the media have a lot to answer for, for standing there with their thumbs up their wazoos
when W stole the election,
when they followed FOX's premature announcement of his "victory" with their own articles,
when they stood by as W went to court rather than permit the constitutional process to play out,
and during the eight years of that destructive, despicable, illegitimate "reign". i am actually glad that i do not work in the US.
the media have an important function, which is to report on not just the events that have occurred but also on what goes on behind the scenes, who profits from seemingly regular transactions, who is not performing his or her duties etc.
at the moment many in the media have not moved past the gosh-we-have-a-black-president phase. add to this the fact that the economy has been destroyed (thank you, GOP)
the rich have become obscenely so,(thank you GOP)
regulations and laws have been gutted (thank you GOP)
and we are facing a crisis the dimensions of which STILL have not been ascertained.
i am not holding my breath as regards the media becoming more even-handed. many of them are in danger of losing their jobs, their homes, their pensions. that tips the scales in favour of the media owners, who, like the rest of the rich, are not hurting (thank you GOP)
Your question is a perfect example of how quickly the general public forgets. Why do you call the Republican party the "NO" party? Do you forget that a couple of years ago the Democratic party said "NO" to everything? The party in the minority generally disagrees with the party in power.
The media is definitely not a "NO" news media. They have spent the last year praising everything that Obama does to the point that he was laughed at for having "rock star" coverage. It continues as his blunders are ignored and he is shown as a media darling.
No. We have a yes we can news media, echoing the yes we can Democrats. Someone has to bring sensibility to the table, hence the Republicans being cast as the no party.
Comments
the media have a lot to answer for, for standing there with their thumbs up their wazoos
when W stole the election,
when they followed FOX's premature announcement of his "victory" with their own articles,
when they stood by as W went to court rather than permit the constitutional process to play out,
and during the eight years of that destructive, despicable, illegitimate "reign". i am actually glad that i do not work in the US.
the media have an important function, which is to report on not just the events that have occurred but also on what goes on behind the scenes, who profits from seemingly regular transactions, who is not performing his or her duties etc.
at the moment many in the media have not moved past the gosh-we-have-a-black-president phase. add to this the fact that the economy has been destroyed (thank you, GOP)
the rich have become obscenely so,(thank you GOP)
regulations and laws have been gutted (thank you GOP)
and we are facing a crisis the dimensions of which STILL have not been ascertained.
i am not holding my breath as regards the media becoming more even-handed. many of them are in danger of losing their jobs, their homes, their pensions. that tips the scales in favour of the media owners, who, like the rest of the rich, are not hurting (thank you GOP)
Your question is a perfect example of how quickly the general public forgets. Why do you call the Republican party the "NO" party? Do you forget that a couple of years ago the Democratic party said "NO" to everything? The party in the minority generally disagrees with the party in power.
The media is definitely not a "NO" news media. They have spent the last year praising everything that Obama does to the point that he was laughed at for having "rock star" coverage. It continues as his blunders are ignored and he is shown as a media darling.
No. We have a yes we can news media, echoing the yes we can Democrats. Someone has to bring sensibility to the table, hence the Republicans being cast as the no party.
Yes, Rush Limbaugh.
Libs piss me off. Anyone else?