No, you weren’t imagining it — the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s former pastor, was all over the media last week. He even received more coverage than Obama’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, according to a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which looked at 48 major news sources, including cable and network TV shows, newspapers, blogs, radio and Web sites.
From April 28 to May 4, Wright was the subject of 42 percent of all political news stories — compared with 41 percent of stories for Hillary Clinton. He also dominated the news cycle two weeks earlier.
The Iraq war? The economy? Health care? Not as important as Wright, apparently. This wasn’t just a bad news cycle for Obama. It was nothing less than a media feeding frenzy.
All the more impressive, then, that Obama has emerged from the Wright controversy largely intact, and with strong showings in North Carolina and Indiana. He’s proved that he can weather a storm.
46 Comments
Obama brought this frenzy upon himself with his lack of political experience in stopping this snowball’s acceleration from the beginning.
How much it will damage him has yet to be seen but his flip-flopping on his stated loyalties speaks volumes about his political immaturity.
His statement that he could “no more disown the man…” in retrospect, is a sign of desperation and deception, because he did, indeed, disown the man.
This situation may hurt him less in the primary than it may in the General.
Quick to open his mouth, Obama will be held accountable for the dozens of times he’s inserted his foot.
Rev Wright is not an issue. He is the issue. As a dumb American, I only care about Wright and American Idle! Health care, gas prices, the economy and the war?? Who cares about that stuff!
When main stream starts doing to the pat roberts, et al, as they are doing to wright, then I might pay attention. Until then, it’s about race and nothing more. This country is still in its infancy.
“Obama has emerged from the Wright controversy largely intact, and with strong showings in North Carolina and Indiana. He’s proved that he can weather a storm.”
Uh huh Randy.
For now.
Obama’s radical affiliations with pastor Wright and domestic terrorist William Ayers do not hurt him so much in the Democratic primaries.
But they probably make him unelectable in the general election.
This is why I believe that if/as soon as Obama is the nominee, he will veer hard right.
He has lots of time for kissing and hugging cons before November.
This country is still in its infancy.
At the rate we’re going, it may end up listed as infant mortality.
The Rev Wright issue is a joke. So far, this is all the Republicans have. This is “Swiftboat 2008″, and the more they keep bringing it up (sorry, Randy), the less people care. This would have died a natural death if the MSM didn’t keep repeating it, over and over, and just goes to show that JMWalker is right. It IS about race.
Oh it’s about race ok.
Pastor Wright is a white hating bigot. And yeah his reasons are legitimate.
But hate and prejudice are the same no matter what direction they come from.
In the North Carolina primary, Obama got 92% of the black vote.
92%
Now you tell me there isn’t a “he looks like me” component in that.
It is wrong for people to be against Obama because he is black. It is just as wrong for people to be FOR him because he is black.
Myself, I’m against him because I don’t think he has decided WHO he is inside.
bluejay–
Does Obama live in the big house or the little house.
Bigot.
If B Hussein Obama becomes president I think we’ll look back with fondness on the glory years of the Carter administration.
The “Liberal Media” (sic) is not willing to pay attention to complicated issues - they prefer simple sound bites they can use to tear down the Democrats. It’s too bad the MSM won’t go after Hagee, Parsley and the rest of those to whom McCain kow-tows.
That was the point, for Wright, of course. He’s pushing a coming book, and he’ll ride the publicity as long as he can. He’ll also throw his parishoner under the bus to do so.
He’s serving only his own interests.
And the media, as usual, is simply chasing the latest shiny object. Dumb and dumber.
Remember - the media isn’t driven by public service or informing the public. That doesn’t matter. And while most of the media tilts left, it isn’t even really driven by ideology.
It’s driven by ratings and profit. They put on what they believe we will watch; the more scandalous and outrageous, the better, because it draws eyeballs to ads for tooth whitener and Viagra. And that is what it’s all about.
It’s that Damn Liberal MSM, we hear so much about!
Looks like the ‘Big House’ blacks don’t meet with approval of Blue Jay, the blog bigot.
Missing white women and scary black men–two stories the media never tires of retelling.
The media machine gleefully recycles whatever Democratic-candidate-destroying bullshit the Repukes dump into it. Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, now Obama–that’s what it does.
Nice job trying to run the post-ideological spin, though, GMC70. “Media tilts liberal” my foot.
Once the dims find a candidate we will finally be able to point out the ineptness of Obama. Wright is a symptom as is his friendship with an admitted terrorists, his association with a slum landlord, etc… The man is incapable of making good judgements.
“The man is incapable of making good judgements.”
I thought you were talking about Obama; your statement describes Bush. ??
Except the time to vote on Bush has passed.
Yes, CF, the media for the most part tilts left. That’s not deep conspiracy, it’s simply the nature of the persons who tend to populate newsrooms.
That ideology is not - usually - what drives media, hnowever. Rather, it is the need to attract eyeballs to the screen to so they can sell toothpaste and pills. And controversy draws eyeballs. The old line was “If it bleeds, it leads,” and it’s not far from the truth. Sensationalism sells papers, and draws viewers. Viewers drive advertising revenue.
So the sensational, whether a murder of a pretty girl, or outrageous statements (with video - even better!) of a preacher most people until recently had never heard of, will get play. Why is Obama, and by extension his preacher, getting this attention? He’s the frontrunner, and we know less about him. Hillary we’ve known for two decades, and most people have already made up their mind about her; Obama is more of an unknown. And he’s fascinating.
Thus he draws eyeballs.
It’s not about being fair, or serving the “public interest” (if we can even define what that is). News is a business, pure and simple.
Max the Idiot writes: Yes, CF, the media for the most part tilts left. That’s not deep conspiracy, it’s simply the nature of the persons who tend to populate newsrooms.
The media for the most part tilts extremely right.
One never hears on the media any alternative to the corporatocracy that passes itself off as “free enterprise.” One never hears any questioning of the political system that disenfranchises the poor and maintains power to the rich.
In fact, one never hears any questioning of any system currently in place–whether it’s health care, election integrity, the prison system, the costs of militarism and empire, etc. etc.
Media is run by big Corporations–ABC is owned by Disney, NBC is owned by GE, CBS used to be owned by ViaCom until it was spun off. These big corporations make money by selling advertising to big corporations.
How could they be anything but status-quo CONservative?
Fortunately, the public’s short attention span is already tiring of pastorbation.
GMC70,
“The media tilts left” is, of course, total nonsense, though quite a testament to your ability to assert a version of reality favorable to your ideological commitments.
But let’s not play the game of “GMC70 sees the world differently from CF2k,” shall we? Instead, let’s look at the U.S. media landscape as seen through the eyes of a foreign observer: namely, the U.K.’s national newspaper, The Telegraph. In particular, consider their list of the top 50 pundits, in order. In the interest of time, I’ll only look to the top 20.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/1904702/The-50-most-influential-US-political-pundits.html
In 1-10, there is ONE figure who could be considered liberal, Jon Stewart, at #8, and he’s actually a political SATIRIST. Here’s the list, in order. And note who the most influential pundit is: that’s Karl Rove.
10. Mark Halperin
9. David Brooks
8. Jon Stewart
7. Tim Russert
6. Matt Drudge
5. John Harris & Jim VandeHei
4. Rush Limbaugh
3. Sean Hannity
2. Chris Matthews
1. Karl Rove
In 11-20, liberals fare somewhat better:
20. Joe Klein
19. Donna Brazile
18. Frank Luntz
17. Andrew Sullivan
16. Glenn Beck
15. Bill Maher
14. Chuck Todd
13. Keith Olbermann
12. Bill O’Reilly
11. Stephen Colbert
Here, again, the highest ranking liberal is, again, actually a SATIRIST, while Olbermann, who is arguably the voice and face of broadcast liberalism, comes in at #13 overall. Of the remainder of the list, Maher, too is regarded as co-equally an entertainer, Todd is lauded as “nonpartisan,” Brazile is a solid Democratic presence, and Klein is, at best, centrist.
Here is how the U.S. Editor of The Telegraph, Toby Harnden, characterized their decisions.
“These are the people who make voters sit up and take notice. They are the ones who political candidates and campaigns are constantly seeking to woo and influence. They include television presenters, newspaper columnists, bloggers and talking heads.
We considered the depth and reach of pundits – the weight given to their opinions and the distance their views travel. Those who appear in different media – print, electronically and via television and radio – lifted themselves higher.
As with our previous lists of the 100 most influential conservatives and the 100 most influential liberals, we leaned towards those with the most potential to influence events over the coming months rather than simply the stalwarts of past years – though many on our list fall into both categories.
While being opinionated did not guarantee consideration, having strong opinions was a key factor. Many important journalists have been left out because they portray themselves as objective and seek to inform rather than persuade.
We have made some exceptions in the cases of those who define the parameters of the national debate and help establish the received wisdom.”
If the tone and substance of American political coverage is coming from somewhere other than these pundits, I’d love to hear your argument. If not, then the discussion is being, has been, and will continue to be, defined by a vast majority of right-wing pundits advancing right-wing views.
Finally, if you want to claim that the “newsroom” is somehow different from the “editorial” side of the news business, well, GMC70, I suppose we could look at the example of the run-up to the Iraq War, in which reporting at the ultimate “liberal” media outlet, the New York Times, was slavishly uncritical and cheerleaderish in favor of the war. It fell to the McClatchy News Organization to provide fact-based coverage of the campaign of lies and distortions pouring forth from the Pentagon and White House.
The fiction in your claim GMC70, is that media is a barometer rather than a megaphone. It is an even greater fiction that news media is “market driven” and “non-ideological.” What is more ideological, GMC70, than “the market” or capitalism? And thus by extension, what has a greater stake in promoting a certain construction of political reality than the business that benefits directly from said construction?
The media is a player in American politics, arguably the most important one. Failure to acknowledge that fact, GMC70, renders your judgments and theorizing irrelevant at best.
Cap’N,
Sorry–post took a while. But you are, of course, correct: FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Why do capitalists and their apologists never want you to follow the money and see the hegemony to which it leads?
What’s nonsense, of course, is CF’s skewed view of the world. And it is indeed a skewed view.
The media, as a whole, indeed tilts left. CF just tilts MUCH farther left.
And I should accept the Telegraph’s judgments, exactly, why? They are an “unbiased” source? The BRITISH press - long-time masters of sensational tabliod journalism - as sitting in judgment of the US press? ROFLMAO!!!
Objective? There is no such thing.
The Telegraph cites THEIR list of influental “pundits.” These folks, however, make no attempt to be objective; they wear their partisanship on their sleeves, and we all know it, and judge accordingly (Rush, BTW, is entertainment, and pretends to be nothing more). I, and you, I suspect, have no qualms about commentators commentating from their political points of view; those perspectives are known and recognized. We recognize the editorialist as an editorialist.
Several of those you name as conservatives - ya gotta be kidding. Tim Russert? Chris Matthews? Conservative? Ha! And Sean Hannity ranked where he is? Are you kidding me? What makes him so “important?” P-lease! That alone gives lie to the Telegraph’s judgments. Olberman, the “voice of liberalism,” is simply doing his sportscaster schtick on another network - he’s found his niche, and I’m sure he’s well-paid for it.
All that’s not really troubling, though.
However, this quote is telling:
“Many important journalists have been left out because they portray themselves as objective and seek to inform rather than persuade.”
What is telling about that quote, of course, is that those “important journalists” are not “objective” at all, though they perhaps talk themselves into believing that they are.
This is the editorial masquarading as “objective news,” i.e. Clinton’s boy Stephanopolis masquarading as “journalist” (I note many on this blog going apoplectic that Tony Snow might work in the media, but give Stephanopolis a pass for the same - is the objection ideology driven, perhaps? Hmmmm?). Note Dan Rather, driven so much by his need to “get” GWB that he missed the obvious forgery. That’s the newsroom that is supposed to be “objective;” it’s what we expect it to be, anyway. And it tilts left.
Your own perspective skews your view as well. To be blunt, CF, you are SO far left that EVERYTHING seem “right-wing” to you. While I am certainly a conservative, I have NO doubt that I am far closer to the center in this country than you are.
And yes, news is driven by advertising revenue. It’s a business. It is advertising in your paper that pays the bills for publishing same to provide to you. It is advertising that puts CNN on the screen, pays the “pundits,” and rewards shareholders. You may decry capitalism, free enterprise, call it what you will, but it is a fact of human existance. Always has been, always will be. People do what they do because it is in their interest to do so - i.e., they get paid.
Try to set the red-colored glasses of Lenin and Chomsky aside for a moment, and recognize the world for what it is.
CF
Chris Matthews, CONSERVATIVE??
Your off the edge of the scale pal.
The media tilts right, that’s why 90% of those surveyed voted for John Kerry and Algore in the last 2 presidential election.
No press is bad press…
Heckler,
Chris Matthews, a “liberal” who voted for George W. Bush in 2000? Enjoy your delusion. It’s the only thing that validates you.
Oh, Heckler? Got a reference for that factual claim?
Your own perspective skews your view as well. To be blunt, CF, you are SO far left that EVERYTHING seem “right-wing” to you. While I am certainly a conservative, I have NO doubt that I am far closer to the center in this country than you are.
Right on target as usual GMC.
“The media is a player in American politics, arguably the most important one. Failure to acknowledge that fact, GMC70, renders your judgments and theorizing irrelevant at best.”
A player? Of course. And one which tilts democratic, i.e., to the left. But what drives the media, most of the time, is viewer or reader share, and the advertising revenue which flows from it, not political leanings. It’s a business.
Which is why the Wright story got the play it did - it is controversy. And controversy drives ratings, and thus advertising revenue.
It is fair? No, and that’s too bad, but it’s the way it is, and has always been.
And I should note that our writing about this issue, and the study by the Project in Journalism (wonder what their agenda is?) is itself part of that media milleau.
What drives this blog? Does WE provide this out of the goodness of their heart, or is there profit to be made? I more than strongly suspect the later, not the former, CF. At the very least, it drives hits on their website, which they can then use to promote newspaper sales. And - gasp! - CF is participant in that capitalist-driven media machine! Heaven forbid - working with the enemy.
There is no purity, CF, no absolute “truth.” In the world of politics and human affairs, “truth” is always relative.
It is fair? No, and that’s too bad, but it’s the way it is, and has always been.
How I hate that smug “inevitability” argument that GMC always uses!
He was the guy saying, “if man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings” in 1900.
Using that line of reasoning, the most heinous crimes are okay because they are “natural and ordinary.”
It’s a ridiculous tautology that says nothing ever need change because that’s just the way things are.
GMC70,
Putting the ad hominems and guilt by association right up front, I see, with respect to your “media critique” of the British press.
You may, indeed, see a difference between “pro-Republican” and “conservative,” whereas I see nothing of the sort. Russert, Matthews, Broder–ALL of them defend the DC Establishment, an establishment whose roots are solidly Republican. One can expect their compliant sucking up to the Bush Administration to become outright hostility when the Democratic Administration takes office next year: you can bet on it.
Consider the precedents. On the one hand, we have Russert’s deference to George Bush in last year’s interview; on the other, the “Clinton Rules” engaged in by the media during the 1990’s. Given this total polarization, I feel totally comfortable with my characterization.
Given that fact, GMC70, there are NO grounds that I see for distinguishing “conservatism” from ANY of the dominant voices in the pundit class, whose pronouncements and biases are clearly Republican.
Beyond that, GMC70, the truly amusing thing is how your argument against “objective” journalism comes back to bite you. What journalistic personage, after all, cooked the books MORE in support of partisan ends than JUDITH MILLER and her reportage in favor of war with Iraq? Or, for that matter, ROBERT NOVAK?
If “objective journalism” is dead, it’s because the Right killed it as inconvenient. Ever heard of “Fox News,” GMC70? Is there a bigger lie than its claim to be non-ideological. And this model, which now has spread to the cable and broadcast outlets,
Finally, GMC70, I think we’ll see come November which of us holds views are truly “closer to the center.” And given how dissatisfied folks are with what Republican hegemony has delivered them to, I’m thinking it isn’t going to be you.
GMC also ties himself into a logical knot when he writes: “The Telegraph cites THEIR list of influental ‘pundits.’ These folks, however, make no attempt to be objective.”
This is consistent with his line of argument that there is no ultimate truth . . . or at least no way of discerning it because we all have ideological filters that shape our interpretation of evidence.
But wait. If The Telegraph really were liberal-leaning, wouldn’t it have ranked the liberals more highly? The fact that they listed so many CONs in the top tier would seem to show a right-leaning bias like the rest of the media.
CF - it would be fun to watch the howling if the media were to turn to “all Hagee and Parsley all the time” for a few weeks.
GMC70,
“There is no purity, CF, no absolute “truth.” In the world of politics and human affairs, “truth” is always relative.”
Who ever said there was? If you’re going to accuse me of anything, GMC70, don’t try to accuse me of being a naif.
If the alternatives you present are that truth is either “absolute” or “relative,” well, GMC70, you’ve committed the most basic false dilemma imaginable with regard to truth. Given the notion of truth that YOU advance, GMC70, forgive me for calling you sophomoric. But honestly, that’s as uncritical a notion of truth as it is nihilistic.
As unsatisfactory as I find it, one working definition has it that truth would be ‘justified true belief.’ This entails, GMC70, that some views rank above others by virtue of their justification, or the reasons and arguments that can be adduced as evidence. Minimally, this would enable us to avoid either extreme in your dilemma. It also would provide us with some grounds for assessing the relative merits of claims.
If you reject this, GMC70, in favor of affirming your previous definition, that truth is “relative,” then in effect you would displace reason with force. You wouldn’t be alone in doing so; plenty of conservatives do, as conservative media and its use of power demonstrates.
More fun with GMC’s logical fallacies, Part Two–
Question begging.
When I present the difficult-to-refute point that media outlets like The Eagle are for-profit corporations that stay profitable by selling ads to corporations, and this makes them inherently CONservative, GMC comes back with, “well, they’re corporations and corporations have to make a profit.”
Uh, yeah, GMC.
Trouble is that supports my position — that the media is CONservative, not yours — that it’s liberal.
Is General Motors liberal? How about Shell Oil or Halliburton or Enron or AT&T or Koch Industries?
Why should the corporations that run the media be any different?
Answer–they aren’t.
I had a brilliant response, CF, but I lost it in posting. Oh well. The rewrite is never the same, ya know?
Oh well, here goes.
Who are we kidding? “Objective journalism” NEVER EXISTED!!!!!!!!!!!! EVER! From the beginning of the republic to the present. Ever. It’s only in recent years we even pretended to have same.
Our perspective effects both our views. What you see as the press “pandering” to the right, I see as serving the left. Imagine, for example, if a Republican had said what Ferraro said a while back about Obama. A Republican woudl be lucky to only be drawn and quartered, but Ferraro got a raised eyebrow and a mild slap. Fair? “Equal” standards? Not hardly. But I don’t expect fairness out of the press - they are what they are.
There are certainly beltway insiders in that press corp, and they are part of they system. It is in their interest to be part of the system - it butters their bread. And the “system,” like all such systems, protects the status quo, making change only at the edges. Likewise, both parties are largely status quo parties. Neither party, for example, is going to disassemble “evil” capitalism. The result, I suspect, that you will criticize Democrats for not being “progressive” enough, while I see them as somewhat too liberal. Everything is perspective. Obama, once the nomination is secured, will move to the center, because that’s where the votes are. You no doubt will criticize him for it. McCain is mistrusted by many conservatives because he is seen as too much toward the center.
Everything is perspective. “Truth” in these matters is subjective. I still have no doubt that my position is much closer to the center in American politics than yours, no matter the outcome in November.
And Capn, you mistake technological change for change in human nature. Not the same thing at all. No matter how far, or how fast, man flies, his basic nature never changes. Not in the past, not now, not ever. Not this side of heaven
are we still beating this dead horse? c’mon editors….
Capn, Capn, Capn.
You mistake “corporate America” with the folks in the newsroom. Corporate America is about dollars, not ideology. They’d sell Mao’s little red book if there was profit in it. Dollars drive corporate america. Duh.
But “corporations,” those artificial constructs who own and run businesses, aren’t in newsrooms. People are. And people do indeed have ideological viewpoints. Those newsrooms are populated with Journalism school folks, who come with political reference points. And those reference points are largely left-leaning. It’s the nature of who they are. Their corporate ownership couldn’t care less what those ideologies are, as long as the advertising revenue keeps flowing, of course.
You’re so blinded by your ideology, you don’t see - or refuse to see - the difference. There’s nothing contradictory at all with the two.
You have much to learn about human nature, my friend.
I suspect you have the same problem when it comes to corporate taxes. Corporations, of course, are artificial constructs; they don’t exist, except on paper. Paper doesn’t pay taxes, people pay taxes. Thus when a corporation is taxed, people will pay those taxes, not the “corporation.” That the dollars come off corporate books or out of corporate accounts makes no difference at all; dollars are fungible. The tax is passed on to people. The question is, which people?
It can come from only one of three sources, or a combination thereof. Either the owners pay, in the form of lower profits/return on investment, or employees pay, in the form of lower wages (or perhaps raises that now will not be paid), or consumers pay in the form of higher prices for the good or service produced. But those are all people. How that is divided depends in large part on the price elasticity, among other things, of the good or service produced. But those people will pay - not the “corporation.”
Learn to separate the two.
GM what a great explanation on the economy and what drives it.
BTW - if this is true (re: the nature of corporate taxes - and it is) why do we tax corporations?
Because it’s politically expedient, even if not economically very smart. Everyone wants to tax the “other guy;” remember, in the real world, a fair tax is always the one someone else pays. Corporate taxes are seen as taxing that “other guy, especially and “evil” corporation. It doesn’t, of course.
It’s all about perception.
post facto edit:
. . . “taxing that “other” guy, especially an “evil” corporation . ..
Ooops.
GMC–
I’ve heard this dichotomy between the reporters and the media moguls before. So what? Money talks, everything else walks. The corporations will never allow their “independent” reporters (hahaha) true independence. It’s not in their best interest.
You make the claim that “They’d sell Mao’s little red book if there was profit in it. Dollars drive corporate america.” I actually agree with that, but it leads me to the exact opposite conclusion.
You assume that media simply responds to reader’s or viewer’s needs. This is false. Media shapes the world-view of its audience.
So you’re right, if there were a market for Mao’s Little Red Book of Quotations, they would sell it. But there isn’t. Because the media has shaped the reader-viewer’s world-view to insure that such a market doesn’t exist and will never exist.
Case-in-point: The NIH was funding a researcher who found a number of health risks associated with marijuana use. These studies were widely circulated to the press who duly promulgated them.
Marijuana contains a known carcinogen (benzyprene) that tobacco smoke also contains, so the researcher decided to study cancer rates for marijuana users.
Surprise. He found that marijuana users have no higher risk of cancer than non-users. In fact, cigarette smokers had a lower risk of cancer if they also smoked pot.
The NIH did not circulate the findings of this study. The media did not follow up on it.
Total news blackout.
