CNN Reporter: Media did not vet Obama enough

[H]

^Of course, King obviously must be talking about John Edwards, who has been out of the news for weeks. Why would he be making a reference to BHO when CNN has been so brutally tough on him?:lol:

 

 

Who can know what King was talking about? He certainly wasn't specific enough in his choice of words to conclude that he meant, "the media did not vet Obama enough". Pretty sloppy journalism. Of course, the explicit goal of the author's employer, the so-called Business & Media Institute, is to "audit the media’s coverage of the free enterprise system". Sounds like someone need to audit the 'auditor'.

[ladiesbballcoach]

King never said "We didn't vet Obama properly."

 

King states

 

“I think there’s some very legitimate criticism that we did not treat all of the candidates in the Democratic race, but particularly the top two or three equally, because of the Clinton obsession in the national media,” King told host Mark Quinn. “It is a very fair point. We need to learn that lesson.”

 

 

Please point out to me who the top 2 or 3 Democrat candidates that did not get enough scrutiny, treated equallly like Clinton was treated?

 

O, did you say one of those top 2 or 3 was Obama?

 

Well, then I guess King is saying that Obama did not get the scrutiny like Clinton did.

[True blue (and gold)]

I would say you missed the FIRST SENTENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

King said the media were too focused on Sen. Hillary Clinton’s bid for the Democratic nomination that they failed to properly vet Obama.

 

“I think there’s some very legitimate criticism that we did not treat all of the candidates in the Democratic race, but particularly the top two or three equally, because of the Clinton obsession in the national media,” King told host Mark Quinn. “It is a very fair point. We need to learn that lesson.”

 

It's interesting to see how you came up with your own title, as this was the title of the article.

 

CNN's King: 'Whining' Media 'Out of Touch' on Election Coverage

 

Now, that is certainly your right, but not the point of the article. The article, as I mentioned in my one post in this thread, discusses MANY things, with the focus being that the media has spent too much time in Washington DC and not enough with ordinary citizens.

[ladiesbballcoach]

It's interesting to see how you came up with your own title, as this was the title of the article.

 

 

 

Now, that is certainly your right, but not the point of the article. The article, as I mentioned in my one post in this thread, discusses MANY things, with the focus being that the media has spent too much time in Washington DC and not enough with ordinary citizens.

 

You do realize that Hillary and Bill Clinton had the same complaint as the title of my thread and the CNN reporter admitted to.

 

This was NOT JUST A Republican issue until Obama became the Democrat nominee and THEN all of a sudden all of those Dems who had been crying foul all spring, changed their tune.

 

THIS ISSUE is BOTH a Democrat issue (Spring 08) and Republican issue.

[cch5432]

I had never heard the word vet before this election cycle.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I had never heard the word vet before this election cycle.

 

Don't own a pet?:jump:

[True blue (and gold)]

You do realize that Hillary and Bill Clinton had the same complaint as the title of my thread and the CNN reporter admitted to.

 

This was NOT JUST A Republican issue until Obama became the Democrat nominee and THEN all of a sudden all of those Dems who had been crying foul all spring, changed their tune.

 

THIS ISSUE is BOTH a Democrat issue (Spring 08) and Republican issue.

 

What do you think about the REST of the article, not just that one small part?

[cch5432]

Don't own a pet?:jump:

 

OK, I own a pet who I take to veterinarian and am related to two deceased veterans. :mad:

 

But I had never heard vet in this context.

[ladiesbballcoach]

OK, I own a pet who I take to veterinarian and am related to two deceased veterans. :mad:

 

But I had never heard vet in this context.

 

Don't you hate when someone does this to you.:lol::lol:

[cch5432]

Don't you hate when someone does this to you.:lol::lol:

 

Nah, it gets my post count up. No big deal. :lol:

[ladiesbballcoach]

What do you think about the REST of the article, not just that one small part?

 

I agree with the article.

 

Media is out of touch with middle America.

I have said that is one reason they dislike Palin.

She isn't one of them. They don't understand common country folk. So, they have a predisposition to look at that as negative.

 

She does not bow to the media altar like so many other politicians do.

And they don't like it.

[H]

King states

 

“I think there’s some very legitimate criticism that we did not treat all of the candidates in the Democratic race, but particularly the top two or three equally, because of the Clinton obsession in the national media,” King told host Mark Quinn. “It is a very fair point. We need to learn that lesson.”

 

 

Please point out to me who the top 2 or 3 Democrat candidates that did not get enough scrutiny, treated equallly like Clinton was treated?

 

O, did you say one of those top 2 or 3 was Obama?

 

Well, then I guess King is saying that Obama did not get the scrutiny like Clinton did.

 

 

The word scrutiny did not appear in King's quote either. "did not treat all of the candidates equally" can mean any number of things. And what exactly does "the Clinton obsession in the national media" mean? You could interpret King's comments to mean that Hillary Clinton did not get a fair shake by the national media because they have it in for her, or you could interpret his comments to mean that the other candidates were slighted in press coverage because the national media is "obsessed" with the Clintons.

[ladiesbballcoach]

The word scrutiny did not appear in King's quote either. "did not treat all of the candidates equally" can mean any number of things. And what exactly does "the Clinton obsession in the national media" mean? You could interpret King's comments to mean that Hillary Clinton did not get a fair shake by the national media because they have it in for her, or you could interpret his comments to mean that the other candidates were slighted in press coverage because the national media is "obsessed" with the Clintons.

 

Whatever.

[Hoot Gibson]

I had never heard the word vet before this election cycle.

In past elections, the word has more commonly been used in relation to campaign donations. The media should be using the word vet (or vetting) in sentences such as:

 

The Obama campaign is not vetting his campaign donations properly as the result of disabling the name and address verification features of the credit card processing software that is normally used as a tool in vetting donations.