Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is the leading story, but it's the titillating aspects of the story that are being played up. Jill Kelley in tight little dresses, Paula Broadwell with classified info in her possession, did Petraeus betraeus.
You are not going to find the Woodward and Bernsteins of this generation asking what did Obama know and when did he know it and why did he send Susan Rice out to lie and why did he let Hillary accept responsibility for the deaths of four Americans in Libya. You don't see the editorial pages of the WaPo and the NYT demanding honest answers from Obama.
FOX will, but you libs casually smear FOX because you don't like what you hear and you've programmed yourselves to automatically reject anything they say. So the media can get away with shoddy reporting because IMO, most of you don't want to hear anything bad about this administration.
And the media either won't or isn't inclined to ask Obama hard questions. You notice that latest press conference? There wasn't a single reporter that didn't bring their knee-pads with them - the whole affair was nothing more that an exercise in journalistic malpractice.
You've stumbled into the truth. The media focuses primarily on sensationalism because we are increasingly becoming a nation of culturally and civically illiterate boobs with the attention spans of young kittens who cannot handle anything remotely serious unless it involves sex, explosions or celebrities.
At the end of the day there really are two sources of "news", FOX and MSNBC. When FOX comes out with a news report, do a search on the subject and you will get oh, 100 hits from different sources all about 5 minutes behind the FOX "breaking news". 9 out of 10 will quote "FOX". When it comes to MSNBC reports, the number of hits are less and maybe 8 out of 10 will quote MSNBC five minutes behind. Seems many "journalists/reporters" rely on FOX and MSNBC for their "news".
What ever happened to when a reporter actually investigated a subject on their own? A journalist/reporter doesn't wait for news to break from another source, a good journalist/reporter looks for the news and makes news.
I think this "making" of news is actually the core of the problem. FOX "makes" the news as opposed to reporting them. They decide who is guilty and who is innocent, and who the good guys are vs the bad guys. Look at the Benghazi indident for example, and how it is being reported. FOX has already decided there is a conspiracy, and their reporting is geared towards proving the theory, while the truth takes the back seat. At this point they would be very disappointed if Susan Rice turns out to be innocent, because they have already declared her guilty. An honest news reporting agency would not make such declarations, they would report what is happening with the investigation, and what is being asked and what is being answered. If it turns out there was no conspiracy, FOX "news" would be proven false, and they would have to invent another story to defend their error, probably another conspiracy theory about the investugation itself. It's a joke. FOX is a joke, and so is MSNBC.
I don't know about enemy, but they have certainly lost credibility among a major portion of the American populace. And they are doing the public a major disservice.
With Benghazi and Petraeus we have a scandle that dwarfs Watergate (no one died back then), yet we have a MSM, with the exception of FOX, that either ignores the subject, downplays it, refuses to investigate it or tries to focus attention in another direction.
It's scary when the entire DC/MSM apparatus is focused on preserving a cover-up.
Oh, the guy who claimed, about a year ago now, President Obama shouldn't seek a second term and should step aside for Hillary Clinton, because he couldn't win re-election.
This is Pat Caddell, the Carter advisor who was the prime advocate being President Carter's widely-panned "malaise speech".
Yeah, he's really on the ball politically.
Pat Caddell who left the Democratic Party in 1988. The only people who take Pat Caddell seriously are Republicans who love to cite a 'Democrat' (who is not a Democrat but an ex-Democrat) who does nothing but rail on whatever current Democrats are doing. By all means, keep citing him!
Pat Caddell is like Dick Morris. When he says something, the odds are very good that the exact opposite is true.
I don't know about enemy, but they have certainly lost credibility among a major portion of the American populace. And they are doing the public a major disservice.
With Benghazi and Petraeus we have a scandle that dwarfs Watergate (no one died back then), yet we have a MSM, with the exception of FOX, that either ignores the subject, downplays it, refuses to investigate it or tries to focus attention in another direction.
It's scary when the entire DC/MSM apparatus is focused on preserving a cover-up.
Really, scandal? What facts did Fox supply you with to make that assertion? The problem isn't with "media" it's with an ignorant populace that can't differentiate journalism from entertainmnet/opinion media. Foxnews should never be brought up as a credible source of media because it isn't, it's entertainment. Rupert Murdoch has said as much. Thing is, entertainment media keeps us watching, while C-Span puts us to sleep. Facts don't excite people, especially those who live absurdly boring and uninvolved lives. They'd rather be entertained by Fox telling them exactly what they want to hear with no regard for facts....Nothing should've made this as clear as the pre-election coverage. They were ALL dead wrong but people still don't get that they aren't journalist, they're entertainers.
I think this "making" of news is actually the core of the problem. FOX "makes" the news as opposed to reporting them. They decide who is guilty and who is innocent, and who the good guys are vs the bad guys. Look at the Benghazi indident for example, and how it is being reported. FOX has already decided there is a conspiracy, and their reporting is geared towards proving the theory, while the truth takes the back seat. At this point they would be very disappointed if Susan Rice turns out to be innocent, because they have already declared her guilty. An honest news reporting agency would not make such declarations, they would report what is happening with the investigation, and what is being asked and what is being answered. If it turns out there was no conspiracy, FOX "news" would be proven false, and they would have to invent another story to defend their error, probably another conspiracy theory about the investugation itself. It's a joke. FOX is a joke, and so is MSNBC.
Yeah, like when FOX News used fake documents to try to bring down the US President! Wait, that was Dan Rather on CBS. Well, what about all those stories FOX made about how good Saddam was to his people? That was CNN? Well I know the old grey lady (NYT) would never fabricate stories! What's that? They did? Oh heavens to Betsy!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
