Mrs. Clinton 2004

  • News
  • Thread starter Jonathan
  • Start date
  • #26
Zero
Originally posted by russ_watters
Zero - you seem to be saying that its the job of the media to campaign for Democratic candidates. Personally, I see it as being the job of the democratic party to campaign for democratic candidates. The candidates are in any case on tv all the time. I guess maybe the media could do more though - free air time for advertisements for democrats for example.
Do you always have to reword what I say? I should be calling you a liar, maybe?

Don't you think that the media campaigns for Bush more than enough? Fox News is almost an official administration propaganda mill, after all. More importantly, aren't the top 2-3 camdidates worthy of some news coverage, not for campaigning purposes, but simply because an election is news?
 
  • #27
363
0
I don't know what is wrong with you Zero! I've seen the Democratic debates several times (live too) and can name the front runners off the top of my head! And I watch Fox News and MSNBC almost exclusivly! If they weren't giving them fair time, how would that be possible? The reason most people don't know the names is because there are a lot and most people are waiting until they get whittled down to a more managable number. I have to admit though that I don't really know how they stand on things, I have only a general idea for them all, and I really don't see many differences between them, but I think this is due to my own lack of interest. Here it goes, though it doesn't exactly prove anything since I could be lying about what I watch and/or if I have a list of names in front of me: John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Dean something, and Al Sharpton. I remmeber them thus: Kerry is the one who's face is sliding off his head, Clark is the one who was with the military and might be a closet repulbican, Dean is the one with white hair who's last name I can't remember, Al Sharpton is that stupid black guy who isn't Jesse Jackson (I remember JJ as being the one who is the stupid, budging-eyed black guy w/ short hair). Man, I crack myself up!
 
  • #28
Zero
Originally posted by Jonathan
I don't know what is wrong with you Zero! I've seen the Democratic debates several times (live too) and can name the front runners off the top of my head! And I watch Fox News and MSNBC almost exclusivly! If they weren't giving them fair time, how would that be possible? The reason most people don't know the names is because there are a lot and most people are waiting until they get whittled down to a more managable number. I have to admit though that I don't really know how they stand on things, I have only a general idea for them all, and I really don't see many differences between them, but I think this is due to my own lack of interest. Here it goes, though it doesn't exactly prove anything since I could be lying about what I watch and/or if I have a list of names in front of me: John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Dean something, and Al Sharpton. I remmeber them thus: Kerry is the one who's face is sliding off his head, Clark is the one who was with the military and might be a closet repulbican, Dean is the one with white hair who's last name I can't remember, Al Sharpton is that stupid black guy who isn't Jesse Jackson (I remember JJ as being the one who is the stupid, budging-eyed black guy w/ short hair). Man, I crack myself up!
Then Russ is wrong, and people DO know the names of the candidates? Of course YOU know, or you wouldn't be posting on the P&WA board, silly! My point was that every time that the media wastes time talking about Bill or Hillary, they are not taking the time to inform people of teh positions of the candidates. Then again, even when we get down to the Democratic nominee, we will likely have a repeat of 2000, where the media dropped the ball on Bush's lies in order to talk about Gore's suits.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
russ_watters
Mentor
19,876
6,296
Originally posted by Zero
Do you always have to reword what I say? I should be calling you a liar, maybe?
If you feel it is justified and you can substantiate it, go ahead. Its not something I take lightly though.

But you DID say that the media actively suppresses information about democratic candidates - which is absolutely absurd. And it is not the job of the media to campaign for democrats. I'm sorry, but being the most powerful man in the world makes Bush news-worthy. The democratic candidates don't have that. And when the tables are turned, it still works the same way - Clinton was pretty news-worthy when he was in office.
Don't you think that the media campaigns for Bush more than enough? ...... More importantly, aren't the top 2-3 camdidates worthy of some news coverage, not for campaigning purposes, but simply because an election is news?
I don't think the media campaigns for Bush at all and I do think the top 2-3 candidates are news-worthy and are being covered in the news. I don't know what news you watch, but I've seen quite a bit of the top 2-3 candidates. Maybe that's the problem - people aren't watching the news enough or reading the paper enough.
My point was that every time that the media wastes time talking about Bill or Hillary, they are not taking the time to inform people of teh positions of the candidates.
1. It isn't the media's job to inform the people of the positions of the candidates - its the candidates' job.

