Media Back-Tracking on Iowa Caucus

**NCRAVEN** · 01-06-2012, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

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.

Got any proof to that?

**Sirdowski** · 01-06-2012, 10:46 AM

Being a Liberal, Galen does not view himself as a liberal. Rather, he is a reality- and fact-based creature. Therefore, any bias that his worldview might have in the media is not seen as bias, it is seen as simply the truth. Anyone who dissents isn't smart enough to posses his quixotic worldview, and twisted presuppositions, and is dismissed with prejudice.

**Sirdowski** · 01-06-2012, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

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.

If I'm not mistaken, Hillary was the one who pulled the proverbial cat out of the bag with info. about Jeremiah Wright.

Slightly OT, but I remember Ted Kennedy was furious because Bill Clinton had called him asking for him to endorse Hillary, knocking Obama to Ted and saying, “a few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee.”

Good ol' Bill.

A funny spoof of Clinton's refusal to admit to refusing to endorse Obama.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/36865/satu...e-bill-clinton

**HoustonRaven** · 01-06-2012, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Sirdowski

Being a Liberal, Galen does not view himself as a liberal. Rather, he is a reality- and fact-based creature. Therefore, any bias that his worldview might have in the media is not seen as bias, it is seen as simply the truth. Anyone who dissents isn't smart enough to posses his quixotic worldview, and twisted presuppositions, and is dismissed with prejudice.

And how most far left folks view the world.

**wickedsolo** · 01-06-2012, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

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.

There is nothing dramatic about it at all. It's the truth.

Prior to the Iowa caucus damn near every media outlet you could get your hands on were just going on and on and on about how important it was. After the results came in, they all back tracked and started in with the "Well...it's really not THAT important"..."Iowa can't be taken too seriously..." etc, etc etc. That happened.

**wickedsolo** · 01-06-2012, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

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.

Honestly, I'll pop on CNN.com every now and then just to see what the headlines are and I'll scope out stuff on the drudge report and fark, but honestly American media is terrible and geared towards the fat-happy dumbass that thinks Bill O'Reilly and Elizabeth Hasslebeck is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

**HoustonRaven** · 01-06-2012, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Honestly, I'll pop on CNN.com every now and then just to see what the headlines are and I'll scope out stuff on the drudge report and fark, but honestly American media is terrible and geared towards the fat-happy dumbass that thinks Bill O'Reilly and Elizabeth Hasslebeck is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Both are not journalists and will be the first to tell you so (at least in their current capacity). They are paid to give their opinion, not the news.

To expect them to give the news is the fault of the person with the expectation, not them.

**wickedsolo** · 01-06-2012, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Both are not journalists and will be the first to tell you so (at least in their current capacity). They are paid to give their opinion, not the news.

To expect them to give the news is the fault of the person with the expectation, not them.

People take what they say as gospel.

I think that the media and networks don't try to dispell any of that either. They know folks look to these clowns for news on current events and political topics.

**NCRAVEN** · 01-06-2012, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

People take what they say as gospel.

I think that the media and networks don't try to dispell any of that either. They know folks look to these clowns for news on current events and political topics.

Pretty sure you meant some people. Not trying to nit pick your post, it just really helps to not derail the thread if you (the royal you) are clear.

**HoustonRaven** · 01-06-2012, 12:35 PM

Agree with NC.

*Some* folks view that as gospel, but that's on them. The "media" has always been about getting the most eyes on their product so that dynamic is nothing new.

Go back to the founding of the country -- yellow journalism at its finest. The only thing that has changed is the way in which we receive it, not the quality or the general content.

It's up the individual to know what they are reading and the bias behind it.

**Galen Sevinne** · 01-06-2012, 01:07 PM

When Wicked is making strong comments like "damn near every media outlet you could get your hands on were just going on and on and on about how important it was. After the results came in, they all back tracked and started in with the "Well...it's really not THAT important"..."Iowa can't be taken too seriously..." etc, etc etc. you are overplaying your idea. Sure this happened but far short of the degree that you suggest. What you want to hear is how great Ron Paul did so he gets media slant in his direction. You want Ron Paul to take the spotlight and become the "next anti-romney man up". Sorry but Ron Paul would have needed to win in Iowa to draw that respect. He did well but not well enough to become the next man up. So in typical conservative fashion you want to blame the media for not giving you what you wanted. If you think the media is poo-pooing Iowa, how do you explain Santorum's immediate attention? Watch where he stands Saturday in the debates. I bet he will no longer be hanging out on the far left side of your t.v screen but will be just to the left of Romney in the center. The media is responding to Santorum who was truly the winner.

What you are asking for is exactly what you are complaining about. Bias. You want undue bias in the favor of a third place candidate.