The Media Elite After Bush's Triumph!

I was glad to see reporters actually doing research and reporting in the weeks before the election. It was a little late, but hopefully they'll actually do their jobs at the beginning of this term, instead of the end.

 

Your avatar is making me ill.

 

I lost the bet fair and square. I am a man of my word.

 

Actually, I found out quite by accident that the media does a worse job than I thought.

Last weekend, my parents were in town. With kids, parents, mother-in-law, wife etc., I was completely removed from my normal media routines. I was limited to watching the 10:00 news, and skimming headlines in the Tribune.

I got a taste of what I am sure many voters saw who are not political junkies. Here is what I saw:

1. not a single mention of the MLS Playoffs.

2. The same damn political story each night. Goes something like this, (video of Bush in shirt with rolled up sleeves saying he won't relent) "President Bush campaigned in Ohio and Florida today telling supporters that John Kerry lacks the resolve to be commander in chief."

3. (video of JFK in a LL Bean mustard yellow coat) "John Kerry campaigned in Florida and Ohio today reminding voters that Bush has made mistakes in the war on terror."

That was it. I truly felt like I had been labotomized.

 

Might be the only way to survive the next four years...of course it kinda kills any fun one might have with the remaining years.

 

Very late last night, I started to surf between Fox News, CBS, and CNN. Kudos to Fox for being the one to quickly and accurately identify that a reversal for Kerry in Ohio just couldn't work. Hours later, Dan Rather was still clinging to those "up to 250,000 provisional ballots." CNN also refused to call the state even though it was apparent provisional ballots wouldn't do the trick.

The other thing that stuck out was just how old those folks on CBS were. I think Leslie Stahl was the youngest person on the show! There's gotta be a shake-up at CBS and elsewhere in the elite media, and they will have to trend more toward the center or Fox News will laugh all the way to the bank.

 

Uh, try factual reporting. What about that statement is incorrect in any way?

 

Reporters are starting to report again, I just really hope that they have the guts to start asking Bush tough questions. He's not running for election again, so you're not hurting his chances. Just ask!

 

Mandate = Reagan v. Mondale = Clinton v. Dole

An election where the swing of one mid-sized electoral state would change the result is not a mandate. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

Both sides can actually point to a fairly weak result. Kerry had a president with a major f' up, a bad economy, and he had a ton of money and couldn't win.

Bush was an incumbent, war time president who barely eked out a win.

 

That I agree with. Now, his father was certainly a failure.

 

clinton vs dole... wtf are you talking about.

you lefties really do rewrite history.

in case if you forgot....

49% of the resgistered voters participated that year.. far less then did this year.

And clinton barely won 50% of the vote....so in the end only 25% of the eligible voting population backed Clinton.that is less then supported the president last night.some estimates have the turnout as high as 70%,with his 51% that would equate to roughly 35% of the electorate behind the president.
Thats pretty ********ing high... as in most years.. even in the Reagan landslides voter turnout was nowhere near as it was last night.

 

This is misleading because you do not understand election mathematics. Almost 10% of the elctorate voted for Perot that election, and you have no basis to claim that these people were not happier to see Clinton beat Dole. Clinton did crush Dole (and Perot) in the only metric we have available - the number of people who chose each as their primary desirable President. And that "25 percent of eligible voting population" claim is true for just about all recent presidents, including Reagan.

(Plurality voting sucks.)

 

Wait a second, the media had better start behaving or....

Bush will take away yet another constitutional right? The one that provides for freedom of the press.

Other than continue the underhanded tactics of the past 4 years in terms of controlling his message so that it is delivered without opportunity for meaningful opposition or scrutiny, there's really no more than can be done "to" the media. It's not like he's going to start with outright censorship in retalitation for critical stories.

But I'm sure he'd like to.

 

Um, the same 70% turnout gave Kerry 48% for 33% of the electorate. A 2% advantage does not a mandate make. What was the spread for Clinton/Dole?

 

Not a valid comparison as there was a viable third-party candidate in 1996. Let's put it this way, in 1996, most voters wanted a change in the Oval Office. (Clinton got 49.2% of the popular vote.) In 2004, most voters wanted no change in the Oval Office. (Bush got 51% of the much larger popular vote.) Furthermore, Bush helped increase the Republican representation in both the Senate and the House. I'd say if Clinton had a mandate in 1996, Bush certainly does as well.

 

Well, I suppose they'll have to start by submitting everything to John Ashcroft or whoever the new AG is.

The AG can then read each piece and declare it publishable as long as it meets certain standards like hewing to the party line, no criticism implied or otherwise, of any elected official (except those traitors for whom the AG deems criticism mandatory), no criticism of the state, a supreme awe of ALL foreign policy, nothing which incites anti-American feelings, nothing which incites anti-anything feelings of which the AG approves. All things Democratic must be impugned at all times, you can speak disrespectfully of previous presidents, as long as they are the known traitors.

All articles must speak reverently of the glorious homeland and the heroic struggle for its liberation from those enemies of the same homeland known as liberals or sometimes called Democrats. Don't let the name fool you, they are the same. All articles must speak in glowing terms of Liberal/Democratic re-education camps. Re-education is the only way for any patriotic American who worships the homeland. One party rule is good. More than one party in un-American. The second party is always an enemy of the the state.

And that's just the start. The rest of the regulations to follow in a bill called Patriot Act II.

But yeah, the media must 'behave.' It's what all patriotic Americans want. (If you don't want it, you're not a patriotic American.)

 

Clinton had a bigger margin in both of his elections.

 

This post is the sound of one hand clapping.

How bad did Clinton beat Dole? That's what makes a mandate.

 

Wow.

Kerry got more votes than Reagan. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I can post stupid irrelevant factoids too.

 

"There he goes again" the guy whio thinks he knowit all "Not Very Super" Dave. Heard you wet your bed with tears last night Davey.

Haha

 

"There he goes again" the guy whio thinks he knowit all "Not Very Super" Dave. Heard you wet your bed with tears last night Davey.

Haha

Saw Whoppi Goldberg on Regis live the day after the election result in a President Bush win. Funny she finally shut that big ugly mouth of hers said nothing about it. She is appearing on broadway a one women show.

I am sure she will be a sellout. The demo's have nothing else to do now except to go watch her. Have a feeling the show will fold in the next few weeks.

I am sure the Daily show rating now will go shooting through the roof