Louis Farrakhan is a "conservative media outlet" sm
Posted By: m on 2008-11-18
In Reply to: ROFL - sm
or a blog? I do believe the words came right from his very own mouth.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Being sympatico with Louis Farrakhan...
has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with racism of the most virulent kind. Race should not have anything to do with politics, I agree...and we certainly don't need a racist or racist sympathizer in the White House...whether said racist is male, female, undecided gender; whether said racist is black, white, latino, Asian or polka-dotted; whether said racist professes to be Christian, Jew, or Wiccan. I would hope we could agree on that.
The Messiah & Louis Farrakhan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OowxMcVTjTE
And that's just the tip of this iceberg (Pflager, Rezko, Wright, etc.).
Louis Farrakhan Declaration of Obama as the Messiah?
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/09/will-msm-report-louis-farrakhan-declaration-obama-messiah
If MSNBC is such a great news outlet...
why do these numbers tell the truth about what people watch?
CABLE NEWS RACE TUES. JAN 6, 2009
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,747,000 FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 1,913,000 FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1,754,000 FOXNEWS GRETA 1,377,000 CNN KING 1,373,000 MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,308,000 CNNHN GRACE 1,264,000 MSNBC MADDOW 1,169,000 CNN COOPER 1,035,000
Or as Louis Black would say...
"They deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us!"
Love Mr. Black!
so far as I know, Louis Farrakahn....
is the first one to insinuate he was the "messiah." Others have dubbed him that because of the way his followers act. And they are followers...it goes way past Democrats supporting the party. If he left the Democratic party tomorrow they would still follow him.
From the "Conservative Underground"
North American Union to Replace USA?
05/19/2006
President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.
Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.
President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.
The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:
At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.
What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:
In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.
To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.
The perspective of the CFR report allows us to see President Bush's speech to the nation as nothing more than public relations posturing and window dressing. No wonder President Vincente Fox called President Bush in a panic after the speech. How could the President go back on his word to Mexico by actually securing our border? Not to worry, President Bush reassured President Fox. The National Guard on the border were only temporary, meant to last only as long until the public forgets about the issue, as has always been the case in the past.
The North American Union plan, which Vincente Fox has every reason to presume President Bush is still following, calls for the only border to be around the North American Union -- not between any of these countries. Or, as the CFR report stated:
The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.
Discovering connections like this between the CFR recommendations and Bush administration policy gives credence to the argument that President Bush favors amnesty and open borders, as he originally said. Moreover, President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," as he has also said in response to a reporter's question during the March 2005 meeting with President Fox.
Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won't do. If a fence is going to be built on our border with Mexico, evidently the Minuteman Project is going to have to build the fence themselves. Will President Bush protect America's sovereignty, or is this too a job the Minuteman Project will have to do for him?
From the "Conservative Underground"
North American Union to Replace USA?
05/19/2006
President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.
Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.
President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.
The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:
At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.
What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:
In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.
To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.
The perspective of the CFR report allows us to see President Bush's speech to the nation as nothing more than public relations posturing and window dressing. No wonder President Vincente Fox called President Bush in a panic after the speech. How could the President go back on his word to Mexico by actually securing our border? Not to worry, President Bush reassured President Fox. The National Guard on the border were only temporary, meant to last only as long until the public forgets about the issue, as has always been the case in the past.
The North American Union plan, which Vincente Fox has every reason to presume President Bush is still following, calls for the only border to be around the North American Union -- not between any of these countries. Or, as the CFR report stated:
The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.
Discovering connections like this between the CFR recommendations and Bush administration policy gives credence to the argument that President Bush favors amnesty and open borders, as he originally said. Moreover, President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," as he has also said in response to a reporter's question during the March 2005 meeting with President Fox.
Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won't do. If a fence is going to be built on our border with Mexico, evidently the Minuteman Project is going to have to build the fence themselves. Will President Bush protect America's sovereignty, or is this too a job the Minuteman Project will have to do for him?
Since you seem to know, just what is the "conservative agenda", please? sm
..and kindly provide references from the conservative sources themselves, not from liberal sources that are a little too prone to misinterpretations and mischaracterizations.
Thank you. I apologize in advance if this request imposes a burden on you to get your facts straight, but you'll be better informed for having made the effort.
