Sarah Palin's husband is involved with a separatist party (and Palin herself, at best, showed poor judgement in dealings with them) and the media barely
touched this. Do you think Obama having ties to Copperheads (which are far stronger than his ties to Ayers) would have gone similarly unremarked?
The Ayers thing is a nonissue because he was not a terrorist when Obama had very tenous ties with him. Serious question: what do you think it proves about him?
I would encourage you not to fall into the ECSNorway hole of assuming the media is plotting against your preferred candidate. It isn't. Ignoring the fact
that the media in the US is ridiculously right-slanted and pro-government compared to the media of any other Western democracy, their primary motivation (yes,
even Fox) is and will always be viewer share. They chase the stories they think interest people or will win their approval. It's too big to have a single
agenda beyond its own profit margins. Particular people certainly have political leanings, but that doesn't mean there's any unified voice, ignoring
the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are big tent parties with wildly divergent interests to begin with.
Incidentally, as far as Fox goes, I personally don't mind that they report on things other media outlets don't, nor even that they do it for blatantly
partisan reasons. That's their right, and if Democrat affiliated organisations get caught doing something wrong, that's their problem. Even their
hypocrisy I can live with. What bothers me is they are dishonest, and that when they have been caught flat-out lying or distorting the truth, it has thus far
been largely ignored by their supporters. I don't like my sources lying, no matter how good I feel their intentions were.
touched this. Do you think Obama having ties to Copperheads (which are far stronger than his ties to Ayers) would have gone similarly unremarked?
The Ayers thing is a nonissue because he was not a terrorist when Obama had very tenous ties with him. Serious question: what do you think it proves about him?
I would encourage you not to fall into the ECSNorway hole of assuming the media is plotting against your preferred candidate. It isn't. Ignoring the fact
that the media in the US is ridiculously right-slanted and pro-government compared to the media of any other Western democracy, their primary motivation (yes,
even Fox) is and will always be viewer share. They chase the stories they think interest people or will win their approval. It's too big to have a single
agenda beyond its own profit margins. Particular people certainly have political leanings, but that doesn't mean there's any unified voice, ignoring
the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are big tent parties with wildly divergent interests to begin with.
Incidentally, as far as Fox goes, I personally don't mind that they report on things other media outlets don't, nor even that they do it for blatantly
partisan reasons. That's their right, and if Democrat affiliated organisations get caught doing something wrong, that's their problem. Even their
hypocrisy I can live with. What bothers me is they are dishonest, and that when they have been caught flat-out lying or distorting the truth, it has thus far
been largely ignored by their supporters. I don't like my sources lying, no matter how good I feel their intentions were.