message that people such as William Ayers, leader of the SDS Weatherman terrorists who were shooting police officers and bombing the U.S. Capitol, were screaming in the streets of America at the same time that McCain lay broken, and at risk of dying, in Hanoi. Ayers, of course, has long since been forgiven for his murdering rampage and is now a proponent of North Vietnamese style brainwashing of American children in alternate schools.
    Ayers and Obama funneled large sums of money to such schools when they worked together on the board of the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago from 1995 through 2002.
    The subtext of NBC News’ profile of McCain’s POW years also was subtle, but clear, even though it mangled even the most basic facts.
    After the “kind nurse” bandaged McCain and gave him antibiotics, McCain “spent six weeks in a Vietnamese hospital, and then nearly five and a half years in prison,” Ian Williams said.
    But McCain wasn’t taken directly to a hospital. First, he was taken to a North Vietnamese prison camp, where he was brutally interrogated for many days without receiving any treatment for his broken, twisted limbs or the bayonet wounds in his ankle and groin.
    After four days of beatings, he begged to be taken to a hospital.
    A medic finally came to see him — the first time he was given any medical attention — and told McCain that his captors had decided against taking him to a hospital.
    “It’s too late,” the medic said.
    The only reason the North Vietnamese eventually relented and sent him for treatment was because they had discovered that McCain was of greater value to them alive than dead.
    McCain was lapsing in and out of consciousness by this point, he writes in his autobiography, “Faith of My Fathers.” A prison guard he called “Bug” awakened him when he rushed into his cell and shouted, “Your father is a big admiral. Now we take you to the hospital.”
    The North Vietnamese decided to save McCain only because they hoped they could exploit him for propaganda purposes, a fact missing from the NBC version.
    Next, NBC News found the warden of the Hanoi Hilton, the infamous prison where McCain and other shot-down American aviators were held in barbarous conditions for years on end.
    “McCain has given graphic accounts of beatings and torture,” Ian Williams told viewers. But “Tran Trong Doyet, the former prison director, remembers it differently.”
    During “office hours,” he and McCain would have “fierce debates” about the war, Tran told NBC.
    McCain describes these so-called debates in “Faith of My Fathers” as torture sessions. But that’s not the message NBC wants to get across.
    “But after hours, we would talk as friends,” Tran said.
    Why, their time together was so relaxed that McCain even had time to teach him English, a smiling Tran recalls!
    This is just a pure rewriting of history, unworthy of airtime from a responsible news organization. But Brian Williams and Ian Williams apparently found the lies of a sadistic war criminal good enough for NBC.
    McCain was not alone in the Hanoi Hilton. Dozens of U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force flyers drifted in and out of the dirty cells, sharing their misery through a tap code on the prison walls.
    Tran and the prison guards often beat the American POWs if they caught them trying to communicate with each other.
    Men such as Orson Swindle and Bud Day and scores of others all remember how McCain was beaten daily for several years. They recall the brutality of the warden, his cynicism, and his attempts to manipulate them into betraying their country in exchange for early release from the prison camp.
    McCain says he was tempted to exchange the daily torture for early release, but then he remembered “the code of honor” that he and his fellow servicemen had sworn to uphold. So he refused to leave the prison camp until everyone else who had been captured before him had been released. He finally was released on March 14, 1973.
    NBC News refused to interview any of the men who had been POWs with McCain. Instead, it sought out the humane nurse-hero and the happy-go-lucky prison warden who remembered playing cards with McCain but conveniently forgot beating him and other Americans to within an inch of their lives.
    At the end of the segment, NBC panned out and showed pictures of the ordinary-looking “Maison Centrale” where the POWs had been kept, noting that the Hanoi Hilton now is a museum.
    Few Vietnamese today even remembered the war, Ian Williams said.
    That’s right, boys and girls. All this took place a long, long time ago, in a land far, far away, when John McCain displayed a kind of fairy-tale courage that is beyond the grasp (and certainly the practice) of the mainstream media.
    “Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams promised that NBC would continue this occasional series with other portraits from the candidates’ earlier lives.
    If NBC news teams actually wanted to shed some light on Barack Obama’s much-obscured past, they might start with a portrait of Frank Marshall Davis, the man Obama calls his “mentor” while he was growing up in Hawaii.
    Obama cleverly uses only Davis’ first name when writing about him in his autobiography, “Dreams of My Father.” Is that because he knew full well that Davis was a top operative of the American Communist Party, who spent most of his time in Hawaii taking photographs of the U.S. naval station there and spotting young recruits?
    To find out the truth about Davis, NBC reporters could talk to Cliff Kincaid and Herb Romerstein of Accuracy in Media, who have done tremendous research on Frank Marshall Davis. (Here’s betting that Brian Williams wouldn’t dream of interviewing either of them).
    They also could run a portrait of William Ayers, the former SDS Weatherman who beat a murder rap after spending close to a decade running from the police. Ayers went on to sponsor Obama on the board of the Annenberg Challenge and launched Obama’s political career at his Chicago home in 1995.
    And why not profile the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the racist black nationalist pastor in Chicago who Obama says “brought me to Jesus,” and whose sermons Obama proudly asserts he listened to “every Sunday” for more than 20 years?
    This is the same Jeremiah Wright whose sermons saying “God DAMN America!” have been caught on videotape and posted on the Internet, forcing Obama belatedly to renounce their 20-year friendship.
    If NBC News really were interested in digging into Obama’s past, it would want to investigate his ties to Khalid Al-Mansour, the former mentor of the Black Panther Party, who later became a Black Muslim nationalist and top advisor to Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.
    [Editor's Note: Read “Who is Khalid al-Mansour?” — Go Here Now].
    Harlem political icon Percy Sutton says Al-Mansour has been raising money for Obama and asked Sutton in 1988 to write a letter to help Obama get into Harvard Law School.
    Finally, NBC might want to find some of Obama’s classmates from Columbia University, where he transferred in 1981 after two uneventful years at Occidental College in Los Angeles.
    Fox News tracked down 400 people who had been at Columbia at the same time as Obama, and not one had any recollection of him. Isn’t that curious.
    Americans know an awful lot about John McCain. For the past 26 years, he has been a public person. And scores of witnesses have come forward to tell us about his youth, especially his five and a half years as a POW in North Vietnam.
    But America knows almost nothing about Barack Obama — and let’s not forget, he is running for president, too.
    It’s about time the media did its job.
    (more)
  • silver eagle 2008/10/23 23:05:19 (edited)
    yes
    silver eagle
    +1
    But They all don't drink the kool aid ....
    FINALLY A DEMOCRAT REPORTER TELLS THE TRUTH?????
    By Orson Scott Card October 5, 2008

    Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

    An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

    I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

    This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

    It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

    What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

    The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

    They end up worse off than before.

    This was completely foreseeable and in fact many peo...

    '

    '''

    """"



    "'"





    '

    '

    '



    ""''











    ''





    ''''



    '







    '

    '



    ''









    ''
    But They all don't drink the kool aid ....
    FINALLY A DEMOCRAT REPORTER TELLS THE TRUTH?????
    By Orson Scott Card October 5, 2008

    Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

    An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

    I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

    This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

    It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

    What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

    The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

    They end up worse off than before.

    This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

    Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

    Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

    I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

    Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

    As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled Do Facts Matter? "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

    These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

    Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

    What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

    Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

    And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

    If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

    But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

    You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

    If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

    If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

    There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

    If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

    Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

    But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

    If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

    Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.

    Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

    Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

    So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

    Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

    You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

    That's where you are right now.

    It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

    If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

    Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

    You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

    This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

    If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe --and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

    If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.

    You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.
    (more)
  • Rochelle silver ... 2008/10/24 10:24:04
    Rochelle
    +1
    A CASE IN POINT PEOPLE!! READ THIS!!

    This has gone on as long as I can remember it.
  • TwoFace12 2008/10/23 02:47:39
  • Rochelle TwoFace12 2008/10/23 10:26:37 (edited)
    Rochelle
    +1
    With any higher education some can control others with a little finesse and bs.

