Television Journalists and Their Big Push

We all remember how, during the primary season, T.V. journalists piled on Senator Clinton everyday and promoted Senator Obama non-stop.  On the Republican side, they treated Senator McCain and his flip flops with kid gloves.

 

I mentioned during that period of time that if Obama received the Democratic nomination, in time,  journalists would turn on him and promote McCain in the general election.  Well, it is already starting to happen.  They are now promoting a so called rift between Senator Clinton, her husband, and Obama.  They are even saying that Senator Clinton wants her name to be placed in nomination at the convention, although that is pure speculation.  Mike Barnicle, while guest hosting MSNBC's Hardball on 8/7, devoted some time on the subject with 3 guests.  Their tone was that Senator Clinton was going to make demands and split or hurt the party.  What they all failed to report and/or mention is that Senator Clinton herself said that she would work for party unity at the convention and, in fact, campaigned for Senator Obama this week.

 

Journalists will continue to plant the seed that their pronouncements are fact in an effort to create and distract from the actual news on the subject.  They are showing their ass again in trying to manipulate the general election vote in McCain's favor.   Anything to hurt Sen. Obama or portray the Democratic Party weak in any way will be what journalists continue to portray until November.  Hopefully the American people wise up and do their own research in order to inform themselves since journalists can no longer be trusted to do so.  

The Evening News With ABC, CBS, and NBC

The thirty minute Evening News from the above networks is a welcome from the beat of the cable news networks who repeat the same worn out stories over and over.

 

Thirty minutes is just right and is filled with several different news stories which keep people up to date.  The people learn more on the evening news because it is not dominated by journalists who harp on their favorite subject like the cable news journalists. 

 

Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and other shows are repeated at different times every day and is used to fill up air time and not to educate the people as to what is going on.  ABC, CBS, and NBC also have a Sunday show that views various topics and guests that prove more informative than cable news.

 

Cable news coverage concerning the Presidential campaign is laughable.  The Networks have already chosen sides and drawn the line and are trying to undermine the people's thinking.  I have always followed politics and the news but cable has been a turn off for me for some time.  I am now giving serious thought to give up my cable service since I hardly watch any more and go back to the basic service we had before cable came about.  I certainly can not justify subscribing to cable TV any longer. 

 

It is a pretty sad situation for America when two of its fundamental tenets, politics and the news media, can not be trusted.

The Huffington Post: Trying To Mimic Cable Television

Arianna Huffington wrote for her post on May 22 that the Super delegates should step in and end the democratic primary now.  The beat goes on by journalists to end the Primary and declare Obama the nominee before the process is completed.  Writers for the Huff Post have been bias in their reporting against Clinton for a long time and follows the script of people in the news media trying to manipulate our elections.  They have sold their soul like they did during the run up to the war in Iraq.  The country has got to the  point where the news media has to be feared more that the politicians. 

 

The election coverage is so out of touch with reality that the system gets more corrupt year after year and the news media is right at the center.  The big three, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC are leading the corrupt parade with their corrupt reporting.

 

It is really cowardly when journalists try to manufacture news and stories.  It shows their lack of character and ability to talk to the public and offer a real debate on the issues facing the country.  The best thing that could happen for the country and the democratic process is for Senator Clinton to somehow emerge as the democratic nominee.  That would really give the news media a fact check.

Is Senator Clinton's Negative Rating Really 63% As The Polls Say?

I doubt it very much and the voters surely tell a different story.  However,  journalists and pundits have been talking about it for over two weeks and treat it as gospel.

 

As of 4/17/08, Real Clear Politics reports that the popular vote in the Democratic primaries (including Florida and Michigan) as follows:  Senator Obama 13,932,423 million or 47.6%;  Senator Clinton 13,837,418 million or 47.2%, a difference of only 94,005 votes or four-tenths of 1%.  Those voters do not agree with Senator Clinton's negative poll numbers.  They also don't show up in national polls vs. Obama or McCain.

 

Journalists and pundits have shown those negative numbers and then indicate to their audiences that Clinton can't win with those kinds of numbers.  The voters have proven other wise.  Senator Clinton has won New York, California, New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Florida, and Michigan.  All of those states have a very diverse population.  That speaks well to her candidacy. Today, it is time for Pennsylvania to vote and we will see how that turns out in just a few hours.  To those who think the votes of the people in Michigan and Florida should not count, you should remember those elections were legal and set up by each state with each and every candidate having the option to put their name on the ballot.  The DNC said they would not seat those states delegates at the convention and they have a right to do that, but they do not have the right to not count the popular vote of the people in a legal election held under state law.

