ABC News: Media bias

[Needa Pass Rush]

Worthwhile read for all.


Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why
Column By MICHAEL S. MALONE
Oct. 24, 2008 —


The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.

You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I'm cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kan., during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian).

My hard-living -- and when I knew her, scary -- grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I've spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I'm deeply ashamed right now to be called a "journalist," you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

Now, of course, there's always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you 10 different ways to color variations of the word "said" -- muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. -- to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom.

But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against them.

But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible.

That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can't achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty -- especially in ourselves.


Reporting Bias
For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions. But I always wrote it off as bad judgment and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy.

Sure, being a child of the '60s I saw a lot of subjective "New" Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from "real" reporting, and, at least in mainstream media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth.

I'd spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else's work -- not out of any native honesty, but out of fear: I'd always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense & indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.

And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes -- and if they did they were soon rehired into even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who'd managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story & but it never happened.



The Presidential Campaign
But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.

I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather -- not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake -- but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

The few instances where I think the press has gone too far -- such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain's daughter's MySpace friends -- can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?



Joe the Plumber
The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a matter that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it's because we don't understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide -- especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50/50.

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes & and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain's. That's what reporters do. I was proud to have been one, and I'm still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.



Bad Editors
Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you've spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power & only to discover that you're presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn't have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you'll lose your job before you cross that finish line, 10 years hence, of retirement and a pension.

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe -- and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway -- all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself -- an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.

With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it's all for the good of the country &

This is the opinion of the columnist and in no way reflects the opinion of ABC News.

Michael S. Malone is one of the nation's best-known technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation's first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times. He was editor of Forbes ASAP, the world's largest-circulation business-tech magazine, at the height of the dot-com boom. Malone is the author or co-author of a dozen books, notably the best-selling "Virtual Corporation." Malone has also hosted three public television interview series, and most recently co-produced the celebrated PBS miniseries on social entrepreneurs, "The New Heroes." He has been the ABCNews.com "Silicon Insider" columnist since 2000.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate.

Hilarious!

That's the most desperate spin I've ever heard.

Everything about the guy turned out to be a lie - he was a pretender.

And now some McCain shill is whining because Candidate McCheese's dishonest stunt blew up in his face?

:oyvey:

[Needa Pass Rush]

Hilarious!

That's the most desperate spin I've ever heard.

Everything about the guy turned out to be a lie - he was a pretender.

And now some McCain shill is whining because Candidate McCheese's dishonest stunt blew up in his face?

:oyvey:


Spin. Deflection. The rubber meets the road when Obama answered the question asked by Joe. You better dig deeper on your boy, LABF.

What exactly was the 'dihonest stunt'? The fact that he held up the words of Obama's answer? Explain that to me in under 50 words.... if you can.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Spin. Deflection. The rubber meets the road when Obama answered the question asked by Joe. You better dig deeper on your boy, LABF.

What exactly was the 'dihonest stunt'? The fact that he held up the words of Obama's answer? Explain that to me in under 50 words.... if you can.

Holy crap - you're so far behind the curve it will probably be 11/11/08 by the time you realize McCain got his ass handed to him in the election.

ROFL!

[Needa Pass Rush]

Holy crap - you're so far behind the curve it will probably be 11/11/08 by the time you realize McCain got his ass handed to him in the election.

ROFL!

Thanks for making my point. Keep shooting the messenger.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Thanks for making my point. Keep shooting the messenger.

Wouldn't that be more like "shooting the spin doctor" in this case? Ha!

[alkemical]

http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml


http://www.mediachannel.org/images/media-moguls-1200X849.jpg

[Drek]

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.
You mean the hardball coverage like mentioning how McCain attacked Obama for running out of personal ambition, when he said his 2000 run was entirely motivated by personal ambition? Or Calling McCain out on his various flip flops on policy? Or how McCain has almost unanimously voted against any clean energy bills during his over two decades in the senate?

The media gave McCain the free pass of a lifetime and ignored how completely he sold out his "maverick" credentials in favor of running story after story on Obama, positive and negative. It wasn't until he gave them a better story, Palin, that they turned their focus back to him.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.
What hard hitting journalism! I'm a scientist by trade and just by having read one of his memoirs I can tell you the gist of Obama's life, birth to death. Maybe this Michael S. Malone should do a little research himself?

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?
One, nice to see that he admits to taking the core thesis of this article from McCain's own campaign.

Two, Ayers, Rezko, et al were brought up heavily in the primaries and as everyone who followed those primaries now knows, there isn't any real dirt on Obama there. Believe me, if there was the Clinton News Network would've had it up on 24/7 cycle.

Three, its McCain's own fault that no one mentions Biden's gaffes. Biden is the least compelling character in this race. If he'd chosen a more standard VP choice then they would've gotten equal air time. But he didn't, he upstaged himself with Palin and he completely blocked out any desire of the media to cover him. He gets no tv coverage because, to put it simply, no one cares about him.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate.
Oh, you mean Joe Wurzelbacher, the son of Charles Keating's son-in-law, unlicensed SCAB plumber, who lied about even having any notion of buying a company and immediately lining up television interviews and talking about a potential congressional run?

See, I can click a bold button too. And what I highlighted isn't bull****.

Fact is, the mainstream media is just looking to put together compelling copy. Its been heading that way for years, ever since one local news room realized that running the story about a family of five losing everything in a house fire got better ratings than talking about the local factory expanding and hiring new workers.

