Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Media taking sides?

  • 09-05-2008 7:50pm
    #1
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    The Washington Post seems to have nailed its colours to the mast with a series of op-eds backing Obama: On the other hand, I'm getting the impression of a pro-Clinton slant from CNN's coverage.

    Thoughts?


Comments

  • #2
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,433 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Taking sides is kind of irrelevant when the fight is as good as over. I don't know, I think those articles were reasonable. If she can't catch up in terms of pledged delegates she should move to one side.


  • #3
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    IMO some of the "quality" newspapers on this campaign have not covered themselves in glory with their very strong single candidate bias extremely early.

    The Washington Post and the NY Times have been strongly pro-Obama for some time and AFAIR they went for Obama round about February. IMO much of what they have been reporting is of late is an attempt to remind people that they are relevant and it is very easy to see the answers when the finishing line is so close.
    The misguided hero-worship and coronation of Obama they indulged in for six months or so and which ultimately manifested itself in the premature gloating over the demise of Clinton, to me is a better indication of how "reasonable" they have been and how many times they got things completely wrong.


  • #4
    Amazotheamazing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,048 ✭✭✭Amazotheamazing


    Some of the pro-Clinton gushing from CNN and FOX has been pretty sickening too, is_that_so.

    I suggest the reasons the papers went for Obama is because the popular vote has also gone for him, and the delegate count. He's just a better candidate. My God, Clinton can't even run a campaign, how could you trust her to run America?


  • #5
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Amazotheamazing wrote: »
    My God, Clinton can't even run a campaign, how could you trust her to run America?

    I see a thread about the media has turned into more Obama gushing :p

    He makes me weak at the knees...me and all my rich liberal friends. If he gets in, lets all meet in Aspen for a fondue party!


  • #6
    Amazotheamazing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,048 ✭✭✭Amazotheamazing


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I see a thread about the media has turned into more Obama gushing :p

    He makes me weak at the knees...me and all my rich liberal friends. If he gets in, lets all meet in Aspen for a fondue party!

    When did the word "liberal" become an insult?

    As Clinton ramps up on the discrete racism "white America" ffs, I hope you can come to see what an unworthy candidate she is showing herself to be.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Amazotheamazing wrote: »
    Some of the pro-Clinton gushing from CNN and FOX has been pretty sickening too, is_that_so.

    Which is part of my point, a very strong single candidate bias. CNN and FOX are biased, although CNN less so, the other two are supposed to offer balance. The Post and The NY Times have long been in love with Obama, way before the primaries started. For them :"He's JFK, MLK, smart, articulate, liberal all rolled into one, and he's everything that American politics is not and he can save us from the risk of carrying on the Bush years in McBush".

    Some of this may be true but instead of saying "this guy is amazing, we love him", the first question is OK, "he's interesting but who is he?". In my view they have never managed to do that and only the Clinton revival along with Obama's own issues have forced them to look at him more closely, which is right and proper for any candidate for President.


  • #8
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Amazotheamazing wrote: »
    When did the word "liberal" become an insult?

    It's not an insult. Not is 'rich'.


  • #9
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    is_that_so wrote: »
    ...the first question is OK, "he's interesting but who is he?". In my view they have never managed to do that...
    Time (May 19) seems to have done that. Interesting article on his political history.

    That said, Time are calling it - the nomination's his, as far as they are concerned.


  • #10
    dave2pvd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭dave2pvd


    Strange reading....

    1) Fox supporting Hillary

    2) CNN being unbiased

    3) Liberal NOT a bad word.

    Let me explain the last one: ever since the surge of conservativism that ushered in W commenced, 'Liberal' has been a bad word in the US. If you think CNN is unbiased, this probably appalls you.


  • #11
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,433 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Time (May 19) seems to have done that. Interesting article on his political history.

    That said, Time are calling it - the nomination's his, as far as they are concerned.

    I read that article. Decent piece of work.

    Time have called it with a small disclaimer on the front page which reads something like "Really, we're pretty sure this time"!

    EDIT:obamanv9.png


  • Advertisement
Advertisement