Texsox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 09:02 AM) Edwards also flat out lied to the media about it when asked, so that doesn't help either. But there was still no real investigation, except by the enquirer. I have not read the Enquirer in years, but from what I remember, isn't the paper filled with stories like this that always seem to be false? If a credible newspaper used an Enquirer story as a source, wouldn't that seem strange? Why didn't Rush, Hannity, WSJ, or any of the Conservative journalists investigate the Enquirer claims? In hind sight, they should have, I wish they had. But I have a hard time faulting any media types for not taking an Enquirer article serious. Now we'll all feel stupid if we find out Bush really IS an alien, Elvis is alive, Brad and whomever are getting back together, etc.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 08:34 AM) FWIW, when the story surfaced, he was still a candidate for President. Again, we are back to McCain issuing a press release. We can chase our tails with predictable results, but we will never know if this would have been treated just like Edwards by the media. They may have dug this up and substantiated an Enquirer article, but McCain served it up on a silver platter, rubbed their nose in it, then complained about the coverage. It was probably his best strategy, and he could play the biased media card. And we know the biased media card was talked about before they released the news.

Comparing the two candidates it occurred to me that Obama is probably the better motivational leader. Young, charismatic, good orator, has a vision and can "sell that vision". McCain seems the better manager. More experiences to draw on, confident, knows when to compromise. Thoughts?

Comparing budgets is a tricky business. Like running any business, expenses are higher in Chicago then in some other areas. Property costs more, school security needs are greater, etc. When the cost of living is higher, workers generally earn more. When the work involves personal risk, workers generally earn more. But the bottom line isn't just about the expense side of the equation, it is about the income. Why should there be a disparity at all? Currently funding per student is different in every district. Perhaps leveling per county would be a step in the right direction. If some poor schools can do so well with dedicated teachers, then the districts with greater resources can also continue to do better. After all it isn't really the money, or is it?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 08:43 AM) Greatest song ever... Awesome reference. I loved that episode

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 09:26 AM) I was merely referenceing the US posts, that's all. But to think that things like this also don't affebt people's preceptions would be wrong. Hopefully, not too many people look to US for their news! It all influences people's opinions. Friends, People Mag, WSJ, classes in school, they all shape opinions.

I believe Palin has hit a level that Edwards has not, apparent VP running mate. She is the first GOP female to be in that position. Add it all up and there are enough firsts to make her a bigger story then Edwards. Perhaps they should have compared the Edwards coverage and limited this coverage, or maybe went back and added some more Edwards for balance. But that seems really silly.

Missing a few days of school at 9 years of age, if it brings about the changes mentioned, will do much much more for that child's education. Boycotts have been a time honored method of protesting. And yes, great teachers can overcome poor resources, but great teachers with great resources are even better. And why would great teachers choose to teach in a resource poor school system? There are some angels that will, but top teachers gravitate towards the top schools. Trying to teach Social Studies with outdated text books is just wrong. Yet that is what some poor districts are forced to do. Sadly, some of those schools that spend a lot of money are spending it on non educational items like security.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 08:34 AM) Some are lazy, some have agendas, some have favorites that color their writing styles, some ask softball questions to people they like, some are just plain idiots. Why aren't any of them conservative? Why haven't conservative owners not surfaced to buy newspapers? Could it be that the GOP is happy with the way things are?

QUOTE (joesaiditstrue @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 12:37 AM) the twins and white sox are f***ing bad teams right now, if either of these two teams limp into the playoffs playing the way they are right now, it'll be a very brisk 1 and done that's my opinion and i'm entitled to it there's a month left of September baseball to right the ship, but they're gonna have to wake the f*** up, that's for damn sure. You may be entitled to it, but you may not have an exclusive. There are plenty of others that share your opinion. One of these two teams will limp into the play offs, but not both. And anything beyond that would require a big turnaround and some help from their playoff opponent.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 11:31 PM) OK, I'll say it. Sinks can be tricky depending on the height. It was that extra long handicap sink.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 11:41 PM) I have one thing to say, if anyone tries to make a point against her using Bristol as their example, I'm going to punch my monitor. So what if her daughter is preganant, guess what, she's a teenager! It'd be one thing if her daughter was going to get an abortion, but she isn't. Teenagers do stupid things about 90% of the time. Hell, when I'm done with this post I'll probably do some dumbass thing. Why would anyone care if her daughter was getting an abortion? And not all teenagers get pregnant. Not even the majority.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 06:59 AM) No mention of the Edwards non-story, until their hand was forced by the Enquirer? They wouldn't run that because they didn't have enough 'evidence'. However one person makes a claim that McCain is screwing a lobbyist and every major paper runs with it for 3 days. The media has thier favorites. Most of the time they are Democrats. They used to like McCain, but now that he is opposing the Messiah, they don't know what to do. True, they are not attacking him as much as they could be, but that's because they can't stop sucking Obama's cock long enough to do anything else. The media is also lazy. Often local papers just repeat stories that they glean from AP or Reuters, so all it takes is one biased person there, and that biased opinion gets spread all around the country. And I just love how news stories usually seem to forget to mention political affiliation, or bury it deep in stories, when it is a bad thing that involves Dems. And Flasoxx, you do realize that most of the people in your little collage are NOT news reposters, but provide commentary? Their jobs are to give their opinions, not unbiased news. Rush is not a newsman. Hannity is not a newsman. Those guys are as biased as most of the folks on msnbc. Media seems like all media, not just journalists. People are lazy and get their news from Rush and Co. Especially because the media is so biased, they need to hear it from Rush so they can believe it. But you do have the GOP party strategy down. Thousands of hours of programming with conservative talk and opinion pales in comparison to a story in a newspaper or TV newscast with declining ratings. I can't believe the GOP can say that with a straight face and so many people will accept it. Hidden agenda of media -- make money with higher ratings Hidden agenda of the GOP -- Get elected

QUOTE (BearSox @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 10:24 PM) To anyone who claims there is no media bias, you are simply a homer. And anyone who claims that this isn't a political strategy by the GOP is also a homer. Imagine how an editor would have to "balance" the Palin story based on this thread. Route 1. Get me something on Biden's kids to balance this. We don't print until we have a negative story about Biden or his kids. Route 2 What have we reported that is close to this? Jenna? No dammit, it has to be Dem to balance. I was reading Soxtalk and they are talking Tony Rezko. OK, let's use that. We had a page 1, two 12s, and a 15. We have 1,300 column inches and three pictures to fill. 1,600 were negative, 200 were positive, and the rest neutral. Now get to work. Too bad the debate is never will the GOP strategy to destroy media credibility hurt our country in the long run. But somehow people are able to believe a coordinated media bias in thousands of independent newspapers, but not a coordinated effort by one organization. As soon as there is something slightly negative about a GOP member, their first order of business is to shoot the messenger.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 10:24 PM) To anyone who claims there is no media bias, you are simply a homer. What passes for bias, placement of a story, amount of coverage, local versus national coverage, is more business and ratings driven and not some media conspiracy to elect more Dems as some would claim.

So we disqualify anyone with a political opinion from being in the media? How does that work?

Good game plan, poor execution. Condi would have been game.set.match. This also takes the experience attack out of McCain's quiver. I like the idea of a fresh, young face, and the opportunity to break a barrier. But at McCain's age the VP is probably worth a little more scrutiny then Obama's pick. And frankly we have Odd Couple ! running against Odd Couple II. I really don't like either candidate's choice so I'm still leaning towards McCain.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 10:13 PM) Oh s***. lol. Money is the bottom line to everything, not ideological bias. And that is relatively new to media. New as in the past 30 years. Prior to that business stayed out of the newsroom. We're an interest driven media market and sex and scandal sells

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 11:09 PM) So 3 pages and nobody has mentioned ratings and $$. Hmm. you must have me on ignore

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 11:04 PM) McCain is getting a free pass? The only coverage he gets is luke warm or negative. Obama is treated with massive amounts of positive coverage. Let me guess, FLaSoxxJim, the MSM is actually conservative and pro-McCain... right? errrr Now you are asking the media to sparkle up McCain, and that just isn't him. McCain is lukewarm compared to Obama. It's like comparing Andy Griffin to Brad Pitt. He is what he is. I'd be more worried if our media was trying to make McCain more like Obama or vice versa.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 10:58 PM) Don't want to put a damper on things, but this specific topic has been discussed in this forum on many occasions. The liberals will claim there is no media bias and the conservatives will claim that there unquestionably is a media bias. There is nothing I can add to this conversation that I haven't said in here before. 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.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 09:45 PM) like i've said before, i'm sure the guy with a Le Che poster thinks the msm is right wing. they are moderate democrat to left leaning democrat: but a moderate democrat is a crazy right winger in your book. go figure. QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 09:46 PM) nice post, completely useless, but thats really the status quo. can't complain i suppose. I agree with you.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 09:44 PM) the media was going to go with it no matter what, the McCain camp coming out and being honest about it was the right move. but i'm sure you would support them going out and bulls***ting and lying. to each their own. You are probably right, but it may have also played out well by McCain not issuing a statement and then the "it's a private matter" rings a little truer. And I really would not support bulls***ting and lying. One of the reasons I am supporting McCain in this election is personal integrity and character. To support him lying would be disingenuous. Thank you for respecting my opinion with a "to each his own". It is important to understand we all have opinions here and usually they are all shades of right.

I'd feel better of we played Minny at home. I'm in, but much less confident then in 2005, when IIRC, I was one of the few not out on a ledge.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 08:33 PM) That is my problem. Anderson has sat on an MLB bench all season. Owens couldn't make this team. To be a September call up, and get a start over someone who has been here all year is a huge slap in the face to Anderson and the team. The Sox deserved what they got in the 6th. QUOTE (hogan873 @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 08:35 PM) I agree. Me too.