    Yes often the inmates do run the assylum.

    Haven't you ever heard the saying... If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b.s.?

    My point is..so many people are quickly sold out to someone with a degree and believe any of these jerks.

    Not many really think twice when someone with a "position" speaks.

    Good critical thinkers and can see what is being projected as a professional unbiased work when it is really a personal viewpoint.
  • TwoFace12 Rochelle 2008/10/23 13:18:08
  • Rochelle TwoFace12 2008/10/24 10:17:59
    Rochelle
    Exactly. Go look.
  • Rochelle TwoFace12 2008/10/24 10:26:54
    Rochelle
    +1
    This is the post mde after yours. It is a case in point I've seen all my life. I just copied Silver Eagles's post. Read just this one please.

    It's not the money trail it's the honesty and work trail I'm interested in. Honest people get their reward and it doesn't have to be monetary reward.

    *post copy*
    But They all don't drink the kool aid ....
    FINALLY A DEMOCRAT REPORTER TELLS THE TRUTH?????
    By Orson Scott Card October 5, 2008

    Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

    An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

    I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

    This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

    It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

    What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

    The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does ...''





    '

    '''

    """"



    "'"





    '

    '

    '



    ""''











    ''





    ''''



    '







    '

    '



    ''









    ''
    This is the post mde after yours. It is a case in point I've seen all my life. I just copied Silver Eagles's post. Read just this one please.

    It's not the money trail it's the honesty and work trail I'm interested in. Honest people get their reward and it doesn't have to be monetary reward.

    *post copy*
    But They all don't drink the kool aid ....
    FINALLY A DEMOCRAT REPORTER TELLS THE TRUTH?????
    By Orson Scott Card October 5, 2008

    Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

    An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

    I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

    This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

    It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

    What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

    The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

    They end up worse off than before.

    This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

    Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

    Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

    I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

    Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

    As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled Do Facts Matter? "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

    These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

    Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

    What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

    Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

    And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

    If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

    But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

    You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

    If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

    If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

    There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

    If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

    Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

    But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

    If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

    Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.

    Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

    Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

    So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

    Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

    You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

    That's where you are right now.

    It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

    If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

    Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

    You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

    This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

    If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe --and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

    If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.

    You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.
    (more)
  • Nernie 2008/09/16 22:29:33
    no
    Nernie
    +1
    It is a sign that they are there when the camera is off and they get more time with the candidates aswell as the press having acess to or even memory of what they say and what actually gets done.
    When I owned a business I was in favor of republicans, when I worked for others I was for the Democrats, they both have the advantage is their own respects..
  • get real 2008/09/11 15:00:50
    yes
    get real
    +1
    Truth doesn't matter in their eyes. You can only read what they say and make your own informed decision. In most cases take what they say and believe the exact opposite.
  • HenryT 2008/09/10 01:14:39
    no
    HenryT
    First of all, where'd you get these statistics from? 80%? Not 81 or 79.5%? Doesn't sound very factual. And second, I see pretty fair and even coverage.

    But, I don't doubt that news reporters would be more likely to vote democrat. Or professors. Or scientists. Or all the other educated people who don't value money above all else.

    Basically, I think the smarter you are the more likely you are to vote democrat. Unless greed or religious intolerance makes you blind.
  • Rochelle HenryT 2008/09/10 01:16:56
    Rochelle
    I see . So religious view make one stupid. Thank you.

    The stats were quoted, "70-90% " historically vote democrat. But I rounded it . Excuse me.
  • HenryT Rochelle 2008/09/11 14:12:11
    HenryT
    Yeah, 70-90% sounds VERY factual too. Somewhere along the line, someone pulled a number out of his *ss and now it's fact.

    As I said, it's not that I doubt that it's fact, but I seriously doubt there was any real surveying going on. Just someone's guess.

    As far as religious views making you stupid - no, I don't think so. I've met lots of smart religious people. Unfortunately, religious intolerance basically has the same net effect as stupidity.

