Ahh, the famous "liberal" media...

[Scheavo]

news.yahoo.com/media-favored-romney-over-obama-040100208.html

Overall, it was no contest. From Jan. 2 through April 15, Romney’s coverage was 39 percent positive, 32 percent negative, and 29 percent neutral, the researchers found. Obama’s coverage was 18 percent positive, 34 percent negative, and 34 percent neutral. That means Romney’s depiction by the media was more than twice as positive as the president’s. So much for liberal bias.

And remember, according to Romney, the media is in Obama's hand, and does Obama's bidding.

Our media, however, does suck.

As for the candidates’ stands on the issues, that accounted for a mere 11 percent of the coverage.

[snapple]

It's because Obama has been shit lately.

inb4rahhhthatsanopinionbutimnotgoingtoletyouhaveone

[antigoon]

Remember when that liberal rag the New York Times helped lead the war charge to Iraq by unquestioningly publishing all those very true things the White House said about Saddam and WMDs on its front pages? Haha aw shucks those silly libs.

The media is concerned with two things (from my perspective): obtaining and maintaining access to high-ranking officials, and sensationalism.

[snapple]

>Republican primary
>going to get more attention than Obama right now
>Obama has been shit (i'll qualify this as opinion)
>more coverage of Romney, in a higher light because of far right Santorum
>
>profit!

[jasc15]

What about the other 14% of Obama's coverage?

[Sigz]

>Obama has been shit (i'll qualify this as opinion)

Isn't that Scheavo's point? That if there were a liberal bias they wouldn't be so decidedly negative towards Obama.

[j]

What about the other 14% of Obama's coverage?

That was going to be my question.

-J

[Scheavo]

>Obama has been shit (i'll qualify this as opinion)

Isn't that Scheavo's point? That if there were a liberal bias they wouldn't be so decidedly negative towards Obama.

Sorta. I don't fully agree with the shit part - in fact, the amount of negative coverage Obama get's makes you think he's doing a shittier job than he actually is - but if the media was liberal, and if the media was in his pocket, as Romney implies, than Obama would not get such horribly negative coverage, and Romney sure as hell wouldn't be beating him.

>Republican primary
>going to get more attention than Obama right now
>Obama has been shit (i'll qualify this as opinion)
>more coverage of Romney, in a higher light because of far right Santorum
>
>profit!

I'm not contesting any of this, nor is it relevant to my point.

[kirksnosehair]

It's always interesting and kind of funny but my conservative friends keep saying things like "damage" and "he's been shit" with respect to Obama, but when I press them for, you know, like, facts and stuff...they just sort of blurt out:  "But the stimulus!"

Let's just be real for a minute:

You don't like him because he's a Democrat and you're not.  Why not just admit that and move on, eh?  It's easier that way.

[snapple]

It's always interesting and kind of funny but my conservative friends keep saying things like "damage" and "he's been shit" with respect to Obama, but when I press them for, you know, like, facts and stuff...they just sort of blurt out:  "But the stimulus!"

Let's just be real for a minute:

You don't like him because he's a Democrat and you're not.  Why not just admit that and move on, eh?  It's easier that way.

Didn't say it was any different

[kirksnosehair]

Wasn't really referring to you, but OK 

[Scheavo]

It's always interesting and kind of funny but my conservative friends keep saying things like "damage" and "he's been shit" with respect to Obama, but when I press them for, you know, like, facts and stuff...they just sort of blurt out:  "But the stimulus!"

Let's just be real for a minute:

You don't like him because he's a Democrat and you're not.  Why not just admit that and move on, eh?  It's easier that way.

Didn't say it was any different

Wait, so you only dislike him becuase he's a Democrat?

[snapple]

Wasn't really referring to you, but OK 

as if I was being serious. Nah, I've got my reasons. I've tried talking about them before, but I was quickly told that I wasn't allowed to think those things.

[MondayMorningLunatic]

You guys are gonna bitch about the media's coverage of Obama and Romney when RON PAUL has been totally ignored? Just proves that our media is not a liberal or conservative one but a STATIST one.

[kirksnosehair]

Ron Paul gets ignored because he's a kook and no one is voting for him.  Because he's a kook.

Did I mention that he's a kook?

[snapple]

Ron Paul gets ignored because he's a kook and no one is voting for him.  Because he's a kook.

Did I mention that he's a kook?

He's an OLD kook. That's probably what you were looking for. Being a kook is bad, but an old kook? Shit.

[Sigz]

To be fair, he did get at the very least a non-negligible amount of the vote in a lot of states:



Also, like that Daily Show bit about it, he was pretty much entirely ignored by the media to the point where they'd talk about the 1st, 2nd, and 4th place candidates and completely ignore him (when he was 3rd).

[kirksnosehair]

yet, he's completely, 100% unequivocally meaningless.   

Nothing against him, but yeah, pineapples taste good 

[rumborak]

You guys are gonna bitch about the media's coverage of Obama and Romney when RON PAUL has been totally ignored? Just proves that our media is not a liberal or conservative one but a STATIST one.

