Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Modern news people are mostly salesmen, in my opinion. They are in the business of selling the news. They will sell whatever news people are anxious to buy.

It's actually not a new phenomenon. I read once that Civil War and World War I news photographers used to re-arrange dead bodies at battle scenes in order to make the pictures more dramatic.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
there definitely was a tilt, because there wasn't enough negative shit to cover whozit. Whereas the Mccain campaign was a horrible blunder every other day.

If there had been more to cover on Obama, trust me it would have been, or have you entirely wiped from your memory the fact that Reverend Wright was covered almost nonstop for like a month?

should they fabricate more controversy just to make things "fair" and balanced?

---

Quote:

---

The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories.... Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues,

---

Quote:

---

but we had a larger purpose

---

Quote:

---

to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered

---

Quote:

---

The Democratic candidates who preceded him were by contrast largely uninteresting folks. (Apologies to them for saying so.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
To me, this is the part that counts:

Quote:

---

The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories.... Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues,

---

Yes, he does.

Quote:

---

but we had a larger purpose

---

WTF????

Quote:

---

to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered

---

THAT is 100% horse shit. Print and their inet extensions ALWAYS cover campaigns like horse races. And TV and radio ALWAYS cover "personality".

Quite frankly, I don't give a shit about a candidate's personality, who fumbled, and who's first. What I REALLY care about is what they've done and what they're likely to do.

My biggest reason for voting against McCain? He was going to expand Bush's transfer of wealth to the wealthy. The second-biggest reason was his pick of Sarah Palin, a woefully unprepared choice. The third was his planned continuation of the occupation of Iraq.

Barack's record is as a moderate-liberal. He voted for telcom immunity, he's for the death penalty, and he differs with me on a number of other issues. BUT... he said he was going to redistribute wealth (which BTW is the only sustainable way to run capitalism, otherwise it becomes like a poker game where one player winds up with all the chips) and focus on alternative energy. I have no illusions that he is a "radical" in any sense.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

---