websters gue Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Surely then the issue is not with the media but there are lots of not very bright people around? Fox/daily mails take on anything vaguely to do with islam has been replicated exactly by the left wing press/tv in the wake of the norwegian massacre to label anyone to the right of fidel castro as basically an appologist for mass murder - and some of their readers have lapped it up. In the world of the internet and the mass availablity of primary sources if you are prepared to so a quick google search there is no excuse for relying on the media for information about any subject which sufficiently interests you to "have an opinion on". Many Guardianistas and Sun readers will continue to be told what they think by their respective papers, because they want to be told what to think, commercially that clearly works (well ok not for the guardian, but they have all the none-job adverts to keep them afloat) and telling people they actually need to think for themselves does not actually seem to be a business model that has been sucessfully used anywhere, so that would suggest a lack of demand. Another unfair and imbalanced post by the gardenerista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 It would appear that the recent revelations about Murdoch's influence over British politicians pale into insignificance when compared to the power of the Fox News propaganda machine. does that explain why Obama won the 2008 election by a landslide, despite every News Corp newspaper and tv channel, and especially Fox, endorsing McCain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smithster Posted August 2, 2011 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 does that explain why Obama won the 2008 election by a landslide, despite every News Corp newspaper and tv channel, and especially Fox, endorsing McCain? Well no. But then, as we all know, money talks... http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php?cycle=2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 it can't talk all that loudly, and News Corp can't be all that powerful, if Obama won by the almost unprecedented landslide he did for a Democratic candidate when all the Murdoch titles and tv channels endorsed the other guy, McCain, to win. I haven't read the entire article, but only the first page. Just out of interest, do they bother to address the rather obvious anomaly there, that Murdoch and Fox failed, abjectly, in getting their preferred candidate elected President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smithster Posted August 2, 2011 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 it can't talk all that loudly, and News Corp can't be all that powerful, if Obama won by the almost unprecedented landslide he did for a Democratic candidate when all the Murdoch titles and tv channels endorsed the other guy, McCain, to win. I haven't read the entire article, but only the first page. Just out of interest, do they bother to address the rather obvious anomaly there, that Murdoch and Fox failed, abjectly, in getting their preferred candidate elected President? They don't really offer an explanation for it, no. But if you skip to page 9 of the article it shows how influential they were in securing victory for Bush in 2000. Personally, I reckon it was McCain himself that managed to lose that election, regardless of how much media support he got. That and the fact that Obama spent about twice as much on his campaign thanks to the financial backing of some serious players in the global finance industry. Money talks - nowhere more so than in the good old US of A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Bush won the 2000 election the same reason Obama won the 2008. he was just a better campaigner than Gore was, with more appeal to the voters than Gore. It became apparent during the middle section of the campaign, which is between Labor Day and the first Tuesday in November, that Bush was getting the better of it. in fact by 10 days before the poll it looked like Bush had opened up a big lead and might get as many 300 or even more, in the college. He'd made a better impression on the American public in eight months, than Gore had made in eight years. in desperation in the run up to the poll, that's when the Gore team decided to disclose Bush's drink drive charge and how he was supposed to have lied on an application form somewhere. it didn't matter. There was a late swing to Gore, but it wasn't enough for him to win. In the event he was lucky to get as close as he did. He would have made an appalling President anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I would have voted for John McCain but the fact of his age at the time and the Bimbo he chose for his running mate decided me against it. The Vice-President after all is only a heartbeat away from the Presidency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smithster Posted August 2, 2011 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 I would have voted for John McCain but the fact of his age at the time and the Bimbo he chose for his running mate decided me against it. The Vice-President after all is only a heartbeat away from the Presidency I imagine there were a fair few of your countrymen who thought the same. The very thought of that crazy woman (who once tried to claim that she was the best person to determine foreign policy towards Russia because it's close to Alaska!) being given the keys to the the world's biggest nuclear arsenal scares the bejeesus out of me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I imagine there were a fair few of your countrymen who thought the same. The very thought of that crazy woman (who once tried to claim that she was the best person to determine foreign policy towards Russia because it's close to Alaska!) being given the keys to the the world's biggest nuclear arsenal scares the bejeesus out of me! I think McCain's idea in choosing Palin as his running mate was in the hopes of luring away women voters who had supported Hillary Clinton in her campaign against Obama and who were extremely upset when Obama got the Democratic party nomination over Hillary. I cant think of any other reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Bush won 2000 because at the end of the day, the voters just would have preferred to have him round as a guest at the barbecue than Gore. Gore won most of the vote, and beat Bush nationwide, but that's not the point. the point is that Bush beat Gore where it mattered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.