Wednesday, January 20, 2010
No media bias, no, none.
I find it fascinating that the lead story this morning on CNN.com reads, "Democrats distanced themselves from Martha Coakley, and blamed her lackluster campaign for her stunning loss in the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts." Scott Brown's name cannot even be found on the home page. So if I have this right, the real story this morning is that Coakley blew it, not that Brown won it. That is such typical liberal spin. It had nothing to do with what the candidates stood for, but only which candidate ran the worst campaign. I think everyone in Massachusettes knew exactly what both candidates stood for and if they didn't before, they certainly did after our articulate president's visit on Sunday. I mean, once the teleprompter has spoken, everything is made clear, is it not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Nothing to see here! Step away!
(If I wasn't such a "knuckle dragger", I might be riled up about this. But, fortunately for me, I'm dumb as a brick and couldn't understand politics if my life depended upon it. Now excuse me while I go work on my cave drawings and try to invent fire.)
Angelique, Sometimes I wish I was dumb as a brick about politics. I know Julie wishes I was. Brian probably thinks I am, but he thinks anyone who disagrees with him or Rush is.
It's not quite as easy to turn Americans into serfs as it was Russians.
David, When you have a press, liberal, conservative, or in between, that gives front page status to a failed VP candidate, a governor that quit mid term, every time she makes a post on Facebook, why would anything the media do surprise you?
Well, they're obsessed with Sarah because they're terrified she's going to knock off your hero, Tom. And the left-wing media (state-controlled, mainstream media) is in the tank for Obama and all the Marxists in Congress. Face it, and deal with it.
As I mentioned in a comment yesterday, the narrative now is what an idiot Coakley was/is. Not that Brown won (Scott who . . .?), but that Coakley lost. That narrative didn't emerge in the legacy media until it was obvious that the visit from the first and the second black presidents weren't going to be enough to salvage the election. And that narrative was absolutely essential because the left couldn't bear to face the plain simple truth: the election was a referendum on . . . not Obamacare, but Obama and the larger socialist agenda.
As long as the left continues to embrace this narrative - and let's hope they do - they will continue to fail. They will continue to do what I predicted a year ago . . . overreach. Overreach until they find themselves, like Wile E. Coyote, standing out there over the edge of a cliff, staring down into thin air. We're already beginning to see the sick smiles on some of their faces, you know the one I mean: That pained and confused smile you see on Wile E.'s face right before he plunges earthward to be flattned - again - - like a pancake.
Beep. Beep.
Actually Brian the left probably hopes Palin does run in 2012. I think the attention paid to her is all about ratings and selling papers and how many hits you get on your web pages. More hits, the more you can charge for advertising. As usual, it's all about money. Media outlets have be profitable in order to stay in biz. What headline is a better bet to make you perform the next click? Brown Wins, or Dems Play Blame Game? Anyway, I would guess that Palin's Facebook days are over. I would think her contract with Fox would at least require her to read her postings on air before putting it on Facebook.
Tom, why the obsession with money and profits? If something's popular or interesting, people are going to go there, whether it's Palin, a TV show, or Silly Putty. Would you prefer to have some central-planning politburo or Obama-appointed panel of experts arbitrating who may consume what and how much and at what price? Get over it: the free market is a natural phenomenon, at least as long as there are human beings. It's responsible for your good job that you've had for umpteen years. Read some economics books; they will open your eyes.
Brian, u miss the point of my post. There use to be a time when reporters and editors focused on news. Now they have to focus on news and profit, or at least bringing in revenue. So what suffers? Journalism. Dave's post was about the headline CNN posted. My point is what will make the consumer more likely to click on the story. Brown Wins, or DEMS play Blame Game. Journalisticly you would think Brown WINS. Economically it was decided Dems PLay Blame Game.
AFter I read Dave's post, I went to Foxnews.com and their banner was excuses excuses excuses. I went to Newsmax and theirs was Obama hates fox and Obama first year failures or something like that. I went to the Wash. Compost and there was on the DEM failures. Obviously CNN was not alone on what would create the most clicks from a user. Look at this way...anyone who cared already knew Brown won. Why click on that story? Gossip, political infighting, etc. sells much more than news which, can cause diminished journalistic integrity. Don't you get tired of those pop ups that come up even when you have pop ups turned off, some still seem sneak through.
When I got up Wednesday morning, I first went to Drudge to see what the final percentages were in Brown's victory. The headline was the Brown victory along with a photo of the victor. I then went to Foxnew.com and they also led with the Brown victory and a photo of the victor (this was around 7:00 am). I then checked CNN.com (just for the fun of it) and their lead story was the one I posted earlier along with a photo of Coakley. No photo or mention of Brown anywhere on the home page. Now, Tom, let's get real. I'm not saying the Dem's blame game shouldn't be covered, but to suggest by virtue of exclusion that 52% of the Massachusettes voters voted for Brown primarily because Coakley ran a poor campaign is participating in the Dem's spin machine. This is quite defferent from Fox news carrying a story about how the Dems are making excuses for their inopportune loss. Perhaps this difference is too nuanced for some, but it is chrystal clear to me.
I am not defending any of CNN articles on line, tv or nothing. All I am trying to say is look who owns all these news sources.
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php
that page is pretty old and there might be a few changes, but as Brian says, corporate expectations are to turn a profit. If that's the case with journalism, then journalism will suffer. Here is an example I am sure we can all remember. When Obama gave his speech in front of congress on health care, and that guy yelled, you lie. What was the big story on cable news after the speech and for the next few days; MSNBC, CNN, and Fox? Was it the speech or the you lie? Did any of the cable news channels even make an attempt that night or the next day to debunk the you lie or confirm that Obama was lying? Not that I saw. It was about fund raising that guy got. It was about t-shirts being sold that say you lie on it, and that was on MSNBC and they are accused of being in the tank for Obama. Journalism or sensationalism. Which one sells and which one doesn't? All I am saying is in the you lie example, I think someone at MSNBC and CNN made a conscious decision that you lie coverage will get more viewers than covering it, debunking it, and moving on. In the tv world, viewers equal $$$.
I am sure you remember the days when NBC was NBC and they were willing to allow their news division to operate at a loss as long as they delivered quality news. I am saying, those days are forever gone. And Brian, I am not going to debate definitions of quality with you.
Remember, every click you make on these web sites, they log it, they study it, they know your ip address, they know what ads get hit on and I ma saying that is what drives them.
Tom, everything you just said may very well be true, and it speaks to the deteriorating state of our society. Nevertheless, Drudge is the most visited news site on the Internet by a wide margin and he didn't feel any necessity to keep Brown off the front page and put the pathetic figure of the incompetent Coakley there instead.
Post a Comment