Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Apr 28, 2014.
one pundit seems to think so
Ah, looks like its once again time for our bi-annual series on "the media turning against Obama." Of course, thinking such a thing requires the opposite and equally false idea that the media "was 100% for Obama," with the media being a monolithic entity that can only be "for" or "against" a certain person or issue at any given time.
Don't be silly. It requires no such thing.
wgbgator - If you don't think the media has had his back you must be blind.
a huge % of the media not only voted for prezBHO but continues to not ask any tough questions or even look into any of the scandals or discuss in depth the failures of the aca or prezbho's foriegn policy-so yes the media FAVORS your beloved prez by a wide-make that WIDE margin
If you think I'm blind, maybe you should write this in Braille. Show some sensitivity, please.
The mainstream media does not push for answers regarding IRS, Obamakare problems, National Debt, Crimea/Ukraine, Benghazi, Syria, Muslim Brotherhood support from WH, NSA (except when one of their own was taped ), vacations/spending/golf/Michelle, Solyndra/Fisker, Fast n Furious, Lies re keep your plan/doc, Iran nuke, etc.
The mainstream media focuses on the minutiae re: Donald Sterling, Skippy Gates, etc.
I though the media already "turned against him" with the AP scandal? Did they turn back and now they're flipping again? Or was that just a false alarm, and this is this time is for realsies?
In other words, the MSM refuses to spend 24 hours a day promoting the crap off of the RNC fax machine like Fox does?
Good for them.
Fred - you should watch Fox news and maybe you'll learn something.
I'd need a lobotomy first.
I think the media has "turned" against our last few presidents 1/3-1/2 way through their second term.
The media has really, really let this country down, Fox included. They are supposed to be our watchdog, not the ruling party's mouthpiece. I thought I saw awful news bias in the UK under the Labour governments. What our news organizations in this country have done for 6 years is right on par with Goebbels. And yes, it would be the same disappointment if Fox gives a pass to the next Republican president. Hold their feet to the fire!
Sure. Since Embassies getting attacked, Ambassador's getting killed, is such common occurrence, the MSM's handling of that was perfectly objective--especially how they championed the bogus bit about some obscure you tube being the impetus...and who the little tid bit of it happening on 9/11 was pure coincidence....and how *they* shut down Romney in a debate when he questioned the issue...
...never mind Obamacare, Fast and Furious, and a thousand other examples of the MSM carrying Barry's jockstrap...
Yeah, the media wasn't 100% behind him. That's just...shear paranoia...
13 of them under Bush. Media coverage? Hardly a peep.
But it always did make news (as did Benghazi--but usually from the angle of how bad the rest of the world hated us, because of 'W'), and if 'W' had ever tried to poo pooh an attack on a post 9/11/2001 terrorist attack that happened on 9/11 as some sort of BS coincidence, the MSM would be on his ass like a pit bull on a slab of raw steak you let fall to the ground.
With Barry, we get a nice golden retriever, pointing to the fallen steak, giving a helpful bark.
Yeah, the media generally, sucks.
I don't think the media has to entirely be "for him or "against him" for the majority of the big-leaguers to still have some subjectivity. They may not be "for him," but they definitely favor and probably like him. I think a lot of the media still think he's "cool."
I just think about the Crowley incident during the debate. I mean, I really think that's a pretty obvious thing there.
I recognize that most of the media has a liberal bias. I just don't understand why. The majority of a whole industry of professionals in the liberal back pocket. How/why did that happen?
College faculty, especially in journalism is very very liberal