For the last year they've saw Obama as someone they could sell, good or bad, so they focus most of their coverage on him. Fox News does it just as much as CNN and MSNBC, just in the extreme negative context. If the election had stayed like that McCain had a chance because almost no person can stand up to that kind of scrutiny 24/7 for nearly two years without end. Instead though he gave the MSM something even more salacious and headline worthy by picking a VP who not only broke the cardinal rule of never upstage the headliner but also has a closet full of skeletons that wasn't even locked up before her selection.

He loaded the gun, cocked it, put it in their hands, and set the barrel square between his eyes while offering them millions to pull the trigger. What the hell did the GOP masterminds of this cluster**** really expect?

[Rohirrim]

A lot of desperation popping up as the election draws nearer. So, the guy says the press isn't doing its job, except for on Palin, which she should have been ready for. They dug deep and did their job on Palin, but they're not allowed to do that with "Joe the Plumber?" Why? Joe made some claims. Are they true? No. How did we find out? The press asked questions. And this guy writes that the press hasn't mentioned Reverend Wright, Rezco and Ayers? Ha! Where has he been? Congo? Given how this writer crosses his own purposes so often and presents such muddled thinking, I'm guessing he's not much of a journalist. His stronger argument would have been using the Clinton campaign. The press were strongly biased against her throughout. Chris Matthews, for one, has since admitted it. But if you are going to argue that the media carried Obama to the nomination (and beyond) you could also argue they did the same for McCain throughout the primaries, because they did.

[Paladin]

This was a Base Warming article, nothing more.....

When McCain is saying that the populace should not elect a Democratic Congress, he absolutely knows he lost. He has sunk to the last line of campaigning: begging.

[alkemical]

This was a Base Warming article, nothing more.....

When McCain is saying that the populace should not elect a Democratic Congress, he absolutely knows he lost. He has sunk to the last line of campaigning: begging.

LOL, i had the local talk radio station on this AM listening for traffax updates - and I heard them say: "Don't vote and give the Democrats complete control of the gov't"..... LOL

Fun stuff.

[SJ Bronco]

Is it too hard to imagine that Obama has left his life an open book so there is nothing to report on. McCain has tried to suppress his won record which makes reporters want him even more. Digging is fun for them. For every Chris Mathews there is a Bill O'rielly. His ratings are just lower, not Obama's fault. For every Dan Rather, there is a Sean Hanity. It's all the same, why are people so concerned about the press coverage. No one can read? All you have to do is do your own research. Reporting is a dead art since the internet. Anyone can find information 70 times over if they look for it, so the newspapers and news shows have become nothing more than reality TV trying to pull viewers. Stop getting your opinions from TV and you'll be fine.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The media is going the way that the government did in the 60's. We dont trust them anymore.

[gyldenlove]

This kind of reminds me of the Bush - Gore run in 2000, except it is the other way around. Back then the media was giving Bush the velvet glove treatment all the way. So many floaters have come to the surface in the last 8 years that would probably have changed the outcome back then. With Kerry the media were again pretty harsh on Kerry and not too hard on Bush, and by that election they did know a lot about him that could have been reported.

What we are seeing now is just a lot of redemption, people trying to bounce back from the total failure that was the Bush years. If you are really honest with yourself, you don't want a guy who is 95% like Bush politically.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What we are seeing now is just a lot of redemption, people trying to bounce back from the total failure that was the Bush years.

Amazing how this reality is totally lost on angryllama.

He still doesn't think the Bush minions have anything to apologize for.

[frerottenextelway]

Spin. Deflection. The rubber meets the road when Obama answered the question asked by Joe. You better dig deeper on your boy, LABF.

What exactly was the 'dihonest stunt'? The fact that he held up the words of Obama's answer? Explain that to me in under 50 words.... if you can.

How many times have you seen the full 5-minute conversation between Sam The Non-Plumber and Obama The Next President to put everything in context? My guess is zero - there's your spin for you.

[Spider]

Spin. Deflection. The rubber meets the road when Obama answered the question asked by Joe. You better dig deeper on your boy, LABF.

What exactly was the 'dihonest stunt'? The fact that he held up the words of Obama's answer? Explain that to me in under 50 words.... if you can.

Sorry dude , Joe the Plumber lied , if he had been honest , then I would be on his side ....... But you dont lie then expect people not to find out about it ....

[Bronco Bob]

Spin. Deflection. The rubber meets the road when Obama answered the question asked by Joe. You better dig deeper on your boy, LABF.

What exactly was the 'dihonest stunt'? The fact that he held up the words of Obama's answer? Explain that to me in under 50 words.... if you can.

Want to know what Obama told him "Under my plan you would have been
paying less in taxes which means that you would have been able to save up
enough money to buy your own business sooner."

Is that less than 50 words?

[gunns]

Spin. Deflection. The rubber meets the road when Obama answered the question asked by Joe. You better dig deeper on your boy, LABF.

What exactly was the 'dihonest stunt'? The fact that he held up the words of Obama's answer? Explain that to me in under 50 words.... if you can.

What blew up was the fact that the guy wasn't who McCain protrayed him to be, had already determined Obama was wrong because he didn't have a Repug by his name, and didn't have a clue if what Obama told him was true or not because he didn't even know that he wouldn't be earning 250,000 a year. Plus the fact he's related to Charles Keating. It was a set up and I, for one of many, didn't look on in horror, I laughed my ass off at what McCain and Joe himself had done to himself. Those are the only two people Joe had to blame. They aren't used to the truth being sought out.

As far as the media bias, sometimes the truth hurts.

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.


Now you're worried about that "piece of paper"?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What's next?

A thread from Needa Brain Transplant about how the woman who carved a 'B' in her face and lied to the cops about it got a raw deal from the media?

[Atlas]

What's next?

A thread from Needa Brain Transplant about how the woman who carved a 'B' in her face and lied to the cops about it got a raw deal from the media?

HAHAHAHHAHA That was hilarious. I'm sure the Repubs put her up to it!!!

[Needa Pass Rush]

How many times have you seen the full 5-minute conversation between Sam The Non-Plumber and Obama The Next President to put everything in context? My guess is zero - there's your spin for you.

Again, it could have been my dog barking at Obama that day. The point that McCain and every other clear thinking person out there is pointing to is Obama's answer to a question. Obama's expression of his intentions. Spit out the hook line and sinker. Take a look at the following link if you want to see how the repeal of the Bush tax cuts (tax increase) will affect your family's finances. Then go vote for Obama, give him your money, and let him decide how to spend it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html

[frerottenextelway]

Again, it could have been my dog barking at Obama that day. The point that McCain and every other clear thinking person out there is pointing to is Obama's answer to a question. Obama's expression of his intentions. Spit out the hook line and sinker. Take a look at the following link if you want to see how the repeal of the Bush tax cuts (tax increase) will affect your family's finances. Then go vote for Obama, give him your money, and let him decide how to spend it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html

I was foolish enough to skim some of that:

The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.

Complete lie. When he says ''95% ...." it's based on 2008 tax levels - and that's been confirmed by every independent organisation that has looked at them.


Here's a bottom line graph that was done by true independent group:

http://media.tumblr.com/jWYQ0vx0gcxt1wq2poyvkt2m_400.gif

[Miss I.]

The media is going the way that the government did in the 60's. We dont trust them anymore.

Nor quite honestly should we put unquestioned trust in our media outlets. Journalistic integrity has gone the way of most antiques. I find the bias arguments about media interesting because basically news outlets are no different then any other product put out by big business. They find their audience and target their news accordingly. Fox targets the the conservatives and CNN is probably vaguely, superficially more seemingly liberal or objective. None of them are. Bottom line is it is always about money. Whichever audience buys or story sells the most is what will be produced, the angle is determined by market shares. The stories about Obama, good or bad sell more advertising. But the news outlets are smart enough to understand which angle (negative or positive) will get them the most revenue and will continue to work that.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Nor quite honestly should we put unquestioned trust in our media outlets. Journalistic integrity has gone the way of most antiques. I find the bias arguments about media interesting because basically news outlets are no different then any other product put out by big business. They find their audience and target their news accordingly. Fox targets the the conservatives and CNN is probably vaguely, superficially more seemingly liberal or objective. None of them are. Bottom line is it is always about money. Whichever audience buys or story sells the most is what will be produced, the angle is determined by market shares. The stories about Obama, good or bad sell more advertising. But the news outlets are smart enough to understand which angle (negative or positive) will get them the most revenue and will continue to work that.

You are correct. Business is business. That's why the writer of the above article has a point when he talks of hitching wagons to one party or the other and talks of "fairness" doctrines.

This is why its funny to see the typical propaganda hit this page posted by the usual suspects. In a topic about the integrity of the production and seeking of unbiased media information, you have a bunch of deflection and spin.

In other places, it could come from either side. For whatever reason, this site is jam packed full of shameless leftist propagandists. Ironically, they love the topics of ethical judgment and integrity.

[Rohirrim]

You are correct. Business is business. That's why the writer of the above article has a point when he talks of hitching wagons to one party or the other and talks of "fairness" doctrines.

This is why its funny to see the typical propaganda hit this page posted by the usual suspects. In a topic about the integrity of the production and seeking of unbiased media information, you have a bunch of deflection and spin.

In other places, it could come from either side. For whatever reason, this site is jam packed full of shameless leftist propagandists. Ironically, they love the topics of ethical judgment and integrity.

Deflection and spin? Oh, you mean dismantling the faulty logic of this writer and destroying the basis of his faulty argument point by point?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Deflection and spin? Oh, you mean dismantling the faulty logic of this writer and destroying the basis of his faulty argument point by point?

You have no problem with media bias because it works to your end, as you have made clear through your inane defenses against the voices of reform during your time here.

You are willing to philosophically allow such an institution to exist because it feeds to your political agenda.

An ethical pragmatist. The worst kind of ethic...one with no principle but for the survival of your little dogma.

Typical of a fascist.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Features/Columns/?article=MediaBashing&GT1=27004

Has Media Bashing Become the New National Pastime?

By Tamim Ansary

Media bashing is big sport now, but it makes me nervous when politicians get into the game. Most of us, I think, feel that something is institutionally wrong with the media these days, but is it a conspiracy? I don’t see it. I see a systemic failure here, a syndrome we’re all caught up in and contribute to.

In my experience, when people say the media is biased, they don’t mean all the media, just most of it. Each of us, it seems, can recognize distortions of the truth because we know what the actual truth is -- from some selected subset of the media, presumably.

Feels true
A couple of years ago, I was invited to join a discussion club about current events and the moderator asked us to begin by sharing what media sources we knew "could be trusted." Each of us cited magazines, newspapers, Web sites, books, writers, radio shows and other sources we had found reliable. What we were citing, though -- it struck me even then and with a chill -- were sources that felt reliable because they confirmed what we already "knew" -- sources that buttressed our worldview.

I say "worldview" because it’s more global than "point of view." Learning experts say we acquire new information by connecting it to old, and we learn best by compiling all that we know into a framework or narrative. When new information comes along, we plug it into our framework. If we can fit it in, we can connect it to everything else we know and thus retain it.

Most of us, I think, go through some such process when we weigh the reliability of news sources. And today, with so much news rushing at us from so many sources, we have to pick and choose among them, so each of us compiles a lineup tailored to our sensibilities, sources we trust.

But surely, when we do this, we arrange to hear only what we want to hear. Inevitably, the news we get this way reinforces what we already think. Hearing it from a variety of sources only creates the illusion of objectivity. If we’ve screened out sources we mistrust, the ones that remain are bound to be consistent. Finding like-minded others who trust the same sources confirms our choices, but also gathers us into groups that can be identified as markets, and this feeds a vicious cycle.

News vs. shoes
News is a business. Businesses succeed by identifying potential markets and crafting products to suit them. "Find a need and fill it," industrialist Henry Kaiser once said. That principle works admirably for putting shoes on the shelves. It provides a size for every foot and a style for every taste. But the same principle, when applied to news, has unintended social consequences.

If people attracted to the same news sources constitute markets, businesses can figure out what those markets want and provide more of it. With most products, that's a very good thing. With news, however, it creates a dangerous feedback loop. News consumers want the truth, and news that confirms their worldview feels true. News producers try to satisfy their customers, and the news they provide therefore solidifies their customers' worldview and makes it feel more true, which stabilizes this market and enables businesses to fine-tune the product aimed at it.


Most folks know what they'll get if they go to Fox, MSNBC, CNN, or PBS -- or, for that matter, truth.org or americafirst.com. Is the media biased? Sure. It's called branding!

The whole cycle deepens and intensifies all tendencies. It clumps us into non-overlapping communities of belief that can't talk to one another because what's true to one looks false or biased to another. If we've been steeping inside one of these internally consistent, self-confirming feedback loops for long, we can't help but experience real news as biased, because it never quite fits the framework we’re using to measure truth.

Balance is not enough
This is not a "right" or a "left" thing. It's not even a "center" thing. News is not truer just because it gives equal weight to two extremes. Imagine if a journalist reporting from Nazi Germany in the 1930s had said that some people liked Hitler, some hated him, and the truth "lay in the middle." In retrospect, we would question his dedication to journalistic standards, because sometimes the truth lies closer to one end.

We need better criteria than mere balance for evaluating the truth of news statements, criteria that lie outside any framework or worldview. Can such criteria exist? They already do. Journalism schools have been refining and teaching them for two centuries. Until recently, journalists held one another to these standards.

It's just that now, problematically, our allegiance to a common truth has eroded. The major network news programs have lost so much audience share that they're just media businesses like any other, clawing for customers. The once-mighty newspapers of record are now targets of derision to some: Just last week, in Nevada, one of the presidential candidates derided the New York Times and sent the crowd into a long frenzy of cheering. Market forces and the proliferation of news outlets have fragmented the truth into a feudal landscape of warring camps. In this environment, politicians who run against the media are not bringing us together under one set of rules and restoring fair play; they’re more like referees jumping fist first into the free-for-all.

Peer review
Not that any legal or political measure can restore objectivity to the news. Politicians can only help by getting out of the way, because our only hope, I submit, lies in some version of the peer-review model used so effectively in science.

When scientists critique one another's work, they focus purely on methodology. Journalism also needs critical criteria that go purely to method, not content. A report should never be labeled biased because it's too favorable to X or too harsh to Y. In theory, we should be able to evaluate the validity of a news statement without even knowing what it says, so long as we know how the journalist arrived at it.

To make this model work, however, we have to agree as a public that delivering objective news takes some sort of expertise.

We've had that agreement in the past. Two centuries ago, journalism was in much the same state as it is today: News came only from broadsheets slapped up by anyone with a message to shout and access to ink. There was no higher standard to appeal to.

The concept of objectivity came in with journalism schools, which insisted that there was something about news reporting that had to be learned, and for a fee they'd teach it to you. The core of that something involved methods for achieving objectivity. As journalism became professionalized, journalists came to acknowledge standards obligatory to their profession. Once those standards were in place, journalists who violated them could lose credibility among their peers if exposed. That's the sanction that could even now keep journalists reaching for objectivity, no matter what their audiences want. But that sanction can function only when journalists have a qualified body of peers before whom they can feel discredited and shamed.

What is such a body but the media elite?

News vs. rumor
When politicians attack the media, they’re attacking this media elite. Certainly, journalists at every level should be held accountable, but bashing the media in general does not hold any particular journalist accountable for any particular report. It's not even an attack on all professional journalists. It's an attack on professionalism itself.



In 1974, Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi declared a "state of emergency" and claimed dictatorial control of her country's media. After that, Gandhi alone got to say what was news and what was true -- yet even with all that power, she could not shape Indian public opinion. Why? Because, as someone later wrote, during the emergency, people trusted rumors more than newspapers.

But what if rumors and newspapers merge? That's where I see us heading now. If professionalism in journalism is destroyed, rumor will rule, and then how will we know what's true? More important, how will we dissolve all our warring camps and forge a single nation again if we can't unite around some truth we hold to be self-evident?

[Rohirrim]

Blah, blah, blah. I doubt you complained much when the media dismantled Gore's campaign with their idiotic "plaid shirt" and "internet" crap. Or when they carried the torch for the Swift Boaters. Or when they carried McCain's jock for ten years.

This "blame the media" crap is just another form of loser's whine. Not surprised you're on board. Sitting right up front. It's what you're famous for. ;D

[TailgateNut]

Blah, blah, blah. I doubt you complained much when the media dismantled Gore's campaign with their idiotic "plaid shirt" and "internet" crap. Or when they carried the torch for the Swift Boaters. Or when they carried McCain's jock for ten years.

This "blame the media" crap is just another form of loser's whine. Not surprised you're on board. Sitting right up front. It's what you're famous for. ;D


Now that the shoe is on the other foot they want to change things. **** that, and **** trying to make up with these asshole who have singlehandedly screwed our nation for 8 years.

[alkemical]

http://celticrebel.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/bo3mating.jpg

[epicSocialism4tw]

Blah, blah, blah. I doubt you complained much when the media dismantled Gore's campaign with their idiotic "plaid shirt" and "internet" crap. Or when they carried the torch for the Swift Boaters. Or when they carried McCain's jock for ten years.

This "blame the media" crap is just another form of loser's whine. Not surprised you're on board. Sitting right up front. It's what you're famous for.

So essentially, this is what you have on this subject: "Other people who I compete with arent interested in truth either, so I'm not going to hold myself to a higher standard." Then you go straight to the defamation.

A good example of living without standards.

[TailgateNut]

http://celticrebel.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/bo3mating.jpg

Do you have a picture of a donkey ****ing a llama? That would be priceless and to the point.

[Rohirrim]

So essentially, this is what you have on this subject: "Other people who I compete with arent interested in truth either, so I'm not going to hold myself to a higher standard." Then you go straight to the defamation.

A good example of living without standards.


http://www.bubbarednecksteve.com/images/whine.jpg

You may have changed your name, but you're still the same old drama llama.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You may have changed your name, but you're still the same old drama llama.


That's cute.

No defense for your weak philosophy, and you resort to the same smear tactics that you so complain about.

Your as translucent as the glass house that you live in.

[Needa Pass Rush]

Blah, blah, blah. I doubt you complained much when the media dismantled Gore's campaign with their idiotic "plaid shirt" and "internet" crap. Or when they carried the torch for the Swift Boaters. Or when they carried McCain's jock for ten years.

This "blame the media" crap is just another form of loser's whine. Not surprised you're on board. Sitting right up front. It's what you're famous for. ;D

The media had no hand in the Gore and Kerry 'crap' you're talking about. All they did was cash the 527's advertising checks.

[Paladin]

The media had no hand in the Gore and Kerry 'crap' you're talking about. All they did was cash the 527's advertising checks.

What's happening now?


For the record, I think the Media is doing a good job pasting Palin and McNasty. No two people ever deserved such coverage as those two.....

[Atlas]

Spin. Deflection. The rubber meets the road when Obama answered the question asked by Joe. You better dig deeper on your boy, LABF.

What exactly was the 'dihonest stunt'? The fact that he held up the words of Obama's answer? Explain that to me in under 50 words.... if you can.

It's not nearly a news media bias as it is so much a late night talk show bias. Letterman and Leno have made seven times more jokes about MCPhalin than they have about Obama and Biden. Of course Leno said he wasn't bias it's just that McPhalin is ****ing Hilarious... Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

[Rohirrim]

That's cute.

No defense for your weak philosophy, and you resort to the same smear tactics that you so complain about.

Your as translucent as the glass house that you live in.

Since I put forward no "philosophy" whatsoever, once again I end up with the same response I usually have to the majority of your posts: WTF?

[cutthemdown]

I don't know one person who let's the media decide anything from him or her.

Everyone knows that the media is either pro or con against something. None of them objective anymore.

[Rohirrim]

It's not nearly a news media bias as it is so much a late night talk show bias. Letterman and Leno have made seven times more jokes about MCPhalin than they have about Obama and Biden. Of course Leno said he wasn't bias it's just that McPhalin is ****ing Hilarious... Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

The truth is, Obama just isn't funny. SNL has tried to parody him. It just doesn't work. Maybe we should create a Fairness Doctrine and apply it to comedians? Ha!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Since I put forward no "philosophy" whatsoever, once again I end up with the same response I usually have to the majority of your posts: WTF?

It's nobody's fault but your own that you are uneducated.

[Rohirrim]

It's nobody's fault but your own that you are uneducated.

I feel your pain. Just five more days and you can look for new things to whine about. :thumbs:

[epicSocialism4tw]

I feel your pain. Just five more days and you can look for new things to whine about. :thumbs:

Spoken as someone without a clue.

Did you know that you proclaim your philosophy with every word that you excrete?

[SJ Bronco]

Leno is a republican, he's said so many times.

[Rohirrim]

Spoken as someone without a clue.

Did you know that you proclaim your philosophy with every word that you excrete?

Have you considered anger management?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Have you considered anger management?

That's all youve got?

So far, youve consciously avoided discussion, shown the inability to understand simple concepts, and resorted to smear tactics.

:thumbsup:

In the world of competing ideas, you do not compete.

[Rohirrim]

That's all youve got?

So far, youve consciously avoided discussion, shown the inability to understand simple concepts, and resorted to smear tactics.

:thumbsup:

In the world of competing ideas, you do not compete.

I destroyed your POS article.

You pretended like I didn't.

Same as it ever was.

Anyway, Malone is an old Forbes conservative. This stuff comes out every election from the losers. It's called sour grapes.

[gunns]

That's all youve got?

So far, youve consciously avoided discussion, shown the inability to understand simple concepts, and resorted to smear tactics.

:thumbsup:

In the world of competing ideas, you do not compete.

Your holier-than-thou "concept" is going down the drain next Tuesday. What will you do?

[Spider]

That's all youve got?

So far, youve consciously avoided discussion, shown the inability to understand simple concepts, and resorted to smear tactics.

:thumbsup:

In the world of competing ideas, you do not compete.

Dude you got destroyed on this ..........

[Miss I.]

Another article to discuss at will. The last thing I will say, as a former Media Arts student is this: Networks are owned by big businesses (conglomerates). The fundamental need of all businesses is to make money. Networks therefore will do whatever is in the best interest of their owners to make money. The story that sells is what they will produce.
Anyway, here's the article which covers much of what we discussed during my studies (a little less psychology and economic specific theory though).
http://www.globalissues.org/article/159/media-conglomerates-mergers-concentration-of-ownership
One interesting quotation:
Global conglomerates can at times have a progressive impact on culture, especially when they enter nations that had been tightly controlled by corrupt crony media systems (as in much of Latin America) or nations that had significant state censorship over media (as in parts of Asia). The global commercial-media system is radical in that it will respect no tradition or custom, on balance, if it stands in the way of profits. But ultimately it is politically conservative, because the media giants are significant beneficiaries of the current social structure around the world, and any upheaval in property or social relations—particularly to the extent that it reduces the power of business—is not in their interest.
— <CITE>Robert W. McChesney, The New Global Media; It’s a Small World of Big Conglomerates (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19991129&s=mcchesney), The Nation Magazine, November 29, 1999</CITE>

[stugotsII]

Hilarious!

That's the most desperate spin I've ever heard.

Everything about the guy turned out to be a lie - he was a pretender.

And now some McCain shill is whining because Candidate McCheese's dishonest stunt blew up in his face?

:oyvey:

Why would it matter who asked the question? The ANSWER to the question was the important part.

[stugotsII]

I think it's so funny how people are ragging on McCain and Repubs this year for running a negative campaign...when it 2004 Kerry and crew ran smear job after smear job. They had Hollywood documentaries made against Bush and loved news types like Dan Rather lying for them.

...but that was probably okay.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why would it matter who asked the question? The ANSWER to the question was the important part.

Either way, you lose the argument.

That's why the republi-cons have to keep lying about Obama's tax plan.

[stugotsII]

Either way, you lose the argument.

That's why the republi-cons have to keep lying about Obama's tax plan.

Huh?

I don't care if Joe the whatever was a Zorro impersonator, Obama said he wanted to spread the wealth.

The answer was what was important. Not the question and not who asked the question.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

..when it 2004 Kerry and crew ran smear job after smear job.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Can you see our solar system from your home planet?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Huh?

I don't care if Joe the whatever was a Zorro impersonator, Obama said he wanted to spread the wealth.

The answer was what was important. Not the question and not who asked the question.

Two problems:

1) True to Faux News form, the republi-cons took the phrase out of context.

2) The republi-cons have misrepresented what he meant by "spread the wealth."

The real question, IMO, is this:

Why do you support the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%?

Why do you support the concentration of wealth in the hands of an increasingly smaller and smaller group of elites?

[stugotsII]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Can you see our solar system from your home planet?

What am I talking about...you live in the mecca of liberalville.

[stugotsII]

Two problems:

1) True to Faux News form, the republi-cons took the phrase out of context.

2) The republi-cons have misrepresented what he meant by "spread the wealth."

The real question, IMO, is this:

Why do you support the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%?

Who do you think give us jobs? Once they have less money, the price of everything will go up and there will be less jobs

Why do you support the concentration of wealth in the hands of an increasingly smaller and smaller group of elites?

Actually, there are a far greater number of millionaires and billionaires than ever before...and that is why I love this country.


Sure, everything your favorite candidate has ever said has been taken out of context.

Can I ask you one question and get an honest answer?

What about Obama do you NOT like?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What am I talking about...you live in the mecca of liberalville.

It must be hard for you to look at the electoral map right about now and see how such large numbers of your fellow Americans are part of a vast liberal conspiracy against you and God's Own Party. Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually, there are a far greater number of millionaires and billionaires than ever before...and that is why I love this country.

Greed is good, eh?

That's not the country the founders intended.

They made it very clear that we needed safeguards against the formation of a new landed gentry and the accumulation of hereditary wealth.




Sure, everything your favorite candidate has ever said has been taken out of context.

We were talking about one specific quote.

Can I ask you one question and get an honest answer?

What about Obama do you NOT like?

I didn't like that he voted for the telecom immunity thing or the bail-out.

[stugotsII]

It must be hard for you to look at the electoral map right about now and see how such large numbers of your fellow Americans are part of a vast liberal conspiracy against you and God's Own Party. Ha!

...and even more cartoons from you.

I'd wait till next Tuesday if I were you. But, no it doesn't bother me at all actually. We treat people with differeing politica views as enemies and almost foriegnors. Those reb and blue indicators on digital maps are all Americans.

Obama will most likely be the next President and I honestly wish him much success if he does win, as I do McCain if he wins.

[stugotsII]

Greed is good, eh?

That's not the country the founders intended.

They made it very clear that we needed safeguards against the formation of a new landed gentry and the accumulation of hereditary wealth.




We were talking about one specific quote.



I didn't like that he voted for the telecom immunity thing or the bail-out.


Not sure if greed is good, but there is nothing wrong with wanting to be successful and rich...is there?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Not sure if greed is good, but there is nothing wrong with wanting to be successful and rich...is there?

No sin in prosperity.

However, do you think there should be limits to greed?

[stugotsII]

No sin in prosperity.

However, do you think there should be limits to greed?

Yes, but only when laws are broke to attain wealth. Usually if someone is wealthy, it's for a good reason. They've done something that people want or that people are helped by.

Whoever invented the iPhone needs more money. I just got that thing and it's unreal. I don't think it would be fair for the Apple CEO to have to give his hard earned money away to someone that doesn't desserve it.

[Bronco Bob]

Yes, but only when laws are broke to attain wealth. Usually if someone is wealthy, it's for a good reason. They've done something that people want or that people are helped by.

Whoever invented the iPhone needs more money. I just got that thing and it's unreal. I don't think it would be fair for the Apple CEO to have to give his hard earned money away to someone that doesn't desserve it.