 

Polling has misled the people on so many issues that it has become a tool unbecoming of a democracy.  Questions people are asked are not in tune with what is taking place in America and/or what the candidates really stand for or what they would do if elected President.  All polls are designed to do is influence people's vote and to create news that is not really there.  Voters can do themselves and their country a great favor by not letting anything in the polls influence their vote.  They should also remember that people in the news media always try to influence one's vote with their biased, one-sided coverage.  That is why they come on air after the debates and try and tell you what you just heard in the debates. And worst of all, they use people in the post debates that have no creditability to start off with.  In short, think independently and let election day results, not polls, show you the true feelings of the public.  

The Morning Dose---4/17

The Morning Dose comes to us today from Taylor Marsh, reviewing the debate last night, in a blog post titled, Just How Soft Obama's Coverage Been?:

_________________________________________________________

Down pillow soft.

Baby's bottom soft.

So no one should be surprised that Obama had a nightmare night. He finally got real questions for which he should have had ready answers. Over the last year Barack Obama has gotten a complete pass on his record, his life and everything associated to his political rise. In fact, if Senator Obama had been subjected to the scrutiny that Hillary Clinton has been subjected to he would have turned to ash by now.

So forgive me if all the blogospheric bellyaching permeating Democratic circles is not impressing me much. In fact, it's a laugh out loud moment.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm more than willing to blame the traditional media for piling on a Democrat, which they do often. But do these progressives now crying fowl really believe they could protect Mr. Obama, as his Democratic challengers did all last year, throughout the rest of this campaign? Asking a question about Rev. Wright? A question about William Ayers? The horror! Seriously, is Senator Obama so frail that he shouldn't be subjected to questioning that should have come a long time ago and will inevitably come in the general election? If nothing else and at the very least, everyone in the Democratic party should want to know how he's going to handle this stuff if he's our nominee. Because there can be no doubt that the wingnuts will lock and load Barack's greatest hits, then share them with the electorate in a cascade of negative gifts.

Mind you, this is questioning I've been doing for a year and getting excoriated for it. So I feel Charlie and George's pain. Going for substance isn't easy amidst the Political Idol crowd.

The facts are that the progressive community and Obama supporters have done their candidate no favors by the kid glove treatment they've applied to all things having to do with him and his record, including his associations. What happened last night is a result of one year of people ignoring reality. That's right, reality. Because the closer Obama got to the nomination and the general election, the curtain would eventually be pulled back on every event in his life, good, bad and horror show, which includes Rev. Wright.

This is the reason we lose elections.

What, did Obama's adoring fans think they could hermetically seal him and protect him from the meanies out there, then simply deliver him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue because "he's the one?" Good grief.

If Obama would have been put through his paces last fall, he might have been past this by now. If his own campaign had faced up to his associations long ago, head on, he wouldn't be dealing with this now.

Again, I'd blame Gibson and Stephanopoulos, but it's not their fault that someone, anyone finally asked questions that have been out there for months and months. It's not tabloid to ask about Ayers any more than it was tabloid to question Bill Clinton about his past. Hillary's been asked about everything more than once, as they reload to ask it all over again.

Oh, and as for Keith He's No Edward R. Murrow Olbermann, don't send a sportscaster to do a political analyst's job. Talking to Howard Wolfson, with Olbermann whining about the questions about Ayers, isn't doing us any favors either. He's just giving Obama fans a false sense of security. It's as if the only people dealing with reality and preparing for the Republican attack machine is the Clinton campaign. Olbermann is on planet Zen if he thinks that Ayers won't be part of the dialogue come September. (You know, because you never roll out a new campaign in August.)

We need a nominee that can walk through fire. Whoever we offer up should be able to withstand anything, and I do mean anything. Because that's what always comes at Democrats, with the traditional press inevitably having a thing for the guy on the other side. Considering that guy will be John McCain, the hero worship will be out in force.

No Democratic politician in the last 20 years has gotten a softer introduction onto the national stage than Barack Obama. Nobody has gotten an easier ride to the top step of presidential politics either. He paid for it last night.

Journalists and Their Traps: The Charges and the Facts

Journalists have already bated the trap for the voters during this primary season.  It is especially true concerning the Democratic candidates.  There are some signs that voters are willing to play the game.  The charges go something like this:

 

THE CHARGE:  The prolonged Democratic race is bringing out negatives that will hurt the Democratic party during the general election in November.  

THE FACT:  This campaign is no more negative than any past Democratic campaign and in fact has had many civil debates and moments by both candidates.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton should drop out for the sake of party unity.   

THE FACT:  Neither candidate should drop out because neither has won the popular vote nor the necessary 2024 delegates to be the nominee.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton is playing the race card.  

THE FACT:  It is the news journalists who are playing the race card with their one sided reporting, tilted towards Obama.  

 

THE CHARGE:  Obama is getting the independent vote and the Republican crossover vote and therefore will be a stronger candidate than Clinton in the general election.  

THE FACT:  Those voters will vote Republican in the general election if Obama is the Democratic nominee, especially now after the Wright story.  Many Republicans also want the weakest Democrat to face in November.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton has too many negatives.      

THE FACT:  Clinton has won more large states with more diverse populations than Obama.    The "negative" seed journalists try to plant won't wash.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton voted to go to war with Iraq.  

THE FACT:  The vote and resolution passed by Congress did not tell Bush that he had to go to war with Iraq.  The resolution gave the president authority to use that option if war was necessary, but everyone knows that war was not necessary and the president hyped the intelligence.  It was Bush's decision to go to war and we also know that he made that decision before the vote by Congress was actually taken.  Bush was going to war regardless, that is why he bypassed the U.N. after telling Congress and the people that he would go through it.

 

THE CHARGE:  Obama would not have voted for the resolution.  

THE FACT:  Obama was not in Congress at the time, so no one knows how he would have voted, including (according to what he said in '04) Obama himself.  We do know, however, that since he has been in Congress, he has voted to continue the war, which is an indication on how he would have voted had he been a Senator at the time. 

 

THE CHARGE:  Journalists are fair and balanced in their reporting on the campaign.  

THE FACT:  John McCain is getting a free ride with his negative comments and his ignorance, flip flops, and false statements concerning the war in Iraq and Al Qaeda being trained in Iran.  Ditto on his voting record in Congress.  A sure sign of their support.  Obama is also getting the majority of positive coverage.  Journalists excuse him for anything negative his campaign says while holding Clinton to a different standard. 

 

THE CHARGE:  Obama can bring unity to the Democratic party; Clinton can not.  

THE FACT:  Two words: "Reagan-Democrats".  They're the crucial swing voters in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc.  Clinton has won them overwhelmingly; Obama hasn't.  

 

Journalists are trying any trick they can think of to influence the vote of the people for the candidate they themselves support.  They did it during the run up to war with Iraq over WMD that did not exist by not seeking the truth from Bush and by promoting the war on their own.  They are really a sad bunch.  They have no shame or respect for their own profession and certainly do not care about our Democratic process with its checks and balances.  They are part of the problem to our political system---a far cry from what our founding fathers had envisioned.  Hopefully enough people can think for themselves; that would make all the difference.  

Calling Out Daily Kos

I just made a now rare visit over to the Daily Kos website only to find the radicalization of the site bordering on un-American.  Whether you agree or disagree with the author of this user's post (named Red Wolverine), he was instantly censored and troll rated for posting a YouTube video that was apparently in opposition to Sen. Barack Obama.

Again, I'm not saying whether or not I agree with the content of the video since I didn't get a chance to see it due to the Obama-biased moderators deleting it.  What I am saying is that it is completely wrong for someone to be censored and their words and thoughts edited just because their opinions might be unpopular.  

This has become an disturbing issue that is growing on some blogs which heavily support Obama.  Anyone who disagrees with them, or posts something controversial, is censored, verbally attacked, and told never to come back to the site again. Many people with whom I do not agree post comments here at POLITIDOSE, however, I don't go around and delete their remarks simply because I disagree with them.  This is America.  Regardless of which candidate we support, we must be willing to have a serious, honest discussion about the candidates and what is at stake in this election.  This can not happen, however, if we shut everyone up who we disagree with.  

For those reasons, I am calling on Daily Kos and like websites to respect others' views and allow them to be respectfully discussed.  Those were the ideals that America was founded on and they must be allowed to continue.

For those wishing to see the censoring and bashing of the post to which I refer, click the following link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/19/205116/282/734/480325.

My Letter To Keith Olbermann

This is a letter that I am emailing to Keith Olbermann, asking him to end his bias reporting and commentary in favor of Sen. Obama and against Sen. Clinton.  I encourage all of you who read this and feel the same way to also write Keith.  

_____________________________________________

Mr. Olbermann,

I have, for a long while now, been a huge fan and supporter of Countdown and your political commentary, but you have, as of late, been taking it too far, and I'm getting sick of watching.  Could your bias in favor of Sen. Obama be any clearer?  Could your disdain for Sen. Clinton and President Clinton be any more obvious?  

By coming as close to endorsing Obama as one can without actually doing it (obviously NBC wouldn't allow that),  you are hurting not only your audience, whom many are Clinton supporters, but you are also damaging the Democratic Party.

I myself am for Sen. Clinton, but I don't consider myself against Sen. Obama.  On the other hand, you are for Sen. Obama, but overly against Sen. Clinton.  You and your show were best when you stood up as a voice for the progressive movement; when you stood up to and challenged the warped ideology of neoconservatism.  Your show is at its worst currently, as you misrepresent and demonize Sen. Clinton, who has done more for the progressive movement than many would like to admit.  

Night after night now, I see you only give one side of the story----Obama's side.  I wouldn't be surprise if you're paraphrasing lines straight off Obama's website.  It truly is uncalled for, sir.  You and other journalists would do a great deal of good, both to your own reputations and on behalf of your viewers, if you look at this race objectively.  Sen. Obama has become the media-darling; you all can't get enough of him, and in the end, that's not good for America.    

As of late, you have made the target of your criticism Sen. Clinton and her campaign.  I don't think that you believe Sen. Clinton is the real enemy, more so than the Republicans, but that is sure how you've been reporting it.  So, what I'm asking for, Mr. Olbermann, is an apology for the mischaracterizations of Sen. Clinton and the one-sidedness of your recent commentary.  But first and foremost, I'm asking for a return to the old Countdown with Keith Olbermann.  The one which unites the Democratic party and progressive movement and challenges the lies and hypocrisy of the right.  

Thanks and I hope to see the old Keith back on Monday,

J. Patrick

My Daily Rant---2/7

Here are just a few things I want to get off my chest.

More Media Bias

Everyone remember yesterday when the entire media narrative was Clinton's supposed money problems and the headline of every morning show and newspaper was the same?  I know I do.  But suddenly, you hear nothing at all about it.  Why?  Because just in the last day or two, Clinton has raised over $6.4 million.  So is it too much to ask of these same people who were burying Clinton last night because of those "money problems" to come out tonight and say that those money problems seem to be long gone?  Even the Huffington Post had on their homepage a huge picture of Clinton with the headline concerning money problems.  Where's the updated info tonight?  In a tiny box buried under the headline, not even in the main section of news.  Fair?  Balanced?  I think not. 

More Debates?

Sen. Clinton has called for more debates, one per week, from now leading up to the Ohio/Texas primaries on March 4. Barack Obama says no so far.  He says that people are tired of debates.  It really is despicable to me that in an election this big, this close, that a candidate would refuse to debate, which in essence denies the undecided viewer a forum to decide on whom he/she will vote for.  There has only been one 1 on 1 debate so far.  There needs to be more.  Although both Obama and Clinton are 100 times better than the Republicans, and I would support either over McCain, there are real, substantive differences on key issues.  The voters deserve to hear these candidates in a debate format---not a one-sided stump speech or biased media coverage, but a one-on-one debate centered on issues.  And all the talk about Obama being bad at debates and therefore needing to skip out on them....bull!  Although Obama may not be the best debater in the world, he has steadily improved and his last debate performance was his best yet.  But even if it wasn't, he still owes the American people a chance to hear the differences he has with Sen. Clinton.  

A Brokered Convention?

The phrase itself gives me mixed feelings.  On one hand, as a political junkie, a brokered convention is a dream.  But on the other hand, a brokered convention would surely divide the Democratic party at a time when we all need to be united behind our nominee, whomever that may be, because he or she will be better than McCain any day of the week.  Howard Dean has proposed a plan, which I would go along with, where in mid-April to May, Obama and Clinton get together and essentially work out a deal.  The only problem I see---neither candidate is going to back down, and to their credit, there is really no reason for them to.  Clinton would surely never give up.  And I can't see Obama accepting a VP slot. But at the same time, Dean seems dead set on having this thing settled before the convention.  It's a good idea, and I hope it happens for the sake of this party, but the only question is, how?

GOP Split; A Dem Opportunity

This thing on the Republican side with McCain vs. conservatives is really getting heated.  With Romney out of the race, what are the right-wing looneys going to do?  From what it appears, they will continue their attack.  Tom Delay appeared on Hardball today and basically ruled out supporting John McCain.  He even went as far as saying he would consider backing Clinton or Obama.  We've heard the same thing from other right-wingers such as Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh.  In fact, Limbaugh apparently claimed that if McCain is the nominee, he would not only vote for the Democrat, but fundraise for him/her as well.  One thing if for sure, this is good news for Democrats in '08.  If the GOP is divided and far right conservatives stay home, or better yet vote for our nominee, and Democrats stay united, we will surely win.  But that brings me back to my point earlier, us Democrats must stay united, whomever the nominee is.  I'm a Hillary supporter, and I do disagree with Obama on several issues, but when I compare Obama to McCain, the choice is obvious on who would be better for this country.  A vote for McCain would be a vote for 4 more years of Bush and a vote for a third party, or not voting at all, would essentially be a vote for McCain as well, and as we've established, that's unacceptable.