I’ve now moved to the breakout session, “Faith Communities,” and have found a power outlet so I can juice up my computer. Had a chance to scan the news and on Yahoo! found an article on the changes President Obama as wrought in his first 100 hours.
Just the title, Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands, and first paragraph shows you how the media sees its mission in the new era, to report glowingly on the president’s progress while continuing to lambaste his predecessor:
Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush’s unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. He focused instead on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government.
Do you think they would have used the word “unpopular” to describe the Carter Administration? And once again, they repeat a notion which belongs more in an editorial than in a news article, suggesting the president need repair our “battered world image,” more an opinion than an actual fact.
I guess these “reporters” just have to get their digs in against W.
Oh, yup, you guessed it, it is an AP article.
The more they ding, the more their stock goes down. Today, a high number of Americans recognize the modern day journalist as opinion pimps. Our media would do Chavez, Stalin and Kim Jong Il proud, and our media glorifies the state and one party rule without the threat of execution. I think it is like a drug addiction now, they can’t stop. We can only hope they bankrupt themselves and we get a crop of journalists who think it is hip to actually report the news and facts without their own slobbering drivel added to it.
The comments by BCnSanDeeaho are what many people in America feel about are “Main Stream Media”.Modern day junkies pimping for one party is spot on. If the fairness doctrine becomes lawour Nation is over.
What really bothers me about the MSM and Liberals…who told them that I care what the rest of the world thinks about us? all I want is of my President is TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE.
It is a truly dangerous situation we are in — unlike under the Bush administration, we now really find ourselves in a situation where virtually all power in the US rests in the hands of a very few people with no checks whatsoever.
Yeah, this part of the above article was best howler I’ve seen all week:
“Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush’s unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands.”
Ummm. Let’s see:
1. Obama signs his abortion E.O. while Right-to-Life folks are in Washington. Gee, that’s a big middle finger to tens of millions of pro-life Americans, ain’t it?
2. In doing the above, Obama manages to also piss off The Vatican. Yeah, no ideology and divisiveness there.
3. We whack about 20 terrorists in Backwardistan with a couple of missile strikes. Yet another sign of “hope, change, and unity” for Obama’s adoring throngs, especially the ones who pray toward Mecca five times a day.
4. His Preppiness steps on his royal crank and all but picks a fight with Rush Limbaugh. No ideology and partisanship there, no sirree!
Meanwhile, huddled in their bunkers, bright-eyed J-schooled mediameisters, filled with love for Dear Leader, continue to issue optimistic propaganda bulletins even as the walls are beginning to collapse all around them.
We don’t have journalism in this country. We have ObamaP0®n.
Don’t forget Obama’s E.O. to close Gitmo (with no plan in place to deal with the prisoners there). This is one case where divisiveness is a good idea (dividing terrorists from the rest of us).
The Obama-Limbaugh match up could be entertaining. As Rush has said many times – he’s just a guy on the radio. He can’t raise our taxes, send anyone to war, put anyone in jail, etc. I guess it serves the liberal purpose to deflect blame onto “some guy on the radio” while they raise our taxes, send people to war, put people in jail, and so on.
Ah, the American leftist news media continue their downward spiral towards oblivion. Wonderful!
You see, folks, that’s how you have to look at this. Most of the press has turned itself into a propaganda outfit for the Democrats. And the people know it.
They’re too busy with their collective orgasm over Obama to notice their devouring what’s left of their credibility. When the process is finished we’ll be able to say “good riddance to bad rubbish.”
One must remember that to the media, “divisive” means a position on an issue that’s at odds with with the agenda of the MSM, which is 98% hard left.
The media’s treatment of the Lamb of Chicago is already a joke and will likely become even more of a joke as time passes. Even some of the most devoted Obama followers in this forum are starting to get a little defensive, and say things like, “I support Obama, but I’m not like those who worship his shadow.”
It’s all infuriating! When I tell people that the reason I don’t own a television, watch the news, or read the news paper is because of the liberal hype that permeates everything, they look at me as if I’m a crackpot! I explain the nuances of the verbage that is used. An unkind or slanted adjective used to describe the “unpopular administration” when clearly the adjective is not needed… it shows the bias of the reporter. I pick up on this crap. I’m still looked at as a crack pot. I’m glad to know that you’re all out there and have as bick of a crack in your pot as I do. Lets not get into their reactions when they find out that I’m gay AND a conservative!!!
Obama’s agenda momentum is completely tied to his popularity, which is fed and maintained by mass media. Consequently, conservatives are going to have to erode that appeal to free GOP lawmakers from shouts of “obstructionism” actually affecting their poll numbers in home districts. It’s already evident that this is underway; compare the news feeds: http://www.newsy.com/videos/obama_s_personality_moves_u_s_agenda/
Leftist reporters are as vulnerable to the “Hope & Change” brainwashing as any liberal, just as they’ve been as vulnerable to “Bush Derangement Syndrome” as any liberal.
