Just goes to show that an intelligent, good looking black man with a smart (not so good looking) spouse will trump an intelligent, (not so good looking) white woman, with a good looking smarmy spouse anytime
There are 10 kinds of people. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
It's the knuckleheads in the media I take issue with
This does seem to be a recurring theme. I guess that you perceive 2 problems with the "mainstream media:" One is, if I may paraphrase, their slavish adulation of Obama, which basically resulted in the media serving as a fifth column for the liberal overthrow of the American government (in a nutshell) and will continue under the new regime as the media adopts the same role in relation to Obama that Pravda had in relation to Stalin. Is that more or less accurate?
But in this particular instance, you're saying that Obama's margin of victory was more modest than it should have been, given the advantages that the media were so willing to bestow upon him? And that from this we learn two things, that the media is biased and that the legitimacy of his presidency is therefore in question? That the media is imperfect is a given. The Obama story is so media-friendly, so compelling, so ad-revenue-generating, of course they were going to give it a lot of play. Unfortunately, the only aspects of the McCain story that were as compelling was the story arc of his own self-destruction. That Obama's election returns were somehow less than overwhelming is besides the point (And one I disagree with). He won. And by more than one vote, unlike Bush in 2000.
The second issue you have is your perception of a history of eight years of one-sided media attacks on President Bush, which you feel were done in collusion either consciously or unconsciously with America's liberal leaders, and which led to Bush being unfairly demonized both at home and abroad, which in turn hindered his ability to rise to greatness as a world leader, correct? Or at least sort of correct?
I really am trying to clarify your underlying message in this thread and the "...if" thread where you are saying that the Democrats sank to new lows in villifying Bush.
This is because I have a different historical memory of the Bush years. I can remember the media having their collective noses so far up Bush's ass during the beginning of the Iraq war (to say nothing of Congress, who should have known better) that you could see their shoelaces hanging out of the back of Bush's suit jacket. I remember CNN's breathless dramatization and tacit acceptance of the so-called "War on Terror." They just couldn't wait to come out with a spiffy logo. I remember the fact that there was no justice or media calls for justice for what happened at Abu Ghraib, unless you count DDing a token handful of trailer trash flunkies as justice. I remember the media rolling over for the Patriot Act. And more of this weak-sister response from the supposedly brainwashed liberal media as Bush and Cheney continued to steamroll America's honor, prestige, values, and future. And don't get me started on what a bunch of candypants Congress turned out to be.
It really wasn't until it became clear to even the most biased observer that the tide of history had gone out on Bush that we began to see some intelligent reporting on the toxic legacy he'll be leaving. Is it really biased to call someone with demonstrably visible horns, tail, and pitchfork a demon? Of course, that's MY bias showing.
I can remember the media having their collective noses so far up Bush's ass during the beginning of the Iraq war (to say nothing of Congress, who should have known better) that you could see their shoelaces hanging out of the back of Bush's suit jacket.
Gee, isn't this a bit far up the back??
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
In Europe aren't the biases of newspapers apparent? And everyone knows it and buys their subscriptions accordingly?
With the exception of the Chicago Tribune, major American newspapers have been endorsing candidates forever. The fact that the Trib broke an 80-year neutral streak to endorse Obama says volumes about the historic nature of this election.
In all my years I have never believed that any media outlet could be unbiased. It just isn't physically possible. Even if you say "we're only going to run the facts" you are still making a biased decision about what facts are important enough to merit public attention. I just think the never-ending argument that media bias is so crippling to the democratic process is irrelevant. The only way to safely approach the media is to know what your own biases are before you start reading or watching. When I question the veracity of a news report I try to find out more about the subject from a different source, preferably one as close to the horse's mouth as possible.
In the world of the 24-hour news cycle, when the age of the "scoop" is for the most part over, especially now that most newspapers for example, get 80% of their content from wire services (the other 20% is strictly local stuff). the only way networks and newspapers can compete with each other is to have better interpreters of the news. In short, they're all working from the same raw material, it's just the finish they put on it that is the "value-added." And as soon as an interpretation gets put on news, it's biased.
Clearly MattMac112 feels that the bias went way too far to the left. And I feel it didn't go nearly far enough. If the media had been awake for the past eight years George Bush and Dick Cheney would be sitting in bulletproof glass boxes in the International Criminal Court getting grilled right now instead of planning their post-presidential hunting trips.
I just think the never-ending argument that media bias is so crippling to the democratic process is irrelevant. The only way to safely approach the media is to know what your own biases are before you start reading or watching.
However their are millions of people who only get their information from only a few sources , news or friends as an example - so yes its not crippling to the democratic process per say but the bias does sway people into that media own bias that they watch or hear everyday .
Here luckily in this forum there are both sides and it can be discussed live
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.