2. Bill and Hillary are high profile democrats by virtue of their previous office. They are news-worthy.
I don't know what is wrong with you Zero! I've seen the Democratic debates several times (live too)
Ditto.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Zero
Originally posted by russ_watters
If you feel it is justified and you can substantiate it, go ahead. Its not something I take lightly though.

But you DID say that the media actively suppresses information about democratic candidates - which is absolutely absurd. And it is not the job of the media to campaign for democrats. I'm sorry, but being the most powerful man in the world makes Bush news-worthy. The democratic candidates don't have that. And when the tables are turned, it still works the same way - Clinton was pretty news-worthy when he was in office.
I don't think the media campaigns for Bush at all and I do think the top 2-3 candidates are news-worthy and are being covered in the news. I don't know what news you watch, but I've seen quite a bit of the top 2-3 candidates. Maybe that's the problem - people aren't watching the news enough or reading the paper enough. 1. It isn't the media's job to inform the people of the positions of the candidates - its the candidates' job.

2. Bill and Hillary are high profile democrats by virtue of their previous office. They are news-worthy. Ditto.
Actually, Russ, I think this is just my general malaise with the media poking through again. I don't think we disagree on basic facts, but we interpret them completely differently. just find the entire political coverage of teh mainstream media to be too ratings-oriented, which throws away what I consider to be the primary goal of the press-informing the public.
 
  • #31
363
0
What happened to my post? Zero, did you delete it?!
 
  • #32
Zero
Originally posted by Jonathan
What happened to my post? Zero, did you delete it?!
Yep...next time, you can leave off the name calling.
 
  • #33
363
0
**Edited for being off-topic**
 
  • #34
Zero
I can do this all day and night, Jonathan...and it pads my post count too!
 
  • #35
363
0
What does the post count have to do with anything? Also, will others please note for the record the vindictive tone on the previous post? And the bloated egotism that is characteristic of malignant narcissicism? I can change the topic midthread if I want, it is my thread.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Zero
Speaking of which, to get completely back on topic(And I apologise for the hijack...mea culpa), I find that the media fixation on Hillary is due to her 'brand-name' status, and it is a detriment to the overall political coverage to waste limited air and print time on non-news.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
363
0
Who are you apologizing to? This is my thread and I took it off topic, why would you say "mea culpa" since I was the one who caused this digression and would have liked to hear some input on that (Ex.: LOL!). Surely you must understand that my comments have to have been tongue-in-cheek, considering that I've agknowledged many times that I really don't know you and considering the many humorous (or I though so) remarks I've made previously (Ex.:Kerry's face is sliding of his head, that one just cracks me up!). Obviously they weren't nice, but for all you know I'm the insane one, in which case it would be prudent to ignore me all together rather than deleting everything.
 
  • #38
Zero
Originally posted by Jonathan
Who are you apologizing to? This is my thread and I took it off topic, why would you say "mea culpa" since I was the one who caused this digression and would have liked to hear some input on that (Ex.: LOL!). Surely you must understand that my comments have to have been tongue-in-cheek, considering that I've agknowledged many times that I really don't know you and considering the many humorous (or I though so) remarks I've made previously (Ex.:Kerry's face is sliding of his head, that one just cracks me up!). Obviously they weren't nice, but for all you know I'm the insane one, in which case it would be prudent to ignore me all together rather than deleting everything.
Insanity is no excuse...can we PLEASE get back on the topic here?!?
 
  • #39
363
0
I thought we had beat it to death already, since for a while there was no mention of Mrs. Clinton at all. I started this thread as kind of like those threads Ivan Seeking posts, where there are few replies and it kinda just is. Then again Ivan has links to actual sources of information, whereas all I had was a 'I heard it from some guy...' type of source.
PS:I don't think I'm insane, I was just making a valid point that you guys really can't tell what I'm thinking for sure.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Mrs. Clinton 2004

  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Top