That’s what I’m talking about. If it refutes the status-quo, it doesn’t see the light of day . . .
Another good example of how media shapes world-view is the wide-spread belief among Americans that their health-care system is the best in the world.
You can measure health-care by many criteria–but by any criteria you want to use, American health-care sucks: more money for less results.
And why do Americans feel this way?
Because Big Pharma and private health-care pay for ads that the media run. The media may be many things–venal, superficial, anti-intellectual–but they’re not stupid when it comes to money. The know which side of the bread has the butter.
There’s no money for media in exposing the bloated administrative costs of a health-care system that profits by not treating people. So they don’t.
“You assume that media simply responds to reader’s or viewer’s needs. This is false. Media shapes the world-view of its audience.”
——————
Wow. That is absolutely true Capn. One of the things that you always hear from someone defending something raunchy or objectionable is that they “are just reflecting what’s going on in society”. Nope, what is happening is that they are doing their part to drag society down another notch.
“You assume that media simply responds to reader’s or viewer’s needs. This is false. Media shapes the world-view of its audience.”
On the contrary - I assume no such thing. In fact, it’s both. The media both shapes it’s audience’s worldview, AND responds to it. And the audience both demands the media output it gets, and is in fact led to demand it.
The influence of media on audience, and audience on media, goes both ways.
It’s quite a complex system, one without clear good guys and bad guys, isn’t it? Why must you make it so simplistic?
Because your worldview demands that there be a bad guy - “the man” - who “keeps you down.”
And it’s all a grand conspiracy, led from above, by the “media moguls” (among others). That’s the beauty of conspiracy theory, of course: the less evidence there is of it, the more that “proves” the conspiracy. You work so hard to find a motive for corporate actions, when the obvious is right in front of you.
They want to sell widgets, at a profit. It’s not that hard.
And Capn, if you don’t like the media we have, you’re free to provide your own. Join with others of like mind, form a “corporation,” and go for it. Be my guest. But you might find, as Air America did, that ultimately the consumer really is king.
“From April 28 to May 4, Wright was the subject of 42 percent of all political news stories…’
And the media is finally as bored with it as the rest of us.
Now maybe we can get down to the basics. Questions and specifics on the issues.
Come on media, don’t let us down.
I’d like my excel spreadsheet with the issues
in COLUMN “A”, Obama’s Name at the top of Column “B” and MCClam’es name at the top of Column “C”.
Under their respective column, Obama and MCCLame will fill in their solution to each of the issues in Column “A”.
And then, under a new column heading “D”, I would have cells to mark
“O” if I agreed or liked Obama’s answer to that issue.
“M” if I agreed or liked McClames answer to that issue.
I would then be able to sum up my “O’s” and my “M’s” to derive my choice for Novembers election.
8 Trackbacks
[...] Truthdig - Reports wrote an interesting post today on Itâ??s all Wright all the timeHere’s a quick excerptHe also dominated the news cycle two weeks earlier. The Iraq war? The economy? Health care? Not as important as Wright, apparently. [...]
[...] Michael Mahler’s Ditherings wrote an interesting post today on Itâ??s all Wright all the timeHere’s a quick excerptNot as important as Wright, apparently. This wasn’t just a bad news cycle for Obama. It was nothing less than a media feeding frenzy. [...]
[...] The Hill’s Pundits Blog wrote an interesting post today on Itâ??s all Wright all the timeHere’s a quick excerptNo, you weren’t imagining it — the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s former pastor, was all over the media last week. [...]
Private Domestic Adoption…
We’ve all been in “desperate” places before and I know I sure have felt “saved” when someone…
Vitamin Study…
That is so true. At first, I was turned off by what you said, but then as I thought about it,…
Weather Forecast Air Supply Cloud…
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me…
Kyle…
I love your Free Mp3 Download. They really look very nice. The articles provided are long enough to provide great content but not so long as to be totally engrossing, if you know what I mean….
no money down realestate…
I don\’t understand it….