Benghazi... Even CNN is covering it now.
Benghazi... Even CNN is covering it now.
That's just another "phony scandal", you'll see, there's no substance to it.Originally Posted by Echonova
Did Fox figure out if Obama killed those people at that embassy yet? LolThat's just another "phony scandal", you'll see, there's no substance to it.
It's pretty much conjecture on our part about why people choose one network over another, and certainly there are multiple reasons, but I personally don't think Fox is the most popular news network because it is the least biased.
Nope.
Valerie Jarrett did.
Oh lawd, the GOP is at it again. Surprised MSNBC isn't on this yet. How the GOP Libya Witch Hunt Made us Close our Mideast Embassies and Crippled US Diplomacy | Informed Comment
like i said..... MSNBC is the biggest filth on TV.
I'm actually going to address a piece of this hack job.
The only talk I have heard from the GOP about before the attack has been about the denial of additional security after Stevens asked for it. During the attack, I still wonder who gave the stand down order to US special forces. Even if the admins excuse that they wouldnt get there in time to help is baseless for 2 reasons. 1, did someone in the admin know how long the attack was going to last? 2, even if the attack was complete the consulate would definitely have benefited from the added manpower.
The real problem people have is with post attack. We know for a fact that someone within the admin massaged the talking points to shift blame away from terrorism, even though they knew it was terrorism very early on. We know for a fact that this was done for political reasons.
The entire reason this is such a huge story, and a major difference between this case and Beirut bombing that the author sites, is the complete lack of transparency and the stonewalling by the admin. If the admin is so sure it did nothing wrong in the lead up, during, and after the attack, why are they trying so hard to hinder the investigation? Why change the unclassified talking points provided by the CIA, to something that had no basis in fact?
Finally, the reason this wont go away is the cumulative effect of the IRS, Fast and Furious, the Black Panthers, the AP/Fox reporters, and now the NSA. The admin has proven to have very questionable ethics and an arrogance that trumps anything we have seen from a presidential admin in the history of this country. They get away with it with the help of a very friendly media an the willfully ignorant.
I sometimes wonder what this admin would look like if they got the same level of scrutiny from the media as Cheney and Rumsfeld got when they were in office.
I don't understand how you can say they aren't under a lot of scrutiny by the media when all those items you mentioned are common knowledge and were popular subjects in the media (including the mainstream media). Are only CNN and MSNBC "the media" and all the other news sources not "the media"? A lot of people aren't that upset about some of those items but it's not because the media is friendly to the Obama administration, it's because they simply don't care that much. Too busy living their day to day lives.
The media does everything but shine Obama's shoes and put a mint under his pillow every morning. Yes... the media is very friendly to Obama. It wouldnt surprise me if it was eventually discovered that this kindness was not voluntary.
If this is true, why are all the "Obama scandals" constantly in the news?
Incompetency..... i speak to this administration's intentions... it doesnt mean theyre 100% successful.
Look at how many members of media have said that the Obama admin uses intimidation to persuade what they do and do not cover. The one agency who is openly "anti-Obama", Fox, we know that the NSA program is wire tapping. This admin makes examples of whistle blowers.... the ones that havnt been caught dont say "im scared of going to jail".... they legitimately fear for their life. Everyone who was on the ground or anywhere near Benghazi gets weekly lie detector tests and threats not to talk about. How much more do you need to see???????????? For "the most transparent" government in history..... this government sure uses every resource at it's disposal to keep its secrets secret and attack anyone who gets in their way. Obama is the closest thing to a dictator (i hope) we ever have. 15-20 years from now we will see documentaries on Obama on those tv shows like "crimes of the century". This president is a tyrant..... and at the very least, he's a mindless buffoon who is asleep at the wheel while tyrants run the show.
The media is very friendly to Obama.
Remember Sarah Palin? How about the statement that "she could see Russia from her house, and that qualified her on foreign affairs"? Do you remember how that was run in the media for weeks as an attempt to negatively impact her political career? What people don't remember is that she never made that statement - Tina Fey made it on SNL while impersonating Palin.
Now, let's look at Obama's statement on Leno the other night, and how the media portrays it.
Obama stated that we need to dredge our Gulf ports, and then named three of them - Charleston, Savannah, and Jacksonville. Last time I checked, they weren't in the Gulf - they are on the Atlantic Ocean.
So, how did the Associated Press address it? They took it upon themselves to add in "and" in quotes in their article to try to hide the gaffe.
Obama also said that Putin was once the head of the KGB. I would hope that he would know more about the background of a world leader with nukes pointed at us. Putin was never the "head of the KGB" as Obama stated. The media let that one slide as well - they love Obama.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Because there are no longer only three networks controlling the flow of information. When did CNN start? 1980. When did Fox News start? 1996. Drudge Report? 1997. The expansion of news sources means we are no longer bottle-fed information. Consequently you have to be more discerning about the news sources you read, because any idiot with a computer can have a "blog" and everyone likes to feel that they are important. But thanks to the evil capitalist system we have here only the strong survive (unless you can get government funding). But when a kernel of truth is uncovered by the "new media", it makes news because the "old guard" needs to belittle and ridicule the "crazy conspiracy theorist" to maintain their access to the people in power and their invitations to the dinner parties. When that kernel of truth is later confirmed to be true, it is said to have happened (to quote Jay Carney) "a long time ago" and is no big deal. The old saying is that the cover-up is worse than the scandal, this administration might turn that notion on it's head. From direct WH involvement in the IRS to Valerie Jared giving the stand down order in Benghazi to NSA tracking US citizens to Fast and Furious (and Holders perjury) to Obama's own refusal to enforce laws he disagrees with (which I guess could be legal, I may have just missed that part in taking the oath of office). The acquisition of power is never satisfied, it's never enough and those on that quest never stop. The more that is gotten away with, only emboldens one to do more. So there will be no shortage of future scandals either.
Here's some more insight. Does anyone remember the massive stimulus package that Obama signed on Feb of 2009? You know, the one that was going to create jobs, with a large amount of it going toward improving the nation's infrastructure. It was stated that it would get American's back to work, and it was passed by the Democratic controlled House and Senate, and signed by the newly elected President.
Obama promised transparency, and setup the website Recovery.gov. Almost $800B has been paid out, so far.
So, why did Obama say the other night that we need a stimulus now to improve our infrastructure? Where did the last stimulus money go to - which was supposed to put Americans to work improving infrastructure?
On Leno, Obama made statements to make it sound like the GOP was blocking this new stimulus and that he couldn't understand why it wouldn't be bi-partisan. Basically, he tried to paint the GOP as bad guys that were making your local bridges unsafe. Here's the issue though - it was an all-Democratic Congress that directed the funding.
Where did the funding go? It seems that the majority of the money went to states that voted for Obama by the widest of margins first, and the states needing the most economic help got the least. "Billionaire Democrat donors who received a lot of money from the Obama administration include: Solyndra owner George Kaiser; Tesla Motors owners Leon Musk, Larry Page and Sergey Brin; NRG Energy owners Warren Buffett, Steven Cohen, and Carl Icahn; Abound Solar Manufacturing’s Pat Stryker; and Siga Technologies’ Ronald Perelman. Among other wealthy Democrat winners were former Vice President Al Gore whose investment in Fisker Automotive was rewarded with a $529 million loan guarantee. All together about 75 percent of loans and grants have been given out to companies run by Obama supporters."
Job creation? In Wisconsin, 80 percent went to public sector unions – those with already locked-in jobs. Overall across the nation, right-to-work states got $266 less per person in stimulus money than heavily unionized states. In states that have a large majority of Democratic representatives, those states got $460 per person more.
Remember how Obama promised it would provide "help for those hardest hit by our economic crisis"? If you look at the per capita numbers, Washington DC got the most by far - $7,602 per capita. The next closest was Alaska at $2,495 per capita. Virginia got the least at $978. Sounds fair, right?
Oh, and remember Solyndra? they defaulted on more than half a billion dollars of taxpayer money.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I listened to Rush Limbaugh today too. But as usual, he is correct.
First time that I listened to that show, for about 15 minutes. His voice grates on my nerves though. I went and verified the statements a little while ago. It's all documented.
Obama also made this statement once:
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Dont confuse a quick article here and there with in depth reporting. The media has consistently passed on obvious followup questions
You can add most of the newspapers in the country, all of NBC, CBS, and ABC and the AP to the list also.
Do you really think this admin is getting the same level of scrutiny as the Bush admin got?
Is this a serious question?
Is this a serious question?
I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not debating about the Obama administrations intentions. I am addressing whether the Obama administration is under media scrutiny or not. The fact that Benghazi, NSA wirteapping, etc. etc. are all common knowledge, I would say that yes, they are under a lot of scrutiny. If they weren't, most citizens would have heard about these things.
I also remember clearly Obama getting ragged on for his 57 state comment and recently about Biden's shoot your shotgun in the air comment. Sure you can find individual instances where the media could have made a bigger deal about certain statements but the fact is, I've heard plenty of gaffe's on both sides covered by the media. Do you think Fox is Obama friendly? They are the most watched television news station so they are certainly included in "the media".
I think in depth reporting on a whole doesn't exist like it used to. I don't think it is because of this president, I think it is because investigative journalism is no longer the goal, ratings and revenue are. The average person has a very limited attention span and thus want quick sound bites and articles. They news outlets are catering to this. If people really wanted to know the in-depth from the source information about what is going on in Washington, C-SPAN would be the number 1 station on TV.
To answer your final question, yes I do think they are getting at least the same scrutiny as the Bush administration got. Not necessarily from the same sources, but from the entire media collectively, yes.
The difference is that both Obama and Biden made their own statements, and it was covered in the media for less than 3 days. Palin did not make the statement that the media continuously referred to for months. Even today, if you go out on the street and ask a random person "who said that they could see Russia from their house" - the vast majority will attribute it to Palin.
Then ask, "who said that they went to all 57 states", and see if they say, "Obama". I can tell you already, they won't know who said it. The reason for this is media coverage and promotion, plain and simple.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I agree with you on these particular instances but I don't think it is indicative of the media as a whole. If the media attributed a comment to her that she didn't make, I won't defend that but as far as it being commonly attributed to her, the blame isn't entirely on the media either. First of all, the Palin comment was popularized by SNL which is not part of the media. Second, Palin did make a remark about being able to see Russia from Alaska although it wasn't from her house so that makes it more likely people would attribute it to her rather than SNL. Third, I've heard many more ridiculous statements from Palin so it's entirely conceivable she would make a comment like that. Those things combined are a big reason why it stuck in people's memory. Obama's 57 state comment on the other hand was pretty obviously a slip of the tongue. Does anyone really believe he doesn't know how many states there are?
Btw, here is the transcript:
-----------------------------
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of this state give you?
GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.
-----------------------------
So while she didn't say "I can see Russia from my house", she did say "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." That's not a particularly important distinction to me. It was a terrible answer too because she didn't in any way answer the question. In my opinion, while this particular comment was stupid but not that big of a deal, however in my opinion Palin deserved most of the lampooning she got.
The statement that she said was entirely true.
How come we didn't see CNN do the same attacking reporting on Obama's comments?
Here is the video that CNN produced, where they repeatedly incorrectly say that she claimed that being able to see Russia was a basis for foreign policy experience. She does not state that in the interview, which is at the beginning of the video.
This is blatant politically-biased journalism.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Yes it was entirely true but that doesn't mean it's not a really stupid response given the question. Unfortunately I can't view the video here at work but for the sake of getting back to the overall issue, I will cede this instance for now and say she was criticized overly harshly for this particular comment. That doesn't mean that the entire media (which includes WaPo, Fox, etc), is in love with Obama and don't scrutinize Obama as much as they did the Bush administration.
He obviously doesn't know that Jacksonville, Charleston, and Savannah are not on the Gulf, and is asking for taxpayers to pay to dredge these "Gulf of Mexico ports".
He also didn't know what position that Putin (who he is supposed to know all about) held in the KGB, when he declared that Putin was the "former head of the KGB". He wasn't even in a position of real power in the KGB.
These two statements were made THIS WEEK - after he has already been President for a full term.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Not the "entire media". The "overall media. We are looking at the average, not the sum.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Actually I don't believe he doesn't know where the Gulf of Mexico is and that all those cities aren't on it. I think it is more likely that he misspoke. About Putin, I agree that was a legitimate gaffe.
I don't understand the distinction between "entire" and "overall". I'm saying on average he gets as much scrutiny as the last administration. As a sum, he probably gets more because there are more small and independent news sources now than in 2000-2008.
Obama's statement on Leno:
"If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla. — if we don't do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and we'll lose jobs."
Think that AP didn't add in (like I said earlier)?
AP issues correction on Obama quote - POLITICO.com
On Putin, shouldn't he know the history of the man who he negotiates with on issues like nuclear weapons? And what about his 2008 campaign promise to meet with foreign leaders of governments that the US doesn't necessarily agree with? Didn't he state that Bush was wrong when he refused to meet with America's adversaries? It was a pretty big deal at the time. Now, he cancels his meeting with Putin and "takes his ball and goes home". Of course, that might be a good thing for us, as it is clear that he has not done his homework on Putin - and he has had over 5 years to get up to speed.
Much of the US does not watch "small and independent" news sources. Quite a lot of the country doesn't even have cable. The main TV available for news are the broadcast stations of ABC, NBC, and CBS - all of who are pro-Obama (if you have watched them). The nightly news is what many people get their news from.
NBC - about 7.5 million nightly
ABC - about 7 million nightly
CBS - about 6 million nightly
That adds up to over 20 million watching nightly news that is easier on Obama than they were on Bush - on just the broadcast stations.
Remember that comment that Fox news is the most watched. Well, it is true - if you keep to cable news networks, but the numbers need to be understood to see how political support is drawn. In the coveted 25-45 year old group, the right (FNC) scores daily around 215 on average, and the left (MSNBC, CNN, HLN), score daily an average around 280. The ratings are all publicly available.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Not debating the words, just whether he misspoke or actually believes it.
Never claimed bias didn't exist.
Was never arguing if Obama should know this or not. I already said this was a legitimate error on Obama's part.
Your comparison is leaving out an important variable, the degree of bias. If the right is more biased against Obama than the left is biased towards Obama, then the impact of the right's bias could be bigger even though they have slightly less viewers. Honestly though, it's pretty hard to quantify the exact amount of bias and even harder to quantify its effect. Do you believe that if all the MSNBC viewers who support Obama started watching Fox, they would stop being Obama supporters or vice versa? For me, the practical question is, does the administration get scrutinized and are the results easily available to the public? I think that answer is a clear yes. You can't force people to care, or to choose unbiased sources.
The "degree of bias" is not the variable that you would use, it would actually be the degree of impact on the actual voters and non-voters that participate in political discussions. As you have alluded, it is a figure that is beyond the capabilities of us on this forum to calculate.
In answer to your question, "Do you believe that if all the MSNBC viewers who support Obama started watching Fox, they would stop being Obama supporters or vice versa?" The answer is that some, not all, would be influenced over time by a biased media that is not adhere to the basic fundamentals of journalism. You can see that if you look at our history, even over the last few years.
On the second question, "does the administration get scrutinized and are the results easily available to the public?", the initial answer is yes, there is always someone looking closely into everything, and the data is usually available to the public; however, the discussion is about the mainstream public large media organizations, not small, independent ones. These large organizations have been avoiding some topics (like Benghazi) in the WH press conferences, and they have repeatedly (see the CNN video that I posted earlier) manipulated their "interpretation" of stories and events and the amount of their coverage of these stories/events to fall in line with the current Administration. This should concern you, as a free and unbridled press is one of the cornerstones that our forefathers based our American way-of-life upon.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
The media shields and protects Obama..... this is hardly disputable.....
the real question is why?
Most of what we know is from whistle blowers..... if not for them, Obama and the media would still be lying to us. Obama does everything in his power to prevent whistle blowers from getting out and makes sure they will rot in prison of they do.
Its very disputable, because the opposite is true.
Amazing how you became a car enthusiasts.... or that you can even drive.....
you know, since you seem to live life with a blind fold on.
Fact: The Pew Research Center found that in the FINAL WEEK BEFORE VOTING of the last presidential campaign, MSNBC network did absolutely no negative stories about President Obama OR positive ones about Mitt Romney. MSNBC's coverage of Romney during the final week (68% negative with no positive stories), was far more negative than the overall press, and even more negative than it had been during October 1 to 28 when 5% was positive and 57% was negative.
Meanwhile, the coverage improved for a positive effect for Obama in the final week. From October 1 to 28, 33% was positive and 13% negative. During the campaign's final week, fully 51% of MSNBC's stories were positive while there were no negative stories at all.
The Study: Final Weeks in the Mainstream Press | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)
Why doesn't the press ask the hard questions in the WH press conferences? Watch one, and you will see that they don't dig for answers. Obama has made it clear that anyone that doesn't play by his rules (no tough questions) is out - and will be subject to a DOJ investigation (see FOX and CBS).
Why don't they ask him about entitlement reform? Congress is about to head into a new round of budget negotiations. Some Republicans leaders have suggested that they are willing to offer concessions on the budget sequester if Obama commits to entitlement reform. He has spoken in theory about making some cuts but have never presented a plan, on paper, and have rejected all suggestions, even the Simpson-Bowles commission. Why isn't the press asking the question of where is his plan to reform entitlements?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
One article that you might like: Media Bias and Voting
The introduction of FNC on cable had a small, but measureable effect on voting. It is not a stretch to say that the repetition of liberal media should also have a similar, but increased, effect.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Wow sinfix, youre absolutely right. Look at how much the media loves Obama.
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2...y-Scandal-Line
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=199....google.com%2F
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ew-on-economy/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...terror-speech/
I'm starting to see why people hate this sub so much. So much factless Obama-hating. It's not even fun debunking everything all the time. I'm starting to see that what some psychologists say is pretty true in here. To some people, when you show them the truth, they entrench themselves deeper in their beliefs.
I know you feel that the media loves Obama, but its clearly obvious it's the other way around. I don't even understand why this has to even be debated.
As i said before, i feel your interest in psychology comes from the need to self diagnose. It's pure comedy when you start going on these little rants.
moving on, so why does the media protect Obama? what do they have to gain from it? or are they doing it in fear of retaliation?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