I've read these "explanations" before, along with wilder ones such as "vote flipping" and stuff. Reality is, RP had his moment of spotlight early on, but he plain screwed it up. He came across like a one-trick pony, who could say barely more than the word "Constitution". When he then displayed his utter absence of a foreign policy, people moved on. And so did the media. RP supporters like to blame everything under the sun, but the real reason why RP isn't going anywhere is because of himself. And at this point I would argue that he's doing more damage to his cause than help it. He's like the Black Knight in Monty Python, who's nothing but a torso but still thinks he can win.

rumborak

[senecadawg2]

Yeah, not sure what Ron Paul thinks he is doing right now. To be fair though, he does have some interesting ideas (legalizing certain substances for one, as well as being opposed to war). On the other hand, he also wants to go back to the gold standard... AND he's an old kook.

[MondayMorningLunatic]

He came across like a one-trick pony, who could say barely more than the word "Constitution".

That's infinitely preferable to a two-trick pony who can barely say more than the words "hope" and change."

When he then displayed his utter absence of a foreign policy, people moved on.

His foreign policy of non-interventionism is very simple, and that's maybe why you interpret it to be an "absence" of foreign policy. It's far more solid than other candidates, who believe in capriciously meddling in the affairs of other countries via fradulent wars or financial, sometimes miltary aid.

[senecadawg2]

He came across like a one-trick pony, who could say barely more than the word "Constitution".

That's infinitely preferable to a two-trick pony who can barely say more than the words "hope" and change."

When he then displayed his utter absence of a foreign policy, people moved on.

His foreign policy of non-interventionism is very simple, and that's maybe why you interpret it to be an "absence" of foreign policy. It's far more solid than other candidates, who believe in capriciously meddling in the affairs of other countries via fradulent wars or financial, sometimes miltary aid.

Change>Constitution (opinion).

I do agree with you on the foreign policy though.

[MondayMorningLunatic]

Change>Constitution (opinion).

One of the beauties of the Constitution, as I'm sure you already know, is that it can be amended. What changes are you looking for that couldn't fall within the parameters of the Constitution?

[PraXis]

Change>Constitution (opinion).

One of the beauties of the Constitution, as I'm sure you already know, is that it can be amended. What changes are you looking for that couldn't fall within the parameters of the Constitution?

That's the problem with "progressives." They would rather use the courts to push their agenda rather than propose an amendment. Getting that 66% would be a bitch! 

[Scheavo]

Change>Constitution (opinion).

One of the beauties of the Constitution, as I'm sure you already know, is that it can be amended. What changes are you looking for that couldn't fall within the parameters of the Constitution?

That's the problem with "progressives." They would rather use the courts to push their agenda rather than propose an amendment. Getting that 66% would be a bitch! 

Actually, it's been the conservatives who have been doing this. Look no further than Citizens United.

[Super Dude]

He came across like a one-trick pony, who could say barely more than the word "Constitution".

That's infinitely preferable to a two-trick pony who can barely say more than the words "hope" and change."

When he then displayed his utter absence of a foreign policy, people moved on.

His foreign policy of non-interventionism is very simple, and that's maybe why you interpret it to be an "absence" of foreign policy. It's far more solid than other candidates, who believe in capriciously meddling in the affairs of other countries via fradulent wars or financial, sometimes miltary aid.

I'm not sure "Just trade with them more" is a viable solution when dealing with genocide abroad.

[rumborak]

American chewing gum was all Hitler wanted, but he couldn't get it.

MML, if life's complexities could be reduced to a few paragraphs written in some document, life would be easy indeed. Sadly, it ain't as simple.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

I'm not sure there's a modern Hitler, or anything resembling a comparison to sitting out the World War, by suggesting we stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. The reasons we're meddling there is quite clear; it's about the oil, not our safety, or even a war.

[rumborak]

The belief that the involvement in foreign countries can be reduced to a single thing is as overly simplistic as the belief that it can be all fixed by the adherence to a document. A rather annoying feature of American politics, the attempt to belie the complexity of the problems.

rumborak

[MondayMorningLunatic]

American chewing gum was all Hitler wanted, but he couldn't get it.

MML, if life's complexities could be reduced to a few paragraphs written in some document, life would be easy indeed. Sadly, it ain't as simple.

Godwin's Law at work here. Anyone who's a non-interventionist is automatically a Holocaust "enabler." On the contrary, the Third Reich formed as a reaction to economic sanctions imposed on Germany after their offensive wars against Russia, France and other European nations in WWI. Interventionism and imperialism caused the problems, as usual. So what are you actually proposing? That we have a long and convoluted document or no document at all? Both scenarios can only lead to tyranny or anarchy. To me, the beauty of the Constitution is that it DOESN'T try to reduce the complexities of life into a few paragraphs. It sets very limited parameters for the government and lets us do the rest.

I'm not sure "Just trade with them more" is a viable solution when dealing with genocide abroad.

Genocide sucks but it's completely unfeasible for one country to try and curb all the evils in the world. Let's look at the world today. We have genocides in Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Kashmir, Indonesia, Russia, North Korea, China, and the list goes on and on and on. How could we possibly stop of all that? Ron Paul doesn't necessarily say that trade will fix all of the world's problems. He just points out the obvious truth that military intervention usually causes more problems than it solves. We thought we could "save" the people of Iraq and look how that turned out.


