Well that's me told i suppose.

I'm worried that the Republican's are right. That the nation really is stupid enough to vote for McCain Palin.

a lot of people will say they are voting obama because its what jennifer aniston says to do in that People article, or because Scarlett Johansson wore that Obama shirt last week, it really doesn't mean shit.

i think McCain has a slight lead right now, but its close.

"this country is going straight to hell"

yeah, its not yer fault... blame the media

The media is skewed to the right, dude. Murdoch etc. own all the important companies.

fail. fox news is it. all the rest is lefty

They are undoubtedly way to the authoritarian right in Australia.

And, of course, FoxNews, as has been mentioned, is a conservative platform.

The media has traditionally been slightly more liberal than conservative in America, but all that started changing over the last generation.

The media in Europe has traditionally by-and-large leaned to the left, that is, up until recent years.

As more and more media outlets are owned by fewer and fewer companies, these changes have manifested themselves.

The bottom line is that for all of its semblance towards an allegedly fair & balanced ethos, the media skews towards the idiot, i.e., the right.

Continuing with this little offering of mine, I spoke with a print journalist today about this little left/right media thing and my own view that it is skewed towards the idiot.

He replied that I was exactly and cited a Gannett corporate editorial policy. Now, I already knew that Gannett owns many media outlets and is notoriously right wing. (let's forget Murdoch for a moment shall we?) Anyway, he explained that he knows people that write for Gannett and people that have written for Gannett and that they are often up-in-arms with frustration because Gannett changes their copy. The point of all this? Well, the point is that Gannett changes copy as to not be above an eighth grade reading level.

Please allow me a victory jig.

x,.;l;sold;s';ka,,dajeui;ls;''a,aasdf

this just isn't correct... aside from fox, what else skews to the right?

Any sense of their being a mildly leftist slant within the British media is largely down to the BBC which, while a massive institution, is far outweighed by other news media. British newspapers are definitely overwhelmingly to the Right, with only the Guardian and, to a far lesser degree, The Mirror generally supporting the Left. The Right pretty much owns the British news right now.

Californnia, NY, and Iliinois have all been red states the past 4 elections... If I'm not mistaken, those states are responsible for most of the media produced by this country

So will the Democrats. If they start going for Palin as some kind of weak link, the Republicans and stations like fox will have a field day. They'll point to the Democrats rejection of Hillary and start sending messages out that they don't like women that much. That's a large voting pool that the Democrats could easily lose if they aren't careful. Once again, the Palin appointment is looking like a very smart one - so long as she doesn't screw up or have some real dirt from her past waiting to be dug up.

I LOVE HER.

She's Diane Keaton. On skis.

Why news is conservative in a nutshell:
Rich people own the news companies. Right Wing politics benefits rich people. Publishing bias news ensures support for respective conservative parties.

a good theory but its not reality... la times, ny times, washington post... tv, or print, take yer pic but those are red states and the writers are liberal

What the conservative commentators really think about Palin.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg

Washington Post is run by Ian MacKaye. It's printed on 100% recycled End Hits packages.

it's all a fucking popularity contest anyway.

anyway, i might just have to vote. because i think obama has a good social policy (which would be my primary concern) and i'm not too worried about anyone's stance on the economy. he did vote to reauthorize the patriot act, which i think is bullshit, but i'm pretty cool with everything else.

Tankers, please vote for Obama, at least on behalf of all the non-US people who would like to vote for him.

Also if he didn't reauthorise the patriot act, he'd be accused of being non-patriotic.

do you know what the patriot act is? it's fucking surveillance anti-brown people bollocks.

yeah i will vote for him. what the fuck. keep mccain out of the white house.

My point still stands. Can you imagine all the bullshit he'd get from republicans who are already uneasy about the idea of a "black" president.

Media in general is no longer liberal, not after allowing W's shenanigans. This latest batch of crazy R's(Rove et) behind the scenes have made it their bitch. If the media questions too much they are liberal and FOX is on the attack every day on it. The media in turn bends over backwards trying to be fair, but ultimately ends up failing the American people. There isn't a day that goes by w/o FOX mentioning some sort of angle about the media's "bias". Do the others do any comparisons? I don't see any. You saw it at the convention too with Palin, attacking the media, and trying to undermine the widely held beliefs.

Well put.

this makes me laugh for a the reason she is sooo far to the left and an atheist to boot

it's interesting this thread took a turn to the conversation of media, and how generalized the label conservative is being thrown around to EVERY outlet, FOX yes, CNN is stradling the middle and the independents, MSNBC is so on the side of the left they give Keith Olbermann and Dan Abrams their primetime slot attacking the FOX talking heads (does that make Bill O the David Byrne, and Ann Coulter the Tina Weymouth of right wing nuttery?)

although what is the question of right and left? how leftist do you want the media to be? MSNBC is as liberal as mainstream will allow, so it's like the Democratic "liberal" label and not as Green and Anti-Corporate IndyMedia style, I think Conservative Media maybe incorrect for some like MSNBC (anti FOX stance) and CBS among others, but labeling them as Liberal media is also incorrect as they protect their own interests and corporate structure, so they are more like Centerist Media if anything

why the media can't just take a neutral position is beyond me.

becau$e neutral doe$n't $ell.

I think you'd find top-down directives from the Publisher to Editor to Reporters about how the coverage is to take place.

The National Enquirer revealed John Edwards affair just before the DNC, but now The National Enquirer is reporting Palin's affair with her hubbies business partner and the RNC is just freaking out.

she's the white trash vote. The pregnant 17 year old is their way of communicating to the nascar masses "Look, we're fucked up just like you!"

Its weird how they're trying to make her out to be small town america but Alaska is the largest US state, all oil and military.

it's always about the fucking money.

anyway, because you all care:
yeah, i am voting because i decided obama's a pretty decent dude and we need to keep mcfuckface out of the white house.

Because you can't take a neutral position. No matter how hard you try, your history (and your editor's) will influence how you see the event and how you report the event and even the words you use.

Plus there just isn't room on TV for all the information (less so on PBS). The reporter will pick and choose what they think is the most important. Someone looking in from the outside may see those picks as slanted but their important facts were cut for time.

I know that the station that I worked for was really concerned about appearing fair:

I remember when I was working to cover a GW Bush visit a couple of years ago. The top two stories were his speech to the military and protests against Bush. The crew I was working for got a late start and wasn't ready in time. I was called on the carpet for not informing them of the lateness of the time.* So the story on the protests went first and the positive story went second. While the managers were very concerned about this 'media slant', I don't think there were any comments from viewers.

(*to which I responded, hey, there is a clock inches from his face. My job is to set up and facilitate the live shots--not be a baby sitter)

i'm sure this has been said already but it's frustrating to see palin argue that her family should not be fair game when she herself brings up her soon to be deployed son. furthermore, she should know at this point that those "obscene" sex ed classes she never favored came back to bite her family in the ass. i really feel for her daughter, i wonder if she even had the opportunity to say the A word to her parents. imagine confronting them? i'm sure bristol really had her say in all of this

Palin's daughter's boyfriend is a redneck idiot, who, in his Myspace page. claims never to want to be married and that he likes "fuckin chillin"
Myspace site was taken down QUICK

the dipshit palin family mentions first thing that thjeir daughter is pregnant and that she will marry the boy. what a fucking LIE.

when you run for office on a party platform of "family values" of no abortion, no sex-ed, no condom use, and your teen daughter gets pregnant, it is INDEED an issue.

So true. Same with the US mag cover, which i don't know who's aware, but Palin's family had a negative cover story centered around alot of normal crap that comes up on politicians backgrounds like what you're saying. BUT Obama and his wife's cover was all positive. WELL maybe there is not enough dirt on Michelle Obama for a negative job??

