37 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
It's called reporting the news...
I saw the pieces on Fox. They can hardly be characterized as "trashing".
C'mon Grim. They couldn't have reported this before because
they were supporting the Republicans, so they kept these dirty little secrets under wraps. After the election they returned to their "Tabloid" news format of trashing anybody, and therefore she became fair game. It all hinges on Rupert Murdoch the Australian born Press Baron and news manipulator who's politics are a blood-sport somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun. He owns dozens of newspapers (virtually all tabloids publishing Page 3 nudes and racy and fact light stories for the lowest common denominator in Australia, Britain and the United States (no Page 3 nudes in the US). Fox, his American TV outlet, has been grossly biased since it started, apparently though its novelty is wearing thin, because MSNBC has beaten O'Reilly in the last two weeks in its time slot *8 PM to 10 PM. Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow succeeded when there was real news to report.
"Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow succeeded when there was real news to report."
Keith and Rachel, real journalists? Give me a break.
I suppose this can be seen in a few ways
Scenario 1: The stories are exaggerated or untrue and someone in the McCain campaign or in the RNC is throwing Palin under the bus to explain the failure of the campaign.
Scenario 2: The stories are true and Fox held onto them until after the election because of their bias towards the McCain ticket.
Scenario 3: The stories are true but Fox didn't find out about them until after the election.
Personally I think it's probably a combination of 1 and 3. The stories are true (which REALLY leaves a lot of people wondering just how carefully Sarah Palin was vetted), Fox just found out about it and the McCain campaign isn't making too much of a stink about it because it places the blame squarely on Palin, which also helps ensure she won't be back in 2012. You'll notice that John McCain has not commented on the story at all.
Despite their bias, Fox is a news organization. I don't think they would have sat on a story this damaging; what if someone else scooped them and it came out that they knew all along?
I think it would be really interesting to see a book written about this campaign, with a focus on how a running mate is typically selected, and where in that process this campaign went wrong.
Some reporters are saying they are sworn to secrecy
Some reporters are saying they are sworn to secrecy until after the election.
Just watching a story now about both campaigns having websites hacked a couple of months ago, by 'foreign governments or foreign organizations" . Reporter said he knew but wouldn't release because of promise before being allowed "on the bus".
How about #4
Some sorry butted moderates in McCain's campaign were sorry excuses for running a miserable campaign and THEY are trying to blame someone else for THEIR failures so they can get hired by the next moderate.
Palin didn't lose the election. McCain did.
I never read your (negative) feelings about McCain/Palin's campaign staff when it still existed, nor about the "miserable" quality of that campaign. But I might just have overlooked it.
When did those feelings of you develop? What failures did they make? What was so miserable about the campaign?
If I correctly understand your use of the word "moderate", you seem to think that a more right-wing Republican candidate might have more success? Really?
You can't blame the campaign staff for that. They had to work with what they had, and that was the candidate that came out of the pre-elections.
Did you noitice that they didn't win?
Yes, I noticed.
But I hadn't yet read about "butted moderators" and "their failures" in a "miserable campaign". Had you?
Does it make sense to judge somethig to be a failure....
BEFORE it actually fails? What if it had succeeded?
If you wish, I'll evaluate the Obama Administration's fortunes in advance.
I have never been a McCain supporter
He is/was a horrible candidate (selected in the primaries by moderates and the NYT).
The McCain team ran a terrible campaign.
I would rather have a disaster then a catastrophe.
The McCain team has already spent more time destroying Palin then Obama.
I thought ...
he was selected by those who voted in the primaries. A moderate candidate might be the outcome if most voters are moderate themselves.
That's called democracy, isn't it? You don't really mean to object to that, do you? That would tend to be be "I love democracy, but only if the majority agrees with me."
It's so much more complicated than that.
Sounds pretty much like #1 to me
Do you think the stories are true? If they're true than the motives of the people revealing them are secondary, aren't they?
Mostly idle gossip and backbiting...
not unusual in Washington. They seem to want to blame her for something, but she DID draw larger crowds than McCain.
Many reasons for the election outcome. I don't think Palin is "to blame".
Please also note the McCain
is not telling these weasels to stop. Some "character" from McCain.
IMO that gives the stories some credibility
He made the ultimate decision to choose her so the worse she sounds, the worse his decision looks. If the stories are not true it would be in his own best interest to speak out. He hasn't said a word yet.
While there is no one reason why McCain lost I do think Palin is one of the bigger reasons.
Let's just say the "stories" are true
Dosen't McCain look REALLY bad for his lack of vetting??????
That's what I just said
If the stories are not true, it would be in his interest to clear the record, so why hasn't he said anything?
You really think that?
It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he was outspent 4 to 1?
This is just too silly. Blaming the VP candidate for the loss is just stupid, IMHO.
I think money had much less to do with it...
...than the message. Obama had a clear and consistent one, and McCain did not. Polls showed that people's opinion of Palin steadily declined as the campaign went on. Something like 60% of voters didn't think she was fit for the job in the last poll taken. So yes, I really think that.
Sorry, that sounds like a fairy tale to me...
If people REALLY understood what Obama was about he would have had zero chance. He managed to pull the wool over a lot of eyee.
He had a ton of money, due to his breaking his pledge, and the media was overwhelmingly cheering him on. Republicans had a tough row to hoe already due to the irrational hatred of Bush.
IMO, without Palin the loss would have been worse.
what Obama was about
I guess you know what he's "about"? If it's so frightful, why did you not alert the media? Why were there no last minute revelations? Maybe because they don't exist?
We'll soon see how Obama does. I'm confident he is not the devil you make him out to be.
Alert the media?
What a joke!! THEY aided and abetted him in his deception all the way as has been amply documented.
Many of us tried to expose his lies. Here at SE we were mysteriously shut down locked or deleted any time we tried to criticize the ONE.
"I'm confident he is not the devil you make him out to be."
Oh. and what kind of devil did "make him out to be"??
Ed Here at SE
Is SE the only place to get the word out?
Is SE the media?
What did you expect the readers of SE to do about Media Bias? Agree with you?...Then what?....Picket FOX News? Cry along with you?
Are you the only person spreading the truth?
Why weren't the others (if you're not alone) successful in spreading the truth?
Did it ever occur to you that YOU may be wrong?
I really understood what he was about...
...and I liked most of it enough to vote for him. You can't think much of the electorate to think that 50,000,000 people were duped somehow.
I think you're living in some kind of weird fantasy world, Ed.
Before this goes south...
I think we all know the proclivities of each other... no need to start speculating on why each of us do what we do.
My interest was in the issue of just why Fox was pursuing this particular story. I think this story about Palin illustrates that Fox is, or would like to be, more of a political mover than a news organization has a right to be. The NY Times would have been accused of spouting propaganda if they had run a similar story just a few days ago, but Fox is seemingly given a pass here.
It is interesting what level of trust from it's viewer-ship Fox has.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)