When did "conservative" and "liberal" become insults?
It seems to serve the purposes of politicians very well to encourage their followers to label, demonize and fear those who belong to "the other" party, and to paint them all with whatever nutty ideas the true extremists in the other party happen to believe.
The truth is that most "ordinary" Democrats are only a little more liberal than most "ordinary" Republicans, and vice versa, but we are encouraged to hate one another because this serves the purposes of the parties. Politics has become not a matter of which party offers the most persuasive platform of positive ideas, but seeing who can create the largest howling, mindless mob.
Put your "everyday" Democrat and Republican in a room together attending some nonpolitical function - say, for instance, a baby shower or a choir practice. They don't happen to know which party anyone belongs to. What kinds of things do you hear them talking about? What aspirations do you hear them express? You'll be amazed at how much they have in common, sharing concerns for good schools, safe streets, job security, affordable healthcare, and many other issues. The Democrat will be no happier about the increase in the sales tax than the Republican, and the Republican will agree that the current system of healthcare leaves too many people without options.
You're a liberal, and I'll bet that you're a moderate liberal. I'm a conservative, but I'm a moderate conservative. If we could get together outside of Washington, we'd probably come to some pretty workable, livable and even affordable solutions to the common problems that we all share.
Let's recognize what's happening to us as those in power in Washington find it useful for us to hate one another. Let's resist. And let's all see if we can't find some moderates in both parties that we can send to Washington who will truly represent who the American people truly are and what the American people truly believe when we refuse to be manipulated into positions of hatred toward one another.
They were neighbors, also to Farrakhan.
nm
You miss the title of the file "Conservative extremism"?
xx
So you're saying the left controls the media? I thought the media produced the story.
I haven't seen or heard one thing blaming Obama's crew for this. Where can I read about the right aligning to attack the left? Where did you find this information? Or is this just your observation and opinion of things?
Farrakhan is a racist crazed lunatic
xx
Yes he does. I guess 'ole racist Farrakhan
xx
Who Obama listens to.........Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers,
Bernadine Dohrn publicly approved of the Charles Manson murders. And she thought it was great!
These are the people who helped him start his career, such as it is. Now in 2007, not when Obama was 8 years old, but 2007, Ayers hosted Obama's first fundraiser and his good 'ole pal Bernadine Dohrn was sitting there with him. Now, those are the kind of people who he LOVES to spend time with.
You gotta do better than that. You really just do not want to know the truth.
Speaking of the media, let's take a poll who thinks the media has run amuck sm
and which ones do you think are the most ridiculous? Fox News, NYT, AP, Wash. Post, CNN, your choice.
I think the media....
often creates more questions and issues than politics in general. I think all politicians are crooks and only out to line their own pockets with money, as evident by all the promises made during election year that never came into play during their actual term.
I go through spurts. I get mad and then I stop watching and then I calm down and I start watching again and then I get mad again. It is a vicious cycle.
Media
not going to be timid this election about the deceptive way the RNC wants to paint them as liberal and pro-Obama.. They are openly discussing it as a divisive tactic that has been used over and over by the RNC. Chris Matthews heatedly faced down Pat Buchanan last night over Pat's attempt to be Mr. Women's Rights regarding SP. Chris noted that with this election, no one is supposed to look into McC or SP's activities or views. If the media rightly investigates McC, they throw up the POW story. With Palin, it is going to be Sexist story. The media's job is to bring us information so we can decide. Free press is essential to our country. For this reason we must tolerate all extremes of opinion, as we must on this board. See MediaMatters.org for facts on media misstatements.
The media is doing its best
to make sure Obama is elected. It is sickening how one-sided they all are, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. They totally overlook anything that might reflect negatively on Obama/Biden, and jump with glee on anything having to do with McCain/Palin. What that CNN reporter did to Palin was a disgrace.
I wish I could believe everything the media
I have family that live in Arizona and Texas who are democrats. They said it was a known fact that illegals were voting left and right, all with fake SS#s and fake IDs. It hasn't been a secret that illegals are acquiring fake SS#s.
One family member, who runs a large company out there, said he stood in line with many he knew were illegal while he watched them vote and pull out so-called IDs. He knew some of the companies (through the grapevine) some of these illegals work for and knew they were hiring illegals and yet there they stood, voting as if they had the right. Even standing in line bragging about how Obama would help their families. It's not a secret if you live in these areas where you see it happening all the time. Now, if you want to believe all the hundreds of thousands of illegals voting were somehow "legal" that's your business, but I do transcription every day from Texas with doctors questioning how a patient got on disability when they aren't even legal residents of this country, so it's no surprise to me how O got in there. Factor in all the illegals in California, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and it was a done deal.
Media would be ALL over it if
--
when it happens, the media has been sm
all over it! I don't know where you have been. Do I need to send you examples? My goodness they have even taken some of the more publicized cases and made movies out of them.
Open your eyes!
Considering that the media
is so liberally biased....I'm sure there is a lot that we aren't being told the truth about.
Treating captive terrorists like dinner guests will not make them like us. It will not stop attempts on American lives by terrorists. All that will accomplish is letting them know that they can blow us up and kill thousands of Americans and all they have to do is sit in a prison until released and that is all they get out of it.
Terrorists that we have released from Gitmo have gone right back. We didn't waterboard them. They were released and joined back up with their terrorist pals again. Gee....I guess they sure learned their lesson, huh? Another free terrorist who can come back again and try to kill more Americans in the name of Allah.
It seriously amazes me how you people defend these guys.
Actually, the way I am reading it is the media is DOING it. SM
Looking for some dirt. That's the way I read the article. Time will tell I guess.
Did the media jump all over...
the horrible HORRIBLE things that Charlie Rangel said about Bush the other day. Only O'Reilly. The rest of the media has given it a pass, as usual.
It's clearly the LIBERAL media
It's okay to trash Clinton but don't touch St. Ronnie. Besides, the producer is a friend of Rush,
so clearly it's fact based....uh huh.
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2006/09/liberal-media-strikes-again.html
Not so funny when it comes to the media
doing the same thing to Repubs as they do to Dems?
I do think it's wrong. Sound byte politics is wrong, wrong, wrong, no matter who it's directed toward.
try Media Matters
They go after both sides for inaccuracies. They back up their points with facts.
Media bias...
Have you seen the two US Weekly covers, the one for Obama and the one for Palin?
I just love this email sent by former Clinton operative and Us Weekly employee, Mark Neschis, that went out to all media in St. Paul:
Thought I would send over our Us Weekly/Sarah Palin cover story, on stands Friday, if helpful in your coverage. Might be useful as an illustration of how the news is playing out.(Us Weekly has 12 million, mostly female readers)
Mark Neschis Corporate Communications Director Wenner Media Us Weekly | Rolling Stone | Men’s Journal
A former Clinton operative....smearing another woman in politics. What a double standard! Whatever respect I EVER had for the Democratic party...is gone. Party before country, party before decency....party BEFORE. NO thanks.
What Obama needs to do now is put his money where is mouth is, and tell all his operatives to tell all their buddies on the blogs and media to cease and desist...if indeed he was sincere in his objection to this treatment.
You got that right. Point is that media
nm
Media breakdown
Sticking this here in case it's relative, not as a reply to above post. Have LOTS more if you want newspapers and radio too. Sorry, but this is a driveby for the night. I'm tired, irritated and incapable of human interaction today. *Disclaimer: Informational only, not interested in arguing.
GENERAL ELECTRIC --(donated 1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign)
Television Holdings:
* NBC: includes 13 stations, 28% of US households.
* NBC Network News: The Today Show, Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, Meet the Press, Dateline NBC, NBC News at Sunrise.
* CNBC business television; MSNBC 24-hour cable and Internet news service (co-owned by NBC and Microsoft); Court TV (co-owned with Time Warner), Bravo (50%), A&E (25%), History Channel (25%).
Other Holdings:
* GE Consumer Electronics.
* GE Power Systems: produces turbines for nuclear reactors and power plants.
* GE Plastics: produces military hardware and nuclear power equipment.
* GE Transportation Systems: runs diesel and electric trains.
==================================================
WESTINGHOUSE / CBS INC.
Westinghouse Electric Company, part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL)
whos #1 on the Board of Directors? None other than:
Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group)
Television Holdings:
* CBS: includes 14 stations and over 200 affiliates in the US.
* CBS Network News: 60 minutes, 48 hours, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CBS Morning News, Up to the Minute.
* Country Music Television, The Nashville Network, 2 regional sports networks.
* Group W Satellite Communications.
Other Holdings:
* Westinghouse Electric Company: provides services to the nuclear power industry.
* Westinghouse Government Environmental Services Company: disposes of nuclear and hazardous wastes. Also operates 4 government-owned nuclear power plants in the US.
* Energy Systems: provides nuclear power plant design and maintenance.
================================================================
VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC.
Television Holdings:
* Paramount Television, Spelling Television, MTV, VH-1, Showtime, The Movie Channel, UPN (joint owner), Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Sundance Channel (joint owner), Flix.
* 20 major market US stations.
Media Holdings:
* Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Video, Blockbuster Video, Famous Players Theatres, Paramount Parks.
* Simon & Schuster Publishing.
=============================================
DISNEY / ABC / CAP (donated 640,000 to GW's 2000 campaign)
Television Holdings:
* ABC: includes 10 stations, 24% of US households.
* ABC Network News: Prime Time Live, Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America.
* ESPN, Lifetime Television (50%), as well as minority holdings in A&E, History Channel and E!
* Disney Channel/Disney Television, Touchtone Television.
Media Holdings:
* Miramax, Touchtone Pictures.
* Magazines: Jane, Los Angeles Magazine, W, Discover.
* 3 music labels, 11 major local newspapers.
* Hyperion book publishers.
* Infoseek Internet search engine (43%).
Other Holdings:
* Sid R. Bass (major shares) crude oil and gas.
* All Disney Theme Parks, Walt Disney Cruise Lines.
======================================================
TIME-WARNER TBS - AOL (donated 1.6 million to GW's 2000 campaign)
America Online (AOL) acquired Time Warner–the largest merger in corporate history.
Television Holdings:
* CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%).
* Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
Media Holdings:
* HBO Independent Productions, Warner Home Video, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock, Looney Tunes, Hanna-Barbera.
* Music: Atlantic, Elektra, Rhino, Sire, Warner Bros. Records, EMI, WEA, Sub Pop (distribution) = the world’s largest music company.
* 33 magazines including Time, Sports Illustrated, People, In Style, Fortune, Book of the Month Club, Entertainment Weekly, Life, DC Comics (50%), and MAD Magazine.
Other Holdings:
* Sports: The Atlanta Braves, The Atlanta Hawks, World Championship Wrestling.
=======================================================
NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch) (donations see bottom note)
Television Holdings:
* Fox Television: includes 22 stations, 50% of US households.
* Fox International: extensive worldwide cable and satellite networks include British Sky Broadcasting (40%); VOX, Germany (49.9%); Canal Fox, Latin America; FOXTEL, Australia (50%); STAR TV, Asia; IskyB, India; Bahasa Programming Ltd., Indonesia (50%); and News Broadcasting, Japan (80%).
* The Golf Channel (33%).
MEDIA HOLDINGS:
* Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Searchlight.
* 132 newspapers (113 in Australia alone) including the New York Post, the London Times and The Australian.
* 25 magazines including TV Guide and The Weekly Standard.
* HarperCollins books.
OTHER HOLDINGS:
* Sports: LA Dodgers, LA Kings, LA Lakers, National Rugby League.
* Ansett Australia airlines, Ansett New Zealand airlines.
* Rupert Murdoch: Board of Directors, Philip Morris (USA).
*(Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000)*
about Media Matters....
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150
That is how most of the media is showing it....
McCain speaks at every rally also. Same with Obama and Biden. Biden speaks first, then Obama. That is the way they have done it for years. The VP candidate speaks first, then the Pres. candidate when they are at the same venue.
No wonder they don't let her loose with the media.
coached, rehearsed, restrictive and repetitive responses. It's like one of five answers fits all or is interchangeable between questions. How many times did she call him "Charlie?" So watch. Instead of "my friends," she's a first-namer. Did I hear the word nookuler, or am I just imagining that? Shallow. No suprise there.
try not to believe everything the media tells you to....
x
because of lopsided media
nm
But the media, the dems, and
all these Obama supporters just sweep that under a rug. They continue to point fingers and blame others and yet they will take no responsibility at all for what they did. They will not give McCain credit for his warning. They will not admit that they ignored that warning. I'm tired of the media having their nose up Obama's ars. They call McCain a coward for wanting to postpone the debate when it was McCain who was pushing for the debate before until this and now he wants to be in Washington to help find a solution. He wants to put the country first instead of his own personal campaign. To me...this says a lot about McCain and yet the dems and the media can do nothing but downgrade. How in the world are we to have a fair election when the media is so obviously one-sided?
At this point, I really don't know that any candidate can get us out of this mess. I guess I've just lost hope all around. As for all those so-called plans Barry Obama promised.....he can't do a one of them....not that they would have worked in the first place but now it is impossible for him to even try. So now what, Barry? What else are you going to promise you will do that you can't deliver on?
How can she be swayed by the media
when she says she is picking McCain and the media is so far up Uhhhbama's butt that if they opened their mouth, you could see the top of his head.
As for McCain disrespecting woman....that makes no sense. He picks a woman as his VP and that is disrespectful to women? McCain pays his women employees more than Uhhhbama does AND employs more women than Uhhhbama.
media brainwashing
You want to buy a car that costs $45,000 and gets 11 miles to the gallon? You want a $100,000 loan for your kid's college. You want to buy a house that costs $350,000. Because if they don't pass this bill, all of these things will be cheaper and more affordable. And if they pass this bill they will keep house prices the same, the 401Ks the same, gas prices the same, food prices the same, college expenses the same, car prices the same..... Are you getting paid the same or less?
You have to look at who owns the media. sm
All the media is basically owned by 3 huge corporations. They have monopolized everything. The owners are part of the establishment (rich elites). Naturally, they want candidates who will fulfill their agendas so the establishment candidates get all the face time on TV. They marginalize and ignore the rest.
I don't believe everything the media tells me to...
Media causes trouble
I think half the time it is the broadcasting of such statements that prompt people to react in such a way. It's almost like they feel it is expected, so they then act out.
Plus the whole group mentality is freaky. Look at what people do sometimes after big sports events (like college games) ... even the winners. Like a pack of dogs!
or maybe it's just media bias, you think?? nm
nm
I don't think you need to depend on the media
If you lose your job (or don't have any work), if your neighbors lose their jobs; if you can't afford groceries much less health care and if you can't make your house or car note you can be pretty well certain that he is failing. On the other hand if you start seeing all those things going the other way, you can safely conclude that he is succeeding. At some point here common sense has to take over.
Media Malpractice...
Video Exclusive: A Revealing Morning With Sarah Palinby John Ziegler
If someone told me five months ago that in early January I would pay over $1,400 for an incredibly inconvenient plane ticket and $120 for a 3 a.m. cab fare to get from sunny Los Angeles to Wasilla, Alaska, I would have told them there was a better chance the Dow Jones would be below 9,000 and a gallon of gas less than two dollars.
If they would have told me I’d be glad to have made the journey (even with a seven-hour, weather-aided stop in Seattle), I would have told them Sarah Palin had a better chance to be John McCain’s running-mate. Of course, as we all now know this turned out to be true. And even though I still have the flu I got just before the trip, I’m thrilled to have experienced minus-eleven degrees in Alaska.
Obviously, I was there to interview Governor Palin for my forthcoming documentary about the media coverage of election 2008. My understanding is that the only reason Governor Palin did this interview (while rejecting hundreds of other requests) is because of her sincere devotion to setting the record straight on what really happened during the campaign and to determine why the news coverage was as dangerously slanted as it so clearly was.
Largely because of absurd claims by Democrats that she was violating ethics rules by answering campaign questions on state grounds (one of several ways in which the Democrats in Alaska, who used to love her, are now fully invested in the “take Sarah Palin down” industry), we did the interview at the Palin home. At 9 a.m., without a security guard or handler in sight, Bristol Palin, eight days removed from giving birth, politely answered the door and Governor Palin, not yet fully put together, rushed out to tell myself and my crew to make ourselves at home.
One of the things you quickly learn when you visit the Palins is that the legend created around who they are and how they live is no myth. It appears to be absolutely real and everything about them seems 100% sincere. From the stuffed hunting trophies on the wall, to Track’s military photo by the TV set, to Piper’s crayon school projects on the refrigerator door - everything is exactly as you imagined.
What’s particularly valuable about my perspective is that I am not Charlie Gibson, Matt Lauer or Greta Van Susteren (who I understand now gets her mail delivered to the Palin home) — the conductors of the three most prominent interviews done in this Wasilla home on a frozen lake at the end of a drive with the sign “Palins” posted on a tree. I am virtually unknown nationally and there was absolutely no reason for anything to be done differently as “show” for us. We saw the genuine Sarah Palin and it is patently obvious this is the only one who exists.
She is the real deal.
As a former TV sportscaster and radio talk show host I’ve interviewed a lot big-time “celebrities,” and can honestly say that even though you could argue Sarah Palin was the most prominent, she is also by far the nicest, most sincere and seemingly honest subject I’ve ever questioned.
For context, I admit to being a Sarah Palin fan even before she was named John McCain’s VP candidate. I attended her convention speech and consider it by far to be the finest I have ever personally witnessed. But being a world-class cynic I also wondered if maybe there was at least some truth to the negative media narrative created about her. Maybe she really wasn’t that smart, maybe she was indeed a “diva” or a “wack job.” Well, if any of those smears are remotely true, Palin should move to LA permanently because she’s a far better actor (not to mention better looking) than the vast majority of actresses in Hollywood.
Our interview started early and ended late (ask Barbara Walters how often that happens at this level). The Governor fully answered every question, even though some of them brought up media episodes which clearly upset her. When the subject turned to her kids being targeted, she was even a little emotional. She then posed for pictures and signed autographs for the entire crew, and casually discussed all sorts of topics, including how the local newspaper is absurdly still trailing the “story” that her youngest son is not really hers (this, while Todd walked around with Trig on his back and Bristol cared for Trip, her newborn, in a nearby bedroom; even Trig conspiracy theorist Andrew Sullivan would have had a hard time not seeing the insanity in his own delusion).
The madness of the local paper’s efforts to prove Trig is really not Sarah’s baby is not all we learned in post interview conversations. Conservatives will be thrilled to know she immediately “got” and seemed to fully appreciate my joke that Pete Wilson (and not Arnold Schwarzenegger) would go down as the last Republican Governor in the history of California. If that wasn’t enough, when she looked at the back cover of my first film (“Blocking the Path to 9/11” www.blockingthepath.com) and saw the photo of one of the film’s targets, Keith Olbermann, she literally let out a shriek and, pointing to his photograph, declared, “THAT guy is EVIL!”
Beyond the great interview for the film (from which there is still plenty of tremendous stuff yet to come), the most important part of my visit to the Palin home was learning there’s a big difference between thinking something is true and knowing for sure it is. I now know Sarah Palin is exactly who I thought she was.
I also know, with moral certitude, that the media assassination of her, her character and family, was one of the greatest public injustices of our time and that I’m totally justified in devoting my life to correcting the historical record in my forthcoming film, “Media Malpractice… How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Smeared.”
ALERT THE MEDIA!!!!
There have been reports that the US is harboring a fugative who goes by the name of Just the big bad. This fugative is considered to be an athiest liberal who does not agree with supporting the terroist nation of Israel, and most recently was discovered to smoke cigarettes. If you see this person, please use extreme caution. She is known to carry a sharp pen and has employed tactics (otherwise known as logic and facts) that confuse republicans.
Get a grip
Re: alert the media
Really...hmmm...is there a fat reward for alerting said media...i JUST might turn you in....
Fox is so different from the mainsteam media.
Fox should be like the mainstream media....ya know.....just turn your head when Obama does something and only report on the positive stuff. Praise the people he appoints even though some of lobbyists that he said wouldn't have a place in Washington if he were president and by all means.....appoint a man who didn't pay taxes to the IRS because THAT is super smart!
Fox may lean conservative but mainstream media leans way liberal and they don't report the news fairly at all. MSNBC is about as one-sided as they come. So I find it so hypocritical when you libs complain about Fox.
This is not REAL media...this is the
I am glad he's calling out the cowards. Rush Limbaugh is the Democrats best hope to stay in power. Keep opening mouth and inserting foot, Rush.
That's right, because the REAL media...
ask him how he feels about baseball players taking steroids and then lying about it. Whatever!
|