Belief is growing that the media is trying to help Obama win. , page 2

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 03:33 PM by DocMoreau

Could it be because McCain does not have the public speaking abilities that Obama does?

Article

He managed to limit the mechanical hand chops and weirdly timed smiles that can often punctuate his speeches. He delivered his lines with an ease that suggested a momentary peace with his longtime nemesis, the teleprompter. (He relied on a belt-and-suspenders approach, with text scrolling down screens to his left and right, and on a big TV set in front of him.)

But when Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, came to the intended sound bite of his speech — the part about reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil — he hit a slick.

Article

-Greg Jenkins, a former White House official and Fox News producer…will oversee the producing and staging of McCain’s events.
-He is working to limit his verbal tangents and nonverbal tics.
-He is speaking less out of the sides of his mouth.
-[H]e is relying less on his favorite semantic crutch — the phrase “my friends”
-McCain also appears to be trying to exercise restraint, advisers and campaign observers say, when speaking off the cuff, wisecracking in town meetings and criticizing his opponent. In recent weeks, for example, McCain seems to have reined in the sarcasm he has directed at Obama. (In May, for example, he said of his opponent, “With his very, very great lack of experience and knowledge of the issues, he’s been very successful.”)

I have though McCain's lack of coverage has been, at least in part, due to the Mainstream Media covering for McCain's weaknesses in relation to Obama, and public speaking, besides all the other baggage that McCain carries.

I agree that Obama is getting a greater amount of air time when it comes to this election right now.

But when one digs too deeply into John McCain, one finds things that make him less and less electable.

One example, I have not heard one mention of McCain's involvement in the Keating 5 scandal during this election. Not that he was cleared, nothing. It is like the events never happened during his Political career.

Or how Obama's wife has been raked over the coals for her comments, yet no mention of McCain's wife, and her theft of, and addiction to, perscription opioid painkillers. Nope, no scruitiny there.

Personally, the media is doing McCain a favor by not vetting him harder, or giving him too much airtime.
DocMoreau

[Edit to add: I did a search about Cindy McCain stealing drugs from her own charity, and I guess I am partially wrong. The Blogs are all over it. That and the fact that she plagiarized recipes from the Food Network as 'family recipes' on the McCain campaign website. Still not a peep out of the Mainstream Media though...)

[edit on 21/7/2008 by DocMoreau]

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 03:41 PM by Dronetek

The real problem is that the subculture of right wingers that coalesced during the Clinton years, around talk radio and sites like Free Republic, are only comfortable with an echo chamber, not a discussion.

Thats what we have right now, an echo chamber. The AP sets the narrative and all the other media outlets repeat it (with the exception of Fox and talk radio). Hell, sometimes you can see that they will ask the same questions, word for word.

They're, for lack of a better word, "dittoheads" - they want to hear only views that reflect their own, anything else is "anti-American" and has to be tuned out. Anything that disagrees with their views is propaganda cooked up by those secretly siding with "the enemy"... which apparently means more than half the country at this point.

No, they want to hear all the views. Not just the view of a left wing snob, who lives in liberal bubble. All the things you say about "the right" , could easily be said about the left. The only difference is, the left controls the media. When it comes to the election, it matters even more, because they are influencing the election.

Much like Rather tried to do in 2004.

But when one digs too deeply into John McCain, one finds things that make him less and less electable.

Exactly the difference between how the media covers Obama and McCain. When it comes to McCain, its all about finding stuff that makes him unelectable. with Obama, its all about refuting the things that make him unelectable.

Or how Obama's wife has been raked over the coals for her comments, yet no mention of McCain's wife, and her theft of, and addiction to, perscription opioid painkillers. Nope, no scruitiny there.

Thats just not true. In fact, I started a thread that had a huge list of media articles and segments, attacking Cindy McCain. Thats including the recipe scandal.

Personally, the media is doing McCain a favor by not vetting him harder, or giving him too much airtime.

Its the only thing they do. When are we going to see Obama vetted?

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Dronetek]

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 03:44 PM by yeti101

lol what do you expect.

the press feel humiliated by this administration, completely hoodwinked on iraq. Bushs ex press officer says the press were to easy on them etc The press danced to the neocon tune in the aftermath of 9/11. They now realise what a big mistake that was.

its payback time. the media will do everything in their power to get obama elected.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by yeti101]

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 03:52 PM by Alxandro

Well they sure don't make Kool-Aid like they used to because apparantly the effect is starting to wear off and people are waking up to the obvious truth that the media is in the tank for Obama.

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 03:57 PM by yeti101

well the bookies rarely get it wrong and the current odds are:

McCain 15/8
Obama 2/5

obamas odds on to win this one McCain needs a miracle.

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 04:01 PM by intrepid

"Belief is growing that the media is trying to help Obama win."

