Media Coverage Of Politics

[Jim in CT]

Paul, apparently you like the NYT. To their credit, the NYT reported on the Menendez case, although they went out ot their way to state that the story only broke because of political smear. If the allegations are true, who cares about the motives of the people who first reported the ethical violations? Why is that important?

Paul, let me ask you this. The NYT ran an unsubstantiated, front-page story during the 2008 election. The story claimed that John McCaon's adopted daughter was actually his biological daughter that he fathered with a mistress.

Let's forget about McCain's politics (although, his politics are literally all that matter to the NYT). McCain is a hero to any rational person. During a dangerous war, he volunteered to fly jets off of an aircraft carrier and repeatedly put himself in harm's way. As a result, he spent several years getting tortured in a POW camp, as a direct result of his service to his country.

How does the NYT feel that this man deserves to be treated? By taking another heroic act (adopting a daughter from a 3rd world country), and using that heroic act as a club against him.

The NYT is a joke. That's why, until recently, one copy of the Sunday edition was more expensive than one share of stock in the company that prints that liberal rag.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, apparently you like the NYT. To their credit, the NYT reported on the Menendez case, although they went out ot their way to state that the story only broke because of political smear. If the allegations are true, who cares about the motives of the people who first reported the ethical violations? Why is that important?

Paul, let me ask you this. The NYT ran an unsubstantiated, front-page story during the 2008 election. The story claimed that John McCaon's adopted daughter was actually his biological daughter that he fathered with a mistress. Can you pls. post a link to it b/c I don't remember that happening. If it did happen, I condemn it.

Let's forget about McCain's politics (although, his politics are literally all that matter to the NYT). McCain is a hero to any rational person. Similiar to Kerry?
During a dangerous war, he volunteered to fly jets off of an aircraft carrier and repeatedly put himself in harm's way. As a result, he spent several years getting tortured in a POW camp, as a direct result of his service to his country.

How does the NYT feel that this man deserves to be treated? By taking another heroic act (adopting a daughter from a 3rd world country), and using that heroic act as a club against him.

The NYT is a joke. That's why, until recently, one copy of the Sunday edition was more expensive than one share of stock in the company that prints that liberal rag.

The only thing I remember about McCain's baby was that the Bush campaign was putting out flyers in the 2000 primary (one of the nastiest campaigns ever) with that story, that he committed treason as a POW in Vietnam, he was mentally unstable b/c of being a POW, a homosexual and an addict (and also said his wife was an addict). I'd be interested in seeing how the Times 8 years later would have brought up the same thing???

Still going on about a mistatement on the # of states. That is petty - but not unexpected.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The only thing I remember about McCain's baby was that the Bush campaign was putting out flyers in the 2000 primary (one of the nastiest campaigns ever) with that story, that he committed treason as a POW in Vietnam, he was mentally unstable b/c of being a POW, a homosexual and an addict (and also said his wife was an addict). I'd be interested in seeing how the Times 8 years later would have brought up the same thing???

Still going on about a mistatement on the # of states. That is petty - but not unexpected.

Paul, I posted a fair amount of evidence, from multiple sources, that directly supports my claim of liberal bias. Your response is to say that as long as Bush did it as well, then it's therefore OK?

Wow. Now that is a creative (read: desperate) way of trying to get out of the intellectual corner I backed you into. According to you, the media code of ethics should come from the campaign tactics of George Bush. Got it.

Once again, you ask me to do your research for you? On the NYT hit piece on McCain? That's interesting, because earlier in this very thread, you smugly claimed that you could show someone else how to research things on the net. Now all of a sudden, you need help to see if the NYT really ran that hit piece on McCain?

I don't need to Google that, because it happened, and I remember it, because it was so unethical and so widely condemned (maybe not widely condemned by those in your circles who routinely resort to such tactics). If you were so out of touch that you aren't aware of a media smear perpetrated by (what used to be) a major newspaper against a titanic hero, that's your issue, not mine. Google it, you'll see.

"Still going on about a mistatement on the # of states. That is petty - but not unexpected"

Huh? What am I misstating?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, I posted a fair amount of evidence, from multiple sources, that directly supports my claim of liberal bias. Your response is to say that as long as Bush did it as well, then it's therefore OK?Huh, you're imagining things again. Where did I say that? The discussion was about the NYT and whether they spent more time on Rubio or Menendez and you start going off on tangents.

Wow. Now that is a creative (read: desperate) way of trying to get out of the intellectual corner I backed you into. According to you, the media code of ethics should come from the campaign tactics of George Bush. Got it.Did I say that? Go back and reread the discussion.

Once again, you ask me to do your research for you? On the NYT hit piece on McCain? That's interesting, because earlier in this very thread, you smugly claimed that you could show someone else how to research things on the net. Now all of a sudden, you need help to see if the NYT really ran that hit piece on McCain?Ok, I did a search and in late 2007, the NYT was discussing the 2008 campain and how in 2000 McCain was slandered by Bush's campaign. So I'm asking myself how could they write an article in 2008 saying McCain had an illegimate child (which is what you stated). Guess what, I couldn't find anything so I'll ask again to pls. post a link to a story showing that.

I don't need to Google that, because it happened, and I remember it, because it was so unethical and so widely condemned (maybe not widely condemned by those in your circles who routinely resort to such tactics). If you were so out of touch that you aren't aware of a media smear perpetrated by (what used to be) a major newspaper against a titanic hero, that's your issue, not mine. Google it, you'll see.Pls. show me a link.

"Still going on about a mistatement on the # of states. That is petty - but not unexpected"

Huh? What am I misstating?

See, as I said you have a reading problem. I didn't say you made a mistatement. It obviously referred to Pres. Obama making a simple mistatement and that you're a petty person to keep bringing that up as if he doesn't know how many states there are.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The only thing I remember about McCain's baby was that the Bush campaign was putting out flyers in the 2000 primary .

OK. So you remember that Bush's political team (a bunch of conservatives) was unethical, but you have no knowledge of the NYT (a bunch of liberals), which you apparently are a fan of, doing something equally loathsome to the same Senator McCain.

You might want to either work on your memory, or more likely, reconsider where you get your information.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK. So you remember that Bush's political team (a bunch of conservatives) was unethical, but you have no knowledge of the NYT (a bunch of liberals), which you apparently are a fan of , doing something equally loathsome to the same Senator McCain.

You might want to either work on your memory, or more likely, reconsider where you get your information.

Maybe I do have a memory problem but rather than continuing to throw insults around pls. post some links to the story. I've asked you politely a few times.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Maybe I do have a memory problem but rather than continuing to throw insults around pls. post some links to the story. I've asked you politely a few times.

Paul, I agree that Obama simply mis-spoke about the number of states. I don't think that mis-statement says anything at all about his qualifications.

But the same folks who agree that Obama's mis-statement was not a big deal, are now going berserk about Rubio's reaching for a glass of water. That's exactly the bias I'm talking about. The media barely mentioned Obama's mis-statement (which was the correct thing for the media to do), but the media was obsessed with Rubio's reaching for a glass of water (which was ridiculous for them to do).

Can you honestly tell me that you see no discrepancy between the coverage of those 2 events?

"I've asked you politely a few times"

John McCain lobbyist controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



.

[justplugit]

Obama is starting to get some tough hard hitting questions from
interviewers. Example-
"Mr President, are you considering Hawaii as the place for your
Presidential Library?"
I kid you not.