bmags

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 06:07 AM) Wolf Blitzer is so bad at his job I dont even know if he's biased. haha, so true. One thing I love about being in journalism school is ripping on wolf blitzer and katie couric.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 05:03 AM) I think Genius hit it half on the head. From the left, the media looks conservative, from the right, it looks liberal. It is impossible to balance a story about Monica Lewinsky or Larry Craig. With those kinds of stories it may be impossible to balance the newspaper that day. They have to take the stories as they come. What I think has hurt our journalists is we've allowed the business side to get into the newsroom. Ratings driven stories abound. How much time was devoted to Natalie Holloway? Was that a liberal or conservative story? So to make profits, the media is forced to cover a 17 year old girl because without the story, viewers and readers will switch channels or buy the other paper. / thread.

Jeeze why not through him at LT

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 01:45 AM) Well most people in the buster follow politics at least mildly so we have heard about Rezco to some extent, especially us living in Chicago. However, there has been more coverage of Bristol Palin from the MSM the past three days than there has been about Rezco in 19 months. Theres no doubt that there are significantly more people that dont follow politics that know that she is pregnant that probably have no idea who Tony Rezco is or why he is going to jail. I guarantee you people in Illinois know more about Tony Rezko than they know about Bristol Palin. And the difference between Rezko and Palin is timing. If all of this came out about Obama's home purchase yesterday, there would be a frenzy. But it came out in december 2006, before his candidacy I believe. And since then, it really hasn't gained steam. And don't tell me the Tribune didn't try to nail him on Rezko. There was the day reporter after reporter from the tribune grilled him and he walked off the stage. But then, you have to say this effectively killed the story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...0,7855333.story If there's nothing illegal there it's hard to merely just state that he knew him over and over. It's a bad connection to have, but it's not 24/7 coverage sustained over however long these many months have been bad, you must concede.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 01:37 AM) Weve learned more about Bristol Palin in 3 days than we have Tony Rezco in 19 months... Just false and hyperbolic.

Instead of me having to prove a negative, ball's in your court.

that doesn't change anything.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 10:44 PM) Imagine if Daley was running for president. lolz. The best Chicago Reader article I've ever seen started off with a 4 paragraph story of a boy taking his mother home from the hospital after their stepfather had beat her. He asked her why she keeps going back. She replied, "It's not that bad". And then it proceeded to talk about the s*** that Mayor Daley was doing. It was excellent.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 10:43 PM) Honestly, there really is no convincing you of any bias, so as far as you are concerned nothing could ever be proven as far as a media bias. You think the NY Times is a complete unbiased news source. I'm not trying to insult you, I just think you have a very skewed view of what is appropriate or fair journalism. There is no such thing as a complete unbiased news source. But what you believe is fair journalism (pro-right) and what I believe is fair journalism (call it as is) are two different things.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 10:00 PM) Not everyone is b****ing about it because half the country is reaping the benefits. I know myself, and a few others on here will absolutely contest it is blatant irresponsibility, especially in an election of this magnitude. I guarantee you if Pawlenty was picked, none of this would be happening. He was a common name who ran a good state and had known opinions on a national stage. McCain opened pandora's box. This isn't bad journalism, this is what you'd expect. She made no real opinions in her first speech. When everyone is going "who the hell is this person" you can't blame people for going up to find who the hell she is. So this great pick is completely overshadowing the GOP convention that was already overshadowed by a hurricane. but it's the liberal media, this tried and true argument that you mr. genius feels in his gut but can rarely prove. You're right, this has been a poor election coverage year...by the AP. They've been the worst. The AP's story was a one source tidbit from McCain's head of vetting, when the rest of the newspapers in their country not run by Fornier are all saying the same thing "we didn't know". If McCain did know, why the inconsistent answers? Why?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 07:25 PM) This is ridiculous. How much more s*** are you going to pick up? Come on, that's hilarious. It's a town of 9,000 people.

zing boom bam

The AP is a joke right now run by ron formier

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 05:10 PM) Which is a shame, because minorities in this country pretty much owe their civil rights to LBJ. For all the flowery talk that Kennedy gave, he never planned on delivering more than that. And Truman!

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 05:09 PM) I find it increasingly frustrating that people assume that no thought or vetting went into this VP pick. Clearly, there are numerous news articles about "how much" vetting was done and how it was conducted. You're right, they say not much. Except for the guy in charge of it all, who said he did a great job. Oh, and my favorite, the aides that said they had an FBI check on her, very official. Of course then the FBI says what are you talking about we don't do that.

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 05:09 PM) I find it increasingly frustrating that people assume that no thought or vetting went into this VP pick. Clearly, there are numerous news articles about "how much" vetting was done and how it was conducted. However, there seems to be this impression out there that Palin was picked on some whim in order to attract Clinton supporters. Palin was brought in to energize the Republican base (which I believe she has), solidify the social conservative vote (her issue positions certainly match here), to reinforce McCain's "maverick" nature (which she does to some degree, though maybe not as much as picking Lieberman), and to represent change (both from the current administration and in general from business as usual). As for the lack of vetting, so far the "dirt" on her is that she has conservative social views (e.g. creationism, pro-life), has been affiliated with a party that might support Alaskan seccession, has a pregnant teenage daughter, that her issue positions do not 100% match McCain's, and that she is potentially involved in the least scandalous political "scandal" that I've heard about in some time. If this is the worst that can be found on her, I'd say she (and the McCain/Palin) ticket are in pretty good shape. For someone that was virtually unknown in the general public (though she'd been discussed as VP candidate for months), it is not unusual at all for these things to appear surprising to the general public (who didn't know her anyway). In other words, she was a completely political pick with no thoughts as to whether she could run the country. "Least scandalous scandal" ever...maybe if you didn't pay attention to the BUsh administration. Maybe if you think you should be allowed to use your political power to take care of family differences. Maybe If you would like another presidential administration that again acts like it was just their aides. But I remember the U.S. attorney scandal and the politicization of most every department during the Bush administration, and I don't want it repeated.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 04:38 PM) Well isn't that kind of the risk they assumed when they made the pick? Remember everybody saying this was going to either make or break the election for McCain. Of course the McCain camp could've done a better job assessing the risk if they knew jack s*** about her (it took the left-wing blogs about 24 hours to scrape up enough dirt on her to force a public announcement). But who would replace her? If you kick her off and put in Pawlenty or Romney that wouldn't generate much buzz in the base and talk about alienating the woman vote. It's a screwed up situation for them, keep Palin and just hope the bleeding stops or just save some of the parties image and try not to lose damn near all of their seats in Congress? I'm just wondering how much they weighed the risk at all. I mean McCain won this thing back in late march. He's had 5 months to pick a VP, did he really not know how mad conservatives would be with Ridge or Lieberman for FIVE mo.? NY Times said he had one interview with Palin and gave it to her soon thereafter. In my mind, all they saw was pro-choice, woman, you can get Clinton, alright go with it. In the modern presidency the pick of VP means a lot, and if this is the amount of consideration that went into it, it's certainly telling.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 04:41 PM) A kind of parliamentary system who's chief executive is really nothing more than a figurehead. Putting one man in charge of the largest military in the world is just dumb. A team of brothers would be better. Like the Coen Brothers.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 04:34 PM) I would be very curious as to what form of government you would advocate. you'll enjoy it. Also, LOL from huff post: It turns out she had a somewhat different approach. If a small-town mayor ever ruled with an iron fist -- it was Palin. Eleven days after taking office in 1996, she mailed letters to each of the city's top managers requesting that they resign as a test of loyalty.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 04:25 PM) Awww snap somebody read their HuffPost this morning! I dont think they'll drop her unless the corruption really starts to seep through. Like Stevens throws her under the bus to save his own ass or Troopergate goes nuclear. This family issue stuff wont do it even if there is sex involved. but it's already poor. It should all be pos. for the republicans now, it's their convention week. And all you are getting is defensiveness about Palin. but even with all this, I still say the most important part is McCain's judgment. Now the NYT is saying that McCain only had people go up to Alaska one day before she was selected. She was a very rushed pick.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 03:47 PM) So Palin has been worth 3 points so far? you are confusing polls.

you know I think you conservatives read dailykos more than any of us do. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

well what was a black woman doing at the republican national convention anyway jkjk

sadly. sadly.

QUOTE (striker62704 @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 03:32 AM) The Whitesox remind me of an old beat up car. They think because it's still running that it's a good car when it's not good. Even if this team makes the playoffs they aren't going anywhere. They'll be on the road the first round of the playoffs and they suck on the road. oh okay.