Nature of MSM coverage

[nadinbrzezinski]

reality is that if we are going to discuss the nature of the coverage by the media we need to ask ourselves HOW they portray each of the "combatants" in the political field of battle. This is important because it will also influence your discussions with people who watch too much MSM (regardless of channel at this point) who don't have the ability to think critically.

Realize when discussing coverage, using time is a bad metric. Now type of coverage... Gore invented the Intertubes... just ask CNN. It was a bald faced lie.

And while we had the GOP staffers commit a federal felony as they broke into the vote counting in Velusia CO in 2000... the media egged them on. Fox was the worst, CNN came close. Remember kiddies, MSNBC did not exist in it's current form.

Why Media Matters was organized and they do yeoman's work. I'd love to see a COMPARISON of the coverage of 2006 and today on SUBSTANTIVE issues.

Some things I am beting they will find...

Speaker Boehner talked of promises and how we are going to fix the country... while Speaker Pelosi spent too much time with Makeup and why the fuck did she bring out the grand kids? They will conveniently ignore the fact that Boehner never spoke of jobs... or the economy... and the speech was full of code for their real employers.

Those are the differences and to the ear of the average "voter" which sounds more manly? This is how they manipulate the public. And it does not help that Americans are, by a national trait. ignorant and forget a lot.

So this is what we need to discuss and HOW to change this dynamic. After all, those who listen to the TEEVEEE machine will give you usual talking points, including that Speaker Pelosi only cares about her dress ... (MSM meme from 2006)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15848348/ns/politics/

I am betting most of you had forgotten THAT gem!

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. it matters folks, it matters

[zbdent]

2. Don't forget ... crying was the kiss of death for a male Democrat not too long ago ...

now it's going to be portrayed as the new "manly" (at least, for Repugs ...)

Remember how you couldn't hear enough about the military records of politicians (Repugs, of course) compared to those "Vietnam protester weenies" (Dems)?

Along comes the artful dodger W, up against Gore, who actually set foot in Vietnam DURING THE CONFLICT (downplayed by the media to "a flyover", practically), and against decorated Vietnam Veteran John Kerry (who was portrayed as lying to get his medals, by a guy who got his medal from the same event where Kerry got his) ...

Did you hear one "lefty" mainstream media outlet question John McCain's military record? (Other than a guest commentator on a panel, vastly outnumbered by "moderates" in the vein of Ollie North) No mention of the idea of Mc being a "Manchurian Candidate", a concept raised by Bush's team in 1999/2000 ...

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Oh absolutely...

it did cost a candidate his run for the Presidency.

And this is why this matters. We all need to understand that it is not about time, but substance.

[KoKo]

4. Kick...it's Euphoria for MSM...always good to be reminded to be vigilant...!

:kick: