Reply With Quote
Night before Obama flies abroad, Rice bars embassies from aiding candidates
http://rawstory.com//news/2008/Night...Rice_0721.html
From http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...help_obama_win
Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win
Monday, July 21, 2008
The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.
Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.
A plurality of Democrats—37%-- say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the campaign. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe most reporters are trying to help Obama and 21% in Obama’s party think reporters are trying to help McCain.
Among Republicans, 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama and 10% see most offering unbiased coverage.
As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.
In a more general sense, 45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided as to whether a reporter would release such information while Republicans and unaffiliated voters have less confidence in the reporters.
Republicans and unaffiliated voters are more likely to trust campaign information from family and friends than from reporters. Democrats are evenly divided as to who they would trust more.
A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.
A survey conducted earlier this year found that 30% of voters believe having a friendly reporter is more valuable than raising a lot of campaign contributions. Twenty-nine percent (29%) believe contributions are more important and 40% are not sure.
These results are consistent with earlier surveys finding that large segments of the population believe the media is biased It is also clear that voters select their news sources in a partisan manner. During Election 2004, CNN viewers heavily favored John Kerry while Fox Fans preferred George W. Bush.
Night before Obama flies abroad, Rice bars embassies from aiding candidates
http://rawstory.com//news/2008/Night...Rice_0721.html
They have been on his nuts from the begining of the Dem primary.
I think the three major netorks sent their anchors and production crews on Obama's world tour to Afghanistan and Iraq because it is such a rare event.
I agree with you on this story it is a rare event. However for the most part Obama has gotten a pass from the media ever since he announced his candidacy.
You can thank the McCain campaign for that.
How so?
They're the ones that made it (Obama's not having been to Iraq/Afghanistan) such a big issue in the first place. Now Obama's going, so the press is tagging along because, according to McCain, it's a really big deal. Or it was before the Obama campaign called his bluff.
McCain is as much a media favorite as Obama. It's just that McCain comes across pretty badly on television.
.NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET
An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.
'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'
MORE
In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'
NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'
[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]
MORE
A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."
McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.'
MORE
Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.
'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'
Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'
Developing...
The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel su ions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies
I am BY FAR not a fan of this unecessary war but this is ridiculous. It's amazing to me that McCain is hanging tough in the polls even though he has to deal with crap like this.
FWIW, everything I've read seems to indicate Obama gets poor marks for media access, where as McCain remains one of the most media accessible politicians in the U.S.
....aint that the truth. I seen him on Conan OBrien, charismatic is not a term I would use.
For someone who complains a lot about 'liberal posters' posting nothing but talking points in this forum DarrisS sure posts a lot of Republican talking points...what funny is how he never complained when the military was "in-bedding" all the reporters and news during the really "fun" part of the war..
Actually this is a good point.
I just posted a poll result.
It's not like I posted something from some kooky, fringe, conspiracy nutjob site, like you so often do.
Does this election represent the last best chance for Americans to get Big Media out or our head? Big Media has expanded its efforts to control the FCC in order to remove obstacles to the expansion of its monopolies. Most media is now controlled by very few companies. However, an Obama presidency threatens to hinder the growth of Big Media if Obama were to appoint FCC commissioners who were against relaxing the limitations on media ownership. This issue is discussed in the Nation's story, "Who Will Unplug Big Media?"
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080616/mcchesney
However, is the bias imagined? Well, there was the infamous 2006 ABC memo detailing a major company blacklist of Air America:
http://www.fair.org/images/ABCmemo.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/air-americas-...
Then, there were Disney (ABC's) election eve smears of Democrats in the past two elections:
a. The 2004 "Stolen Honor Controversey":
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135228,00.html
b. The 2006 "Path to 9/11"
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060925/path_to_911
There was also ABC's attempts to hire Rush Limbaugh as an announcer for Monday night football:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2549
These are just some of the more egregious attempts by the M$M to influence the political beliefs of the American public. This is why this election will be pivotal. I am glad that Obama opted out of public financing, because it allows him to respond to the avalanche of innuendos and psuedo-journalism that passes for political news coverage.
If you are reading this, then you have some freedom to avoid the M$Ms thought for the day, though even on the internet, they hosts numerous political blogs that tell you what to think. For those who lack internet access, there view of reality is necessarily limited.
Democrats will really need to volunteer more, work twice as hard, and give twice as much to withstand the expected slurs and smears that will be circulated as news by the corporate M$M.
Well the NYT is the equivalent of Fox News.
Both sides have their favorite media outlets.
The good thing for McCain is that no one reads the NYT.
The good thing for McCain is that no one reads the NYT.
...the NYT only has the largest circulation of any paper....
...the NYT only has the largest circulation of any paper....
False.
... not named "USA Today" or "Wall Street Journal."
...the NYT only has the largest circulation of any paper....
Young punks today don't know how to do research. Or use Google.
Do you always post false statements?
...the NYT only has the largest circulation of any paper....
Wiki1 USA Today McLean Virginia 2,524,965 Gannett Company
2 Wall Street Journal New York New York 2,068,439 News Corporation
3 New York Times, The New York New York 1,627,062 New York Times Company
4 Los Angeles Times Los Angeles California 1,173,096 Tribune Company
5 Chicago Tribune Chicago Illinois 940,620 Tribune Company
6 Washington Post Washington, DC District of Columbia 929,921 Washington Post Company
7 New York Daily News New York New York 775,543 New York Daily News
8 New York Post New York New York 741,099 News Corporation
9* Denver Post / Rocky Mountain News Denver Colorado 704,168 MediaNews Group / E. W. Scripps Company
10 Dallas Morning News Dallas Texas 702,135 A. H. Belo Corportation
USA today and the wall street journal are national papers...The NYT is the largest city paper....
Yeah...nobody reads the NYT
I was comparing the New York times to Fox News, which is the conservative equivalent of the NYT.Yeah...nobody reads the NYT
There's really no comparison.
Also, the New York Times is in serious trouble. See here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...the_new_y.html
You said "largest circulation of any paper," unqualified. Deal with it, you ed up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