    Example:
    Non religious person: I think this. This is why... blah, blah, 15%, blah, blah, 3 out of 5, blah, blah...
    Religious person: I think this. God said so. If you don't think the same thing, you're going to hell.

    A little exaggerated, yes. But the point is, whether you're arguing with someone who can't understand your point of view, or refuses to, it's the same net effect. You're talking to a brick wall.

    Brick walls are dumb.
  • Rochelle HenryT 2008/09/11 18:07:03 (edited)
    Rochelle
    It's a historical figure, not one made up over night.

    What is really hysterical is: when something is really obvious, you folks would like to say,"oh, not so!"

    Since I have been in college way back since the 70's, the fact has not changed, it is a "given" and has been for decades. The fact is the left will NEVER report or tell on themselves. Three editors in a discussion made the point and half the world knows it and can see it plain as day. Any communications class will state this fact if they are willing to state the facts. The other half is the half who won't pull their heads out of the mud long enough for any fresh air or real facts to hit it.
  • creepers2006 2008/09/09 16:33:21
    no
    creepers2006
    +1
    there are 2 really big News companies that cover politics for the whole day, at least where i am from, there is FOX NEWS and they are more Right wing and Then there is CNN which is far left wing. So with this said it is really up to what channel you watch and what your feelings are towards each party.
  • Rochelle creeper... 2008/09/09 16:34:13
    Rochelle
    I agree!
  • shelly 2008/09/09 14:33:21 (edited)
    yes
    shelly
    i have noticed this. i also notice that foxnews tends to be bias towards republicans at times. it is sad though that the news cant just report on the news and not be tied up in all the political crap. my personal opinion is that , yes, i want to know about the election and what is going on WHEN THINGS ARE HAPPENING TO DO WITH THE ELECTION, i dont care whos pregnant or whos wife may or may not have had an abortion before they got married or whatever else. the families of the politician are not who i am voting for. it is the politician himself or herself. i want to hear what they have to say about the things that matter. like healthcare, war, the gas prices and the mortgage crisis we are in. i want to know their thoughts on this recession that many other politicians deny. the news cant seem to get past reporting all the crap that doesnt matter long enough to tell us about the things that do.
  • Rochelle shelly 2008/09/09 16:29:22
    Rochelle
    You're right about FOX. The only reason I have watched them is because you will never see a conservative/ republican point of view on the other stations. Rarely. There is only one more guy on Headline news that for some reason has been allowed to speak from that point of vew- Glen Beck. .

    But you're like the rest of us. We'd like to know about policies and that's hard to find in that media.
  • shelly Rochelle 2008/09/09 18:57:41
    shelly
    +1
    i watch fox occasionally. i watch glen beck every night :) sometimes twice. i dont define myself as democrat or republican. i am American and whoever i feel will take the best care of my country is who will get my vote in november.
  • Jwalden --- Constitution Party 2008/09/07 23:20:24
    yes
    Jwalden --- Constitution Party
    +1

    The media is good at fiction and dreaming.
  • Rochelle Jwalden... 2008/09/07 23:21:28
    Rochelle
    +1
    That's an excellent example. I forgot about that one.
  • Bill - Buffalo Soldier 2008/09/07 21:24:36
    yes
    Bill - Buffalo Soldier
    +1
    And this year any pretence at being journalists has died.
  • bolrog 2008/09/07 17:47:21
  • Rochelle bolrog 2008/09/07 17:53:07 (edited)
    Rochelle
    +1
    "rat on" baby , right on! It seems that way. Just like you and I probably did, younger people see them as knowlegable and the opinoins they put out count- after all, how do we see the world when we are young..is it the same as someone else? Thats' a question almost every person especially when younger asks themselves.

    And it feels tough if your feeling is different than status quo on tv sometimes. But,.. as I say often.. who cares. YOu can only think for your self.
  • Nevermore-Burning 2008/09/07 17:00:12
    no
    Nevermore-Burning
    +1
    The news have never seemed to me to be skewed to a Democratic perspective, but then I don't watch too much US news.
  • Justagirl 2008/09/07 16:06:07
    no
    Justagirl
    +2
    There is NO justification for skewing the news, but maybe I misunderstood the question. The media talking heads have no influence over my political views...I watch C-Span, THEN switch to the network(s) of my choice to get the spin. *SHRUG*
  • Rochelle Justagirl 2008/09/07 16:42:27
    Rochelle
    Good!
  • Seonag 2008/09/07 13:25:49
    yes
    Seonag
    +2
    It is the significant reason of why they are skewing the news.
  • Boris Badinov 2008/09/07 13:01:45
    yes
    Boris Badinov
    +2
    Some of these 'journalists' are not even trying to perform with Objectivity. Their 'good ol' boy' network is also a very definate problem for them and for this nation.
  • socokid 2008/09/07 12:01:08 (edited)
    no
    socokid
    +2
    True. And the higher the education the more liberal too:

    College professors:

    In the sample as a whole, 44 percent of professors are liberal, 46 percent moderate or centrist, and only 9 percent conservative.

    Otherwise the question makes no sense. If you want someone to drink a beer with, go to the bar... I would rather have the more intelligent one RUNNING THE COUNTRY.

    But, that's just me... we've seen what 8 years of stupidity, but good beer buddery can do. The news will run the story that will get the better ratings... ALWAYS. An African American becoming president is a huge story... get used to it.

    We've had women running for VP before... remember Geraldine? A Democrat? No no, of course not. You are all too young... ;-)
  • Rochelle socokid 2008/09/07 16:46:07
    Rochelle
    +1
    That's good! I like your comment because it shows the skewed-ness of my own writing. Every one sees from their own perspective and reporting and writing is done from the authors perspective whether they intend to or not to promote their idea.

    Thanks~ Just a citizen.
    (ps-I'll be 50 this month)
  • bolrog socokid 2008/09/07 17:56:08
  • Rochelle bolrog 2008/09/07 17:57:19
    Rochelle
    +1
    Yikes, what a thought!
  • Denny 2008/09/07 08:53:47
    yes
    Denny
    However I still can't figure out why they are still pushing this guy, unless they were smitten too and now that all this other stuff started coming through, the press can't look the fool by saying they Vet there canidate.
  • Citizen Phil 2008/09/07 02:40:40
    yes
    Citizen Phil
    +3
    The news media is not only staffed disproportionalty with the Lunatic Left (remember Khrushchev), but is also guilty of seeking for drama rather than news. These two fatal flaws are leading our country down the seductive path to socialism. Beware of anyone that promises that more government will make your life better. The only beneficiaries of socialism are the party elites and their lackeys.
  • Saintsfan Citizen... 2008/09/07 11:55:29
    Saintsfan
    +1
    Amen, there continued drive to sensationize some common economic events is a real concern.
  • socokid Citizen... 2008/09/07 12:38:38
    socokid
    Right... because the road we've been on has been working so wonderfully well so far, right?

    Yikes...

    Look, calling Obama a socialist means you have no idea what "socialism" means. None.

    "Beware of anyone that promises that more government will make your life better."

    I couldn't agree more. You have to put your critical thinking caps on. You should NEVER take one man/woman's word for it. Ever. You should listen, and then go do the research. Yes, it's more "work", but you'll end up better informed, which is a GOOD thing.

    Having done this McCain/Palin have stretched the truth FAR more than Obama. In fact it's a landslide:

    http://www.factchecker.org

    So, you guys can take the lying, "more of the same" (I just don't understand that...) guys... I'll take the smart ones that no one wants to drink a beer with. Sheesh...

    If McCain wins I think the world will be once again STUNNED at our stupidity... and I would have to agree with them:

    ill smart drink beer sheesh mccain wins world stunned stupidity

    I see it all happening again... very sad for this country.
  • bolrog socokid 2008/09/07 18:01:34

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Entertainment

2014/10/23 04:13:04

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals