Media Back-Tracking on Iowa Caucus

**wickedsolo** · 01-05-2012, 10:17 AM

Honestly I'm not going to divulge any political affiliation of mine on here anyway, but just to further point out how ridiculous the media is in this nation of ours...did anyone else notice the entirety of the media back-tracking when Ron Paul basically tied Romney and Santorum in the Iowa caucus? Hilarious and incredibly disappointing. Prior to the results every media outlet was pointing out how important it was, how meaningful it was to the nomination for presidency, etc. As soon as the results were in it was "the Iowa caucus is important, but not that important"..."how can we take the Iowa caucus seriously?"..."it's not a make or break deal for the nomination"...etc. Completely disgusting.

It's sad to me that unbiased journalism in this nation has ceased to exist. Whatever happened to journalists set on providing both sides of the story with facts and then letting their audience make up their own mind?

The Washington Post, NY Times, Baltimore Sun (and I have family working there), Fox News, CNN...they all suck and all have their own agenda that they push onto people.

No wonder a majority of Americans are ignorant when it comes to politics. The listen to Bill O'Reilly and the "I AM LOUD SO THEREFORE I AM RIGHT" pundits.

**NCRAVEN** · 01-05-2012, 10:46 AM

Not only did they back track on that. They ALL, also said it was good for Obama cause the Republicans will continue to throw dirt on each other.

I don't really agree with it, but I mention it to show how it's like they're ALL on the same page ALL the time

**Galen Sevinne** · 01-05-2012, 10:51 AM

Its not the medias fault that consumers of media lack the intellectual wherewithal to digest the media onslaught with a degree of accuracy. When corporate giants like Rupert Murdoch own one media arm that half the nation follows without argument that is a problem. The other solution of State run media would be as equally unbalanced. Therefore, it is up to the citizen to participate in media from am active not just a passive stance.

Sorry your libertarian didn't get the press you wanted but for him to pick up 20% of the Iowa vote is unrepresentative of the nation as a whole. You will see that as the primaries progress through the country. Subsequently, the medias interpretation of Iowa being out of touch will hold true. Santorum... really?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

**NCRAVEN** · 01-05-2012, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

Its not the medias fault that consumers of media lack the intellectual wherewithal to digest the media onslaught with a degree of accuracy. When corporate giants like Rupert Murdoch own one media arm that half the nation follows without argument that is a problem. The other solution of State run media would be as equally unbalanced. Therefore, it is up to the citizen to participate in media from am active not just a passive stance.

As usual Galen thinks an intelligence problem of the nation, himself excluded of course.

Galen, how is it you assume people who watch Fox News (I don't) and don't question them, but the people who watch the State run media (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS) but do question them

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

Sorry your libertarian didn't get the press you wanted but for him to pick up 20% of the Iowa vote is unrepresentative of the nation as a whole. You will see that as the primaries progress through the country. Subsequently, the medias interpretation of Iowa being out of touch will hold true. Santorum... really?

What is wrong with Santorum?

**wickedsolo** · 01-05-2012, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

Its not the medias fault that consumers of media lack the intellectual wherewithal to digest the media onslaught with a degree of accuracy. When corporate giants like Rupert Murdoch own one media arm that half the nation follows without argument that is a problem. The other solution of State run media would be as equally unbalanced. Therefore, it is up to the citizen to participate in media from am active not just a passive stance.

Sorry your libertarian didn't get the press you wanted but for him to pick up 20% of the Iowa vote is unrepresentative of the nation as a whole. You will see that as the primaries progress through the country. Subsequently, the medias interpretation of Iowa being out of touch will hold true. Santorum... really?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Well, I wouldn't exactly say that he is "my libertarian candidate". That's a pretty ballsy thing to say to someone that you don't even know. Just shows your elitist attitude and desire for people to view you as all-knowing I guess.

There is definitely an apathetic approach to gathering news from Americans. Why? Because the media fronts their own poltical agenda and forces it down everyone's throats. Humans have a natural instinct to "group think" and be part of a pack, so when every other channel makes you think that a majority of the nation - which is exactly their purpose and goal - is thinking a specific way, then most Americans are going to vote/feel that way. They did it in 2008 when they were promoting the whole "vote for history" idealistic points to get Americans voting for the first black President.

It's disgusting. The media is revolting.

When you can get arguably the most unbiased news from comedians such as Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, there is a problem. The movie "Man of The Year" with Robin Williams was a mock on American politics, but was it really that far off base? I don't think so.

**Galen Sevinne** · 01-05-2012, 03:21 PM

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Well, I wouldn't exactly say that he is "my libertarian candidate". That's a pretty ballsy thing to say to someone that you don't even know. Just shows your elitist attitude and desire for people to view you as all-knowing I guess.

I didn't "exactly" say your libertarian candidate either. Its not hard to read between the lines of your post to understand that you are uspet the media isn't writing about Paul's distant third place finish. The media has picked up wth Santorum as they rightfully should since he is the story coming out of Iowa. Maybe you didn't notice?

My elitist attitude? Okay...threatened conservative one.

,

so when every other channel makes you think that a majority of the nation - which is exactly their purpose and goal - is thinking a specific way,

Try getting your news from another source than the T.V. then. Pretty simple.

then most Americans are going to vote/feel that way. They did it in 2008 when they were promoting the whole "vote for history" idealistic points to get Americans voting for the first black President.

It's disgusting. The media is revolting.

Talk about herded group think mentality. So what will be the excuse when Obama is reelected?

**NCRAVEN** · 01-05-2012, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

I didn't "exactly" say your libertarian candidate either

See below

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

Sorry your libertarian didn't get the press you wanted

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

Talk about herded group think mentality. So what will be the excuse when Obama is reelected?

Here's a question for you, if a Republican candidate had the record (of Debt, jobs, unemployment etc.) would you d you say when not if they're reelected?

**wickedsolo** · 01-05-2012, 06:43 PM

[QUOTE=Galen Sevinne;391699]

I didn't "exactly" say your libertarian candidate either. Its not hard to read between the lines of your post to understand that you are uspet the media isn't writing about Paul's distant third place finish. The media has picked up wth Santorum as they rightfully should since he is the story coming out of Iowa. Maybe you didn't notice?

That's exactly what you said. You said "your libertarian candidate". Ron Paul's distant 3rd place? Come on. We're talking about a difference of 4,000 votes. That's nothing. A "distant 3rd" would be like Paul at 11 or 12% compared to Romney and Santorum's 25-27%.

My elitist attitude? Okay...threatened conservative one.

Ha. Not a problem you liberal, pot smoking, birkenstock wearing, Phish loving hippy. Why don't you cut your damn hair and knock it off with the frisbee tossing already. And put on a collared shirt for chrissakes. Tie-dyed was so 20 years ago.

Try getting your news from another source than the T.V. then. Pretty simple.

I do. It's called bbc.com. However, I'm not most Americans and if you think the majority of Americans will go to another country's news resource you're fucking high. The fat & happy American would much rather turn on Fox and listen to Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olberman, and *gasp* The View.

Talk about herded group think mentality. So what will be the excuse when Obama is reelected?

That the Republican candidate is a schmuck and "The Devil You Know" is a better option than the devil you don't?

This thread has absolutely ZERO to do with any of that though. I just think it's a real shame that prior to the Iowa caucus every media outlet was pushing their agenda on how important this was for the nomination process. Then when the top 3 candidates in a virtual tie (when you consider margin of error) include a candidate that the media isn't very high on because he is a pretty radical candidate and the media starts back tracking and saying now that the Iowa Caucus doesn't really mean anything and it's really not that important and they're not going to take Iowans seriously because of their choices?

That's pretty incredible regardless of whether or not you're a Dem or a Rep or neither.

**AirFlacco** · 01-05-2012, 11:03 PM

As politicians flood New Hampshire, this restaurant
denies entrance to all of them and the media.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/01/0...s-politicians/

**AirFlacco** · 01-05-2012, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Honestly I'm not going to divulge any political affiliation of mine on here anyway, but just to further point out how ridiculous the media is in this nation of ours...did anyone else notice the entirety of the media back-tracking when Ron Paul basically tied Romney and Santorum in the Iowa caucus? Hilarious and incredibly disappointing. Prior to the results every media outlet was pointing out how important it was, how meaningful it was to the nomination for presidency, etc. As soon as the results were in it was "the Iowa caucus is important, but not that important"..."how can we take the Iowa caucus seriously?"..."it's not a make or break deal for the nomination"...etc. Completely disgusting.

It's sad to me that unbiased journalism in this nation has ceased to exist. Whatever happened to journalists set on providing both sides of the story with facts and then letting their audience make up their own mind?

The Washington Post, NY Times, Baltimore Sun (and I have family working there), Fox News, CNN...they all suck and all have their own agenda that they push onto people.

No wonder a majority of Americans are ignorant when it comes to politics. The listen to Bill O'Reilly and the "I AM LOUD SO THEREFORE I AM RIGHT" pundits.

The public is ignorant because nobody bothers to
read. Only hard core people interested at this point
is reading.

**Galen Sevinne** · 01-06-2012, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

This thread has absolutely ZERO to do with any of that though. I just think it's a real shame that prior to the Iowa caucus every media outlet was pushing their agenda on how important this was for the nomination process. Then when the top 3 candidates in a virtual tie (when you consider margin of error) include a candidate that the media isn't very high on because he is a pretty radical candidate and the media starts back tracking and saying now that the Iowa Caucus doesn't really mean anything and it's really not that important and they're not going to take Iowans seriously because of their choices?

That's pretty incredible regardless of whether or not you're a Dem or a Rep or neither.

Actually what I mainly read prior to Iowa was more criticism about Iowa being first and whether it was still a bellwether state for Republicans. What I have heard mainly since then was, as I stated earlier, a lot of talk about Santorum and his rising popularity. Santorum nearly beating Romney is a more significant story than Paul finishing third.

I think your suggestion that every media source was hell bent on Iowa until Paul finished third and now the media is saying Iowa doesn't mean anything is a bit dramatic.

I said 2 months ago that the only three guys that deserved to be running for the GOP are Romney, Santorum and Paul. Romney because he will win the primary and is the only candidate that has a chance in hell of beating Obama. Santorum and Paul because I think they are both principled (albeit oddly) and consistent. The rest of the candidates are embarrasments to American politics.

I like Huntsman and I still wonder if he might get his rise sometime. The Boston Globe endorsed him today which is also more newsworthy than Paul's third place finish. It will be intersting to see if that affects Hunstman's performance in New Hampshire.

**HoustonRaven** · 01-06-2012, 08:23 AM

Obama and Hillary went well into June with their nomination battle in 2008. The media was falling over themselves, saying how wonderful it was because it would make the Democrat nominee that much better, more seasoned and more prepared to face the GOP's candidate.

Now all you hear is what a debacle it is that the right has yet to select their nominee. And it's only January.

Wickedsolo, do what I do when it comes to the media. Read a lot of outlets from both sides of the fence and draw your own conclusions. Sticking to just one media outlet will keep you frustrated.