Did it ever occur to anyone else that the news stories about your candidate that you cheer about ...

[Stinky The Clown]

.... could be hurting the Democratic candidate's chances in November?

This is NOT a thread about your candidate. It IS a thread about the media fucking with us yet again.

***Just as an example***, let's take this "elitist" and "bitter" crap that they've been discussing. They couch reports in terms that seem to favor/sympathize with Obama and show Clinton to be the one pushing crap out there. That may or may not be true and is NOT the subject of this post.

What IS the subject of this post is how such (non)"Newz" hurts us. They keep the story about one candidate alive by saying how unfair it is ...... over and over and over ..... elitist ..... elitist ..... bitter ...... bitter ...... bitter ...... until it actually starts to grow its own legs.

Obama is an elitist.

Meanwhile, Clinton is portrayed to her stereotype ...... the mean, cackling harpie putting out tons of shit in which to bury her opposition. Not very flattering. But, just like the elitist label, repeat often enough and it starts to stick.

This is but one example of a story that is fresh in the news.

The point here is that not all news - even favorable news - is all that good for you. If we had a media that was more Walter Cronkite than Simon Cowle, we might be better off.

The media, fellow Democrats, is NOT our friend ..... even when they appear to favor us and even when we cheer abut the story they're telling.

Right now, Obama seems to be getting the good press.

I am not so sure that what 'seems to be' really 'is'.

[stellanoir]

1. If only. . .

Walter Cronkite and Simon Cowell and Rachel Maddow would moderate a debate, I'd prepare the popcorn for everyone.

[Autumn]

2. What?? The media lies to us

and they distort Democrats? I never would have thought that:kick: I well remember 2000 and again 2004. And I mourn for what should have been. Thank you.

[spanone]

3. i think our greatest danger beyond bu$hco is the media...the 24/7 news cycle frenzy

it doesn't care about truth only sensationalism

[lonestarnot]

4. So what's new? Nothing is ever as it appears.

[Richard Steele]

5. Yes. nm

[truedelphi]

6. I think that 2006 was the first election cycle ever where the news media

Was totally out of sync with the new viewpoint so many people have gained by being on the
internet(s)

Debra Bowen in California was awarded the Secretary of State position - it was a grass roots activist campaign that got her that seat. The TV talking heads interviewed her opponent, and talked about her opponent winning - even at the 7Pm news time when if you were on the internet you knew that Bowen had the winning margin.

Abt 2 years ago, CNN used a story on people who noted impeachment as their hourly teaser. They first mentioned it before the hour - "Coming up shortly,w e take a good look at the sort of people who want impeachment."

It was about 22 minutes AFTER the hour that they covered that story. That means it is a very popular story to run with.

And that was before the economy started to irreparably hemorrhage.