The spin about these primaries is so blatant it's galling.

[redqueen]

"Obama endorsements don't seem to help Democrats"
"Obama's clout under scrutiny"

Anyone remember such nonsense when the GOP started falling apart at the seams?

This is why I avoid the M$M like the plague. They treat their readers like idiots.

[marmar]

1. I tuned into to CNN for about 30 seconds and my stomach got queasy.....

They created a narrative before the actual primaries, and they're sticking to it.

[redqueen]

5. It's so transparent why they won't examine the voting records...

or discuss the polling around the major issues. Just stick Obama's name on there and do their little song and dance.

I can't help remembering some M$M tool's "I'm shocked!" moment, after the HCR vote, when he admitted that he'd known all along that the polling indicating lack of support for the bill was due to it not going far enough, rather than lack of support in general.

[City Lights]

2. I also avoid the manipulating corporate media. I pretty much have them on ignore.

They add nothing of value.

[DrDan]

3. do you believe the spin that "Mitch's endorsement didn't help the R's"?

[redqueen]

4. Got a link for that?

[DrDan]

6. nope = heard it several times this morning on TV

did I miss your links on the Obama support?

[redqueen]

8. Main page of Yahoo and inside

"... us_obama_no_coattails"

The URL is great too don't you think?

Your turn.

[DrDan]

9. as I said, I don't have a link. Are you suggesting I did not hear it?

and do you believe it? Or does the MSM just have a grudge against the D's.

[redqueen]

10. Of course not... why leap to that conclusion?

I just thought you might go further to make your case that there's no difference in the way the M$M treats Dems and Repubs, that's all. I was wrong, no biggie.

[DrDan]

11. the only claim I am making is that I heard that Obama's support did not help his candidate(s) and

neither did Mitch's support.

[redqueen]

12. Insightful. (nt)

[DrDan]

14. just introducing a bit of balance . . . .

[redqueen]

18. Where there is none?

Why?

This false balance nonsense is beyond played out.

[DrDan]

24. just trying to demonstrate that the MSM is claiming, correctly, that

influence from the parties (both parties) and party leaders (from both sides)seems to be waning, at least during this election.

That to me is a good thing. Let the voters decide who the candidates are - not the parties or the party leaders.

You seem to be irked that they (the media) actually come out and say that. The problem, of course, is that they use Obama at your cite/site as their evidence - and not Mitch, although others also cite Mitch as evidence. Not exactly sure why as you are upset about this as you are the one who consciously went to that Yahoo site. It is akin to going to a restaurant and ordering a hamburger, then complaining about why you have to eat so many hamburgers. (But that's ok - I really do get the purpose of the post.)


And you never did answer the original question. But that's ok - I get why the post was made.

[redqueen]

26. So you're not bothering to read the rest of the thread...

ok. It means your interpretation of things is badly skewed... but ok.

Good luck to you.

[DrDan]

28. thank you . . . and good luck with that "the media is coming - the media is coming" fear theme

[redqueen]

29. Yes, and good luck convincing others that the M$M is balanced. (nt)

[Kalun D]

56. The MSM In The USA

is a decrepit piece of corporate whore crap

and they are biased toward the right, all corporations are

[DrDan]

76. enjoy the paranoia

[Kalun D]

77. Enjoy Your Delusions

It's not paranoia on my part, merely an observation

and the internet is kicking the MIC's whore media TV's as* so why would I be worried?

anytime you want to prove to yourself that the whore media is a stinking pile of sh*t, just go to projectcensored.org

[blondeatlast]

20. You call it balance, I call it spin. Semantics--meh. nt

[DrDan]

22. balance in that there is spin for/against both sides

[blondeatlast]

48. Golly, thanks--I didn';t know that.

:eyes:

[Kalun D]

78. Sure There Is Balance (LOLZ!)

the spin against the progressive dems and for the repugs and corporate whore dems is more substantial

the spin against the repugs and corporate whore dems and for the progressive dems is token

Just look at the owners of all the MSM, it's been consolidated from 50 owners just 30 years ago to just 5 today.

Five CONSERVATIVE greed pig piece of sh*t corporations own all the MSM. How do you think they are going to call the shots when it gets down to the real nitty gritty?

[Beetwasher]

16. Are You Saying The MSM DOESN'T Have A "Grudge" Against The D's?

Really?

I wouldn't call it a "grudge" though, I'd call it bias.

I mean, it's not like Repubs have their own news channel or anything...

[DrDan]

25. I don't include faux in MSM

no I don't think CNN, MSNBC, etc have a bias one way or another.

[redqueen]

30. So the fact that polling indicating softening public support for HCR

as it was watered down over time... the fact that that was due to the bill not going far enough... and not due to lack of support for HCR overall... the fact that that detail was not discussed until after the vote, and only by one pundit (that I know of)... that's indicative, to you, of there being no bias?

Really?

[DrDan]

32. there may be bias from one reporter to another, or from one talking head to the next

but to claim a corporate media bias is just looney.

Do you actually think CNN or MSNBC has a mission to bash the Dems? or the left?

Their mission is to make money. They are in business to make money. To think their mission is otherwise is simply wrong.

Will there be negative reporting about Obama? Yes
Will there be negative reporting about Dem issues? Yes
Will there be negative reporting about the R's? Yes

Just because they take an opinion contrary to yours does not indicate a bias.

[redqueen]

34. It's far from looney. Do you not remember the spin leading up to the Iraq war?

Maybe you don't associate being anti-unnecessary war with the left... or maybe you don't associate having a decent public health care system with the left... but the M$M has systematically worked against these (and many other) left/Dem ideas for decades.

Since the 90's it has become so blatant as to be nearly impossible to miss.

This is not about them expressing opinions contrary to mine (:wtf:)... seriously, setting aside the fact that editorializing is not news to begin with, and therefore has no place in this discussion... we are talking about bias against the left/Dems/the Dem agenda. For you to try to personalize it... it just makes no sense.

[DrDan]

35. that is exactly what it is about - read your OP

[redqueen]

38. You really really really don't get it. (nt)

[DrDan]

40. well - just keep strong with that "media is out to get me" theme

guess I just don't share that sense of paranoia

[redqueen]

43. There you go again with the personalizing.

Why are you doing that?

I guess I need to spell this out... but I never said they were out to get me. And the M$M bias is not a meme, it's a fact, and it has been for decades. I guess you have some rationalization in your mind that explains all the pro-war bias leading up to the Iraq war... and every other issue they've treated this way (Clinton's sexual peccadilloes vs. those of various and sundry pols on the right, for one spectacularly glaring example).

[DrDan]

50. and the "you really really really do not get it" is not personalizing?

I simply disagree with your premise. It is quite simple. Sorry. I know it is a common theme here - I just don't buy it.

Sure - there will be biased editorials, and individuals. But I just don't believe the "institutional" mission of a bias toward the left.

[redqueen]

51. No.

*sigh*

[kenfrequed]

62. The mainstream media ignores the left

The Democrats they put up tend to be the more 'moderate' or 'conservative' democrats.

The mainstream media rarely deals with facts and prefers the pro wrestling/horse race of politics. Fact checking is rarely done and when it is, they create a false equivalency argument where they state provably stupid things like 'the left has crazies too.'

Oh and they treat a couple of crazy, white, upper income, plants arranged by right wing republicans who are pretending to be independent 'tea-partiers' as a legitimate social movement.

[DrDan]

65. my hometown paper supported Obama - the Crawdad Texas paper supported Kerry over Bush in 2004

your claim that the MSM ignores the left is a gross generalization

[kenfrequed]

70. Nonsense

You are not listening. I don't care what politician the editorial board decides to back from the back page of the op ed section. This is about a bias of story framing and issues.

If the tea party issues take center stage and no one even talks about the possibility of universal single payer healthcare I fail to see how the left is left with any space within the mainstream media.