Here's a thought. Maybe the media is preparing people to accept who has already been chosen to be prez by the PTB. Their next puppet.

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 04:08 PM by xmotex

No, they want to hear all the views. Not just the view of a left wing snob, who lives in liberal bubble.

The really funny thing is, I'm not even a "liberal" - when I talk to diehard self-identified liberals, they always tell me I'm a "conservative", because I favor gun rights, nuclear power, limited government, market economics - though not of the purely laissez-faire variety, I am not a Libertarian anymore either.

I'm very anti-interventionist, which is more a holdover from the fact that I used to be a hardcore Libertarian than anything having to do with "liberalism"... the US is supposed to be a Republic, not an Empire (or a global police force), and should only get involved in wars when we are actually attacked.

Not because someone on the other side of the planet is calling us nasty names

I am quite familiar with the new right, because I was once a part of it, so don't kid yourself, it's not just "liberals" who see it as a cultish phenomenon. But you guys can't seem to conceive that anyone might disagree with you without being a cartoon-character liberal.

These days I don't hold with any particular ideology - ideology is nothing more than a set of blinders we put on to see what we want to see, instead of what's actually in front of our eyes.

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 04:35 PM by DocMoreau

Originally posted by Dronetek

Or how Obama's wife has been raked over the coals for her comments, yet no mention of McCain's wife, and her theft of, and addiction to, perscription opioid painkillers. Nope, no scruitiny there.

Thats just not true. In fact, I started a thread that had a huge list of media articles and segments, attacking Cindy McCain. Thats including the recipe scandal.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Dronetek]

I didn't know you were a member of the Mainstream Media Dronetek. Here I thought you were just a member here at ATS, just like me.

It is not that I don't believe you, but when members here make statements like that, often they provide a link.

Also, why did you lump your responses to me in with your two responses to xmotex? I was trying to figure out when I was supposed to have said anything in those first two quotes.

I tend to agree with what Intrepid said, that the mainstream media is prepping us for the new Pharaoh. Obama has the bloodlines that McCain does not. If McCain had enough blue-blood, he would have beaten Bush in 2000.
DocMoreau

P.S. Honestly, I am surprised that no thread has been started discuss how Obama won his seat in the Illinois Senate against Jack Ryan. I guess it "somehow" came out that Ryan 'forced' his ex-wife to go to sex clubs and parties. If you don't know who his ex-wife is, it is Jeri Ryan, aka Seven of Nine from Star Trek.
Jack Ryan (Senate candidate)

Campaign demise
Ryan married actress Jeri Ryan in 1991; together they have a son, Alex Ryan. They divorced in 1999 in California, and the records of the divorce were sealed at their mutual request. Five years later, when Ryan's Senate campaign began, the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought to have the records released. On March 3, 2004, several of Ryan's GOP primary opponents urged release of the records.[5] Both Ryan and his wife agreed to make their divorce records public, but not make the custody records public, claiming that the custody records could be harmful to their son if released. On March 16, 2004, Ryan won the GOP primary with 36 percent to 23 percent against Jim Oberweis who came in second.[6] Obama won the Democratic primary, with 53 percent to 23 percent against Dan Hynes, who came in second.

Barack Obama's backers emailed reporters about the divorce controversy, but refrained from on-the-record commentary about the divorce files.[7] On March 29, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider ruled that several of the Ryans' divorce records should be opened to the public, and ruled that a court-appointed referee would later decide which custody files should remain sealed to protect the interests of Ryan's young child.[8] The following week, on April 2, 2004, Barack Obama changed his position about the Ryans' soon-to-be-released divorce records, and called on Democrats to not inject them into the campaign.[7] The Ryan campaign characterized Obama's shift as hypocritical, because Obama's backers had been emailing reports about the divorce records prior to Judge Schnider's decision.[7]

On June 22, 2004, after receiving the report from the court-appointed referee, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider released the files that were deemed consistent with the interests of Ryan's young child. In those files, Jeri Ryan alleged that Jack Ryan had taken her to sex clubs in several cities, intending for them to have sex in public.[1] The decision to release these files generated much controversy because it went against both parents' direct request, and because it reversed the earlier decision to seal the papers in the best interest of the child. Jim Oberweis, Ryan's defeated GOP opponent, commented that "these are allegations made in a divorce hearing, and we all know people tend to say things that aren't necessarily true in divorce proceedings when there is money involved and custody of children involved."[1]

Prior to release of the documents, Ryan had told leading Republicans that five percent of the divorce file could cause problems for his campaign.[9] But after the documents were released, GOP officials including state GOP Chair Judy Baar Topinka said they felt Ryan had misleadingly indicated the divorce records would not be embarrassing.[10] That charge of dishonesty led to intensifying calls for Ryan's withdrawal, though Topinka said after the June 25 withdrawal that Ryan's "decision was a personal one" and that the state GOP had not pressured Ryan to drop out.[11] Ryan's campaign ended less than a week after the custody records were opened, and Ryan officially filed the documentation to withdraw on July 29, 2004. The same party leaders who called for Ryan's resignation controversially chose Alan Keyes as Ryan's replacement in the race; Keyes lost to Obama, 27% to 70%

[edit on 21/7/2008 by DocMoreau]

[edit on 21/7/2008 by DocMoreau]

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 04:52 PM by sos37

This is now a story on the front page of MSN.com with a live poll at www.msnbc.msn.com...

