• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

News & Reporting Equality

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
This article submitted last evening by Patrick Buchanan. I suspect many of you venemous Libs have very little respect for this individual. However, there is plenty of truth in what he has to say. Certainly, you can't argue that the NY Times, MSNBC, etc. haven't really slanted their news stance towards the left - as proven many times over and over.


What if 'SNL' mocked Michelle Obama?

Perhaps the only institution in America whose approval rating is beneath that of Congress is the media.

Both have won their reputations the hard way. They earned them.

Consider the fawning indulgence shown insider Joe Biden with the dripping contempt visited on outsider Sarah Palin.

Twice last weekend, Biden grimly warned at closed-door meetings that a great crisis is coming early in the term of President Obama:

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. ... Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said ? we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

A "generated crisis"? By whom? Moscow? Beijing? Tehran?

This is an astonishing statement from a chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who has access to the same intelligence as George Bush. Joe was warning of a crisis like the Berlin Wall of July 1961, where JFK called for a tripling of the draft and ordered a call-up of reserves, or the missile crisis where U.S. pilots like John McCain were minutes away from bombing nuclear missile sites in Cuba and killing the Russians manning them.

Is Russia about to move on the Crimea? Is Israel about to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear sites? What is Joe talking about?

If one assumes Joe is a serious man, we have a right to know.

Instead, what we got was Obama's airy dismissal of Joe's words as a "rhetorical flourish" and a media ? rather than demanding that Joe hold a press conference ? acting as Obama surrogates parroting the talking points that Joe was just saying that new presidents always face tests.

Had John McCain made that hair-raising statement, he would have been accused of fear mongering about a new 9/11. The media would have run with the story rather than have smothered it.

Contrasting McCain with his hero, Joe declared a few weeks back, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and ... said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

Nice historical reference. Except when the market crashed in 1929, Hoover was president, and there was no television.

Can one imagine what the press would have done to Sarah Palin had she exhibited such ignorance of history. Or Dan Quayle?

Joe gets a pass because everybody likes Joe.

Fine. But Joe also has a record of 36 years in the Senate.

Has anyone ever asked Joe about his own and his party's role in cutting off aid to South Vietnam, leading to the greatest strategic defeat in U.S. history and the Cambodian holocaust? Has anyone ever asked Joe about the role he and his party played in working to block Reagan's deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe, and SDI, which Gorbachev concedes broke the Soviets and won the Cold War?

In the most crucial vote he ever cast ? to give Bush a blank check for war in Iraq ? Joe concedes he got it wrong.

Is Joe's record of having been wrong on Vietnam, wrong in the Cold War, wrong on the Iraq war, less important than whether Sarah Palin tried to get fired a rogue-cop brother-in-law who Tasered her 10-year-old nephew to "teach him a lesson"?

"I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know," says Joe humbly. Given his record, it is understandable Joe has forgotten so much of it.

Saturday, the New York Times did a takeout on Cindy McCain that delved back into her problem with prescription pills. Yet when Hillary's campaign manager, Mark Penn, brought up Obama's cocaine use on "Hardball," he was savaged by folks for whom the Times is the gold standard.

The people apparently had a "right to know" of Bush's old DUI arrest a week before the 2000 election, but no right to know about how and when Obama was engaged in the criminal use of cocaine.

The media cannot get enough of the "Saturday Night Live" impersonations of Palin as a bubblehead. News shows pick up the Tina Fey clips and run them and run them to the merriment of all.

Can one imagine "Saturday Night Live" doing weekly send-ups of Michelle Obama and her "I've never been proud" of my country, this "just downright mean" America, using a black comedienne to mimic and mock her voice and accent?

"Saturday Night Live" would be facing hate-crime charges.

How do we know? When the New Yorker ran a cartoon of Michelle in an Angela-Davis afro with an AK-47 slung over her shoulder, New Yorker editors had to go on national television to swear they were not mocking Michelle, but the conservatives who have so caricatured Michelle and the Messiah.

Is there a media double standard? You betcha.

Link to original article from 10/23/2008
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,628
23,733
136
Oh jesus. Will you guys never learn? The 'humor' you want people to use against the Obamas isn't funny, it's nasty. That's why people don't use it, and that's why the '1/2 hour news hour' tanked. Sarah Palin is exceptionally easy to make fun of, that's why they do it. If you seem to think that it's just as easy to make comedy out of Joe Biden then by all means write a sketch. If it's funny people will watch it.

As for Bush's DUI, the reason it was news was because nobody knew about it until that point. Obama admitted to using cocaine countless times, hell he even included it in a book he wrote. It's not news because everyone already knows about it.

And yes, as always I will argue that the media is not liberally biased, as proven over and over by objective academic research. Why do we keep having to justify why the media hasn't run the unfunny/uninteresting crap you guys think is important just because it might hurt a Democrat?
 

aphex

Moderator<br>All Things Apple
Moderator
Jul 19, 2001
38,572
2
81
Sorry but I stopped reading at 'venemous Libs'.
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
And yes, as always I will argue that the media is not liberally biased, as proven over and over by objective academic research. Why do we keep having to justify why the media hasn't run the unfunny/uninteresting crap you guys think is important just because it might hurt a Democrat?
Where are the links to this "objective academic research"?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,628
23,733
136
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: eskimospy
And yes, as always I will argue that the media is not liberally biased, as proven over and over by objective academic research. Why do we keep having to justify why the media hasn't run the unfunny/uninteresting crap you guys think is important just because it might hurt a Democrat?
Where are the links to this "objective academic research"?
Use the search function on these boards, they have been posted many times.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,116
3,653
126
Damn, is this Buchanan's best work or have I been missing out? Fantastic reflection, reminds me of SNL outright declaring just before the election that "A vote for McCain is a vote for GWB".

Think the fairness doctrine would apply to silence and shut them down, or will our upcoming communist censorship only apply to conservatives?
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
The writer is drawing the conclusion that there is media bias and inequality...OK I want to break this down a bit:

The writer is drawing upon actual examples of incidents where the media reported on an issue- Biden's remarks <<<Fact (Biden made the remark, the media reported on it)

At which point the writer says that the media "parroted talking points" <<<opinion

at which point the writer inserts a hypothetical (If McCain said what Biden Said....etc)

At which point the writer speculates that the media would have accused McCain, "of fear mongering about a new 9/11. The media would have run with the story rather than have smothered it." <<<opinion and speculation.

OK. So imho what we have is some sort of counterfactual reasoning where the writer draws a conclusion based on speculation and opinion. If the writer were to submit two similar examples, say of Bidens comments and McCain's comments on, "bomb bomb bomb iran" and then develop a framework in analyzing the media response to BOTH scenarios. Then drawing a conclusion based on that analysis, I would then give THAT particular conclusion more validity than this one.

The same goes for the rest of his write up. Its all speculation. And the writer does not take into account the fact that SNL does its skits based on what they think is funny NOT what they think is politically advantageous for a particular party. The popularity of skits are based on what viewers think is funny, not on what the media wants to report about it. imho there is some weight to this argument as opposed to the writers argument, that the media only reports the SNL skits that are pro-dem (or liberal in some fashion)

And eskimospy's comments are right on. I don't think a skit on Michelle Obama saying mean things about America would be funny. I think maybe a skit of Michelle Obama raging against something entirely mundane or inane does have some funny qualities. If SNL wants to run skits about Michelles reported anger issues....and they find a funny way to do it, then I don't see a problem with that. Will the media run stories on it? Hell your guess is as good as mine. The problem I have with this writer is that he has speculated future and hypothetical events then he draws conclusions from it. Not entirely plausible nor valid imo.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: eskimospy
And yes, as always I will argue that the media is not liberally biased, as proven over and over by objective academic research. Why do we keep having to justify why the media hasn't run the unfunny/uninteresting crap you guys think is important just because it might hurt a Democrat?
Where are the links to this "objective academic research"?
Use the search function on these boards, they have been posted many times.
BUT ACADEMICS ARE LIBERALS TOO!
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
27,092
12,641
136
Simple answer...

Michelle Obama is not running for office. SNL did not do a skit on Cindy McCain either.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,107
477
126
Originally posted by: aphex
Sorry but I stopped reading at 'venemous Libs'.
Yea, too bad he didn't post some spam mail he got, then you'd be all over it!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,357
4,073
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: aphex
Sorry but I stopped reading at 'venemous Libs'.
Me too. Yawn. More railing against the MSM. Zzzzz....
Me too too.

I really hate it when some sniveling little shit of a Republican cowardly bastard slime ball worm implies I might be 'venemous' and on top of that doesn't even know how to spell it.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: HomerJS
Simple answer...

Michelle Obama is not running for office. SNL did not do a skit on Cindy McCain either.
Nope they did a skit about todd palin having sex with his own daughters. The MSM has become a joke with such an extreme Obama bias. It is going to be fun watching the MSM media covering for Obama the next 4 years when his tax hikes make things even worse.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
unless a spouse or child inserts themselves into a story, I think they should remain off limits.
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Originally posted by: HomerJS
Simple answer...

Michelle Obama is not running for office. SNL did not do a skit on Cindy McCain either.
Simple response...

There are enough other references in what was written about Joe Biden to make this a useful read.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: HomerJS
Simple answer...

Michelle Obama is not running for office. SNL did not do a skit on Cindy McCain either.
Simple response...

There are enough other references in what was written about Joe Biden to make this a useful read.
There is no "truth" and there is nothing "proven" in this article.

it is hardly useful unless you want to learn something about Pat Buchanan's opinion and/or fallacious reasoning.
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: aphex
Sorry but I stopped reading at 'venemous Libs'.
Me too. Yawn. More railing against the MSM. Zzzzz....
Me too too.

I really hate it when some sniveling little shit of a Republican cowardly bastard slime ball worm implies I might be 'venemous' and on top of that doesn't even know how to spell it.
Moonbeam ... you really surprise me. I recall your posts about 4-5 years back when one could make little sense of your writings. Are you really the same Moonbeam?
 

Jschmuck2

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,623
2
81
This article submitted last evening by Patrick Buchanan. I suspect many of you venemous Libs have very little respect for me. However, there is plenty of truth in what he has to say. Certainly, you can't argue that the NY Times, MSNBC, etc. haven't really slanted their news stance towards the left - as proven many times over and over.
Fixed.
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
I figured this thread would get the blood pressure of you Libs raised by a few points. You always seem to point out that the Republicans are such "odd" people who do no live in the real world. However, as each of you back-peddle through this with your responses, I'm provided with a very good entertainment value. :D
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: aphex
Sorry but I stopped reading at 'venemous Libs'.
Same here. My time is wasted reading biased opinions and arguments. I try my best to avoid them.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: T2T III
I figured this thread would get the blood pressure of you Libs raised by a few points. You always seem to point out that the Republicans are such "odd" people who do no live in the real world. However, as each of you back-peddle through this with your responses, I'm provided with a very good entertainment value. :D
What's a matter Winky, can't log into the Lemon party site?

 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: T2T III
I figured this thread would get the blood pressure of you Libs raised by a few points. You always seem to point out that the Republicans are such "odd" people who do no live in the real world. However, as each of you back-peddle through this with your responses, I'm provided with a very good entertainment value. :D
uh oh...The OPs article has been debunked and now I smell trolling!

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY