To Morganni - I was referring to the fact that McCain's campaign has run far, far more negative ads than Obama's campaign.
l'example). The Charlie Gibson interview showed the most sensational bits, yes... and Obama's "bitter" comment, taken in context, didn't
actually mean what it was widely taken to mean at all. No bilious things have been said about her children by the dreaded mainstream media.
I did not say her media coverage was 100% positive. But it has been incredibly slanted towards her and has treated her like a celebrity, more so than for any
vice-presidential candidate in my lifetime; in fact, arguably more so than any other presidential candidate.
The media never called her out on her incredibly stupid comment that she was an expert on foreign policy based on the fact she could see Russia from her house
(which in fact she can't). The media never questioned when the McCain campaign said she experience commanding the Alaska National Guard (despite the fact
she never gave a single order in that capacity). The media obligingly swallowed the "I stopped the Bridge to Nowhere" bullshit she peddled, despite
the fact she ran an election campaign on keeping it, and then when it was cancelled, she kept the money and spent it on other projects in Alaska. No mention
has been made of the fact she spent over 80% of her town's budget on a hockey arena (not a great sign in light of the current economic crisis), nor that on
her watch women were charged for rape kits. The media barely touched the fact she was under investigation for corruption even when McCain selected her (and
also failed to heavily cover the fact she was found guilty a week ago). There has been no mockery of McCain's contention that she is one the greatest
energy experts in the US (or was it the world?), despite the fact she has no qualifications to earn this compliment other than being governor of Alaska. There
has been no serious inquiry into the fact that she has been shielded from almost all media interviews by the McCain campaign, despite the fact it is obvious to
all and sundry that she is being kept from them because she will embarass herself and the campaign (again). The media never acknowledged the borderline-crazy
circumstances of her last child's birth (although left-wing blogs and such thought it was proof the child was not hers), which cast serious doubt on her
judgement as a person and parent. As I have noted before, the media has not made any hash of the fact her husband is tied to a separatist party, nor that she herself recorded a message for them as governor of Alaska. And despite how much fun they had with
Reverend Wright, somehow we've heard virtually nothing from the media about Palin's own church, which isn't exactly mainstream. The list of things
the anti-Palin media somehow managed to miss goes on and on.
She was treated as if she made a good showing in the VP debate merely by showing up and not soiling herself, despite the fact she did not display any
particularly insightful knowledge on any topic and actually said she was ignoring questions to "talk to the American people". I can just imagine your
reaction if Obama had done the same thing.
If the media was anti-Palin, anti-McCain, or anti-GOP, the McCain campaign would be dead in the water (as opposed to just listing heavily). The separatist
thing alone would have done it; much hash was made not so long ago about how Obama didn't wear a flag pin, and yet the fact the party of Lincoln has
selected a Copperhead for its VP candidate went unremarked? Yes, there's some mighty fine anti-Palin bias there.
The mainstream media in the United States is owned by a few huge conglomerates; such organisations are not known for their Democratic loyalties. The amount of
cognitive dissonance needed to swallow a claim that Clearchannel's holdings have an anti-GOP leaning must be staggering.
with my assessment of your media.
Quote:Yes, I saw all of that. Saturday Night Live mocks all the candidates (they mocked Hillary just as much in Tina Fey's first Palin sketch, pour
Logan Darklighter wrote:
Ayiekie...
I can't think of any diplomatic way to say this - so screw it -
Quote: The mainstream media isn't decidedly Obama. If they were, Sarah Palin would have been roundly laughed at as opposed to becoming America's biggest
celebrity.
Excuse the FUCK out of me? But the mainstream press has been trying to find a way to take her down since she was first announced! Laughing at her? HELLO?
Saturday Night Live? Charlie Gibson's interview... Did you see the full version of that interview? Or just the version that made it to TV? The version
that made it to TV was edited to make her look bad. You didn't see the condescending way she was treated? Have you not seen any of the bilious things
said about her son? Her teenage daughter? How this was reported?
l'example). The Charlie Gibson interview showed the most sensational bits, yes... and Obama's "bitter" comment, taken in context, didn't
actually mean what it was widely taken to mean at all. No bilious things have been said about her children by the dreaded mainstream media.
I did not say her media coverage was 100% positive. But it has been incredibly slanted towards her and has treated her like a celebrity, more so than for any
vice-presidential candidate in my lifetime; in fact, arguably more so than any other presidential candidate.
The media never called her out on her incredibly stupid comment that she was an expert on foreign policy based on the fact she could see Russia from her house
(which in fact she can't). The media never questioned when the McCain campaign said she experience commanding the Alaska National Guard (despite the fact
she never gave a single order in that capacity). The media obligingly swallowed the "I stopped the Bridge to Nowhere" bullshit she peddled, despite
the fact she ran an election campaign on keeping it, and then when it was cancelled, she kept the money and spent it on other projects in Alaska. No mention
has been made of the fact she spent over 80% of her town's budget on a hockey arena (not a great sign in light of the current economic crisis), nor that on
her watch women were charged for rape kits. The media barely touched the fact she was under investigation for corruption even when McCain selected her (and
also failed to heavily cover the fact she was found guilty a week ago). There has been no mockery of McCain's contention that she is one the greatest
energy experts in the US (or was it the world?), despite the fact she has no qualifications to earn this compliment other than being governor of Alaska. There
has been no serious inquiry into the fact that she has been shielded from almost all media interviews by the McCain campaign, despite the fact it is obvious to
all and sundry that she is being kept from them because she will embarass herself and the campaign (again). The media never acknowledged the borderline-crazy
circumstances of her last child's birth (although left-wing blogs and such thought it was proof the child was not hers), which cast serious doubt on her
judgement as a person and parent. As I have noted before, the media has not made any hash of the fact her husband is tied to a separatist party, nor that she herself recorded a message for them as governor of Alaska. And despite how much fun they had with
Reverend Wright, somehow we've heard virtually nothing from the media about Palin's own church, which isn't exactly mainstream. The list of things
the anti-Palin media somehow managed to miss goes on and on.
She was treated as if she made a good showing in the VP debate merely by showing up and not soiling herself, despite the fact she did not display any
particularly insightful knowledge on any topic and actually said she was ignoring questions to "talk to the American people". I can just imagine your
reaction if Obama had done the same thing.
If the media was anti-Palin, anti-McCain, or anti-GOP, the McCain campaign would be dead in the water (as opposed to just listing heavily). The separatist
thing alone would have done it; much hash was made not so long ago about how Obama didn't wear a flag pin, and yet the fact the party of Lincoln has
selected a Copperhead for its VP candidate went unremarked? Yes, there's some mighty fine anti-Palin bias there.
The mainstream media in the United States is owned by a few huge conglomerates; such organisations are not known for their Democratic loyalties. The amount of
cognitive dissonance needed to swallow a claim that Clearchannel's holdings have an anti-GOP leaning must be staggering.
Quote: What kind of insulated, mirror backwards, bearded Spock world are you posting from anyway? Not the one the majority of people are living in! That's forThat "insulated, mirror backwards, bearded Spock world" would be the rest of the world outside America. You would find most of it agrees
DAMN sure!
with my assessment of your media.