The poll asks "Is Democrat Barack Obama unfairly receiving more coverage than Republican John McCain?"

With 41085 responses, the results are:

79% - Yes, the media has a liberal bias. No one should be surprised by this.

14% - No, media coverage is based on newsworthiness. McCain is just not as newsy as Obama.

6.5% - Sometimes, but it's a long campaign. There weren't a lot of McCain complaints during Obama's problems with Rev. Wright.

I love how even in a poll about unfair coverage and bias, they STILL had to rib the McCain campaign in that last question, second sentence. Sounds like to me it was an Obamatron who came up with the questions.

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 04:54 PM by Alxandro

Originally posted by intrepid
"Belief is growing that the media is trying to help Obama win."

Here's a thought. Maybe the media is preparing people to accept who has already been chosen to be prez by the PTB. Their next puppet.

I wonder if people on the Right will gripe about a stolen election.

Nah!

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 04:58 PM by intrepid

Originally posted by Alxandro

Originally posted by intrepid
"Belief is growing that the media is trying to help Obama win."

Here's a thought. Maybe the media is preparing people to accept who has already been chosen to be prez by the PTB. Their next puppet.

I wonder if people on the Right will gripe about a stolen election.

Nah!

Do you think that the PTB care what the "people on the right" or "the people on the left" actually think or care about?

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 05:13 PM by jetxnet

The x-factor is Blogsphere. The media and the Obama campaign are having a tough-time countering the truth-seekers among countless Internet blogs and boards.

Why do you think Google and Microsoft are jockying for control of the Internet? Microsoft could control your desktops with thier Operating System (OS) but cannot control what you get access to on the Internet.

The election is in a dead-heat only because of Blogsphere. Otherwise, it would not even be funny because people would be masked from the truth.

Everytime Google tries to censor Obama searches, and they have, they are called on it and are forced to remove the censorship.

People cannot let one corporation dominate the Internet. It cannot be like with desktop operating systems. Google is trying to come out with a web-based operating system.

Google started with Yahoo's engine and then went off on their own. Most searches are still identical to Yahoo. Do the same search on both Yahoo and Google and you'll see what I mean. It is just that Google was overly-hyped and in the movies when Actors were doing searches etc.

Google is major for Obama as is Microsoft (MSNBC).

Google should really be boycotted by American viewers. They are trying to monopolize the Internet.

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 05:25 PM by xmotex

reply to post by intrepid

Frankly, I don't think there is a "PTB" in the sense that you seem to mean.

Are there lots of shady players behind the scenes pushing their own agendas... of this I have no doubt at all.

Is there a smoke filled room where one unified power structure agrees to take a single course of action?

Well it might be a bit heretical to say this on ATS, but frankly, no, I think that outlook is equally as naive and ridiculous as taking everything we see at face value.

There are many players, many agendas, and many disparate forces in play.

To pretend that there is one single star chamber working in lockstep secretly running everything is very emotionally appealing - because then we are freed from any responsibility for the shape of the world, we are helpless to change it, and thus we bear no blame for the latest outrage in the news.

The truth, however, is IMHO far more complicated.

The truth is that there is really no "them", there is only us.

And we are all responsible for the shape of the events we see around us.
PTB or not.

[edit on 7/21/08 by xmotex]

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 05:36 PM by Dronetek

I didn't know you were a member of the Mainstream Media Dronetek. Here I thought you were just a member here at ATS, just like me.

It is not that I don't believe you, but when members here make statements like that, often they provide a link.

Silly me for thinking you could use google.

1. Katie Couric think Cindy is "Husky".
2. Cindy Steal recipes.
3. Cindy's Taxes
4. This democrat doesnt like the way she looks.

Apparently, Cindy is the worst person in the world.

YouTube Link

youtube.com...

www.google.com...

news.google.com...

Check out some of the headlines in the google search...

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Dronetek]

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 05:55 PM by sos37

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.

The economy doesn't have miraculous turnarounds from the kind of recession we're in right now because it's not one thing pounding on the economy and weakening the dollar, it's a bunch of things.

