Posted on 11/11/2006 7:09:49 AM PST by Seattle Conservative
If we rigidly applied truth-in-advertising laws to the national media in their coverage of the 2006 campaign, we would have first declared that the stuff between the commercials wasn't "news" as much as a boatload of free infomercial advertising for the Democrats. The news reports should have led with the sentence, "I'm Nancy Pelosi, and I approved this newscast."
Republicans made a lot of mistakes and caused themselves a pile of problems. Their house is a mess -- it's time to tear down and start over. But I will say this unequivocally: In 25 years of looking at the national media, I have never seen a more one-sided, distorted, vicious presentation of news -- and non-news -- by the national media. They ought to be collectively ashamed. They have made a mockery out of the term "objective journalism" and a laughingstock of themselves at the idea that they should be considered objective journalists.
>snip
I would have been happy, and America would have been the grateful beneficiary, had the anchors given us an educational exploration of the issues of the day, and the parties' and candidates' stances, instead of the silly dramatics. Did the Democrats have a program beyond their daily carpet-bombing of President Bush? What would happen to -- name the issue -- were they elected?
Not on your life. This was a campaign that presented Republicans as the tired, failed, corrupted party that had to go, while viewing Democrats through a rose-colored lens as an intoxicating bouquet of historic firsts for diversity: the first female speaker of the House, the first Muslim American in the House, the first black senator in the South since Reconstruction.
See more in Post #1
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
>snip
You think their coverage of Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi was fair and balanced? Then consider this jaw-dropping fact: Since Pelosi was elected as the House Democratic leader in November of 2002, all the way through to late October of 2006, the networks have not once described her as a "liberal." You read that correctly. Not once. That's not news coverage. That's a four-year masquerade party. In 1994, Gingrich was the "national poster boy for resentment and rage." In 2006, Pelosi was "a mother and a grandmother" who was "known for her trademark smile."
>snip
The 2006 campaigns are over. It will go down as the year it was almost impossible to discern where the negative political commercials against Republicans ended and the news coverage began. End Article
While we can't blame the MSM entirely for the Pubbies loss (they certainly didn't help themselves in many areas), I think Brent has made some great points. There were times that I think all of us were ready to throw a slipper (or worse) at the TV. I hope that the Republicans learned many lessons from this campaign, one of which is their dealings w the media. They are NOT your friend. While I'm disappointed the Pubbies lost, I'm also fearful that this will just embolden the MSM to continue their lies, smears, leaks, and carrying water for the Dims, in general. IMHO not only did the Dims win control of Congress, I suspect the DBM knows the Dims couldn't have won without them - they helped them win and, I suspect they'll only be worse next time around and, just to make sure the Dims win in '08, they'll do everything they can to make them look good between now and then. Another 2 years of, as Brent calls it, a "Masquerade Party"
While it's true that the "Mainstream" Media isn't as dominant as it used to be, it still has great power. This election is proof.
--dittos--
The generation of, and publishing of lies is the sole strategy of the socialists and their accomplices in the MSM. Just wait until the "Bush Inquisition" starts. It will be beyond nauseating.
Oh, in case you are not familiar with what the ThugoRats are calling this upcoming political charade...they are calling it "CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT". It will be the ugliest show of childish political smear that this country has ever seen. All in preparation for the 2008 demonization of the Republicans and conservatives in general.
It was a "bipartisan " piece of legislation also--
Unbelievable, that they would think we're that clueless.
This election cycle has solidified the leftist network bias and proven them to be the fifth column anti-American democrat hacks they presented themselves as to anyone with a kernel of objectivity watching the daily propganda machine sweeping the leftist democrat party along on a wave crest of lies and selective 'reporting'. Disgusting is far too mild to describe the bastards such as Matthews and Russert and the entire of MSNBC and CNN (and you, Lou Dobbs, you closet liberal bastard).
MSM went on and on and on and on and on about the Diebold machines voting Republican instead of the chosen dim.
Then not a word about the voting machines messing.
Any poker player out there :>?
The MSM accomplished their victory by constantly smearing the Repubs. And conservatives bought a huge amount of the "scandal" rhetoric.
I'm just as mad at the conservatives who believed the MSM as I am the MSM itself.
We have two enemies, the jihadis and the media. This is a difficult situation.
I agree w you - it was and is a TOTAL disaster!
Here in WA state last year, 2 conservative talk show hosts (John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur)talked about an initiative (hello - they're talk show hosts - they discuss politics) and the campaign was forced to declare their discussions as 'contributions'. I think ALL of the Dim candidates should be forced to declare in-kind contributions for the infomercials the DBM provided the Dims for the past few years.
KVI talk upheld as donation (KVI=local Conservative station)
Seattle Times Olympia bureau ^ | Thursday, October 27, 2005 | By Andrew Garber
Posted on 10/27/2005 5:01:04 AM PDT by Seaside
OLYMPIA — Comments made by radio talk-show hosts this past summer supporting anti-gas-tax Initiative 912 should be considered in-kind political contributions, a Thurston County Superior Court judge reaffirmed Wednesday.
Judge Chris Wickham also found that the I-912 campaign had complied with his ruling by reporting the contributions to the state and closed the case.
The ruling was called a blow to free speech by the law firm representing the I-912 campaign, which is seeking to overturn a 9.5-cent-a-gallon increase in the state gas tax. They vowed to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
"Campaigns and media figures are going to have this in the back of their heads. 'Am I too close to this, am I talking about this too much? Should I be having lunch with this guy from the campaign?' " said William Maurer, executive director of the Institute for Justice Washington Chapter, which represents I-912 in the case.
Others, however, say Wickham's ruling was narrowly focused and does not infringe on free-speech rights.
"We did not ever want to be in a situation where anyone felt that their speech was limited," said Michael Vaska, a Seattle attorney who helped bring the case. "We just wanted people to have the right to know who was paying for this campaign."
The issue stems from a lawsuit filed by San Juan County and the cities of Seattle, Auburn and Kent. It sought to force I-912 sponsors to fully disclose the identities of contributors who gave money via the Internet and to disclose what they considered in-kind contributions from the talk-radio station KVI.
The plaintiffs argued that KVI hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur were actively involved in the initiative and used their shows to promote the measure.
Wickham entered a preliminary injunction in July requiring I-912 backers to report Internet donations and in-kind contributions from Fisher Communications, the parent company of KVI.
The judge's ruling Wednesday essentially reaffirmed his initial decision, but he also specified that the ruling dealt only with the roughly two-month period from when the initiative was filed to when it qualified for the ballot in July.
Limiting the time frame set aside concerns raised by I-912 backers that the state could come after them for violating limits on in-kind contributions during the final weeks of the election. No such limits were in place during the time period specified by Wickham.
Doug Ellis, assistant director of the state Public Disclosure Commission, said his agency considers the matter closed. The I-912 campaign complied with the court ruling by reporting the KVI commentary as in-kind contributions. The I-912 campaign has listed five in-kind contributions from Fisher Communications valued at $20,000 each.
Carlson said he doesn't believe anything he or Wilbur said on the air should be considered a contribution. "I disagree that openly supporting a campaign for any cause or candidate constitutes a political contribution," he said.
Andrew Garber: 360-943-9882 or agarber@seattletimes.com
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510108/posts
Yes, the media are biased. Anyone who doesn't know that by now has been reading stone tablets. But we knew that going in. We knew it wouldn't be a fair fight; it never is. Yet we won in 2004. We enjoyed history-making off-year wins in 2002. We captured seats in the Deep South, a perennial Democrat stronghold. We captured governorships around the country.
We overcame all the prejudice and the lies and the calumny.
Then we failed to do anything with it. We spent the next four years apologizing for being what got us elected to begin with.
To hell with the media. We can do this OUR way and still come out triumphant. But we need the power that only principle can give us: the power of ideas.
Great post. Thanks. Many outstanding comments bump! (Thanks Marvin)
Well, if you were paying attention you wouldn't have been appalled because Pres. Bush campaigned on the fact that he would sign the legislation if sent to his desk.
Same goes for his immigration policy. For all those "appalled" by that...if one voted for Pres. Bush, one should have taken into account his belief in amnesty which he campaigned on.
I heard him discuss that - unbelievable! I'm also not so sure they didn't realize exactly what they were doing - some of them (MSNBC) only stopped when they were caught. Same as the NY Slimes and the WAcomPost printing outright lies on the front page and, when they're caught, sometimes printing a retraction or correction in small print st the bottom of page 36.
It also proves that more then half the electorate are ignorant dumb shmucks, who can be swayed by a propagandist media.
The really big benefit, if Republicans had triumphed, would have been a huge slapdown to the leftwing media. They pulled out all the stops, and if they had failed I think the bean-counters in the media might have forced a re-think about biased coverage.
But the Democrats won, biased media folks shared a big round of high-fives, and in 2008 we will see more of the same. Sigh.
I'd LOL, but it's really not funny.
The 2006 election cycle showed
that the "dinosaur" media STILL
has the power to sway elections.
We have lots of work to do.
That really does concern me. It's interesting how Stretch Pelosi and Commie Conyers started backpedaling on their calls for 'impeachment hearings' - -all they did, as you said, was change the name to "Congressional Oversight" - - bleeech!
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.