I think they have for the most part done their jobs on Palin. Where they have failed miserably and what comes off as unfair is where was/is all of this coverage concerning Obama's shady dealing/associations/past?

Do we really consider websites mainstream?

 

Was there a CNN report where they talked about their investigation?

 

I'd be curious to hear your views on the examples I posed.

 

No. But, I know there have been some mainstream outlets that have taken information from some of these websites and reported it as news.

I think they have for the most part done their jobs on Palin. Where they have failed miserably and what comes off as unfair is where was/is all of this coverage concerning Obama's shady dealing/associations/past?

 

I seem to recall the Rezko story making the news. I know that the Rev. Wright domianted the news for quite a while.

 

Are you talking about them or some other dealings?

No. But, I know there have been some mainstream outlets that have taken information from some of these websites and reported it as news.

 

I do think blogs , while not mainstream(yet), are definitely a source now for the MSM. Its risky but some do have legit stories.

I seem to recall the Rezko story making the news. I know that the Rev. Wright domianted the news for quite a while.

 

Are you talking about them or some other dealings?

Not claiming to be an expert here (once again I hardly watch the news), but here's something to think of-

 

Palin has been in the news for around a week, and there has been plenty of talk about the Trooper issue, the Bridge to Nowhere, the fact that she has little experience, and her daughters' baby, as well as the Alaskan Secession Party or whatever it is called.

 

On the other hand, Obama has been in the spotlight for almost half the calendar year. Rev. Wright was a big deal, and Rezko has been a blip on the screen, appearing every once in a while. I don't know if anything has been said about Bill Ayers, and I doubt anything about Khalid Al Mansour and certainly nothing about Frank Marshall Davis.

 

I could be wrong, just something to think about.

Not claiming to be an expert here (once again I hardly watch the news), but here's something to think of-

 

Palin has been in the news for around a week, and there has been plenty of talk about the Trooper issue, the Bridge to Nowhere, the fact that she has little experience, and her daughters' baby, as well as the Alaskan Secession Party or whatever it is called.

 

On the other hand, Obama has been in the spotlight for almost half the calendar year. Rev. Wright was a big deal, and Rezko has been a blip on the screen, appearing every once in a while. I don't know if anything has been said about Bill Ayers, and I doubt anything about Khalid Al Mansour and certainly nothing about Frank Marshall Davis.

 

I could be wrong, just something to think about.

 

Palin dominates the news because a)she came out of nowhere b)its convention time and c)the campaigns dominate the news right now.

 

Those 3 seem to be the reason we're getting such an overwhelming amount of coverage.

For those of us who consider the Media an "unoficial" fourth branch of government, I don't see the big problem if the media is considered left wing.

Do we really consider websites mainstream?

 

Was there a CNN report where they talked about their investigation?

 

I'd be curious to hear your views on the examples I posed.

Nearly all of the major Democratic presidential candidates (I believe one declined the invitation - maybe Richardson) participated in the debate hosted by the Daily Kos, while they boycotted Fox News. Is that not in of itself an endorsment of the web site as mainstream by the Democratic Party? IMO, the Daily Kos is a web site frequented by left wing kooks but hosting a presidential debate seems pretty mainstream to me.

 

If you want to watch the CNN segment to which I referred, Google it. Bill Bennet was part of the panel hosted by Wolf Blitzer when the report ran and Bennet blasted CNN for airing the garbage.

 

I think that I have answered most, if not all of the questions you posed elsewhere. If you are not familiar with the disgusting web sites that I mentioned, then you cannot possibly understand what poor journalism is at work when unfounded rumors originating from those sites are reported by the mainstream media.

I seem to recall the Rezko story making the news. I know that the Rev. Wright domianted the news for quite a while.

 

Are you talking about them or some other dealings?

I don't recall any coverage of Rezko by the likes of the big outlets. Rev Wright was ignored for the better part of a year until it was basically shoved down the Media's throat and they could ignore it any longer. Even then it disappreared with no real explanation from Obama. One week he could no more turn his back on Wright then he could his white grandmother. The next week he was saying that this wasn't the man he knew for 20 years. The media takes that and case closed. They have put more effort into Palin's pregnant daughter in one week then they have in Obama's "skeletons" in over 1 year.

Nearly all of the major Democratic presidential candidates (I believe one declined the invitation - maybe Richardson) participated in the debate hosted by the Daily Kos, while they boycotted Fox News. Is that not in of itself an endorsment of the web site as mainstream by the Democratic Party? IMO, the Daily Kos is a web site frequented by left wing kooks but hosting a presidential debate seems pretty mainstream to me.

 

If you want to watch the CNN segment to which I referred, Google it. Bill Bennet was part of the panel hosted by Wolf Blitzer when the report ran and Bennet blasted CNN for airing the garbage.

 

I think that I have answered most, if not all of the questions you posed elsewhere. If you are not familiar with the disgusting web sites that I mentioned, then you cannot possibly understand what poor journalism is at work when unfounded rumors originating from those sites are reported by the mainstream media.

 

DailyKos: Unless you are telling me there is a large block of "left wing kooks" I'm not sure if they really matter despite the candidates giving them love.

 

 

I watch the news a lot and I don't remember many of the outlets (and I roam the dial) giving any credence to the baby issue.

 

As you can see from a post or two on here some consider what I would call valid questions to be "left wing media" if they don't like that they're asked or understandn why they're asked.

 

I'm saying that I simply don't see true news coverage that is out of line or unfair to Palin. Other than the "kooks" you mentioned , we all agree that the rumor was ugly and without merit but it came to many people's attention online and not on the TV or radio.

Keith Olberman is a JOKE.

I They have put more effort into Palin's pregnant daughter in one week then they have in Obama's "skeletons" in over 1 year.

 

Who is "they?"

Who is "they?"

Media in general.

Media in general.

 

:lol: Clyde, you asked that people give specific media outlets that are biased. Are you satisfied with this answer?

Thanks.

 

1. I have not heard any media outlet use the "Others are reporting that its not really the daughter's baby" line. Have you?

 

Yes I have, multiple times.

 

2. She wasn not cleared. There is still an ongoing investigation. Should the media not mention that?

 

No there was an investigation, it was found one of her advisors mentioned it to someone involved in the ASP, he was put on leave for 2 months. It was found she had no knowledge, btw whether or not she did, I do not care anyways.

 

3. Not quite true on the Bridge issue. She was for it IF the FEDS were going to pay for it. She then found out that state money was going to be required and THEN she changed her mind. However, lets say I'm wrong on what I've read. Its still a question: was she for it or was she against it? Why should the media not report that the question is out there?

 

Of course she was for the Feds pumping money into her own state, any Gov. would be.

 

4. KO is a "talking head" and paid to give opinions and debate opinion makers. He's no different than Sean Hannity other than the direction they lean. However, that's irrelevant to the question.

 

Is he a talking head or a news anchor? Since he basically sets policy for all of MSNBC now I think he is a little bit more than a talking head.