Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: The Four-Year Honeymoon Will the press ever give Obama tough coverage?

  1. -21
    jared81's Avatar
    Waterlogged

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,850
    vCash:
    1097
    Loc:
    orlando
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    This helps your argument how?

    You still aren't addressing how supply meeting demand doesn't tell the story on the "bias" of the news. All I see are some accusations and nothing addressing that central issue. If you don't have a response that's fine but this isn't one.
    If advertisers and companies want to market their products more towards liberals, it can still be biased against conservatives. Do you really think the above news mediums I mentioned are fair toward conservatives and don't have a liberal agenda (anymore than fox has a republican agenda).

    i posted a link with facts on the bias in obamas favor, you still haven't answered me.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -22
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,402
    vCash:
    31660
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by jared81 View Post
    If advertisers and companies want to market their products more towards liberals, it can still be biased against conservatives. Do you really think the above news mediums I mentioned are fair toward conservatives and don't have a liberal agenda (anymore than fox has a republican agenda).
    There are shows and mediums tailored to people of both agendas. That's entirely my point, in fact. Where there is a demand for news from a certain angle, then the supply of news told from that angle will be created. That's capitalism. Why do you believe that capitalism doesn't apply to the news industry?

    The only way for what you're alleging to make any sense is if more liberals than conservatives care about current events and the news. Do you believe that? I sort of doubt you do. I don't, but I suppose it's possible.

    i posted a link with facts on the bias in obamas favor, you still haven't answered me.
    That site would be more interesting if it weren't quite so ironic... being wholly biased in your assault on bias is pretty hilarious to me. Anyway it's besides the point. I grant that there are plenty of examples of the media fawning over Obama just as there are plenty of examples of them stomping on him. You lose the bigger picture making vast lists of this stuff. Focus on whether it even makes sense. In this case it doesn't.

    The only bias is toward ratings and circulation. Where slanting the coverage to a certain political viewpoint (which I've addressed above) does the trick, then they'll slant the coverage, and the demand for certain slants will be met with liberal and conservative coverage.

    I said it above but it bears repeating. Why do you believe that capitalism doesn't apply to the news industry?
    Quote Quote  

  3. -23
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,898
    vCash:
    3563
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by jared81 View Post
    Did you see the movie? I did, it is not a smear job on Obama. I disagree with the birther movement, but it wasn't created out of thin air. Obama comes from a piece of **** father who traveled around the world having babies. He grew up in a foreign country and one of his family said on tape that they saw the birth in Kenya. There was plenty of ammo for the crazies to make **** up.

    As ridiculous as the birther movement is, it doesn't compare to a media that tried to pin the murder of 3,000 Americans on bush. To say that the only reason he wanted to be president is so he can help his saudi friends get rich. They also challenged bush's military record as well.
    The movie was about conveniently chosen parts of childhood upbringing(ignoring the fact he barely knew his father) and how it lead to him supposedly creating Anti-American policies and rejecting American exceptionalism. Its based on the book titled "Roots of Obama Rage". Thats not a smear job? That has some sort of validity? You must be joking.

    And there was equal number of ammo for the crazies under Bush. People think the moon landing is fake, of course they are going to question how our national security failed in the greatest way possible leading up to 9/11. Americans have a history of questioning the leaders who take us into a war(whether that war is justified or not). Personally, i think thats a damn good trait for us to have as a culture. The Iraq war was pursued under justifications that later proved to be false and the subsequent political maneuvering was ever shifting. That sort of atmosphere always attracts questioning and conspiracy theories.

    I have yet to see any evidence that the media refuses to question Obama because they are afraid of being labeled racist. Heck, i dont see any hesitation from the media to beat him up in general. Bush had 12 embassies and consulates attacked, yet that was largely put on the backburner. Obama has 2 and its in the news for months, not to mention the Susan Rice fallout from that. You say people have tried to link Bush to the deaths of 3k Americans, how about the attempts to link Obama to Islam and terrorism?
    If i were to say the words Benghazi, Solyndra, Obamacare, or Fast and Furious, almost everyone within listening distance would know exactly what i was refering to. Why? The attention the media gave to those subjects and the attacks they made on the President.
    "Ignorance is not an excuse" were the words Goodell used when describing why those involved in the Saints bounty scandal would not avoid punishment.
    http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...ons-unanswered
    Quote Quote  

  4. -24
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,107
    vCash:
    7152
    Thanks / No Thanks





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  5. -25
    jared81's Avatar
    Waterlogged

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,850
    vCash:
    1097
    Loc:
    orlando
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    The movie was about conveniently chosen parts of childhood upbringing(ignoring the fact he barely knew his father) and how it lead to him supposedly creating Anti-American policies and rejecting American exceptionalism. Its based on the book titled "Roots of Obama Rage". Thats not a smear job? That has some sort of validity? You must be joking.

    And there was equal number of ammo for the crazies under Bush. People think the moon landing is fake, of course they are going to question how our national security failed in the greatest way possible leading up to 9/11. Americans have a history of questioning the leaders who take us into a war(whether that war is justified or not). Personally, i think thats a damn good trait for us to have as a culture. The Iraq war was pursued under justifications that later proved to be false and the subsequent political maneuvering was ever shifting. That sort of atmosphere always attracts questioning and conspiracy theories.

    I have yet to see any evidence that the media refuses to question Obama because they are afraid of being labeled racist. Heck, i dont see any hesitation from the media to beat him up in general. Bush had 12 embassies and consulates attacked, yet that was largely put on the backburner. Obama has 2 and its in the news for months, not to mention the Susan Rice fallout from that. You say people have tried to link Bush to the deaths of 3k Americans, how about the attempts to link Obama to Islam and terrorism?
    If i were to say the words Benghazi, Solyndra, Obamacare, or Fast and Furious, almost everyone within listening distance would know exactly what i was refering to. Why? The attention the media gave to those subjects and the attacks they made on the President.

    you obviously didnt watch the movie. the movie mentions multiple times that he only saw his father a couple of times in his life. you cant ignore the fact that obama wrote a book called "DREAMS FROM MY FATHER", the movie goes over the book in detail. the laughable part is that alot of the movie is obama narrating the movie from his book. i suggest you watch it before you open your mouth.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -26
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    The media was a lot harder on previous Presidents than this one. Hell, Reagan was crucified over Iran Contra to the point they had to have hearings. What have you heard about Fast & Furious past the first months firestorm? Carter was eaten alive for the US Embassy hostages. You never heard the outrage over Benghazi past November. Clinton couldnt get Healthcare done because of the press, this President did it with ease. Bush 1 died because the press regurgitated no new taxes, this President hires a tax cheat to head the treasury. Bush 2 was ridiculed for his vacations, this president fiddles while the economy burns and nothing in the media.

    Dont be blind to the obvious. Theres no real difference between Bush2 and Obama policy wise....but Obamas Presidency has been handled much friendlier by the media. And it is true, from some corner, if you ever criticize Obama, you get called a racist. No President has had that advantage before.


    Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
    Quote Quote  

  7. -27
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,898
    vCash:
    3563
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by jared81 View Post
    you obviously didnt watch the movie. the movie mentions multiple times that he only saw his father a couple of times in his life. you cant ignore the fact that obama wrote a book called "DREAMS FROM MY FATHER", the movie goes over the book in detail. the laughable part is that alot of the movie is obama narrating the movie from his book. i suggest you watch it before you open your mouth.
    I'll watch it the minute you provide the evidence ive been asking for concerning the "fear of racist label" media.

    Oh, and the movie wasnt about Obama supposedly rejecting to "American exceptionalism" and was basically a book review of Obama's book. Okay.

    Part of the film summery:

    D'Souza discusses Obama's father, Barack Obama, Sr., and what D'Souza describes as Obama Sr.'s anti-colonialist views of the British Empire. This, according to D'Souza, explains why Obama supposedly rejects American exceptionalism and why D'Souza believes he is attempting to "reshape America." D'Souza delves into what he terms the "founding fathers" from Obama's past, including Frank Marshall Davis, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Edward Said, and Roberto Unger. As a result, the film argues that President Obama wants to reduce significantly the U.S.'s influence within the world while increasing the influence of nations that he believes have suffered or been held back economically or militarily due to U.S. and Western domination. To argue his case, D’Souza interviews Shelby Steele, Paul Vitz, Alice Dewey, Paul Kengor, Willy Kauai, George Obama, Philip Ochieng, Joseph Ojiru, Daniel Pipes, David Walker, and Sarah Obama (off-screen).[12] The film warns that should Obama be elected to a second term, the ramifications will be far reaching. It ends by stating, "the future is in your hands
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016:_Obama's_America

    Stated goals of the film:
    2016 Obama's America takes audiences on a gripping visual journey into the heart of the world's most powerful office to reveal the struggle of whether one man's past will redefine America over the next four years. The film examines the question, "If Obama wins a second term, where will we be in 2016?" Across the globe and in America, people in 2008 hungered for a leader who would unite and lift us from economic turmoil and war. True to America's ideals, they invested their hope in a new kind of president, Barack Obama. What they didn't know is that Obama is a man with a past, and in powerful ways that past defines him--who he is, how he thinks, and where he intends to take America and the world. Love him or hate him, you don't know him. -- (C) Official Site
    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/2016_obamas_america/

    Reviews(from the same site as above):

    The film flutters to the ground like so much GOP convention confetti, all assertions, few facts and little substance other than the conspiratorial right wing talking points that are D'Souza's bread and butter.
    D'Souza never actually shows...Obama's own words or deeds. Instead, he engages in guilt by association.
    2016: Obama's America comes to seem like clownish alarmist speculation taking place in an echo chamber of talking heads.
    Anti-Obama documentary trades objectivity for persuasion.
    So Obama is bringing socialism to America by 2016? That would explain why Bain Capital is making bigger donations to him than to its founder Mitt Romney.
    "2016: Obama's America" is the sort of paranoid, conspiracy-theory thriller I'm always a sucker for. But it's not as entertaining when it purports to be the truth.
    Boy, all that sounds completely and utterly different then those horribly threatening and extremely biased Michael Moore movies. I wonder where D'Souza learned him objective film making style:

    The Texas theater’s manager told The Hollywood Reporter that he received complaints over the decision to show the film, and other news outlets have accused D’Souza of basing his documentary on lies. The moviemaker says he welcomes the controversy, and, ironically, says he got the idea on how to frame his documentary from another filmmaker with very different political leanings, the liberal director Michael Moore.

    “When he released ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ in 2004 ahead of the election, it sparked intense debate. I learned some lessons from Michael Moore, and hopefully he might learn some lessons from me about handling facts,” D’Souza told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column. “This film is a thriller, whatever you think and regardless of your politics, you are going to leave this movie going ‘wow, I had no idea this was the man that has been in the White House for the past four years.”
    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...#ixzz2HKUg2Rjh


    Darn you Obama-media and entertainment!!!!!
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Calling on Press Coverage
    By fishfan34 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-23-2005, 10:13 PM
  2. Press Coverage is gone because of the way we treated him.
    By Phinsfan1980 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 05-10-2005, 04:11 AM
  3. Press coverage
    By Sal Lisitano in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-29-2003, 06:10 PM
  4. Press Coverage
    By Dajesus in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-15-2002, 03:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •