Press favors Obama

---

why does the press favor obama? i was out of the US for the whole obama hilary shit, but outside the US, all the press said he had already won, before he had a majority of delegates votes. it seems they are doing the same thing to mccain (spelling? i hate politics GO NADER [spelling]), but why does the press so favor obama?

Depends what you read really... I read certain press that seems to favor Obama and other press that favors McCain. It just all depends on what you read.

If we're talking "old media" (newspapers, news magazines, network television), they clearly favor Obama. That's no secret and nothing new. Why do they favor Obama? Because he's the Democratic candidate. They have a history of supporting the Democratic party.If we're talking cable news, it's not as totally one sided. There is Fox.I think the internet is probably the most unbiased news medium. There are websites that are unbelievably biased for both sides, but overall, you'll find a more balanced set of information online.

They favour obama because he is the first black man who ran for president and got that far.But do you also realise that most time that he is in the news it`s something bad? Take for example the brittany spears and paris hilton story.

Depends on what point in time you were referring to. A month before she finally conceded, she needed to win every state by at least a 20% margin in order to win, so it was almost a sure thing that Obama was going to win due to the way the Democratic Primary process is set up.

And actually, even so-called Democrat-biased news stations are saying that while Obama has the better chance at winning due to the information given by polls, it still will be difficult for him to win.

Then there's the topic of media attention. I forget which college it was that did this, but it did research and found that Obama did get more media coverage. However, a large portion of it was negative coverage, and I'm pretty sure that doesn't help a candidate very much. McCain has had relatively low negative coverage.

That`s true but also realise that most of the negative press is because most americans say [list][*]null1. that he is flipfloping 2.because of his past 3.and most americans are biased and racist(not saying that you are)

The news media does not clearly favor Obama. Please don't construe your personal opinion as fact.Organizations that have systematically studied the coverage that the candidates got in the primary and general election races found that, in the primaries, Obama did get more favorable coverage than Clinton, but in the general election race, that is not the case. As of last week, one of the checkers found that 3/4 of the stories about Obama were not favorable toward him, and McCain has been doing far better in not getting negative coverage.If 3/4 is not enough for you, then feel free to watch Fox News, where things appear to be more "fair and balanced".Obama gets more news coverage overall because he is an oddity. What's new about a rich old Republican running for office, versus a charismatic, highly-educated black man, the first black man in the history of the nation to receive the nomination?

A.W., you don't need unbiased news as much as you need a basic understanding of what's going on, informed by the knowledge that practically all sources have a bias. You should able to adjust for the biases if you get information from sources that are not principally acting as a party apparatus.Fox News and the New York Times both have their biases, but they are hardly comparable.Also, with the Web, it's easy to get news directly from foreign sources. A great deal of it is written in English. It's another perspective, and you'll find a lot of things that get scant coverage in the U.S.So where do you get your information from? Do you just punt and remain uninformed?

The problem is that most Americans can't and don't think for themselves. They watch the news and think it's all the same and go out and vote.Old people watch the news 24/7 and go out and fuck up our elections every 4 years. That's why Florida was messed up, Florida is full of old people just sitting around watching the same news channel that they've watched since 1940. It's clear to a young person that the channel is either run by Democrats or Republicans. My nana even told me she doesn't care who the candidate is as long as they are a democrat. Now isn't that fucked up to you?

Who said the best news sources are foreign?Most Americans don't have to be racist for racism to have an effect. If the election is close, it won't take much to tip the race one way or the other. If you think race hasn't played an issue in recent American politics, then you're not paying very close attention. (By the way, does McCain have a black love child, as was claimed in North Carolina in the 2000 primaries by Bush folks? Some of those same folks are now working on McCain's campaign.)_____________________@A.W.: You'll just have to deal with the fact that pretty much everyone you come into contact with, including the media, will try to influence you -- generally it takes the form of "give me your money". You don't have to do what they say.What then do you do? Punt and remain ignorant? Where do you get your news and information?

Believe me, if Gore was elected we would've had all these crazy policies that would have killed us economically even worse than Bush has killed us.Gore was a supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Which if you look online, the Kyoto Protocol would have devastated the U.S. economy beyond imagine. We would be arrested by psycho cops for having a car that was considered unfriendly to the environment. There would be riots all over the country rebelling against Gore. He most likely would end up being impeached before anything too severe happened. Gore needs to be shot and I'd be happy to do the job except I would have to leave the U.S. and live in hiding.

Originally Posted By: cooldawg2Believe me, if Gore was elected we would've had all these crazy policies that would have killed us economically even worse than Bush has killed us.That's because there would have been no Congress or anything to check his power, and he could have done anything he wanted to,like Stalin did.No. You're dreaming. Kyoto would never have passed Congress. Originally Posted By: cooldawg2We would be arrested by psycho cops for having a car that was considered unfriendly to the environment.Yes, because we live in a totalitarian police state, and that's what he'd want to do, and he could just do it.You have a real flair for the dramatic. Originally Posted By: cooldawg2Gore needs to be shot and I'd be happy to do the jobNice. Is that an actual threat?

You can't just lay that election at Florida's doorstep. It's not as if there was no election in the rest of the country. If you're unhappy with Bush, you should be unhappy with the people all over the country who voted for him and meant to.In any case, there's always some error in big elections. If an election is very close, it's almost equivalent to a coin flip.

Apparently, neither you or Rad understand sarcasm. And according to you HCl, drastic changes can occur given enough time. I'm not saying all these things would happen once he took office, but over the years, you'd be surprised how many changes would happen. The fees on plastic bags in Seattle is already a form of communism.

Originally Posted By: cooldawg2

Apparently, neither you or Rad understand sarcasm.
The FBI and Secret Service have a little trouble with the concept too.

Originally Posted By: cooldawg2

And according to you HCl, drastic changes can occur given enough time.
No, drastic changes can never occur. (That was sarcasm.) Is there really any question that drastic changes can occur given enough time?

Originally Posted By: cooldawg2

I'm not saying all these things would happen once he took office, but over the years, you'd be surprised how many changes would happen.
Like what? Not Kyoto. Jimmy Carter tried to move energy policy along (former nuclear engineer that he was), but he was mocked when he suggest in a national address ways to conserve. He wore a sweater. The right wing was all over him, mocking, saying that wearing a sweater would solve all our problems (just like McCain's mocking Obama with air gauges). Then Reagan and Bush Sr. did nothing much on the subject. Neither did Clinton, who would have been stymied by the oil lobby anyway. Bush Jr. and Cheney certainly did precious little. And here were are, terribly dependent on foreign oil.

People (like McCain) talk about becoming energy independent from drilling (even more) offshore, and (even more) in Alaska. As if oil weren't a commodity, traded on the world market, where its price is set.

Originally Posted By: cooldawg2

The fees on plastic bags in Seattle is already a form of communism.
Learn what communism is. Communism is not the opposite of libertarianism.

Well what do you call forcing a fee upon citizens that is uncalled for? In our DEMOCRACY we vote on things when we want change. Even taxes are controlled by what we vote for. In communist countries, the dictator controls nearly everything and enforces fees, taxes, and killings at will. I'm sure no one voted for a fee that would completely inconvenience them by forcing them to bring their own cloth bags or face a fee that adds on $15 to an already high food bill. Also with gas prices where they are, this is exactly the opposite of what we need. Which is why I choose the option of us taking action against a threat that doesn't exist and casting the world in a depression. All these fees they are going to slowly bring on are going to hurt precious industries that made the U.S. what it is today.

Yeah, I'd much rather have a president who's clueless and knows it. McCain admitted that he doesn't know much about economics, but I guess we'll have to rule out Obama.If Gore had won, the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq. Gore was against it from the get-go. The focus would have been on Afghanistan, and there at least would have been a chance that bin Laden would be caught and al Qaida would have been routed.Clinton left Bush a well-functioning FEMA. Bush put political hacks at the top of the agency and made it into a political spoils theme park. The chickens came home to roost when New Orleans was flooded and the response of the federal government was rather incompetent.If Gore had won, then you wouldn't have had president Bush flying back to Washington from his ranch, specially, to sign a bill into law so that the plug wouldn't be pulled on on a Florida woman in a persistent vegetative state.If Gore has won, banking regulation wouldn't have been dismantled to the extent that we'd have the current credit crisis that's led to all those home loan foreclosures. (You can also send a big thank you to Phil Graham, until recently McCain's top economic advisor; he was cut loose when he called the American public a bunch of whiners.)If Gore had been elected, the U.S. energy policy's ownership wouldn't have been taken over by the energy industry lobby. But hey, Bush and Cheney are from the industry, and they're not exactly renowned for their imagination, so that's how it goes.)We also wouldn't be the only western democracy to shitcan the Geneva Conventions. We probably wouldn't have become known as torturers.The department of Justice wouldn't have been turned into a political arm of the executive branch.We likely wouldn't have a Homeland Security cabinet-level agency. Talk about a dysfunctional bureaucracy. Does anyone remember the color alerts, and how the alerts would be raised any time politically embarrassing news was about to come out?We also have had a president with a better grasp of the English language.Those are just a few things off the top of my head. There are many many many more ways the Bush administration failed. The information is out there, thor.Imagine having a president who could actually write a book by himself. What an odd concept.

We live in a republic, not a direct democracy. The difference is important. Learn about it. Our elective representatives make decisions on our behalf, besides a handful of issues that are decided by referendum. Quote:In communist countries, the dictator controls nearly everything and enforces fees, taxes, and killings at will.The countries you are thinking of are not even literally communist. They are authoritarian dictatorships. Think of a hippie commune from the 60's. That's as close to communism as people have gotten in the real world. People were smoking pot and having sex, as well as cultivating tomatoes and carrots.Anyway, if the people don't like the fees, they should tell their representatives they don't like them, or vote them out. If you have a problem with the idea of representative democracy, then I guess you must thing that the Founding Fathers were really dumb.You sound like a potential radical libertarian, who will go off the deep end as soon as he discovers Ayn Rand's books. The problem is, she was an atheist, oh my.

I'm not gonna go off the deep end, I'm just not gonna stand for any form of communism in our country.

Stop being a fucking dick man, everyone knows you were a previous member, I really hope you get banned again. It would save me the aggravation of having to respond to you're pointless straw man arguments. You point out all the flaws in every single thing people say and then act like you're a genius.

Never get your personal emotions get in the way of a discussion.You know, I don't get why you're so full of hot air about the plastic bag issue. I personally recycle mine, but it doesn't mean everyone does it. The reuseable bags are only a dollar.Doesn't seem much in trying to contribute to cleaning and saving the planet.