At this point we are OLD angry white men throwing a tantrum.
Even scarier.
Posted on 11/04/2014 4:11:02 AM PST by IBD editorial writer
Politics: With Republicans poised to take control of the Senate in the Tuesday midterm elections, you'd think the press would convey this is as a clear rebuke of President Obama and his policies. Don't count on it.
Assuming Republicans win control of the Senate and make gains in the House, you could reasonably expect an unbiased press to say things like:
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
” .......unbiased press...........”
Is there such a thing?
” .......unbiased press...........”
Is there such a thing?
Newspapers never pretended to be unbiased.
“Unbiased” is a fiction of the electronic age, with radio and television broadcasters using “public” airwaves. Plenty of people don’t remember the Fairness Doctrine.
Here will be your talking point in the media,
“The voters voted against their interest due to the fact that the republicans obstructed the democrats reforms and the voters got frustrated by the lack of progress that otherwise would be happing economically if the President’s agenda had been fully implemented.This cynical strategy has won them great gains tonight be whether they will work with democrats to govern and actually be responsible remains to be seen. Will the strategy of No work in 2016? Many election analyst doubt it. Here’s George Stenographer to explain why.”
By the way I still think McConnell has the Trent Lott power sharing agreement ready to go. So get ready to watch the republican leadership to surrender any advantage they gained in this election. They also will feel confident enough to continue the conservative purge since “we can win with our electable candidates” strategy.
American Resistance Party sounds better every day.
it will be angry white men having a temper tantrum
Actually, the press has been setting high expectations for the ‘Pubbies, so, when the ‘Pubbies “underperform” in the election, they’ll be able to spin it to the benefit of the Democrats and Obama.
I’ll come back and visit that site in the morning.
At this point we are OLD angry white men throwing a tantrum.
Even scarier.
Good point. Any of the “toss-up” states that are won by a Dem (or by Orman in Kansas) will be characterized as states that the Republicans were expected to win. This will probably be stretched to include states like New Hampshire and North Carolina where poll data have consistently shown small Democratic leads.
"Check the transcript, Candy"
I just happen to have that exact quote right here Mr. President!
Blog pimping.
I presume IBD is having problems.
This seems to be a job for HG
“Unbiased” is a fiction of the electronic age, with radio and television broadcasters using “public” airwaves. Plenty of people don’t remember the Fairness Doctrine.
Actually, the claim of “journalistic objectivity” traces back to the late Nineteenth Century, when people began reacting to the concentration of propaganda power represented by the Associated Press. At that time newspapers were notoriously argumentative and famously did not agree on much of anything. So the AP responded to challenges to its media concentration simply by pointing out that it picked up stories from all its members, and its members were highly competitive - so the AP itself was objective. They may even have actually believed it.The reality now - and for fully a century already - is that Adam Smith’s projection has been fully vindicated:People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsIt was impossible for the newspapers to be in such intimate contact with each other via the wire services - mostly the AP, but all of them - without having a homogenizing effect.Journalists are perfectly situated to be demagogues, and with all competitive pressure to be otherwise suppressed by their “conspiracy against the public," all journalists naturally function as such. In unison. Note that I draw a distinction between “wire service journalists” and editorial opinion writers. Both are protected under the First Amendment, the only difference is that the opinion writer admits that he is writing his own opinion, and the “objective journalist” does not - and may successfully even convince himself that it isn’t true. Which only proves that they are not objective about themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.