Are you ashamed of the biased presidential coverage?

The problem is the term. What is wealth redistribution? Is it money taken from tax payers to support failed corporations? Is it only welfare? Is it money going to government contracts lining contractors' pockets? All of these things redistribute wealth through government means. In the first two cases, the motive is to prevent monumental failure of the economy, which can be argued actually leads to stability of wealth.

Only one has the connotation the right intends when it says "redistributing wealth."

 

Two cousins and a friend dead in Iraq.

I'd spit in his face.

 

As far as the bias is concerned...it's a legitimate issue. From both sides of the aisle too so don't give me that "poor McCain" bullshit. Because it's been partly brought on by his campaign's incredibly negative tone.

I'm worried that many people can't tell the diference between analysts and hard news.

 

If you're hearing gripes from both sides, which is almost always the case, then you are doing a fair job.

I don't think anyone who has talked to actual socialists would find they feel any kinship to Obama. I don't think anyone who has talked to real liberals would find that they believe the news media represents their views. Mainstream news outlets, like presidential candidates, aim toward the center and generally hit it.

I've heard it from both sides over the years, having worked for a few "conservative" newspapers in conservative cities in a conservative decade, and in social situations I had to listen to lefties make certain incorrect assumptions about me based on where I worked and how I dressed. I said to them, as I say to right-wingers now, that unless I am on the clock there's nothing requiring me to humor people who mouth the same boilerplate I've heard a hundred times before, with no indication of original thought on their part. If I want to listen to Rush Limbaugh -- and sometimes I do -- I know when and where to find him on the radio dial. I really don't need echoes from people who let someone else do their thinking for them.

This thread's original point is dippy.

 

Me too, but that line's been blurring more and more for quite some time now (for a lot of different reasons, some of them the fault of the media, some of them not).

 

Yeah . . . good luck with that.

 

What he said.

 

I tell you what, this is one tough bitch.

http://www.wftv.com/politics/17815344/detail.html

Listen to the questions she gives McCain. She is tough at the start, but she does lighten up at the end. At least she does not compare him to Stalin or Marx.

 

she's lobbing softballs that allow mccain to cover his stump speech topics. how is that tough?

 

I've written it ad nauseum, because it's true: To conservatives, "liberal bias" is anything less than the media sucking off all things GOP.

That column is a disgrace. It's the fourth or fifth one I've read this campaign season alleging bias without citing a single example.

I mean, the media are in the tank for Obama because nobody's interviewed a grad-school drug dealer? Good heavens.

 

My only embarrassment is that the news media seems less interested in verifying facts anymore. Everyone wants to be first, and accuracy be damned. That's why we end up with rumors making it as stories on a regular basis. We keep hearing how we compete with the Web, and there's plenty of misinformation out there, so many news organizations are certainly doing their part in that aspect. I'm not sure I've seen any particular bias other than what's expected (Olberman for Obama, O'Reilly for McCain), which, as pointed out, are from analysts and commentators, but I honestly would like to see less analysis and commentary and more straight-forward information.

 

I'm voting Obama, but there's definitely a bias against McCain/Palin, specifically Palin.

I think the AP investigative reports on Sarah Palin, one or two over trivial matters, is proof. The Palin hair dresser making more than a foreign policy adviser? Does it fucking matter?

I think Palin is horribly unqualified for the job, and I'm no apologist of hers. I also think that the AP's aggressive digging is great--so long as they do it toward all four candidates. We know that's not happening, though.