Media coverage

[jpgray]

Poll question: Media coverage

Now this much is obvious: the media are playing up the attacks from the Bush/Cheney camp while forbearing from casting *any* negative light upon their campaign. Bush/Cheney has been overwhelmingly negative compared to Kerry/Edwards, as you can tell from watching each convention, and as you can see here on their websites:





The attacks are not only unprecedented in volume, they are also unprecedented in their misleading assertions. Each one of the Bush/Cheney attacks runs right up to the edge of a lie, stopping right before the media are wont to call them on one. Cheney doesn't even bother to stop anymore, but the only times you will see this is on a freaking fake news program on Comedy Central. When interviewed by a CNBC reporter, he vehemently denied that he ever said the Czech evidence for Al Qaeda Saddam connections were pretty well confirmed. Only on Jon Stewart's Daily Show, of all places, did I see the clip from MTP with the contradictory statement matched up to his emphatic denial on CNBC. Remember all the controversy about how negative and Bush-bashing the Democrats were? Where the hell is that controversy? The RNC has turned out to be the mother-lode of negative politics! I thought the media and the public hated such things? Of course that is only when the Democrats are engaging in it. Dean or Kucinich or Sharpton are raving madmen, whereas Arnold and Zell are ranked among the greatest speechgivers?

Why? It's undoubtedly some of both, but which do you think is more the problem?

[iamjoy]

1. Lazy Media

I don't think they really have an extreme conservative bias , but they are just too disinterested to follow up and expose the Republican bull.

[EST]

2. This is a poll of what?

Both of the above are true.

[jpgray]

3. There are two sentences directly above the poll options

I know it's quicker to just read the thread title and then the poll options, but that in-between part sometimes has useful things inside.

[EST]

4. My point is

they are so inextricably entwined, there's no way for me to be able rate one above the other.

[jpgray]

5. Very true--sorry if I didn't address that problem clearly

:hi:

[EST]

6. 'Sokay

Now we have the issue, in the face of which I can admit to only quiet desperation. What can we do to come up with a silver bullet? I can see a few major steps, but how can we force this issue to the position it deserves, even with a Kerry administration. I can envision the movers and shakers being unwilling to deal with the problems of deregulation and monopoly, simply because it would then serve them altogether too well. For a future society, I see a need for tighter libel/slander rules, enhanced equal access laws, more local control over content, and serious limits to ownership. Your thoughts?

[LimpingLib]

7. We have a media? Maybe in the Orwellian sense.

I just heard David Gergen talk about how offended he was at Miller being angry but Gergen was caught on camera (wont be aired) running at somebody who asked him a simple question and laid his hands on him and yelled and threatened him. Gergen is like 6 ft 6 too , the guy he went after and nearly beat up wasnt a shrimp , Gergen didnt need his body guard all elites have with them. Heck , Orwell could have never guessed.

What do New Yorkers think? Im getting reports of cops smashing peoples cameras and being more agressive than ever.

We need to become our own media.