mr_genius

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jul 25, 2008 -> 01:23 PM) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle4392846.ece haha

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 25, 2008 -> 02:25 AM) you should thank your lucky stars this isn't american idol. All those McCain supporters having to figure out text messaging, it'd be a disaster. Oh I know. But really, if you can't text your vote in it's not worth casting.

Q is definitely the league MVP so far. He is the main cog in a first place team and really tearing it up.

KW hands down.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 24, 2008 -> 10:36 PM) Barack Obama gave a speech in Germany today in from of 200,000 German people. American Idol 2008 election ! woo hoo!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 23, 2008 -> 09:50 AM) Vanity Fair decides to jump into the New Yorker/Obama fray, with a cartoon response on McCain. This is an outrage!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 24, 2008 -> 10:46 AM) And of course, its not pegged for inflation, so they have to revisit this again later. Pet peeve of mine: enacting laws with specific amounts like this, and not putting in an automatic increase based on a market basket. yea it really should

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jul 24, 2008 -> 03:22 PM) I'd LOVE to see the Brewers somehow acquire Halladay, they should still have the necessary talent to pull off such a coup. oh that would be sweet unless we played them in the WS, then it would suck

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 24, 2008 -> 12:43 PM) hmm, what's worse, that...or claiming expertise in Iraq when you can't even get the timeline correct on the surge. Or Shia or Sunni. Obama thinks there are 57 states

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jul 23, 2008 -> 06:00 PM) At this point, totally unbiased would appear as liberal biased because the GOP has made the public super sensitive to anything that is negative towards them or positive for the Dems. the exact same argument the FOX news defender used The just of it was that the media is slanted so far to the left that anything in the middle would be considered right wing biased in comparison. When in reality both the MSM and FOX are slanted. FOX is basically a retaliation network to the pro-Democrat bias in the MSM. But when some people see things on TV that they agree with, they automatically assume it's non-biased and true reporting, when that may not be the case. and this is really beating a dead horse now, as this is like the 1 millionth 'liberal media' debate in the filibuster

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jul 23, 2008 -> 05:44 PM) Media relations has been huge since Kennedy v. Nixon. I think today, the GOP has easily won the battle. From the GOP radio network to Fox News. They are the front runners, yet are portrayed as underdogs. It may be decades before it is recognized, but I think this will be studied in political science and journalism classes for a long time. I would even venture to say that in the present environment that Nixon would have a better than 50-50 chance to have finished his term and Woodward and Bernstein would have been discredited as liberal biased reporters. Well, I think having CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and most of the nations news papers filled with pro-Democrat journalists has historically been a win for the Dems. Currently, the media is so over the top biased, it could actually hurt Obama (in theory). The coverage is totally pro-Dem. I had a similar debate with someone, but she was convinced that FOX news is completely unbiased; nothing could convince her otherwise. Oh well. And this will be studied and the analysis of the MSM will be obvious; a strong pro-Democrat bias in the news media. As The Gorace would say, "The debate is over".

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jul 23, 2008 -> 02:44 PM) If someone wants their full, unedited, piece published, they should take out an ad. To appear outside an advertisement and in the editorial section, it can, and should, be edited. Now that may mean nothing is changed, or it is changed by the author, but to expect a newspaper to print something verbatim, is just not right. McCain is making the right move not changing his stance to mirror Obama's as to appease the NYT. He would be a fool to give in on this and he knows it. Honestly, this is a win for McCain, as the media digs itself deeper and deeper in a hole. They have been hemorrhaging credibility for a while now; from their front page tabloid story on McCain to insisting he be more like Obama in order for the paper to publish any retort in their paper, the NYT comes out as the loser.

The coverage I've seen on Obama has been mainly positive. I have heard him compared to JFK and Lincoln numerous times. The Rev Wright thing got a lot of attention, but the MSM pretty much defended him and would put on an expert after the news story that would explain away any possible issues with Obama being so close to the guy. FOX news went crazy, of course, and played it 24/7 and trashed Obama; but we aren't arguing if FOX is blatently pro-GOP, as they clearly are. The media also likes to focus attention on stories that will help Obama, such as having a big story about nuclear waste accidents immediately after McCain argues there should be more nuclear power plants. Another example is showing a video of some poor woman dying on a hospital room floor to coincide with why we need Obama's health care plan. That story would not have been national news if it wasn't an election year and they didn't feel it would help the Democrats. Selection of news stories is very interesting, especially when you map it with what Obama is saying in his speeches. There seems to be a direct relation to what the media focuses on as to correlate with a boost for Obama. Of course, there is the argument of "well, Obama is merely speaking to important issues, and the news media is covering these issues." Well, these exact same issues have been around for years, yet they only now decide to go with them and almost always in a way in which the selection will make McCains plans look bad. It's very easy to cherry pick news stories like that to give a politician an advantage. They basically seem to be taking their walking orders form the DNC, even though I doubt they do; they merely are mostly Democrats and think that everyone else should be convinced to see things the same way they do. That is a major problem with having an echo chamber of a newsroom, everyone has the same world view and it is often different than the experiences of the majority of Americans, thus the lack of trust from large portions of the populace. The MSM has treated Obama as the next great president, and he may well be, but currently he is largely a creation of the media (as McCain was). Unfortunately for McCain, the media has found someone new to gravitate towards and has already begun the hero worship. McCain was a favorite as he was challenging G.W Bush; your enemies enemy is your fried, I suppose, in the MSM. It's another election year and the MSM swings into full American Idol mode, and Obama is their new favorite crooner.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 07:02 PM) There obviously is a huge market waiting for biased conservative coverage like Rush. Yet somehow, that market is never filled. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/ Well, that seemed to fill out the cable news thing for Republicans. They'll claim the are totally non-biased, and a lot of Republicans actually believe that. Also talk radio (as you mentioned). And Drudge on the internet. I wouldn't be surprised to see more conservative news outlets, as long as they are popular like the ones i mentioned before.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 10:26 PM) Oh, and when McCain can get the facts about Iraq right, he can start to try and argue the media is biased. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...0&start=150 it's already in the other thread

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 05:15 PM) As for you last statement, I whole-heartedly agree that Obama has had much more press. I can't help but laugh at your assertion. If McCain got half of the critical coverage of Obama and then added on 50% more of the positive coverage he already gets, he'd be in deep s***. So you really think the media isn't pro-Obama? Oh well. I would laugh, but i believe you are studying journalism and if you really think Obama has been treated worse than McCain by the MSM media it's more tragic than funny. The media is made up of a select few people whom consider themselves more informed and elite as compared to the general public. People don't trust the news like they did in the past, mainly because they know the are being preached to half of the time; as compared to watching a news broadcast. One of my favorite things about the internet is how it gives much more people a voice.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 04:57 PM) Hasn't Fox been slipping in the ratings lately? Overall they still easily beat CNN and MSNBC. During off-times on the weekend CNN seems to pick up steam. Here's some ratings stats. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 04:28 PM) people don't want objective news. Everyone conservative wants a cheering section for conservative viewpoints. Every liberal in here wants the cheering section for the progressive viewpoints. And neither one of us see's the news as being objective or on our side. Isn't that the funny part, that no one is right. And everyone is losing. News is worse now, and it is worse for no reasons that contain liberal or conservative. They're delusional grasp to maintain 20% profits has them cutting content and creates awful news. There isn't money to do long term investigations and to have your own data collecting. Luckily Lexis/Nexis is helping many make due. Unbiased news may sell, but the MSM isn't doing it right now so it won't reach the masses. The problem the left wing press is facing, with losing viewers or readers, is that there is too much competition for pro-Democrat news. Look at FOX, they don't even have a good presentation (CNN nad MSNBC are better in this category) but they are the only pro-GOP news on television; they destroy in the ratings. I disagree with your opening statement here; the news has not always been what you are calling 'progressive'. The American news media has long history of being for freedoms, against authoritarianism, for self determination, living the American dream, and individualism; all of which many 'progressives' view as dangerous. The news can cover issues without bias, but stories that the Times covers directly coincides with whatever the Democrat party is currently pushing. Proof? The proof is in each days paper and no matter what they do many will never see the paper that supports their political party as biased. Oh and the Iraq war piece? Yea, that was back when the majority of Dems supported the Iraq war, when the Dems turned so did the NYT. Go figure. The dumbing down of news is not something only on cable. Most of the MSM stories are really dumb. Obama gets glowing coverage by the MSM, broadcasts are basically a Obama campaign ad. This is a big advantage for him, and he knows it.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 04:34 PM) The bias seems to be they didn't want to reprint the same thing McCain has already been saying and has been printed. Obama plowed some new ground and was printed. It seems like they made the same offer to McCain, plow some new ground and we'll run it, and he refused. I think McCain calculated the impact of both courses and went with the media bias angle, which plays so well to his base. How many time should a newspaper print the same statements from the same candidate? Obama didn't really say anything new, but he did say things the Times agrees with, therefore they printed it. McCain didn't write what they wanted to hear, so they didn't print. Who cares though? It's a liberal paper and they can print whatever they want. But we can laugh at them when they claim to be unbiased news source.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 03:35 PM) Just to see if I can make anyone's head explode...you know...if there was a fairness doctrine in the law, covering newspapers, I think that would have required the NYT to print that piece no matter what McCain said in it. That would just make things worse. I'm fine with a liberal New York Times, they can print whatever they want, and I am free to critique their publications.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 02:18 PM) Note that I didn't say the NYT was unbiased. I said that, specifically, their news journalism (not editorial or anything else) is good, and I will say they are far less biased than what you get on Fox. If you read the actual news items in the NYT, compared to most other papers, they are simply better and less biased than others. That gets overshadowed by other aspects of the paper. But I would not call the NYT unbiased. Just less biased, and only in the news room. Their news room is also very biased. Their coverage, what stories they give the most print, are usually part of a pro-Democrat narrative.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 02:11 PM) I don't buy that for a second. The NYT is every bit to the left as Fox News is to the right. As a matter of a fact, its why I pretty much ignore both of them when it comes to anything connected to politics. I agree, the NYT news reporting is as far left as FOX is right. But I do like to get news from different points of view, as a consumer of news I am just aware of biased reporting and take it for what it is.

The New York Times isn't an unbiased news source , and that is obvious. There really is no point arguing with people who are determined to argue that the NYT is unbiased, kind of like a FOX news defender who claims their broadcasts aren't biased.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 03:46 PM) If they ran the op-ed, there'd be barely a flutter. By turning it down, it helps McCain more honestly. It does help him with parts of the GOP base. The New York Times is a great fund raiser for him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 03:26 PM) I would think he would agree that none of those are valid, and that is why NSS didn't mention any of them. all valid, and all true. he would have to at least admit they are crappy journalists.