It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.
Originally posted by nyk537
Of course it will!
I assure you the day Obama is sworn in the economy will have a "miraculous" turnaround and everything will be looking up! The war has been won they will say, and we can finally leave with our heads held high! God bless the Democrats we will be told, they have already saved this country!
Of course a few of us out there will know better, but the majority won't.
I agree that that the MSM is biased toward Obama. And I think it's because they, too, are sick to death of this war and Bush policies. The media know a good thing when they see it. They are attracted to something new and shiny. I know the "ideal" is to be neutral, but since when have we seen neutral news reporting? It's been forever!
MEREDITH VIEIRA: You know you said, "In a time of war a commander-in-chief's job doesn't get a learning curve," but we are facing a crisis here, domestically, that a lot of people consider more significant in their lives right now, than the war, and that is the economic crisis. You have admitted that your economic policy is a weakness for you, so do you deserve a learning curve, to get up to speed?
VIEIRA: But Senator, if I can bring up Phil Gramm again. That was your key economic adviser and the framer of your policy until what he called what's happening here, "a mental recession," and that we are "a nation of whiners." He has since stepped down, removed himself from your campaign. But do voters have a right to question your judgment because you said he was the, "strongest person you knew on economic issues." Should they be worried about your ability to lead us out of recession.
SAWYER: You have criticized Senator Obama in the past for not going to Iraq and getting a fresh assessment. He is in Iraq as we speak this morning. Does this take care of it?
SAWYER: You know, his camp has said that in fact he was out ahead of you on Afghanistan [McCain snorts], where the real problem is today. The level of violence has increased with more U.S. And NATO troops killed in June in Afghanistan than were in Iraq. The Taliban resurging and also Senator Obama says that he was warning of this all along and I'm going to play a bite from yesterday.
Iraq has been quiet, so it looks like there are more deaths in Afghanistan. They are spinning the data to hep Obama.
I have also seen many reports on Obama's change in policy for withdrawing troops from Iraq and was calling it flip-flopping, while praising McCain because he supported the surge and saying that was the reason that the violence was down in Iraq. I don't know where you got those quotes from for the interviews, but would like to see your source.
The reason why Obama is getting positive reporting for Afghanistan, is because he called for more troops to go there before McCain said anything
and now everyone is calling for more troops.
Bush Decides to Send 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan
By Al Pessin
15 January 2008
It was also reported that al Maliki liked Obama's 16 month plan to withdraw troops from Iraq and was accidentally leaked by the WH.
Originally posted by Hal9000
reply to post by Dronetek
Well seeing that your opinion isn't anything close to being unbiased like what you expect to see in the media. I doubt we can have a reasonable discussion about it. The only way I think you would be happy is if they tarred and feathered Obama, and showed it live.