Our Unbiased Mainstream Media
Posted February 4th, 2008 by Da King
Here we are, the day before Super Tuesday, when presidential primary elections will occur in 24 states. In the Republican party, most of those states are winner-take-all competitions. The winner gets all the delegates. The second place finisher gets nothing. Super Tuesday should settle the question of who the Republican nominee will be. So, does our media offer anything enlightening, like maybe an issue by issue comparison of the candidates positions in the newspaper, or maybe biographies of the candidates, to help any undecided voters make a last minute decision ?
Are you kidding ? Of course they don't do that. That would be informative. What the media is more interested in is being manipulative. The Associated Press published two articles: one is a hit piece on Mitt Romney called Romney's Economic Claims Challenged, and the other is a piece about McCain that says he has already won the nomination, called McCain Already Sounds Like GOP Nominee.
See, our wholly unbiased mainstream media (MSM) doesn't want the conservative guy (Romney) to win the Republican nomination. Our completely objective and upstanding professional "journalists" want the liberal guy (McCain) to win. I have no idea why our MSM prefers the liberal guy over the conservative guy, other than the fact that our MSM is made up of Democrats, that is. I'm sure that has nothing to do with it, just like the NY Giants defense had nothing to do with the Giants Super Bowl victory yesterday.
For their part, the liberal light of the printed word, the New York Times, also wrote a column about McCain that basically says McCain is the nominee. The headline there is Once A Thorn, McCain Courts A Wary Party. The Times doesn't even bother to mention the other leading Republican contender, old whatshisname, that rich, lying, Mormon cult member guy.
The beauty of this is, once the Associated Press and the New York Times have decided to tell people what they should think, it pretty much becomes national in the print media, because most of the other newspapers across the country get their news from those sources. Pretty slick how that works, isn't it ? This means that a handful of people have a very large influence.
The Times article even has some helpful hints for the "Republican renegade", the man who shall be known as "Maverick". They warn McCain, "…But in enveloping himself in the Republican cloak, Mr. McCain, his aides acknowledge, risks the outsider status that appeals to the independents and Democrats he might need to win in November". In other words, Mr. McCain, don't go turning Republican in order to win the Republican nomination. You are going to need your liberal friends come november (as if McCain is going to have ANY liberal friends come november). It's like Satan's temptation of Christ. Nothing but an illusion.
According to a study by the Indiana University School of Journalism:
The percentage of those [journalists] identifying themselves as Democrats dropped from 44.1 percent in 1992 to 35.9 percent in 2002. The percentage of those who claimed some other political affiliation grew from 3.5 percent in 1992 to 10.5 percent a decade later. There also was a small increase in the number of respondents who said they didn't know or refused to answer.
Translated, this means 35.9% are admitting they are Democrats, 10.5% are admitting they are Republican or have a third party affiliation). That means Democrats outnumber non-Democrats by a minimum of 3.5 to 1. Many journalists don't want their political affiliations known, due to the bias it reveals. Any way you extrapolate the numbers, the media overwhelmingly leans to the left. Another study found that 90% of journalists donated to Democrats between 2004 and 2007.
Yes, what a shocker. Like we didn't already now that would be the case.
For my part, I urge voters to ignore the MSM message that McCain the maverick has it in the bag, and that there's no reason for you to get off your couch and vote for rich liar Mitt Romney. I think you should go out and vote for Mitt Romney, the only actual Republican contending for the Republican nomination. If the MSM hates him THAT much, he must be pretty darn good !
February 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Mitt has my vote on March 4.
+++
As for the drive-by media: It's like liberal Evan Thomas, editor of Newsweek noted a few years back. The media's bias is worth 15% point to the Dims at election time.
Imagine what 15% mean. It's that, if the media didn't tilt way to the left, the Dims would never win a national election. And given how the Dim Party is constructed, that would indeed be a good thing for America.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:34 am
No, no, no king, you've got it all wrong. McCain has it locked up! Who is this Romney you speak of, anyway? I didn't see any articles about him!
Vote for McCain!
February 4th, 2008 at 11:37 am
King, I can't speak for this MSM you talk about, but in the very liberal blogs and things that I read, Romney is perceived as an absolute legitimate shot to win this thing. Especially if it's Mrs. Clinton. I think that's what it comes down to. Dems have no chance to win if she's the nominee, and I think it would be only 50/50 with Obama v. either McCain or Romney. Maybe slightly more against McCain and slightly less v. Romney. If Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination, 4 more years of R in the executive office.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Vince,
I'm also voting for Romney if he's still around in march. There's a lot of sticker shock among conservatives at the prospect of McCain winning the nomination, and rightfully so, but it's getting real late in the game.
We need a surge ! Call Petraeus.
Since there are many more conservatives than liberals overall in america, I think that observation about the liberal media being worth 15 points is a correct one. Liberal Democrats are the stealth party. The media hides the true effects of their policies.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
da truth,
"McCain has it locked up! Who is this Romney you speak of, anyway? I didn't see any articles about him!"
Someone's been reading the newspapers, I see.
Boy, it looks like it's gonna be a long 9 months. I may have to deal with lots of happy and gloating Democrats
Yes, it's Romney the MSM fears, that's why they pimp for McCain constantly. They know he's the real threat to the Democrats. McCain is the sucker bet the media wants the Republicans to go for (and it's working). If McCain is the nominee, all those independent crossover votes disappear in the general election. Both Hillary and Obama would win in a landslide over McCain in the general election, and they know it. The polls right now for the general election mean nothing. Hillary beats McCain just on the strength of the female vote alone, and conservatives detest McCain, so they won't support him. I actually heard Ann Coulter, of all people, say today that if McCain is the nominee, she'll vote for Hillary. Ditto for some other bigwig conservatives. My only hope here is that conservatives quit trying to put lipstick on the pig, and turn out in droves to support Romney before it's too late. I'm not hopeful, as it's just dawning on conservatives what has happened to them.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
"I'm not hopeful, as it's just dawning on conservatives what has happened to them."
So well said, King. So many of my conservative friends just don't seem to see that just not voting in the general election to keep from voting for McCain, the lead RINO, for all the good reasons not to is like voting for the Democrat, whoever that is. They are all sucked in by Ann Coulter and so many of her friends. Early on Hugh Hewitt said that this kind of thinking would elect the Dem, whoever that is.
The left leaning media just is taking this election into their own hands just as they did in 2004 when they sunk Dean in favor of Carry. I can spell the man's name right but haven't been able to do so since that bunch of GIs in Iraq spelled it Carry. Ohmigod they sunk Dean with that little soundbite that looked like an idiot when he was only expressing himself.
da Truth you hit the nail right on the head by saying to vote for McCain. All of us of the right know that he is more liberal than he could ever be conservative and can't compete with real liberals from the Dem side of things. Very humorous post.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
King and Roy, I heard that Coulter thing too, and it proves what we on the left have been saying about her for 8 years now….she's insane. At this point, she's only saying things to get attention.
I agree with you on most of these points about electability; although I question whether Mrs. Clinton could beat Mr. McCain. As much as the hardcore conservatives detest him, don't you think they would come out in droves to vote against Mrs. Clinton no matter who the R is? That's how I see it. I think she is the one candidate in a rather lackluster field that incites the other side to band together and support their candidate no matter what. Most of the people in the middle are indifferent towards Obama, McClain and Romney…but it's either love or hate with her. That's why I think even McCain would beat her. She would have no chance against Romney.
Maybe I'm naive or just haven't followed McCain enough. I really quit paying attention to him after he let them walk on him in 2000, so you guys may know better than I. It seems to me, even from the so-called "moderate" conservatives that I know, that they might vote for Obama but would not in a million years vote for Mrs. Clinton. And I agree with you Roy, he's more liberal than she is, clearly.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
McCain is a tax cutting, anti-choice, warmonger. Those are three of the most important planks in the right's platform.
Romney is a poser. Anybody who knows anything, knows that.
The media does love McCain. They are already lavishing praise upon him. They know, as anyone who's paying close attention knows, and despite the comments found on this post, that McCain is the GOP's strongest candidate against Hillary or Obama.
Any talk of the Coulter's of this world voting for Hillary is foolish talk. She wants Romney because her audience and Willard hate those illegals and don't mind saying so. The same audience from whom, Annie (and Hughie and Rushie and Seanie and..)make their millions.
But make no mistake…. as soon as McCain wraps stuff up tomorrow….Little Orphan Annie will be all over McCain with love.
No one who would rather have Romney as a candidate…..no one….will vote (and shill) for anyone but McCain after tomorrow.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
da truth, Coulter has it exactly right…mccain would do more damage to the country, and the Republican party (as if he hasn't done enough already. Along with all the reasons that prove he's not a conservative is the fact that, as president, he will side more with the dems, and undermine the real conservatives in Congress. At least if there's a dem in the WH, the GOP will know who to fight.
Romney is the only candidate that has all three legs of the conservative stool to his credit. The liberal huckerbee is staying in the race, knowing that he has no chance whatsoever of winning, just to splitthe conservative vote and get Juan the nomination, and maybe to get the Veep nod.
If mccain is the GOP candidate, I might just vote for B-HO to make sure mccain doesn't win. Or I might just write in Romney.
For all: anyone who thinks that the "rev" (short for reversed brain ) has anything to say worth reading needs to see a psychiatrist ASAP.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Mr. King,
McCain is the stronger candidate. Romney's "conservativism" is paper thin and recent. For a man to do the 180's he has done on the issues at his age indicates either that he is either not a deep thinker or simply
a panderer. His candidacy would cause the evangelicals to sit out the election.
McCain can draw moderates. He is strongest against Hillary. His experience trumps hers. Like Romney, she would cause many to sit this one out. McCain 's maverick reputation would work in his favor. Against Obama, he would run on experience and judgment, rationalism versus idealism.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Frank, you make a pretty good case for McCain's electability.
But that's not the real issue here - -except for party hacks looking for government appointments.
The problems is that, if McCain is elected, he would surely damage the GOP and the country maybe even worse that Comrade Hillary could.
Mr. Sunklhammer has it exactly right. Don't vote for McCain now or in November. As for his comments on the Reverend (a.k.a. "The Akron Atheist"), one can only agree.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
You mean the ABJ hasn't pulled the plug yet on your blog? It seems that you could be getting a little too close for comfort. BTW, everything you say is true about how the media work. As a former member (of the media that is) I can attest to both the monopoly and the mindset. I am still a registered Dem, but I am getting more and more conservative, primarily because I see so much hypocisy among Democrats. If McCain does win the nomination, I'm sure before November he will morph into the oldest sucker on the planet, we will be reminded of the Keating Five scandal and probably a vet or two will be dredged up to claim he was a traitor during the Vietnam era. It's all very disgusting to witness the snookering of the public. Do you think even McCain has begun to believe the hype?
February 5th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
"Do you think even McCain has begun to believe the hype?"
Absolutely — and that's the scary part.
And regarding McCain, here's an interesting observation I heard on the radio today. McCain is now calling all Republicans and conservatives to do something he himself refused to do for the past eight or so years, and that is to put personal differences aside and get behind the party — now that he expects to lead it.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:21 am
Ah, they begin to feed on each other, just like the local RePubeLicken's are doing. A trend?
Hopefully it never comes out that Mitt and Alex by their hair products at the same place. What a look.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:41 am
And then there is this yet to resurface:
Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html
February 6th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Well folks, here we are on the day after that humongous Tuesday primary and caucus vote and we still have the Democrats split with no decision at all. I was taken by the Missouri voting where Clinton won almost all the state except for about 5 population centers where she lost pretty bad. It looks like the 2000 election where Gore carried cities and Bush the rest of the nation. I guess the Democrats are as split as the nation they have tried to split the past few years.
Wouldn't it be terrible if the National Convention had to select the candidate like in the old days of my early adulthood. I loved those national conventions when they first came on TV but they haven't been worth wasting time on the past few years.
Did any of you manage to watch TV, even local stations last night. I kept seeing those Republicans saying they had switched their registration so they could vote for Obama. Wouldn't it be something if they managed to swing that party nominating convention? Wouldn't it be something if they then voted for the Republican in November? Do you suppose this movement is really in support of Obama or part of that vast right wing conspiracy Hillary used to talk about all the time? I'll bet that if Obama wins this thing she will spin things to that kind of conclusion.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Expect McCain to go to CPAC now pushing more of his "I'm a Reagan footsoldier" drivel. You made a good point, Jimmy, more evidence that McCain is barely a Republican. That's why Joe Lieberman was standing right behind him last night.
I'm with those of you who think the MSM will abandon McCain in a New York minute once the general election starts. The misnamed Straight Talk Express can be derailed fairly easily. The media and the Dems are just waiting for the right moment to do it. The conservatives are already doing it.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
You're right, King. As soon as McAmnesty gets the nomination, if he does, the MSM and Dims will start to eat him alive.
McCain will be like a man whose canoe tipped over in the Amazon River and is attacked by hundreds of piranha. He'll turn one way in response to a bite and get bit in another place — over and over again — until there's nothing left of him. And as he trashes around, McCain will cry out for help to the conservatives standing on the bank of the river — you know, the ones who he poked in the eye since 2000 — but for some reason, I suspect they will be looking the other way.
And who would be surprised if this guy literally doesn't blow a gasket under the coming pressure?
I am almost certain not to like the results in November, but at least it will be great entertainment until then.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Vince,
Yes, McCain will get blasted from all sides until there is nothing left of him. The conservatives are already doing it. You should read Coulter's column today. She rips McCain up one side and down the other. Pretty entertaining.
I'm in complete agreement with you. This looks like liberal time in american politics. The only bright spot is, there is nothing more certain to restore Republicans to power than a few years of liberal leadership. It happened with Bill Clinton, who lost Congress in 2 years, and it happened with Jimmy Carter, who set the stage for the Great One. It will happen again. Liberal policies are a recipe for disaster. The Republicans just have to rededicate to their core principles, which they have lost. Right thinking conservatives don't nominate John McCain for dog catcher.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
King,
1. Yes, the country has been trending Left for a number of years now. Nationwide, the Republicans are slated to get rocked in November just like Ken Blackwell & Company did here in Ohio in the last election — only much worse.
Let America get a belly full of liberal craziness, and the Republicans can come back, provided they learned some lessons.
2. I will check out Ann Coulter's column. She always a good read.
3. With Romney out of the race, my plans for March 4th has changed. Now I’ll be voting for the Huckleberry.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Ann Coulter concluded her latest column by saying:
"If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)
"If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule."
I think Ms. Coulter might have it right.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
You know I think Rev is right on on this one….Medved was talking about how great McCain is today, and what a great speech he gave to show his true conservative roots. Whatever. Looks like all the ditto heads are going to fall in line and support this guy.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:32 am
The idea that 4 years of Hillary with an even more Democratic Congress to work with is somehow going to turn the country off……is a pipedream.
I know that it's all conservatives have to defend their upcoming rejection in November….but even that is misguided.
America is a progressive nation. Why in the world do you think we are the leaders of the globe? Liberal progressives throughout our history have constantly led America forward, not backward, like conservatives tend to do.
If conservatives controlled America continually, we would look something like Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Many, if not all, of the great qualities of our country have been nurtured by liberal policies. Progressive policies are all-inclusive. They unite the country for the better. Conservatives divide and fragment the country.
After 8 years of fascism…..I don't know what else to call an unaccountable and warmongering executive branch…..Americans are primed and ready for the progressive tenets of the Democratic Party.
So Rush and Annie and the like can act all wounded and angry and say that 4 years of a Democratic president will turn the country away from Democrats…but just like the rest of the bile they spew forth…..it ain't true either.
Laura Ingraham's dressing down of John McCain was just so…..childish. A radio fanatic, intolerant and hateful, stamping her little feet, thinking she has some sway, something to say about all this…..I guess because radio listening loons think they stopped the "amnesty" bill for those hated Latinos.
Before this is over, silly and hateful little Laura will sheepishly be hugging McCain just as McCain nauseatingly hugged Junior.
Conservatives are followers, not leaders.
Conservatives, like little Laura, love authoritarians. Authoritarians make little Laura conservative types feel safe. Just like when their daddies made them feel safe when they were children.
Laura and the conservative brood will all get in line to salute their new daddy figure. The new warrior Leader who says stuff like, "I'll go to the gates of hell to get Osama"…(yawn)…will eventually make Laura and her cast of thousands shudder with delight.
Conservatives will embrace their new step-daddy. He isn't their real daddy…..but he will protect the scared conservative family just the same.
Dysfunctional doesn't begin to capture the essence of the problem in the conservative movement.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Rev,
"The idea that 4 years of Hillary with an even more Democratic Congress to work with is somehow going to turn the country off……is a pipedream".
Oh, really ? Bill Clinton lost Congress within two years (which explains the only successes of his presidency). The Carter presidency (an unmitigated disaster, the worst president in my lifetime) resulted in Republicans controlling the presidency for the next 12 years. Following LBJ's term, Republicans held the presidency for 8 years. The phenomenon didn't exhibit itself with JFK, but he wasn't a liberal. By today's standards, JFK was a conservative Republican. You have your opinion on your side, but I have history on mine. Nothing gets Republicans elected faster than putting liberals into positions of ultimate power. And by "liberals", I'm referring to modern liberals, from the 60's forward.
The rest of your post is just you saying things, without proof, based upon nothing other than your own hysterically incorrect prejudices.
A grassroots movement DID stop amnesty for illegals, because 80-90% of the country is against it, according to every poll.
Your talk about Bush "fascism" is just stupid. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were APPROVED BY CONGRESS, including the Democrats. Wiretapping terrorists is/has been considered by both Congress and the courts. The FISA extension was approved by Congress. The Patriot Act was approved by Congress. The CIA rendition program was started by Clinton. Congress even investigated Bush for firing 9 US attorneys, which he has complete authority to do. What is this "fascism" ? Waterboarding KSM, the mastermind of 9/11 and the guy who beheaded Daniel Pearl ? Get a clue already. American lives were at stake. It's the job of the president to protect them.
These things are called facts, Rev. You should try them, instead of living in Moveon.wonderland, or wherever you are getting all this nonsense from.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Well King…..we'll see.
For the last 5 years I have been proven correct time after time. From the illegal Iraq war to the Abramoff corruption inside the White House to the Valerie Plame impeachable crime, to the Lieberman rejection, to the phony and contrived "terror" plots, and on and on I could go.
Those weren't simply fact free opinions of mine. These issues have been vetted now, and I have consistently been shown to be on the side of the facts.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Maybe it's the fact that 46.4 percent of the "reporters" are being honest about their views (35.9 % dems, 10.5 % admitting they're Repugnicons), and the other 53.6% are die-hard Repugs who are trying to skew the stats so that the Right can claim that the media is biased to the left …