My gross generalization is also logically more supportable, as you are using an inductive argument based on one example of one paper's back page support. We are talking about the media and news. I can't help but wonder why, since you started talking about televised media, that you switched over to print media for your example.

[Beetwasher]

33. LOL!! Sure, Just Throw Away Data Points That Don't Match Your Theory

And if you think there's no bias on CNN, well, let's just say it says all I need to know about you.

[DrDan]

39. of course there may be individual bias . . . there is on both sides

but to claim a corporate wide bias against the D's is simply looney.

[Beetwasher]

41. What's Loony Is Not Considering Fox Part Of The MSM!

Now THAT'S loony!

So, it's not loony to realize that FOX is pretty much an arm of the Republican party that pretends otherwise. But to think there may be bias on other news channels IS loony? :rofl:

Do you realize how stupid that argument is?

[DrDan]

42. well . . . enjoy the paranoia

[Beetwasher]

45. Enjoy You're Non-MSM Fox News!

:rofl:

[kenfrequed]

61. Uhm

Outside of Olbermann and Maddow on MSNBC, the media tends to lean towards corporations, official sources, and horse races. They rarely ever describe the Democrats taking over the house and senate as a revolution in the manner that they once described the Republican takeover back in 1994.

CNN does have a bias, to pretend otherwise is folly.

[DrDan]

75. we are all entitled to our opinions

[kenfrequed]

79. Yes but

you are not entitled to your own facts. A statement of bias must be reasonably supported otherwise it is just wind.

[Johonny]

15. it was on MSNBC last night several time

in reference to the Rand Paul race. Although they put in perspective. Sure Rand Paul won over the Republicans preferred candidate he had a poor turn out compared to the Dems race no one paid any attention to nationally. And for all the Obama push back angle in the news, the Dems won yet another special election for a house seat. Their 7th in a row. Overall the election shows Republicans are moving hard to the right into nonsense land and Democrats have been less than thrilled with two very conservative Dems. Sure Obama endorsed them but a guy that has been a life long Republican is hardly a good bench test for Obama. The scary news to me is some of these Teabaggers are going to win come November. If the number 1 thing wrong with the Government now is useless legislatures that aren't interested in running the federal government, well a libertarian like Rand Paul scares the crap out of me. We only have about 60 % of Congress trying to legislate atm. It will be worse not better after November.

[redqueen]

17. Yep... they won't go near perspective on our side.

Can't have people catching on wrt to the issues, now.

[DrDan]

31. I think his message will resonate with a lot of Dems

get out of unnecessary wars
cut the deficit
stop these wall street bailouts

I think you are correct to worry about Rand. If these teabaggers get their emotions in check and begin to act like adults, they will draw quite a bit of support - from both sides.

[Beetwasher]

44. BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! You Think Paul Will Win Over Dems????

You think Tea Baggers will win over Dems?????

More amazingly, you think that it may be possible for Tea Baggers to act like adults???

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

We got a live one.

:rofl:

[DrDan]

46. I never said that!!!! Don't make up crap!

read my post

I said that I think some of his arguments will resonate

[Beetwasher]

49. Of COURSE You Fucking Did!!! Now You're Backpedalling!! LOL

"I think you are correct to worry about Rand. If these teabaggers get their emotions in check and begin to act like adults, they will draw quite a bit of support - from both sides."

Why should we worry about him if he won't win over some Dems? What does drawing support from BOTH sides mean? You think Paul can win over some Dems. It's fucking clear in your post.

Maybe now you realize how fucking stupid that is and you're backpedalling, but you sure as hell meant it then.

If his messge "Resonating" doesn't mean he will win over some support, then what the fuck does it mean? And that doesn't even matter, because you VERY CLEARLY SAY: "they will draw quite a bit of support - from both sides."


Busted. :rofl:

[DrDan]

52. well - are you suggesting that there will not be Dems that vote for him?

Are you suggesting that there will not be Dems that will support his end-the-war message?

Are you suggesting that there will not be Dems that will support his shrink the debt message?

