Let me get this straight: The "not liberal" news media decides to not EDIT: air Obama's speech on a massive political development that a large % of Americans would find highly objectionable, which just so happens to be timed with the Ferguson info expected tomorrow and just so happens to be on the night of the Latin Grammys, and that's not an indication of liberal news media bias? Buwhahaha!
Well they all carried it anyway except ABC lol
Wait a minute. Just so I'm clear, you're saying that Obama decided to give a major speech but was doing to in the secret hope that people wouldn't actually listen to it and so a decision not to air the speech is actually further evidence of media bias? LOL.
I have to admit it, I'm impressed. Just when I think "there's no way these idiots can declare THIS part of the librul media conspiracy" you outdo yourself.
Well, one would think such a major announcement would warrant all the major networks carrying the speech. By not carrying it, a decision was made to not make a big deal/as big of a deal than something of this magnitude would normally be given. I guess one could make the argument that the entity in the US called Politician has been committing treason for so long regarding this issue that the level of disgust among the public has reached oversaturation and thus is background disgust noise. Ahh well carry on Nick, always good to see you work... :biggrin::thumbsup:
Well, one would think such a major announcement would warrant all the major networks carrying the speech. By not carrying it, a decision was made to not make a big deal/as big of a deal than something of this magnitude would normally be given. I guess one could make the argument that the entity in the US called Politician has been committing treason for so long regarding this issue that the level of disgust among the public has reached oversaturation and thus is background disgust noise. Ahh well carry on Nick, always good to see you work... :biggrin::thumbsup:
Really?
because it seems perfectly normal to me. I think it's perfectly normal for news agencies and broadcast companies to NOT air something that is a net dollar loss. People will tune out Obama and go to the cable stations lickety-split.
Obama doesn't make them $$... he is not popular anymore. period.
I bet it'd still be cheaper than bailing out crooked banks that were already swimming in money.well duh, do you think they want the people to know that 10 million illegals just got free food, rent, healthcare, and education on the taxpays dime?
No network coverage except Fox for the illegal immigration announcement but all networks broke into broadcast for live coverage and Obama's speech/reaction to the Ferguson grand jury's decision to not indict the police officer. They know what draws ratings.
Looks to me like it just might be that Obama doesn't want the speech seen by anybody but the Hispanic audience.
It's Obama's choice on which night to make his speech.
It's his choice how long the speech would be (a short speech just result in a minor delay to programming).
It's his choice not to request that his speech be aired live.
He's given umpteen speeches and had no problem requesting they be televised live by all the networks. This seems abnormal to me.
Fern
