I've made up my mind, and I don't plan to change it. Barrack Obama has been the darling of the news. I'm not sure why, but the national news media has tripped all over themselves to make him look like the savior of the country. in the meantime, they have done everything they could to find something bad about the republican opposition. I guess if that's the way they want to run their business, I'm ok with that.
I know what happens when I have unhappy customers, they go somewhere else.
So I no longer advertise open houses in the Nashville Tennessean (it didn't bring customers anyway).
I no longer watch the CBS news with Katie Couric , who used to be my favorite.
I have eliminate MSNBC and CNN from my cable channels.
I feel better now that I don't have to listen to the Mccain bashing that goes on 24/7, and the the messiah image they put on Barrack. The reality is that the state he represents, and Chicago in particular has some of the worst schools in the country, one of the highest crime rates in the country, the highest taxes in the land, and a history of political corruption that is several layers deep. Is this what we want for the rest of the country? I'll pass.
I want my news unbiased. If you can't offer me that, you lose my business forever.
Larry welcome to the light! OK OK I know but, I get a headache from watching and listening to all the rhetoric. I use to listen to news even on the radio. But, now I find myself actually listening to music.
Larry Brewer:
Good for you. If we all did this maybe the networks would be unbiased.
larry - I'm just tired of taxpayers not voting with thier wallet. it seems that the media has forgotten who pays the bills.
((((bravo))) You don't heal an economy from the bottom up, never have, never will. :)
Tell it like it is Larry!!! Fox news has always been the most unbiased in my opinion and always have counter points for both candidates.
What has happened during this campaign makes me critical of everything else the mainstream media will be reporting from now on. Apparently we know they stretch, bend, twist, turn the truth with insignificant things, what happens when it's a big story?
Larry just tweeted this link too, thanks for the article.
Atta boy Larry.
We have early voting in Knoxville and I've already voted for McCain/Palin and sent them another contribution.
Being a avid gun owner, shooter, and supporter of the Second Amendment I could never support an anti gun liberal like Senators Obama and Biden.
Larry ..... Good for you. I'm tired of seeing it too. I will be glad when the election is over and i don't have to continue hearing about the Messiah.
Sean Allen
I think I just went blind....did someone really say that "Fox news has always been the most unbiased"?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Being of the more liberal mindset, I can fully admit that MSNBC is WAY in left field. I disagree in putting CNN in MSNBC's category though. CNN may have a tint to the left, it is by far the most balanced of the cable news networks. They have anchors on both sides of the fence, and almost always have representatives from both teams doing analysis.
Kyra Phillips in the morning is certainly on the left, but then that goes into Rick Sanchez who is more towards the right. Wolf Blitzer has basically no opinion about anything, although Jack Cafferty on his portion is almost in Keith Olbermann territory (but much funnier). The most opinionated anchor on CNN is Lou Dobbs, but he is independent and tries to drive home the independent message which straddles the line. CNN always features Republican strategists that have worked for campaigns such as Reagan's and Romney's. Although, when you put them head to head with Democratic strategists like Paul Begala and James Carville....it's tough to compete. Whether you agree with Begala and Carville on policy (which obviously most people in this thread will not)....they are just superior debaters....and this is why I say CNN has a tint to the left. Alex Castelleanos can't shine James Carville's shoes......it's like putting a poodle versus a pit bull.
The definition of "unbiased" does not contain "stuff you want to hear" I don't care where you get your news, but at least be honest with yourself enough to admit to wanting to listen to the message you want to hear. You are just trading one bias for another. It's why I watch the Daily Show and Bill Maher. It's what I like to hear....but I will certainly look in the mirror and say that it has a tremendous left wing bias to it.
And to the comment "you don't heal an economy from the bottom up, never have, never will" I'm just wondering where you were in the 90's? By all accounts, unquestionably the longest most prosperous stretch in this nation's economic history.
Fox = unbiased just made me spill my drink all over my keyboard....
What do you think of TownHall? Is that biased? What about Rush's talk show? And we are the ones supposed to be on Koolaid...
Mike, I am with your on Maher and Jon Stewart - would never call it unbiased, but it's funny and definitely at times quite true.:-)
All I can say is 'AMEN'
Too bad more people can't see through the bias and the hype, although I believe more people will in the coming days!
Larry---
Before my real estate career started in the 90's, I worked at TV news stations for many years in different markets. My degree is in Broadcast Journalism. I have also worked in radio.
What I can tell you, from this little piece of insight, is that the hard news sources, CNN, Time Magazine, Newsweek, LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, and even your network nightly news make every effort to be unbiased. It is pounded into every employee and reporter from day one.
However, lets face it. Its a business. Ratings means profit. Controversy and human interest drive ratings and, thus, profit. Thats why these stories dominate our news.
Obama's meteoric rise to power is one of the greatest news stories of our time. An African American, with a single white mom, with a real chance to be President.
Whether you agree with his politics or not, you have to admit it is the most compelling political story of our time. Maybe all-time. Its historic. When history is being made, it demands 24/7 coverage.
McCain is a great story too. War Hero makes good. But we have seen that one before...many times. McCain is not going to get as much coverage as Obama. It would have been the same with Hillary.
Should Obama win, and if Palin were to run against him in 2012, I would bet you will see 24/7 coverage of her. The challenge there is when the scrutiny is that intense you have to be cool, intelligent and able to handle the good and bad. Obama has done that.
Even when I dont like the message, I still believe in the news media. Most are impartial. Just looking for viewers.
Well said, my fellow American. You make me proud to be an American, and you clearly are not afraid to voice your opinion of the most liberal propaganda machine the United States has ever seen in history.
Josef Goebels of the Nazi Party would jump up and shout...they took it right out of his rulebook.
Josef Goebels.....Karl Rove....Rupert Murdoch.....same difference.......
You guys have FOX, we have MSNBC.....deal with it.
Larry, bring another with you! I wonder if I call Charter and tell them I don't want to pay for MSNBC and the other hit jobs if they would find a way to remove them from my selection?
Diane - I never said that fox was unbiased. I don't watch them either.
Jim - I guess I cling to my guns and religion too much to understand Obama
Mike - If I wanted a cheer leader, I would watch ESPN. Those guys at MSNBC must really get fat bonuses from the Democratic party
Aaron - I don't mind if they spend time talking about the candidates, I just don't like when they try to control who wins. It's been their mission for many years to get a democrat in office. You would think Bill Clinton was the best president ever. Some seem to forget that he was very close to being impeached.
Charles Krauthammer is now supporting McCain.
And I agree.
http://budurl.com/d7u5
"Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory? There's just no comparison.
Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test? And how will he pass it?
Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate?
The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.
The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.
Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet?
I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb."
Larry, right down the middle with strong facts and research and NO opinion. That is the way it should be delivered. When you find that let me know. Oh and good luck. I do respect your choice though. In America, we are still allowed that and in our history with few exceptions, it really did not matter which party was in office.
You know, either way I am still proudly here. That is something for which to be grateful.
Bo
Bo - i would have to disagree with you on that one. The presdents role as commander in chief is really the one where it's all on him to go or not. When we have had democrats in office, the U.S seems to be a lamb, and our enemies get stronger and braver, because we refuse to use force. The worst case in my lifetime was while Jimmy Carter was in office. I was not very happy that we didn't at least try to take military action against Iran while they had our citizens hostage. The same can be said of all of the terrorist acts taken against Americans while Clinton was in office. We never really tried to stop it, just hide it from the public, or spin it into the 12th page of the paper. I feel like Obama will want to negoiate with all of our enemies, but that's not going to work, and Mccain knows it.
jim - i guess you know that I agree with you. i don't think that obama will be a good answer as a commander in chief.
Larry, You are right about the media falling all over themselves promoting Nobama! If you saw yesterday's edition of the Nashville excuse, it is a good example of why I discontinued subscribing to it many years ago...
Michael - it's just a bad idea to let the media decide an election.
I hope you will all stand behind President-Elect Obama and give him the same respect and opportunity for success that you would any other president.
I like McCain, always have, he is a true American hero in my book. But he hasn't done enough as a politician to earn my vote. The idea that Gov. Palin could have become president certainly scared a lot of people into voting Democrat. The landslide vote was nothing short of expected.
Let's give Obama a shot.
Robert - I'm concerned that the media is deciding who we elect. Because the difference between winning and losing an election seems to depend on how much money is spent by the candidates and how much the media decides to back them. i don't believe that Barack Obama has any management experience at all, and he is just a puppet for the Democrat machine that has been in place since Clinton was in office.
Unfortuantely for Obama, he doesn't have a republican house and senate to keep the spending down, nor does he have the advantage of a technology bubble that created billions in taxes in the stock market the Clinton administation had. They forget the money spent on the y2k bubble will never happen again, and they just happen to be in office when it occurred. Can Obama say no to Nanci Pelosi? I doubt it, I think we are in for the second term of Jimmy Carter. A leader who can't lead.
As far a getting behind the new president. I'm still behind the one in office, but the media has been bashing him since his first term, so now I have decided to vote with my pocketbook. No advertising with the newspaper, no NBC news, and MSNBC has been taken off my channel selection.
Eventually the media will understand that we want unbiased reporting, not cheerleading and bashing. But the only way to make them understand is with our pocketbook.
A strange thing happend today. I was flipping through the channels while my game was on commercial, and I heard Keith olberman's voice. I made sure it was him, and then made a mental note to myself to never watch sports on NBC. I really thenks they don't get it, and I may not make a difference, but I cannot support what he has been doing or the network who pays him to do it.