This was cover story news on the FOX website, a perceived double standard, for about 5 hrs yesterday. CNN and the like wouldn't even have considered that real news and changes their cover page every 30 minutes or so.. So, very slanted, propaganda right wing agents. They were dissing Hilary, calling her bitch for years, but "how dare the media question our hockey mom, Sarah Palin". Pathetic.

She's stealth Christian Taliban - look into the church she has belonged to...

this morning the lady at good morning america interviewd McCain;'s wife, who made sure to spouyt their spin about how anything questioning about palin's family is SEXIST and terrible and she manetioned it several times, and then she was asked by the GMA interviewer what she thought of Rush Limbaugh's statement (and they played the audio), that "we're the ones with a babe on the ticket! a BABE!", and what Mrs. McCain thought about it, and she said, "She IS a babe!"

how is that NOT sexist ?

double standard rich fucks.


when they asked the chair of Mccain's campaign how he squared McCain's support for cutting taxes to people who make more than $250,000 a year jive swith the republican;'s claim that they are NOT jsut giving tax vcuts to the wealthy, the guy completely skirted the question and proceeded to tel us how McCain, super rich asshole, cares about the common people, (as long as they have his dishes done, his yards maintained and his 7 houses cleaned and spotless I guess)

We read the same bits. yeah, and Cindy McCain was asked about all the years of sexist Hilary bashing and ignored it and what not. They must think people are really dumb.

Any criticism of Palin is sexist. You can't criticize her for having no foreign policy experience or for being a shit mother because she's encouraging her daughter to marry some dumbass boyfriend that knocked her up based on religious values of "having to marry" the father. That's sexist. So fucking lame.

I don't think it reflects badly on her that her daughter is a drunk slut. Kids will be stupid kids. It does reflect bad on her that she's encouraging her daughter to marry Levi, and that she's anti-condom and guess what? Her daughter got preggers because of it.

If my daughter got knocked up by a jerk and wanted to keep the baby, I'd let her know I completely support her, but encourage her to wait on marriage and really consider if she wanted to marry a guy who is just a fucking redneck who likes to fucking chill and fucking shoot shit and doesn't want kids.

our criticisms are not trivial

A new report has linked the mysterious flight of a nuclear armed B-52 bomber to the US Vice President's secret plan to attack Iran.
Earlier, news outlets revealed that, on August 30, a B-52 bomber loaded with six nuclear armed cruise missiles had flown for more than three hours over several states. The incident prompted an Air Force investigation and the firing of one commander.
The report by Webster Tarpley published on Rense website on Saturday claimed that many analysts believed those weapons were destined to be used in a nuclear blitz on Iran, which may have been scheduled for September 6, the day that Israel launched its own aerial attack on Syria.
The report adds " Even more heinous uses of these cruise missiles here inside the United States can also not be excluded, given the insistence of the Cheney Doctrine on a terrorist act in the US to be blamed on Iran as the immediate pretext for the Iran war ­ as Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate Foreign relations Committee on Feb. 1, 2007."
Many sources (see Wayne Madsen Report, September 24) agree that the transfer of these nuclear weapons to Iran was blocked by US Air Force personnel, backed up by anti-Cheney factions in the intelligence community, who refused to obey an illegal order.
It is also important to note that some half dozen personnel linked to the Minot and Barksdale air bases have reportedly died under mysterious circumstances since July.
Elsewhere in his report, Terpley quotes his sources as saying that "It is unlikely that a sneak attack on Iran could get through the normal channels of the US national security interagency process. The realization of Cheney's war plan depends upon an outside manufactured event, along the lines of 9/11, which could be used to engineer the typical neocon end run around the standard operating procedures and launch the wider war. "
Webster Griffin Tarpley is an author, lecturer, and critic of US foreign and domestic policy. He maintains that the events of 9/11 were engineered by the military and arms industries. He envisions a model of false flag terror operated by a rogue network of independent operatives in the privatized military intelligence sector and corporate media.