So is it fair that a guy that makes $28,000 a year should have to pay
more in taxes to make up for this guy paying less taxes than when
Reagan was president? Which was a lot less than his equivalent
was paying when Eisenhower was president? The money has to
come from somewhere. Why can't the guy who has more of it
be the one paying more? He gets the benefits of the roads
and bridges and army and airports and FBI and all the things the
government fund too.

[stugotsII]

So is it fair that a guy that makes $28,000 a year should have to pay
more in taxes to make up for this guy paying less taxes than when
Reagan was president? Which was a lot less than his equivalent
was paying when Eisenhower was president? The money has to
come from somewhere. Why can't the guy who has more of it
be the one paying more? He gets the benefits of the roads
and bridges and army and airports and FBI and all the things the
government fund too.

The guy making 28,000 is most likely not paying any federal taxes at all. I am making more money now than I ever have and am paying FAR more taxes for it. The more money you make, the more taxes you pay.

[Bronco Bob]

I think it's so funny how people are ragging on McCain and Repubs this year for running a negative campaign...when it 2004 Kerry and crew ran smear job after smear job. They had Hollywood documentaries made against Bush and loved news types like Dan Rather lying for them.

...but that was probably okay.

I guess the worst part was where John Kerry was running those Swift Boat
ads against Bush, trying to convince people that Bush really wasn't
a war hero and didn't really earn his three Purple Hearts in Vietnam.
The most disgusting part had to be the DNC convention where all those
delegates showed up wearing Purple Heart band aids as a way of mocking
Bush and his service in Vietnam.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The guy making 28,000 is most likely not paying any federal taxes at all.

???


I am making more money now than I ever have and am paying FAR more taxes for it.

But wait - I thought Bush's tax cuts were supposed to trickle down and help you in that department?


The more money you make, the more taxes you pay.

Not as a percentage of your income under Bush. Just the opposite is true.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I am making more money now than I ever have and am paying FAR more taxes for it.

If this is true, then it just proves once again that Bush's tax cuts only benefited the wealthiest Americans.

[stugotsII]

???



But wait - I thought Bush's tax cuts were supposed to trickle down and help you in that department?



Not as a percentage of your income under Bush. Just the opposite is true.

Actually they did. When his tax cuts went into place I saw a big difference in my paychecks.

[Bronco Bob]

The guy making 28,000 is most likely not paying any federal taxes at all. I am making more money now than I ever have and am paying FAR more taxes for it. The more money you make, the more taxes you pay.

As it should be. Look at the tax rates when Eisenhower was president.
Don't recall anyone calling Eisenhower a socialist. The only thing lowering
taxes does is run up huge deficits. Jobs actually decreased after
the Bush tax cuts, so I just don't get where restoring the tax rates
to at least the level they were under Reagan is going to be bad
for the economy.

[stugotsII]

If this is true, then it just proves once again that Bush's tax cuts only benefited the wealthiest Americans.

??? I'm telling you the more money one makes, the more taxes one pays.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually they did. When his tax cuts went into place I saw a big difference in my paychecks.

But you just got done saying you're paying more now in taxes than ever.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm telling you the more money one makes, the more taxes one pays.

Most Companies in US Avoid Federal Income Taxes
Report Says Most Corporations Pay No Federal Income Taxes; Lawmakers Blame Loopholes

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=5561455

Most firms pay no income taxes - Congress
Study finds that the majority of domestic and foreign corporations in the United States avoid paying federal income taxes.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news...rporate_taxes/ (http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/)

Most Companies Pay No Federal Income Tax
GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4342535.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml)

[Bronco Bob]

??? I'm telling you the more money one makes, the more taxes one pays.

Do you make over $250,000 a year? If not, vote Obama. If you do,
I can't say as a I feel all that sorry for you. I'll reserve my sympathy
for that retired railroad worker who has to work at WalMart to
help pay for his wife's arthritis medication.

[stugotsII]

Do you make over $250,000 a year? If not, vote Obama. If you do,
I can't say as a I feel all that sorry for you. I'll reserve my sympathy
for that retired railroad worker who has to work at WalMart to
help pay for his wife's arthritis medication.

Didn't Biden just say 150k per year?

I actually work for the DoD and can't wait for Obama to cancel all of our military contracts. I'll be out of a job in no time! Even though most of my work is for the private sector...

Oh well, as soon as I'm out of a job, I'll have the government to sponge off of for a long, long time. Maybe I can move to another country. Obama plans on using more taxpayer money to help the worlds poor.

PS. Maybe the railroad worker should have saved his money, rather than buy hookers, guns and booze and he wouldn't have to go work in Walmart.

[Bronco Bob]

Didn't Biden just say 150k per year?

I actually work for the DoD and can't wait for Obama to cancel all of our military contracts. I'll be out of a job in no time! Even though most of my work is for the private sector...

Oh well, as soon as I'm out of a job, I'll have the government to sponge off of for a long, long time. Maybe I can move to another country. Obama plans on using more taxpayer money to help the worlds poor.



Obama isn't going to cancel military contracts. Iraq has totally trashed
our military. After Obama gets us out of Iraq, the military contractors
are going to be flooded with orders for new equipment.


PS. Maybe the railroad worker should have saved his money, rather than buy hookers, guns and booze and he wouldn't have to go work in Walmart.

Now you are just being silly.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Didn't Biden just say 150k per year?

In reference to what? Link?

I actually work for the DoD and can't wait for Obama to cancel all of our military contracts.

Your evidence that he plans to do this?

Link?

Obama plans on using more taxpayer money to help the worlds poor.

Evidence? Link?

PS. Maybe the railroad worker should have saved his money, rather than buy hookers, guns and booze and he wouldn't have to go work in Walmart.

There you go with the standard republican bullsh*t story that people only fall on hard times because they are immoral, irresponsible, or lazy.

Your party gives the finger to all of those Americans who are hurting right now (which amounts to quite a few people, BTW.)

That's why your party is circling the drain.

[stugotsII]

Obama isn't going to cancel military contracts. Iraq has totally trashed
our military. After Obama gets us out of Iraq, the military contractors
are going to be flooded with orders for new equipment.



Now you are just being silly.

Right...Obama, who wants out of Iraq TODAY, will start approving budgets for all of the things I create, while approvaing budgets for every other thing on Earth he wants.

There have already been calls by the dems to cut military funding by 25%.

[Bronco Bob]

Right...Obama, who wants out of Iraq TODAY, will start approving budgets for all of the things I create, while approvaing budgets for every other thing on Earth he wants.

10 billion bucks a month extra while buy a lot of stuff. Add to that the
money the treasury gets when the Bush tax cuts on the upper 5% expire.



There have already been calls by the dems to cut military funding by 25%.

Doesn't mean it will happen.

[stugotsII]

In reference to what? Link?



Your evidence that he plans to do this?

Link?





Evidence? Link?



There you go with the standard republican bullsh*t story that people only fall on hard times because they are immoral, irresponsible, or lazy.

Your party gives the finger to all of those Americans who are hurting right now (which amounts to quite a few people, BTW.)

That's why your party is circling the drain.

Biden 150K link:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10292008/news/politics/biden_blows_fuzzy_tax_math_135787.htm

Military Cut:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGiw_eU0QmQ&feature=related

Obama forced world charity:

Google: obama world poverty

PS.

I am not a Republican. Just because I'm not an Obamacon, doesn't mean I'm a Neocon.

And this just in...sometimes people are in the sh_tter because of their own actions...not the governments.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Biden 150K link:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10292008/news/politics/biden_blows_fuzzy_tax_math_135787.htm



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What's your secondary source? Rush Limbaugh online?

[stugotsII]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What's your secondary source? Rush Limbaugh online?

http://home.granderiver.net/~capnjim/misc/LiberalSearchingFor.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7638/goppervertsealhf9.jpg (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/)

[Bob]

Didn't Biden just say 150k per year?

I actually work for the DoD and can't wait for Obama to cancel all of our military contracts. I'll be out of a job in no time! Even though most of my work is for the private sector...

Oh well, as soon as I'm out of a job, I'll have the government to sponge off of for a long, long time. Maybe I can move to another country. Obama plans on using more taxpayer money to help the worlds poor.

PS. Maybe the railroad worker should have saved his money, rather than buy hookers, guns and booze and he wouldn't have to go work in Walmart.

300 K to 250 K to 200K - 150K

This is a serious question -- right now we get 1000 for each child, if Bush's tax plan is scrapped -- the child tax credit goes to 500 right?

[Bob]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What's your secondary source? Rush Limbaugh online?

Biden did say 150K on the 28th (I believe) I heard it myself. Not sure if Biden was mispeaking again, or the perfect context, but he did say it just recently.

[Drek]

300 K to 250 K to 200K - 150K

This is a serious question -- right now we get 1000 for each child, if Bush's tax plan is scrapped -- the child tax credit goes to 500 right?

Obama is only going to let income and capital gains tax cuts for people making over $250K expire. The credits for children will remain the same.

Biden did say 150K on the 28th (I believe) I heard it myself. Not sure if Biden was mispeaking again, or the perfect context, but he did say it just recently.

Biden was actually saying that people making below 150K should expect a tax cut, whereas everyone above that but below $250K might not see a gut, but they will not see a raise. It depends on what they do to make their living (if they pay taxes for anything but income tax) and just where they fall into that spectrum. But there will not be any tax increases.

This is only "news" because people don't educate themselves. This has been part of their plan all along. Move the tax brackets above $250K back to Clinton levels and then start moving taxes down on the middle class. People making $150K might be in there, they might not, depending on how they make a living and where they'll be able to file write offs. But they will not see a tax increase.

[Bronco Bob]

Biden did say 150K on the 28th (I believe) I heard it myself. Not sure if Biden was mispeaking again, or the perfect context, but he did say it just recently.

Go to BarackObama.com. There is a tax calculator that shows you how much
your taxes will go down, or up, under Obama's plan.

http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

Put in $150,000 and see what your answer is.

[gunns]

Right...Obama, who wants out of Iraq TODAY, will start approving budgets for all of the things I create, while approvaing budgets for every other thing on Earth he wants.

There have already been calls by the dems to cut military funding by 25%.

You're naive if you think military isn't going to get cut somewhat with either of them in there. Of course if you are for McCain I'm sure you are naive enough to think just because he's a military man he'll make sure you are in business for a long time. Yeah, just like he made it to all those veteran benefit votes. Bush's game of war has been one of the biggest suckers on this economy and there is no reason for us to be there and little money left to support it. It has to be cut somewhat. The best way is to pull out of that mistake.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Biden was actually saying that people making below 150K should expect a tax cut, whereas everyone above that but below $250K might not see a gut, but they will not see a raise. It depends on what they do to make their living (if they pay taxes for anything but income tax) and just where they fall into that spectrum. But there will not be any tax increases.

This is only "news" because people don't educate themselves. This has been part of their plan all along. Move the tax brackets above $250K back to Clinton levels and then start moving taxes down on the middle class. People making $150K might be in there, they might not, depending on how they make a living and where they'll be able to file write offs. But they will not see a tax increase.

Bingo (to bolded statement.)

It's clear that people like stugotsII and Bob don't want to educate themselves, so no matter how many times you present Obama's tax plan they pretend like they've never seen it before.