Gas prices certainly aren't going to plummet overnight or even the course of a week. Remember a large chunk of the price has to do with demand from India and China. India is just about to release the world's cheapest car in that country at just $2,467 and it gets about 50 mpg (articles.moneycentral.msn.com...)
The problem isn't going to be mileage, the problem is going to be that the car is so ultra affordable and efficient that they predict SO MANY people will buy them. How much demand for fuel do you think that will bring? And what happens when these things hit China?

The credit crisis that hit the U.S. - the analysts say we've still not seen the worst of that whole mess. And it's all tied to the predatory lending mess in which we are still seeing record foreclosures and drops in the values of home prices. And THAT is tied to the savings and loan mess that it just now hitting the fan. The government had to assume ownership of IndyMac and bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Things are so bad at IndyMac that customers only have access to half of whatever they have in their accounts up past $100,000. Think of how many businesses aren't meeting expenditures and payrolls! How many are folding because of this.

Think of how many specialty shops are closing because Americans are scaling back because of high gas prices and increased food costs. Combined with the credit, S&L and predatory lending crisis' happening its a wonder our economy hasn't collapsed yet! There's no way in hell the economy can fix itself in one night, a week or even a month. I think it will be years after the economy has even stopped hemoragging that we see it becoming prosperous again.

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 07:50 PM by ravenshadow13

It might have something to do with how Obama is more of a preacher (MLK connection) but probably not. It is really strange though, usually the media goes more for the Republicans, or the patriot (McCain as a war hero, Obama as, well, not the typical candidate).

I bet there's money in it, that might be where Obama's campaign money is going.

Heck, I thought I was a democrat, but I have no idea anymore. Whoever wins this election will make me miserable. Note: I wasn't for Hillary either.

reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 08:39 PM by crontab

Obama will win. He's been put up by the elite to win, and he has a smart campaign. The elite have fleeced the sheeple. Now, they need to fix the economy so the sheeple can generate more wealth, and then the elite will soak it up again. I think the cycle continues.

reply posted on 22-7-2008 @ 09:12 AM by Hal9000

reply to post by Dronetek

Originally posted by Dronetek
Please, point out the opinions.

-Maliki doesn't agree with 16 month troop pullout: FACT

Sen. Barack Obama said he found "a strong, emerging consensus" for the redeployment of U.S. combat forces from Iraq, with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki telling Obama he hoped American combat troops will be gone in two years.

Obama has said he would like to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office, and the prime minister appeared to back the idea of a timetable in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel over the weekend. See the stops on Obama's trip »

An Iraqi government spokesman said Saturday that the prime minister's comments to the magazine had been "misunderstood," and the White House said al-Maliki has made clear that any withdrawals would be conditioned on "continuing positive developments."

In a brief statement Sunday, the magazine said it "stands by its version of this interview."

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh on Monday said the government's "vision" is that most U.S. combat troops would be out of Iraq by 2010. Asked whether that stance is part of the current negotiations, al-Dabbagh said, "No. This is the Iraqi vision."

Obama finds 'consensus' in Iraq for U.S. troop withdrawal

It is very clear that al Maliki would like the US troops out of Iraq within 2 years and is close to the same timeline that Obama proposed. I don't see how you can see it any other way.

-Unless we go in to Pakistan, more troops in Afghanistan does nothing: FACT

It sounds to me that you agree with Obama.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them “on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.

Obama says he might send troops to Pakistan

Notice the date of this article is August of last year, which is when he also first proposed sending more troops to Afghanistan.

-Bush has been sending and securing more troops in Afghanistan for over a year now: FACT

You are partially right that they said more troops would be sent back in April of this year, but according to this article the schedule is for troops to be sent at the end of the year so they have not increased the number of troops yet.

The United States intends to send many more combat forces to Afghanistan next year, regardless of whether troop levels in Iraq are cut further this year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday.

It is the first time the Bush administration has made such a commitment for 2009.

Gates: U.S. to send more troops to Afghanistan

-Surge a success: FACT

I never denied it wasn't a success. I only said that the media is pointing out that he opposed it, when you are saying they aren't. Just this morning on CNN I saw it brought up again.

- You are wrong on almost every point: FACT

[edit on 7/22/2008 by Hal9000]

[edit on 7/22/2008 by Hal9000]

reply posted on 22-7-2008 @ 10:04 AM by Dronetek

You are partially right that they said more troops would be sent back in April of this year, but according to this article the schedule is for troops to be sent at the end of the year so they have not increased the number of troops yet.

Bullocks. I've been following the Marines who were sent there closely since April.

www.foxnews.com...

Some of the Marines that make up the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit helped to tame a thriving insurgency in western Iraq, and the newly arrived forces hope to move into regions of Afghanistan now controlled by the Taliban.