At any rate, I'm NOT commenting on this any more because it's veering off topic. This thread was meant to be a discussion of the media, not a debate about Ron Paul.

[rumborak]

We can't help them all, so let's help none.

Bottom line is, it's fine if you believe this (IMHO) simplistic approach to be the solution. The majority of people however don't. That is the plain and simple reason why RP hasn't gone anywhere, and why he's burning through a lot of suckers' money in his quixotic quest. I mean, there's simply no chance he's going to have any impact at the RNC (if only for the plain fact that less than 10% of the Republicans seem to care about him), and he still rakes in the last bucks of the people who so desperately follow him.
I mean, let's assume for a second RP's scheme of silently amassing delegates through procedural trickery would work. Do you really think the Republican public will watch idly when delegates completely defy their votes?

But, it doesn't matter really. He will get his ass handed to him tomorrow like so many times before, Romney will cash in shitloads of actual delegates, while the RP supporters will spin yet another conspiracy theory why their candidate isn't winning, all the while dumping their money into this futile endeavour.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

The belief that the involvement in foreign countries can be reduced to a single thing is as overly simplistic as the belief that it can be all fixed by the adherence to a document. A rather annoying feature of American politics, the attempt to belie the complexity of the problems.

rumborak

Well, I didn't say all foreign countries, I said the Middle East. We have interests in North Korea, but it's nothing to do with oil. Our interest in the Middle East boils down to oil, it's simple empire economics. What other reason do we have for being in the region? National security? If the region is a threat to us, it's because of our funneling of arms, money into the region, and our meddling with their political systems. I mean, we've been the guys giving the dictators the weapons they use to suppress the people. Iran is basically a republican-made problem. First, Reagan brokered a deal with the Sha, then he funded Iran and gave them weapons to fight Iraq. Bush completed the deal by invading Afghanistan and then Iraq, especially Iraq. On top of that, Iraq and Afghanistan, if they were problems, were problems because of American foreign policy. Reagan funded and armed Saddam, and the Mujaheddin and Osama.


Obama's on the right side of the issue, I'm just wish he'd pick up the pace a little. It's funny, becuase in some ways Obama is better than Paul, but in others Paul is better than Obama. Obama puts forward a better energy policy, and if we don't need foreign oil, they won't be our problem. Yet in Afghanistan, our War on Drugs is a major problem. The Taliban makes it's money off of mostly opium, whom the farmers are somewhat forced and dependent upon for a living. The Taliban is our supposed enemy in Afghanistan, but they're basically just an ideological drug cartel. End the prohibition, end the black market, end the Taliban. There's a ton of others benefits to ending the War on Drugs, and Obama is on the record supporting continuing the War on Drugs. Apparently, possible governmental corruption is worse than drug cartels and current government corruption.

[Super Dude]

Genocide "sucks?" Genocide is worse than "sucking," and we're all only so lucky we'll never have to experience it here in our own country (knock on wood/God forbid). Let me tell ya, you wouldn't be so nonchalant about it if it was instigated against you.

[emindead]

Ron Paul gets ignored because he's a kook and no one is voting for him.  Because he's a kook.

Did I mention that he's a kook?

Says the former resident of the big house. Did I mentioned that you are a former resident of the big house? Oh, I guess we are forgetting that any criminal can post here at DTF. Oh, and it's not an accusation, it's a fact. You DID spend a lot of time in jail, didn't you?

I don't know the point of this post, other than, apparently, calling names. Isn't that what we are doing when we hate someone? Call names? The differencem however, was that I', not lying, you accepted it. I was just reinforcing it.

On the other hand, he also wants to go back to the gold standard... AND he's an old kook.

Please, don't make it obvious. You are blatantly showing your ignorance. You only heard "legalizing some stuff her der errr!" and then something about going back to the Gold standard. You scratched something on the first part, yet joined the bandwagon of ignorance on the second part. AND lowered yourself to Kirk's level on the third part.

And as far as the Liberal Media debate goes, Rachel Maddow did this piece yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EfS1x5RnZZQ

[kirksnosehair]

Ron Paul gets ignored because he's a kook and no one is voting for him.  Because he's a kook.

Did I mention that he's a kook?

Says the former resident of the big house. Did I mentioned that you are a former resident of the big house? Oh, I guess we are forgetting that any criminal can post here at DTF. Oh, and it's not an accusation, it's a fact. You DID spend a lot of time in jail, didn't you?

I don't know the point of this post, other than, apparently, calling names. Isn't that what we are doing when we hate someone? Call names? The differencem however, was that I', not lying, you accepted it. I was just reinforcing it.

I don't hate anyone.  Hate is strong word.  But I think Ron Paul is a kook and his political positions are nuts.  And while I was serving time in prison I thought he was a kook then too.   

You can reinforce my time in prison as often as you'd like.  Let me try to muster up some "give a shit."



Sorry, I failed at giving a shit.