Jae Onasi Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Does preventing pretty much all media from doing anything more than taking Sarah Palin's picture not count as banishing them from interviews? It doesn't matter if Obama banishes a station (and he did an interview on O'Reilly's show, so I can't count that as banishing), or if Palin won't give interviews. The media are going to do whatever they want anyway to make things look better for their respective sides. The media bias on both sides has been so bad this election cycle that I've given up on all hope of the term 'journalistic integrity' being anything other than a complete oxymoron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 The media are going to do whatever they want anyway to make things look better for their respective sides. The media bias on both sides has been so bad this election cycle that I've given up on all hope of the term 'journalistic integrity' being anything other than a complete oxymoron.I quite agree, was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of lambasting someone for choosing not to interview with a few specific journalists while half of the other ticket wouldn't interview with anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Anyone interested in seeing the full transcript (not just the spun parts) of Biden's comments can find them here. I think the first response is worth taking the time to read as well. My 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Anyone interested in seeing the full transcript (not just the spun parts) of Biden's comments can find them here. I think the first response is worth taking the time to read as well. My 2 cents. Thanks, it puts the comments in a completely different context for anyone that is not completely bias. These shows why sound bites can be fun, but if you want the real information go straight to the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 I quite agree, was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of lambasting someone for choosing not to interview with a few specific journalists while half of the other ticket wouldn't interview with anyone. Isn't Governor Palin also new to the national scene, and isn't it also true that some of the media outlets seem more interested in her clothes than anything else? Fact is though, that Biden got upset for being called on what he said, particularly the speech that Yar-El started this topic on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Isn't Governor Palin also new to the national scene, and isn't it also true that some of the media outlets seem more interested in her clothes than anything else?I was unaware one of the stipulations in allowing the media to do their job with regards to presidential and vice presidential candidates was that they were already well established on the national scene. And it is difficult to run any other news when she doesn't talk to the media, so they've got to report on what they can. And spending $150,000 in a couple of months on clothes is something that kind of undermines the whole "I'm just like you" rhetoric, which makes it news-worthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 I was unaware one of the stipulations in allowing the media to do their job with regards to presidential and vice presidential candidates was that they were already well established on the national scene. But they even got that part wrong, and some of the pot shots taken by the media at Governor Palin's children were unacceptable too. And it is difficult to run any other news when she doesn't talk to the media, so they've got to report on what they can. And spending $150,000 in a couple of months on clothes is something that kind of undermines the whole "I'm just like you" rhetoric, which makes it news-worthy. Except for the fact that it was the Republican Party that got the clothes, without Governor Palin knowing beforehand... However, that still doesn't compare to trying to deny the fact you said something when you actually said it, as Yar-El pointed out in this topic. Anyways WFTV has been blacklisted: http://www.examiner.com/x-1087-Denver-News-Examiner~y2008m10d26-WFTV-blacklisted-by-Obama-campaign-after-Biden-interview-with-Barbara-West Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Except for the fact that it was the Republican Party that got the clothes, without Governor Palin knowing beforehand...They must have some expert shoppers and size guessers then. You'd think the Republicans would have enough sense to at least make sure the clothes fit before they dropped an eighth of a million of the campaigns money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 They must have some expert shoppers and size guessers then. You'd think the Republicans would have enough sense to at least make sure the clothes fit before they dropped an eighth of a million of the campaigns money. Actually most of the clothes had to be sent back because they did it without Governor Palin's knowledge and thus the clothes didn't fit. Additionally the clothes will be donated to charity. Maybe someone should do a news story about how much those designer ties that Obama wears cost? Back to topic Senator Biden has had a spat with a second local news station this time in Pennsylvania, I don't know how the Obama Campaign will react to this one. UPDATE: After threats by the Obama Campaign to blacklist them Philadelphia's CBS3 has buried the interview. http://www.bucksright.com/philadelphias-cbs3-caves-to-obama-blacklist-threat-2054 I expect this story to end up on Fox News later, and hopefully they have an uneditted tape of the interview because apparently the news station has removed it from their site and trying to act like it didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 he did give the statements that were marxist, and he has associates that are Marxist. Top that off Biden made the statement about the international incident. Any sort of solid proof would be welcome. Better yet, why should we give a damn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Better yet, why should we give a damn? I agree, this is a NON-ISSUE. This ie not affecting voters as it is readily apparent that anyone who knows anything about what they said doesn't believe these claims, and anyone who already believes the negative campaign against Obama are just more set in their ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Thanks, it puts the comments in a completely different context for anyone that is not completely bias.You're welcome. I found this this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 I agree, this is a NON-ISSUE. This ie not affecting voters as it is readily apparent that anyone who knows anything about what they said doesn't believe these claims, and anyone who already believes the negative campaign against Obama are just more set in their ways. Well to me it is, because if the media isn't going to ask our leaders tough questions, or are going to be blacklisted for it, then you can kiss the 1st Amendment and all our freedoms goodbye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Well to me it is, because if the media isn't going to ask our leaders tough questions, or are going to be blacklisted for it, then you can kiss the 1st Amendment and all our freedoms goodbye.Ooo, like when McCain blacklisted CNN after Campbell Brown tried to get a straight answer out of Tucker Bounds a couple of months back? Link Looking forward to your response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Ooo, like when McCain blacklisted CNN after Campbell Brown tried to get a straight answer out of Tucker Bounds a couple of months back? Looking forward to your response. When exactly did he blacklist CNN? I know Hillary blacklisted MSNBC after their people made comments concerning Hillary's daughter that were inappropriate putting it mildly, but I don't remember McCain doing anything of the sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 I found this this morning. The McCain campaign attempted to use Biden’s words against Obama, but the Obama campaign turned their criticism back to McCain. Classic I love how the Obama campaign is answering every McCain commercial with their own, yet the Obama campaign is staying on message while the McCain campaign only seems to be on the attack. The McCain campaign isn’t about vote for McCain, it is all about vote against Obama. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 The McCain campaign attempted to use Biden’s words against Obama, but the Obama campaign turned their criticism back to McCain. Classic I love how the Obama campaign is answering every McCain commercial with their own, yet the Obama campaign is staying on message while the McCain campaign only seems to be on the attack. The McCain campaign isn’t about vote for McCain, it is all about vote against Obama. Thanks again. mimartin, the Obama campaign has spent over half a billion dollars in the Presidential race while Senator McCain only had 84 million dollars to work with, because McCain actually kept his word and Obama didn't. Also didn't Biden call Obama dangerous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 mimartin, the Obama campaign has spent over half a billion dollars in the Presidential race while Senator McCain only had 84 million dollars to work with, because McCain actually kept his word and Obama didn't. Once more, I ask you to cite your source. And, once more, I'd like to point out that McCain made the choice to use the RNC's funding, as opposed to being privately funded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Once more, I ask you to cite your source. And, once more, I'd like to point out that McCain made the choice to use the RNC's funding, as opposed to being privately funded. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638 And that's from September, both candidates signed a pledge to take matching funds, but Obama broke his word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 mimartin, the Obama campaign has spent over half a billion dollars in the Presidential race while Senator McCain only had 84 million dollars to work with, because McCain actually kept his word and Obama didn't. I partly agree and it is so nice that for once the Democrats have more money to spend than the Republicans. The point is, one is on message the other is only talking about why not to vote for the other. That has very little to do with money. It seems to me if I were limited on spending, I would want to get my message out and tell people why they should vote for me. I disagree with your mischaracterization on Obama keeping his word. Obama said he would negotiate with the Republican Campaign about the use of public or private money. What can I say, McCain is a Maverick and obviously the negotiations did not go well. I actually like the idea of candidates not using public funds to finance the election, just call me a Conservative that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 I disagree with your mischaracterization on Obama keeping his word. Obama said he would negotiate with the Republican Campaign about the use of public or private money. What can I say, McCain is a Maverick and obviously the negotiations did not go well. I actually like the idea of candidates not using public funds to finance the election, just call me a Conservative that way. Negotiations never took place mimartin, Obama just saw he could rake in a bunch of cash and broke his word. As far as using Public Funds I like the idea because it helps minimize the effect of corporations and special interest groups on campaigns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638 And that's from September, both candidates signed a pledge to take matching funds, but Obama broke his word. That's just the same link twice - Lit asked you to prove that Obama broke his word, not how much was spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 That's just the same link twice - Lit asked you to prove that Obama broke his word, not how much was spent. Thought they were talking about the amount of money spent, well here's an extremely left wing source commenting on it. His decision to break an earlier pledge to take public money will quite likely transform the landscape of presidential campaigns, injecting hundreds of millions of additional dollars into the race and raising doubts about the future of public financing for national races. In becoming the first major party candidate to reject public financing and its attendant spending limits, Mr. Obama contended that the public financing apparatus was broken and that his Republican opponents were masters at “gaming” the system and would spend “millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations” smearing him. But it is not at all clear at this point in the evolving campaign season that Republicans will have the advantage when it comes to support from independent groups. In fact, the Democrats appear much better poised to benefit from such efforts. -- New York Times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 As far as using Public Funds I like the idea because it helps minimize the effect of corporations and special interest groups on campaigns. You like the idea of using tax payers’ money to finance an election. Funny this wasn’t an issue in 2004 when President Bush choice to forgo public funds. I guess it is only bad when the Democrat does it. Maybe we should start a thread entitled “Is Obama a Conservative for using private funds?” Negotiations never took place mimartin, Obama just saw he could rake in a bunch of cash and broke his word.[/Quote] Negotiations never took place? There was no contract? Then how to we jump to the conclusion that Obama broke his word? Wouldn’t it be more accurate and less bias to say he changed his mind, since there was no legal reason he could not. I was going to buy a Honda, but I bought a Jeep instead, does that make me a liar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 You like the idea of using tax payers’ money to finance an election. Funny this wasn’t an issue in 2004 when President Bush choice to forgo public funds. I guess it is only bad when the Democrat does it. In 2004, both Bush and Kerry did the same thing, so there both sides were in the wrong. I also don't believe I was a member here in 2004, otherwise I would have been yelling about it. Maybe we should start a thread entitled “Is Obama a Conservative for using private funds?” I'd actually go for he can't be trusted to keep his word, because he took a pledge to use public funds and broke it. Negotiations never took place? There was no contract? Then how to we jump to the conclusion that Obama broke his word? Wouldn’t it be more accurate and less bias to say he changed his mind, since there was no legal reason he could not. I was going to buy a Honda, but I bought a Jeep instead, does that make me a liar? mimartin, Senator Obama said that if the Republican candidate agreed to take public funds, that he would take public funds, he crowed it throughout the media, and made the pledge during the Democrat Primaries. (So there was never a negotiation between him and Senator McCain) John McCain (without meeting with Senator Obama) said he was going to take public funding, however Barack Obama then turned around and said he wasn't going to take public funding. That's how Senator Obama broke his word without any negotiations with Senator McCain on taking public financing. The contract was with the American People. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.