Obama's media helpers at it again...

[billc]

Well, we now the media are all in for obama this election, rigged polls, ignored scandals and now...cutting out exit polling in a way that helps obama, and hurts Romney...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/04/Why-the-Networks-cut-exit-polls-to-save-Obama

The networks and the Associated Press have an insidious plan to help President Obama on Election Day that is being swept under the rug: they are cutting nineteen states from the list of exit polls they will report. For twenty years, all 50 states have been reported, but somehow this year the networks and AP are ignoring 19 of them. Now just how and why were those 19 states selected?

The ostensible reason given is the rising cost of the surveys. Dan Merkle, director of elections for ABC News, and a member of the consortium that runs the polls, said the goal “is to still deliver a quality product in the most important states.”
So just which states are being ignored? Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
The Washington Post tried to gloss over the scheme, noting “how carefully the exit poll planners allocated resources. All 19 of the states with no exit polls are classified as either “solid Obama” or “solid Romney.”
Really? Of the nineteen states (including Washington, D.C.) exactly 4 are for Obama, with a total of 14 electoral votes. The fifteen Romney states add up to 135.
It is utter hogwash that the exit polls were cut from these states because they were in the bag for one of the candidates. If Texas is cut, how about New York and California?
The real reason the consortium has cut these states is that they know that if they report fifteen states coming in for Romney early, independent voters in other states will take notice and be swayed his way.
There is no way that the networks and AP can rationalize their decision without damning themselves with their obvious partisanship.

Yes, this is the reason that I am not so worried about reporting the misdeeds of the nutters on my side of the aisle, for those of you following the other thread. You have the media pitching in to help obama and yet I have to take the time to report bad things about the republicans to be "fair." Bad polling, ignoring scandals that have gotten people killed (the attack in Libya, and fast and furious and operation Castaway) and now this. I thought when the networks called Florida early for Gore it was bad...now they do this.

The Washington Post piece on the subject...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...4/networks-ap-cancel-exit-polls-in-19-states/

 

[WC_lun]

More nonsense.

 

[billc]

Another story that would be funny if it wasn't what we have come to expect...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gr...hought-romney-would-win-then-later-asked-if-h

British journalist and historian Tim Stanley is a conservative expert on American politics. He blogged at the Telegraph (U.K.) website that the liberal media lost in the first debate, suffering a "humiliation for an industry that has spent several years setting Obama up as the wisest, most eloquent, most popular politician since FDR."
Stanley found that American media bookers fully expected Obama to dominate Romney, and were amazed with his bizarre theory that Romney would win. Then when Romney won, they called to ask if he would talk about how debates don't matter! He wrote:
In the last couple of days, I’ve done a lot of interviews talking about the debate. A conversation with one producer was illustrative of Romney’s battle against poor media expectations. He called just before the debate and said, “So, I guess Obama’s going to win easily tonight. Do you want to come on and talk about it?” I replied that I’d love to but that Romney was actually the stronger debater and I’d be tipping him to win. “Really?” Yes. “Well, that is a surprise. I’m not sure people will buy it, but if you want to say that – it's up to you.”

The day after the debate he rang again. I was expecting him to say, “Hey, you were right! Can you come on to talk about how Romney won?” Instead, he said, “Can you come to talk about how debates don’t really matter?” I sighed deeply.
We can only guess who the producer was, but let's at least note that Stanley appeared Tuesday with Brooke Baldwin on CNN. He went against the grain of Obama-will-win in his interview:

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gr...would-win-then-later-asked-if-h#ixzz28XsVJXH1

 

[billc]

Fred Barnes on the media helping obama...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/obama-s-boys-bus_653807.html?nopager=1

My point in citing the newsmagazines is not that they’re colluding to reelect Obama. They don’t have to. It comes quite naturally to these pillars of the mainstream media to elevate issues with a pro-Obama tilt. And they’re not even the biggest contributors to the liberal bias that has dominated media coverage of the presidential race.
The bias has been so massive, palpable, and unprecedented that the scales have begun to fall from the eyes of a few stalwarts of the media establishment. Obama, Mark Halperin of Time noted last week, “has been covered as a candidate, rather than as an incumbent whose record needs to be scrutinized.”

The Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman has suggested the media have all but given the president a free ride. “Obama was such a cool and uplifting story to so many in the media in 2008 that they have essentially ceded ground to him that they have yet to reclaim,” Fineman wrote. The president has campaigned “without having to seriously and substantively defend his first-term promises or shortcomings, and without having to say much, if anything, about what, if anything, he might do substantially differently if he is fortunate enough to win again.”
The most explosive criticism of press bias has come from Patrick Caddell, the former pollster and adviser to Democrats George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Gary Hart. “We have a political campaign where, to put the best metaphor I can on it, the referees on the field are sacking the quarterback of one team, tripping up their runners, throwing their bodies in front of blockers, and nobody says anything,” Caddell said in a speech.
If you hadn’t guessed, the refs are the media, their victims Romney and Republicans. No fan of Romney, Caddell said Obama is protected by the media.

Coverage of the Obama administration’s response to the Libyan attack also reflects the media’s double standard. Within 24 hours, Pentagon and intelligence officials had concluded the assault on the Benghazi consulate was an act of terrorism planned for the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, according to numerous reports. Yet five days later, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, insisted it “began spontaneously” as a reaction to the Cairo demonstrations against a “hateful video.” White House press secretary Jay Carney continued to say the same.
An obvious question arises, or at least should. Was there a cover-up? If we had a Republican president—or even a Democratic president not named Obama—the press would be pursuing that possibility with great intensity. And the national news would be focused on efforts of the president and his aides to deflect blame for the eruption of assaults on American embassies in Libya and across the Middle East. But in Obama’s case, this hasn’t happened.
Kirsten Powers of the Daily Beast is one of the few journalists to doubt the administration’s motives. Its spin doesn’t make sense, she wrote, “unless it is seen as a deliberate attempt to mislead Americans into believing al Qaeda has been decimated, as President Obama has been known to assert.” But “most of the media herd was fretting” about Mitt Romney’s taxes, she added, thus too busy to probe a far bigger story that might embarrass Obama.

 

[elder999]

 

[shesulsa]

It's like the French talking about how dirty Americans are.

 

[arnisador]

Your sources aren't exactly impeccable here, They could be pecked.

 

[Tgace]

So there has been criticism of this administration in the main stream media?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[WC_lun]

Have you not been watching the main stream media? Yes, there has been critisism, some valid and some not.

 

[billc]

Well, of course...the President attended the wedding of the moderator of the Vice President's debate...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/abc-news-scrambles-to-cover-up-barack-obamas-attendance-at-vp-debate-moderators-wedding/

President Barack Obama was a guest at the 1991 wedding of ABC senior foreign correspondent and vice presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz, The Daily Caller has learned. Obama and groom Julius Genachowski, whom Obama would later tap to head the Federal Communications Commission, were Harvard Law School classmates at the time and members of the Harvard Law Review.

After TheDC made preliminary inquiries Monday to confirm Obama’s attendance at the wedding, ABC leaked a pre-emptive statement to liberal-leaning news outlets including Politico and The Daily Beast Tuesday, revealing what may have been internal network pressure felt just days before Raddatz was scheduled to moderate the one and only vice-presidential debate Thursday night.
Both Politico and The Daily Beast jumped to ABC and Raddatz’s defense. The Huffington Post, another liberal news outlet, joined them shortly thereafter, while calling “unusual” ABC’s attempt to kill the story before it gained wide circulation.

​

​

 

[billc]

Well, this won't surprise conservatives out there...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330742/bizarre-coincidence-democrats-get-more-time-all-three-debates-katrina-trinko

Bizarre Coincidence: Democrats Get More Time in All Three Debates

Hmmm...the first moderator, a liberal who works for PBS.
the second moderator, Obama attended her wedding, and she attended functions at the V.P.s residence
and the third moderator, called the Ryan pick a "death wish," and went on to interrupt Romney more than obama and helped obama on the libya question with a false fact check. She herself a few weeks before had said the same thing Romney did, but I guess that wasn't on television...

 

[CanuckMA]

Well, of course...the President attended the wedding of the moderator of the Vice President's debate...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/abc-news-scrambles-to-cover-up-barack-obamas-attendance-at-vp-debate-moderators-wedding/


[/COLOR][/LEFT]

So it was all a long range plan. He attended the wedding of a classmate because he knew that 21 years later his mother would moderate a debate involving his running mate.

The man is a genius.


That's a new low in stupidity, even for you.

 

[billc]

NO...what it means is that of all the main stream media supporters of obama, she shouldn't have been picked to moderate the debate.

It was her wedding...

President Barack Obama was a guest at the 1991 wedding of ABC senior foreign correspondent and vice presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz, The Daily Caller has learned. Obama and groom Julius Genachowski, whom Obama would later tap to head the Federal Communications Commission, were Harvard Law School classmates at the time and members of the Harvard Law Review.
After TheDC made preliminary inquiries Monday to confirm Obama’s attendance at the wedding, ABC leaked a pre-emptive statement to news outlets including Politico and The Daily Beast Tuesday, revealing what may have been internal network pressure felt just days before Raddatz was scheduled to moderate the one and only vice-presidential debate Thursday night.

And Raddatz's ex-husband...

Genachowski’s friendship with Obama would continue through the campaign trail in 2008 and into the White House: He aggressively fundraised for Obama in 2008 as a campaign bundler, and served on the presidential transition team before winning his appointment to chair the FCC.

But Ford’s unwillingness to document that claim now suggests that Obama was among a close circle of fewer Harvard classmates who were personal friends of Raddatz and Genachowski.

 

[CanuckMA]

Not pick her to moderate a debate not with Obama because Obama is friend with her ex-husband and attending the wedding 21 years ago? just wow. You're grasping trying to see bias where there is none. She may very well be biased because of what she believes. Hell, any moderator will be biased for/against a candidate. It's human nature. But to try to forge a link like that is just, well...

 

[arnisador]

It's true--the ex-husband is the way to a woman's heart.

 

[Tez3]

It's true--the ex-husband is the way to a woman's heart.

:lfao:

 

[Sukerkin]

NO...what it means is that of all the main stream media supporters of obama, she shouldn't have been picked to moderate the debate.

It was her wedding...



And Raddatz's ex-husband...

If the message reflects it's writer, then such tenuous grasping for anything unkind to say does not reflect a flattering picture. Surely you have something to say that has weight and bears scrutiny?

It would be good to hear it (from any of the Right Wingers here or elsewhere) for politics demands information if it is to work and information from the Republican's seems hard to come by. The Democrats may well be as bad but I have never, in my six years or more here, been struck by an unending drip-feed of partisan spin from supporters of that party.

From an outsiders viewpoint of how the two political wings come across, Republican's give the impression of too much chest-beating and not enough thought, allowing them to be easily guided to extreme views. Democrats, on the other hand, seem sometimes prone to having an excess of belief in the ability of people to be rational and place too much faith in 'government' to act effectively in all matters (even when there have been demonstrable failures).

These are clearly painting-by-rollers stereotypes but how unfair are they?

 

[WC_lun]

Sukerkin, I don't think your generalizations are too far off. Of course it doesn't apply to everyone in those parties. I would add that democrats many times also don't show much of a backbone, allowing them to be pushed around and lose thier focus.

 

[billc]

Yes, here they go again, helping obama out with the suppression of casualty figures for his time in charge of the "good war," in Afghanistan...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/31/media-report-war-casualties

During the last four years in Afghanistan alone, under the leadership of Commander in Chief Obama, US forces have experienced significantly more injuries and deaths than under the entire eight years of President George W. Bush in that country. Based on media reports, though, you’d never know it.
Little news of our country at war has been reported these past four years, and especially during this election season there have been drastic differences in how Bush’s and Obama’s war dead and national security policies have been treated by the press.
Pew Research Center found that as coverage of the war, and public interest in it, decreased, an uptick in the belief that progress was being made seemed to follow. In other words, coverage, or lack thereof, influenced public perception of the war and its success or failure.
Unfortunately, no new era of international peace has been ushered in for American soldiers or citizens under Barak Obama. During his presidency, our military has sustained an estimated 70 percent of the 1,987 casualties and nearly 80 percent of the 17,519 injuries that have taken place in Afghanistan.
Despite candidate Obama’s harsh criticism of President Bush’s war strategies and his 2002 anti-war speech in Chicago, according to Amos Guiora, University of Utah law professor and national security expert, Obama has, “in fact built on his predecessor’s national security tactics.” And while the media was up in arms over those tactics when President Bush used them, apparently building on and augmenting them is no big deal.
President Obama has greatly increased surveillance of citizens, classified more government documents than any other president, preserved CIA renditions and significantly increased drone strikes.
So why, during this election season, is there almost no talk in the media about Obama’s war dead, about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of his policies in Iraq and Afghanistan or about the secret drone program that has reportedly outnumbered Bush’s five to one?
I’ve seen no op-eds like this one, from the Chicago Tribune during the 2004 election season, that claimed that Bush has “made America a remorseless killer” and that accused our soldiers of being “liberators who turned villages into mass graves.”

 

[WC_lun]

"...our military has sustained an estimated 70 percent of the 1,987 casualties and nearly 80 percent of the 17,519 injuries that have taken place in Afghanistan."

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you REALLY should stop trusting Brieghtbart's site as a relibale source of information.