mr_genius

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 05:41 PM) now if she was for it while she was running for Governor and against it now, how is pointing that out "bias"? Isn't it just truth-telling? Didn't say reporting it was. Biden has gotten a complete free ride. Obama has too pretty much, any negative reporting about him (rev Wright is an example) is immediately followed with a staunch defense. The media should report facts, not put together a campaign ad. The media bias might not even matter, most people realize what is going on.

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 05:28 PM) genius, all we want is the truth reported. is that so much to ask? i would imagine thats what we all want, or at least i would hope so.

would you also like to argue that Reagan and Clinton lost the debates and won the election?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 04:05 PM) And it's the complete disconnection from reality that has made the Republican party so ineffective at running the government. Just like here. Data? What data. I don't see any data. No one ever does polls after a debate. Nobody. I refuse to believe they exist. ABC says the last 2 debates were a draw in their poll, which contradicts your 'kerry won all 3'. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=163784 Kerry also won the exit polls,lost. not so sure how accurate polls are. data what data? balta no see any data only swiftboats. also http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/oct/0...a?commentpage=1 after all the debates Bush made up ground and won.

honestly i really don't care anymore if you guys think your team only loses because of 'dirty tricks'. it's a bizarre excuse making complex that distracts the Democrat party from the actual reasons they lose presidential elections. yes of course, the debates don't decide it. whatever.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 03:52 PM) I was overseas and didn't see the debates but I did read that Bush really got his ass handed to him in the first debate, but was much better in the last 2. Actually it was less of Kerry beating him and more of Bush making himself look like a complete fool. i watched them and Kerry basically came off real bad. terrible during the debates.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 03:33 PM) When was the last time this was actually true? 2004

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 03:44 PM) I mean, I think they're important. But so are a lot of other things. Kerry won all 3 debates against Bush according to the after debate polls. People who watched the 2000 debates thought Gore won, people who tuned in for the post-debate coverage were convinced by the liberals in the media that Bush won. They have an impact, but they're usually not the decisive turning point. Maybe you thought they won, most people didn't. But of course the only reason Gore or Kerry lost was because it was 'stolen' from them *sigh*

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 03:41 PM) Not sure about that; I can only think of two in which the debates are generally acknowledged to have had a significant influence: 1960 (Nixon looking shifty-eyed and sweaty on TV) and 1976 (Ford's "no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe" gaffe). Carter lost to Reagan during the debates, Mondale lost to Reagan during the debates, Clinton beat Bush I during debates, Clinton beat Dole during debates, Gore lost to GW Bush (unbelievable as it may sound that GW could defeat ANYONE in a debate) during the debates. Kerry sucked during the debates, lost.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 03:32 PM) You catch Senator Obama or Biden blatantly lying or in a gaffe, whatever, call them on it. But when the media refuses to explain simple facts because pointing out that the claim of one side is blatantly false, when the media treats the most blatant of distortions as something up for discussion rather than just saying "This is flat out false", then it is not doing anyone a favor, and it's not helping the side that just happens to, at least in this case, be on the side of the facts. Actually, I was watching CNN last night and they said Palin supported the 'bridge to nowhere'. they actually covered about 8 times in 2 hours of news. i would say 90 minutes of the two hours of coverage I watched was dedicated to attacking Palin. Now, that might not be a high enough ration for some.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 01:22 PM) Hrm... polls are great when they show your candidate ahead. However, it doesn't mean anything this far ahead. It never does. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A96E948260 presidential elections are usually won or lost during the debates

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 04:01 PM) Stay classy Fox News i like how the article talked about swiftboats. i'm thinking about changing avatar back to a swiftboat.

it's too bad this election is going to get nasty. i actually like Obama and won't really be all that disappointed if he ends up winning (even though i do have issues with some of his economic policies and increases in spending).

looks like McCains convention speech may have won over some independents http://www.gallup.com/poll/110137/McCain-N...dependents.aspx

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) yeah we're not very good at it. Actually, they are very good at it IMO. they definitely know how to use the media to their advantage.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 10:41 AM) well, here. Scan through. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/ti...=0&s=newest DO NOT PICK EDITORIALS. Scanning through, I just find that this was my main argument about the real liberal bias in reporting. I think journalists in general are biased towards the poor and underreported. In reporting, I don't think it's "THIS ISN'T WORKING, LOUSY REPUBLICANS" usually it's "If you are going to have this program at least make it do what it's supposed to do" (solve problems). Rarely do these articles mention political parties, if at all, and these are hyper regional. Usually the main players you see are the governor or Bloomberg. The narrative is usually that government is the cure to all problems. Honestly though, if you don't think the NY Times is left biased, there is no reason for us to try to come to any sort of agreement (we are both positive that we are correct and really nothing is going to change that). Here is an interesting study from 2005 http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media...-UCLA-6664.aspx

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 05:58 AM) It shows that marketing and fear is a better motivator then facts and figures. We can sell crap to the American consumer without any problem. Just walk into any Walmart. The Democrats fear mongering, bumper slogan campaigns, and mass marketing hasn't done jack for them.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 11:33 PM) Aww yes, from your years of watching the little twitches and manuerisms to subliminally trick America into voting for a GOP congress for 12 years and Republican Presidency for 18 of the last 24. I suppose voting for the candidate TV tells you to is more of a Democrat thing. I have an amazing ability to watch even keith Olbermann and still not like Harry Reid! Or watch FOX news and still think GW sucks seriously though what the past 24 years have shown is just how bad the candidates and ideas the Dems have ran with.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 09:53 PM) No, you drive me crazy with this. Keith Olbermann is equal with the following: Bill O'Reilley Sean Hannity Lou Dobbs Jack Cafferty Rachel Maddow Chris Matthews Joe Scarborough Britt Hume would be equated with Wolf Blitzer, Andrea Mitchell and the like. Yea. I agree with you. Hume is a news anchor and managing editor of FOX nightly news (like Brian Williams at NBC), not a commentator like Sean Hannity. The difference is that you would consider Williams or even Dan Rather to be an unbiased newsman, but Hume a biased broadcaster.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 08:48 PM) This ought to make us all feel happy. good thing those bribes to congress paid off. oh yea, give that guy tens of millions for running a company into the ground. the best part is we all get to 'bailout' this bulls***.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 08:48 PM) The only difference between Brit Hume and Keith Olbermann is that K.O. doesn't hide behind a veil of objectivity when he does reporting. Or maybe its because Democrats don't whine at every little jab from the fourth estate, so Hume gets away with saying a lot more. Same could be said of any of the major 3 network anchors. FOX news with Hume is biased the same way the major 3 are, it's mainly in language used when covering certain topics and which issues are emphasized. And Democrats whine about FOX news plenty. If the big 3 networks had news coverage like FOX Democrats would go fricking crazy.

a nice convention bounce for McCain.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 7, 2008 -> 10:11 PM) TAAS had it right, news directly from the government, no bias. a government run media will be more biased than our current media could ever dream to be. in the US there are different points of view and multiple media sources to get information from. also, i would like to add that there is nothing wrong with criticism of media sources.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 12:39 PM) Why do we establish governments? Protecting us seems like one of the first roles or government. I don't think we established a government to bailout corporations that make bad business decisions Oh, by the way, the auto industry is now asking for a bailout.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-D...head-48-45.aspx