I happened to catch O'Donnell tearing into Trump. I think Trump is a non-player and could never be the GOP nominee, but, for whatever reason, O'Donnell devoted a huge portion of his show to attacking Trump. He constantly called him the LIAR and I wondered if that is slander.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42672120#42672120

I said it elsewhere, as any GOP candidate rises, even a little, the MSM will start attacking to keep things clear for Obama's re-election.

You watch...after Trump, it will be someone else who gets in the crosshairs.

In the meantime, the President will receive very little to no negative publicity or adversarial interviews.

Writerbuckeye;752270 wrote:I said it elsewhere, as any GOP candidate rises, even a little, the MSM will start attacking to keep things clear for Obama's re-election.

You watch...after Trump, it will be someone else who gets in the crosshairs.

In the meantime, the President will receive very little to no negative publicity or adversarial interviews.

So predictable, so boring, so paranoid.

Writer, do you notice that the people who are being "attacked" are absolute jokes? Ever think that has something to do with it?

You didn't see this type of "hostility" towards Mccain, or Huckabee, etc because they were, you know, real candidates.

I never thought of Trump as a viable candidate, but he was starting to get some rise in the polls -- and that's when NBC went hard after him. Until then, they ignored him.

Same thing will happen with "real" candidates, too.

You watch.

Or the fact that Trump was on a witch hunt and has now been proven an idiot. (Although this whole birther thing was dumb to begin with)

Like someone else said, people are only harrassed if they show themselves to be idiots/nutjobs. If they are legitimate candidates, they will be debated against regardless of party affiliation. Your ignorant if you think that somehow only the Republican candidates get "attacked." You're telling me John Kerry, Howard Dean... DIDN'T get "attacked" in the media when 2004 rolled around? Give me a break. Do the Swift Boats and unearned Purple Heart ring a bell? How about the reports the he (gasp) had Botox.

bigkahuna;752525 wrote:Do the U-Boats and unearned Purple Heart ring a bell? How about the reports the he (gasp) had Botox.

I think you got your boats mixed up. I don't think anyone is accusing Kerry of commanding a German submarine during WWI or WWII. I think you meant swift boat.

Thanks for the catch. I fixed it. Hopefully that doesn't discredit my post lol.

Writerbuckeye;752497 wrote:I never thought of Trump as a viable candidate, but he was starting to get some rise in the polls -- and that's when NBC went hard after him. Until then, they ignored him.

Same thing will happen with "real" candidates, too.

You watch.

Because they and everyone else thought he was fuggin' kidding.

bigkahuna;752579 wrote:Thanks for the catch. I fixed it. Hopefully that doesn't discredit my post lol.

No. I knew what you meant. Just thought I would bring in a little humor.

majorspark;752588 wrote:No. I knew what you meant. Just thought I would bring in a little humor.

Got to watch that around here. Serious business and all.

The leftist media wil indeed attack, disparage, and scrutinize every dirty detail of any candidate who dares to challenge their Chosen One. It's not a matter of if but WHEN.

That being said Palin, Trump, etc. will eventually fall by the wayside. Not because the leftist Obama-loving media was successful in the smear campaigns, but because there is simply no way these candidates will get the Republican Party endorsement.

When the real Republican candidate finally rises to prominence, you can be sure that while Obama's track record as POTUS will be polished to a very shiny turd by his media fuck-buddies, every minor piece of dirt, pimple or imperfection on the Repub candidate will be visited over and over and over again by the Leftist Media Collective.

It's just how it is.

bigkahuna;752525 wrote:Or the fact that Trump was on a witch hunt and has now been proven an idiot. (Although this whole birther thing was dumb to begin with)

Like someone else said, people are only harrassed if they show themselves to be idiots/nutjobs. If they are legitimate candidates, they will be debated against regardless of party affiliation. Your ignorant if you think that somehow only the Republican candidates get "attacked." You're telling me John Kerry, Howard Dean... DIDN'T get "attacked" in the media when 2004 rolled around? Give me a break. Do the Swift Boats and unearned Purple Heart ring a bell? How about the reports the he (gasp) had Botox.

Well when you have people like O'Donnell holding the Malleus Maleficarum, it's kinda hard to take it as credible.

That's not even the point of my post. I was respond to Writer (and now believer) who are naive enough to think that only Republican Presidential candidates are the ones to have negative things said about them in the media. It's more like whoever is challenging the incumbent has an uphill battle as far as past/background/character issues go.

Writerbuckeye;752497 wrote:I never thought of Trump as a viable candidate, but he was starting to get some rise in the polls -- and that's when NBC went hard after him. Until then, they ignored him.

Same thing will happen with "real" candidates, too.

You watch.

believer;752607 wrote:The leftist media wil indeed attack, disparage, and scrutinize every dirty detail of any candidate who dares to challenge their Chosen One. It's not a matter of if but WHEN.

That being said Palin, Trump, etc. will eventually fall by the wayside. Not because the leftist Obama-loving media was successful in the smear campaigns, but because there is simply no way these candidates will get the Republican Party endorsement.

When the real Republican candidate finally rises to prominence, you can be sure that while Obama's track record as POTUS will be polished to a very shiny turd by his media fuck-buddies, every minor piece of dirt, pimple or imperfection on the Repub candidate will be visited over and over and over again by the Leftist Media Collective.

It's just how it is.

Another example of the tag-team which occurs whenever the media is mentioned on this forum. Writer feels that no member of the media can live up to his puritan standards and believer piles on shortly thereafter. This is becoming quite entertaining.

stlouiedipalma;752725 wrote:Another example of the tag-team which occurs whenever the media is mentioned on this forum. Writer feels that no member of the media can live up to his puritan standards and believer piles on shortly thereafter. This is becoming quite entertaining.

Show me proof I'm wrong. A study done of media stories on Obama in the campaign clearly showed he had a significant edge in positive stories.

I'm simply making a prediction that the same media that treated an unknown with kid gloves all through the campaign -- basically because he reflects most of their own beliefs -- is not about to be abandoned by this same media. They went all in on him and have a stake in his success or failure.

Press coverage from first two months...http://journalism.about.com/od/trends/a/pressobama.htm

Campaign...http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/29/study-shows-media-treats-mccain-negatively-obama-and-clinton-kindly/

I'm just laughin'

Writerbuckeye;752767 wrote:Show me proof I'm wrong. A study done of media stories on Obama in the campaign clearly showed he had a significant edge in positive stories.

I'm simply making a prediction that the same media that treated an unknown with kid gloves all through the campaign -- basically because he reflects most of their own beliefs -- is not about to be abandoned by this same media. They went all in on him and have a stake in his success or failure.

Press coverage from first two months...http://journalism.about.com/od/trends/a/pressobama.htm

Campaign...http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/29/study-shows-media-treats-mccain-negatively-obama-and-clinton-kindly/

Big frickin' deal. Face it, the media has changed since you were reporting and you simply can't stand it. It used to be interesting but now it just comes off as complaining and finger pointing. Do you honestly think your complaining will change the way they do things? Do you think you will change any minds by pointing it out?

We both need to realize that for all our bickering and biased stances on anything political we aren't going to convert anyone. The conservatives will remain conservative and the liberals will remain liberal. I've yet to see the post on here where someone suddenly sees the light and changes their core beliefs.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Who said I was trying to change anyone's mind? I think it's worth noting when the media misbehaves (yes, in my opinion) and doesn't do its job.

You just better stop reading my posts if they're media-related. Because I'm not going to stop pointing out their lies and hypocrisy when it happens.

Writerbuckeye;753173 wrote:Who said I was trying to change anyone's mind? I think it's worth noting when the media misbehaves (yes, in my opinion) and doesn't do its job.

You just better stop reading my posts if they're media-related. Because I'm not going to stop pointing out their lies and hypocrisy when it happens.

OK....here's where I tag-team: Neither will I.

stlouiedipalma;753152 wrote:Big frickin' deal. Face it, the media has changed since you were reporting and you simply can't stand it. It used to be interesting but now it just comes off as complaining and finger pointing. Do you honestly think your complaining will change the way they do things? Do you think you will change any minds by pointing it out?

We both need to realize that for all our bickering and biased stances on anything political we aren't going to convert anyone. The conservatives will remain conservative and the liberals will remain liberal. I've yet to see the post on here where someone suddenly sees the light and changes their core beliefs.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You gotta admit that he gotcha on the whole media thing, though. You may not like it at all, but it doesn't mean that he isn't right about it.
It's not so much about agreeing with it as it is about acknowledging it.

I look at it much as I look at what the democratic party is turning into; I keep hoping that if enough people start to recognize that the party has gone goofy, and if they analyze and speak out about it enough, that the party can get its act together and straighten up and act like it has an ounce of common sense.
From what I understand, and I could be wrong, is that Believer and WB are both hoping for the same things concerning the media.

But, on the other hand, the media has always been shown to be biased after politicians in one way or another - from before this country was its own.

Writerbuckeye;753173 wrote:Who said I was trying to change anyone's mind? I think it's worth noting when the media misbehaves (yes, in my opinion) and doesn't do its job.

You just better stop reading my posts if they're media-related. Because I'm not going to stop pointing out their lies and hypocrisy when it happens.

And you will continue to ignore the fact that the media goes both ways with things like this.

Crazy, you have scarlet colored glasses AND red colored glasses.

CenterBHSFan;753579 wrote:You gotta admit that he gotcha on the whole media thing, though. You may not like it at all, but it doesn't mean that he isn't right about it.
It's not so much about agreeing with it as it is about acknowledging it.

I look at it much as I look at what the democratic party is turning into; I keep hoping that if enough people start to recognize that the party has gone goofy, and if they analyze and speak out about it enough, that the party can get its act together and straighten up and act like it has an ounce of common sense.
From what I understand, and I could be wrong, is that Believer and WB are both hoping for the same things concerning the media.

But, on the other hand, the media has always been shown to be biased after politicians in one way or another - from before this country was its own.

You say the Democratic party has gone "goofy" while I'd say the same about the Republican party. Just because you think something is clear or obvious doesn't make it so and it doesn't mean everyone does.

Disclosure, I think both suck/are "goofy".


And as for the bolded, that's because the media is made up of people (like Soylent Green) and people tend to have opinions. Which they then say in front of a camera or into a microphone or write down/type. Why this is outraging or shocking is beyond me.

CenterBHSFan;753579 wrote:I look at it much as I look at what the democratic party is turning into; I keep hoping that if enough people start to recognize that the party has gone goofy, and if they analyze and speak out about it enough, that the party can get its act together and straighten up and act like it has an ounce of common sense.

From what I understand, and I could be wrong, is that Believer and WB are both hoping for the same things concerning the media.

THIS

I firmly believe that while the 4th Estate has never been entirely "objective" there was a time when it was at least somewhat professional. There is without a doubt a very discernible liberal slant to the media these days. Because of that the "new media" has arisen including Fox News and AM talk radio.

It's fair - in my mind anyway - to say that if the more traditional media outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS, the NY Times, CNN, etc.) had been practicing true objective journalism rather than clearly behaving as the propaganda arm for the American left over the past half century, that Fox News, etc. may never have been needed.

In fact I can argue that without the left-leaning media's attempts to make the news and influence events rather than investigate and report the news, that PERHAPS both parties wouldn't be quite so goofy and extreme these days. The "mainstream" media have fanned the flames so to speak.

Stlouiedipalma thinks we're wasting our time. Talking about it won't change anything. Bullshit. If a semi-free people shut their mouths simply because "it ain't gonna change nuthin" then ideas never get expressed and change most certainly never occurs. Do I think posting rants on OC makes a difference? lol NO but if I can get even ONE person to open their eyes to the reality and disservice of a politically biased 4th Estate, then that's all that matters to me.

I Wear Pants;753971 wrote:You say the Democratic party has gone "goofy" while I'd say the same about the Republican party. Just because you think something is clear or obvious doesn't make it so and it doesn't mean everyone does.

Disclosure, I think both suck/are "goofy".

What you need to keep in mind (and I've stated this many times) is that I'm hard and heavy on the democratic party... absolutely. I hope that it can turn itself around. I believe it can. But it never will as long as the people who subscribe to it never speak out about what is wrong with it and just go along with whatever direction it takes.
It is the D's fault that the party has ended up so far out in lala land. It's a very rare person that will take the time and deride the stupidity. And the younger generations have the unfortunate situation of having limited experience to do any personal comparative thinking, so they are very willing to lean into the curve.
I don't give a damn about the republican party. I never was a republican, even though I have voted R along the way. I think that if the R's are happy where their party is at and is willing to not try to change (speak out, criticize, etc.) anything about it, it that it is their fault that the party is a hotmess. Just like the D's are to blame for what the party has become.

So yeah, that is why you'll always see me be critical about my own party. It is my belief that it is my duty to be critical of it, because obviously change through the voting process hasn't worked. And if the nutbuckets like Pelosi & Co. aren't called what they are, that is a complacency that the party cannot afford.
That is all.