Are you suggesting that there will not be Dems that will support his bring home the troops message?

If so - you are in denial.


Support DOES NOT MEAN win. I would not think I should have to spell that out for you.

Quit reading into my post things that are not there!!!!!!

[Beetwasher]

53. Not Enough To Be Concerned About- Your Backpedalling Is HILARIOUS!!!

And there will be Repubs that will vote for Dems. So what? Nothing to be concerned about.

You were very obviously trying to say that we should be concerend about Paul because he would draw Dem votes.

Then you denied you said that. Then you claim, well you did say it, but didn't mean to imply it would be anything significant.

"I think you are correct to worry about Rand. If these teabaggers get their emotions in check and begin to act like adults, they will draw quite a bit of support - from both sides."

You absolutely are saying we should worry because Paul might be able to "draw QUITE A BIT OF SUPPORT" from Dems.

Pah-thetic backpedal. :rofl:

[DrDan]

57. I misinterpreted your first comment "win over Dems"

I read that to be "win over the Dems" - as in win the election. That is what I took exception to.

I do think he can get some Dem votes.

- He has come out against the Patriot Act.
- He has come out against the War in Iraq.
- He has come out against the Wall Street bailouts.
- He has come out against the loss of civil liberties.
- He wants term limits.

Are you suggesting those issues will not resonate?


The Teabaggers have succeeded in 3 states. Laugh them off if you will, but they have come a long way in a year or so.

[Beetwasher]

58. If You Don't Think He Can Win The Election, WHY SHOULD WE BE WORRIED???? But Keep Backpedalling!

So, now we're on to backpedal number 3 or 4? "Misinterpretation"? :rofl:

Bullshit.

"I think you are correct to worry about Rand. If these teabaggers get their emotions in check and begin to act like adults, they will draw quite a bit of support - from both sides."

If you don't think he can win, why should we be worried?

WTF does "Resonate" mean, if not win over voters? And if it doesn't mean win votes, then why the fuck should we care if it "resonates"?

[DrDan]

59. well - so much for attempting a discussion - it is not only teabaggers who fail to act like adults

[Beetwasher]

66. Your Bullshit Got Busted! LOL! Yes, Now RUN AWAY!

:rofl:

[DrDan]

67. and your juvenile profanity is getting old

take your bullying attempts elsewhere

[Beetwasher]

68. Aww, Poor You, BUSTED! Careful, Backpedal Anymore And You'll Fall Off A Cliff!

:rofl:

[kenfrequed]

63. I'm laughing them off.

They were a manufactured movement created by a bunch of corporate drones and by Fox news. They rarely have a coherant point and those that remain are going to merely be a movement within the republican party (for good or ill) and will probably have a net-negative effect on the Republican party by the end of the day.

Their media presence is increasingly confused and the media has to run ever harder and longer to find them or find representatives of this absurd astroturf pack of idiots.

[DrDan]

64. they have succeeded in 3 states now . . .

[kenfrequed]

72. Feh

They marginally succeeded in republican primaries and changing republicn platform in a year when republican turn out at primaries and caucuses seems oddly depressed. In other words fewer people bothered showing up so the boiled over dregs and remants of this phoney party managed to sway the republican party.


Despite this Murtha's district should have been an easy capture for this monstrously huge and out of control wildly populist movement (yes, Virginia, this is sarchasm) and yet the Republicans were thoroughly trounced there. So yes, they may takeover a party that many republicans are becoming embarrased to be associated with, but no they are not looking like they are moving into a position for a big win in November.

[BurtWorm]

7. I just posted something very similar.

They have been taught to think of elections as part of an overall story with a main narrative running through them. They can't just report the results, they have to invent the theme: this election is about Obama's clout. This election is about the electorate's distaste for incumbents. It's all bullshit.

[kwolf68]

13. McConnell v Obama support

Not the same.

Obama support not helping...Obama losing clout, Dems fracturing and heading down drain

McConnell support not helping...Tea Party, Sarah, You Betcha

[redqueen]

19. Exactly... not one word about activist energy on the Dem side.

Not one word about the reasons... just pretend it's about Obama.

What a bunch of crap.

[DrDan]

27. wrong once again - what I heard from the MSM is that the results were as a result

of activism from BOTH sides. Less influence from the party and party leaders - more from activist orgs.

Of course that does not support the "media is out to get us" meme. But that is what was presented this morning on the talk show I listened to.

[ginnyinWI]

21. I see a difference between cable news and networks...

CBS's meme was just "anti-incumbent trend". No Obama bashing that I could see.

I've recently cut cable tv and cable news and don't miss it a bit. From a distance it just seems like a lot of hyperbolic screaming--left and right.

[redqueen]

23. Not much screaming from the left on cable tv/cable news.

There's Olbermann, sure. Big Ed, too. That's pretty much it.

[EFerrari]

36. They really do treat their audience like idiots.

No wonder they lose some every day.

[sabrina 1]

37. It doesn't matter what the media says, they don't have many

coattails either.

The base of the party that is so despised by the Rahm/DLCers, spoke last night which shows that people are not interested in DLC ideas any more than they are interested in Repubican ideas.

The base of the party wanted to get rid of DLCers like Blanche Lincoln and DLC favorite, Specter.

The odds of anyone beating Lincoln were pretty slim. She had the Party Machine behind her, endless money from special interests and even, unbelievably, an endorsement from Obama.

Halter otoh, was unknown outside of Arkansas yet managed to collect several million dollars from ordinary people. He was outspent by Lincoln yet managed to force her into a run-off. The turnout on the Dem side was nearly four times the Republican turnout.

Rahm et al made the huge mistake of slamming the people who got them there. Now, those same people are making their own choices and will not be influenced by the WH as long as it appears the Obama/Rahm et al do not hear the people who elected them, and their supporters continue to slam 'the left'.

Republicans seem to be having the same problem. I did hear on the media, that McConnell did not have much influence.

[happy_liberal]

47. They really don't care if WE watch it

They are creating the propaganda necessary to steal the elections 2010 and 2012.

Nothing has changed. The plan all along was to allow Obama in so they had someone to blame everything on. Now after he takes all the shit for what they did, they will steal the elections and make everything even worse...with a new Newt Gingrich 2010 and we can expect Cheney/Palin 2012.

I think people here need to wake up. Their playbook is so obvious and we have done nothing to stop it.

As we watch and react to their latest outrageous move, the are working on the next one.

[dionysus]

54. it's all over here, too. people are pushingthat meme for all it's worth and then some.

[RainDog]

55. a big ole rec for the redqueen! n/t

[kenfrequed]

60. Well...

They are desperate to have it mean ANYTHING but...

The Democrats taking Murtha's seat despite the money and filth and tea party nonsense of the GOP indicates a dampening of their chances this fall.

and...

The Democrats are rejecting conserva-dems, blue dogs, and DLC friendlies in favor or real progressive democrats.


The mainstream media seems to resist the idea that either of those are important factors and will instead run the stupid 'anti incumbent' meme. Fox will be covering the 'Is Obama a strong enough leader if he can't convince people to vote for Arlen Spector' angle.

[Lilyeye]

69. I don't remember it either. The MSM makes me sick!

[Jade Fox]

71. No, I've never seen such nonsense.....

Sitting Presidents routinely endorse incumbents and same-party challengers in a show of Party unity. It's just politics as usual, but a HUGE deal is being made over Obama's so-called failures.

[Lagomorph]

73. The spin masters....

...are idiots.

I'd be playing up the positives and letting the doubters and deniers spin their own traps.

"The deficit is unsustainable." I'm glad we agree. What are we going to do about it?

"Spending is out of control." I'm doing everything I can to get it under control. All we have to do is change EVERYTHING.

"There's to many entitlements." Driving over the bodies of homeless people, living in the streets, is hard on suspensions and slows down the commute.

[spanone]

74. this morning npr called it 'anti-incumbent fever' what a load of horseshit