I do wish they’d make the effort to report the news in an unbiased manner (that is, without commentary) on the news pages and restrict their editorial commentary to the editoral pages.
Can’t be done if they rely on AP, etc., until AP gets it, however I have no “hope” that that will “change.”
Just saw a presser starring WH spokesdoofus Robert Gibbs. Talk about a blithering idiot. Some of his “answers” were like The Snob’s campaign talking points – all hat and no cattle.
Personally speaking, after watching snippets of the presser on Fox News, I think that ABC’s Jake Tapper and FNC’s Major Garrett are the only reporters in that room. Everyone else was Obamasturbating.
Regards,
Peter H.
um, i’m pretty sure the notion that we have a “battered world image” is about as objective fact as it gets. if you took any survey of world opinion, such a survey would show that the opinion of the u.s. in the world has been compromised over the last six years or so. you really have your blinders on if this statement offends you as media bias.
bob, note you say last six years. Our world image increased in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The appropriate comparison would not be six years, but eight. And while we may have seen some erosion since then, it’s not been as significant as some might suggest.
And there are other measures. Our relations had improved with a number of allies (and some adversaries) during the course of the Bush Administration. Ask Germany’s Chancellor, France’s President of Italy’s Prime Minister.
gaypatriotwest…i’m hoping you’re not as dumb as your last comment implies.
If I’m so dumb, bob, it should be easy for you to take apart my comment without resorting to insults.
the point, gaypatriotwest, is: what difference does it make if it’s six or eight years? both periods of time are under bush, and even if our world reputation improved after 9/11 (out of human sympathy and wide-spread disapproval of obviously disgusting acts), that misses the point. the point, sir, is that our reputation under the bush administration has suffered.
the economist did a “world electoral map” in which citizens from every country could vote for u.s. president. obama won EVERY country except georgia and maybe one or two other tiny countries. over 90% of the world would have voted for obama (i.e. NOT for the republican). you do the math.
Um, bob, how does a poll indicating people around the world preferred Obama indicate about our “battered world image.” All it shows is that how popular is a guy hyped by the media.
So far you have failed to provide me one fact which shows how battered our world image became because of former president Bush.
I agree it has suffered and agree W could have — and should have — done more in the field of public diplomacy to improve our image, a diplomacy that would have gone hand in hand with his aggressive stance against terror and those who repeatedly violated UN resolutions.
#19 um Bob do your world electorial map and insert Fidel Castro, or some other international thug and see what you get. I’d bet they’d poll almost as high as BHO. I’m appalled how leftists would leave the choosing of our Presidents to world wide polling rather than allow even a person, an American, who enjoys 46% approval of AMERICANS. (McCain)
Say Boob, can you explain to me why we should give a crap about what the rest of the world thinks? I mean, you can’t make everybody happy. There’s no way in hell that we should abrogate our national security to a “Global Test” like that retard Kerry wanted to do.
Why should we care what people who drink the water they piss in think about us? Why should we care what people who are handing over their own countries to Islamo-fascists, hoping to be spared, think of us?
SCREW THEM!! They dream of being like us and moving herer. That’s not bragging because it’s true. If they don’t like us, to hell with them.
Why should we become quivering, bloody pussies worried about what they think?
the stupidity on these comment boards is baffling.
to the noob who said that it was only b/c obama was hyped by the media…do you really think any democrat would have fared a lot worse? it was more that the world was sick of republicans (i.e. bush/cheney), than that they loved obama, although the world obviously has a favorable opinion of obama. let me translate this for you: the opinion of the u.s. — a country led mostly by republicans — was low…people wanted CHANGE. hmm, sounds like a familiar buzz word in one of the campaigns…
and to the other noob: fidel castro would not win sweeping majorities in europe. he may win latin america and china…that’s about it. do we need a geopolitical refresher?
Hey boob more than half the worlds population lives in china india and south america. Damn man get a clue. With in a few years I will be retired sitting back like most Democrats waiting on the postman to bring me my check. I’ll be living off the few people left working in the socialist Obama country. Joy. Can’t wait to be one of the leeches glomming off other peoples sweat and hard work.
thanks for looping india in there.
india is actual a democracy. FACT! and i don’t believe indians are terribly loyal to fidel castro.
oh, and btw, did you know liberal families earn, on average, 6% more than conservative families? i guess we’re not all sitting around on our ass collecting welfare, huh?
#25 – Boob, please provide evidence of the statistics you quote about libtard families earning 6% than conservative ones. If not, then I call BS on it.
Also, Gene was referring to China, India and S. America collectively in terms of POPULATION, not geopolitics. Try sharpening your reading comprehension skills along with your spelling.
Regards,
Peter H.
no, peter, i had mentioned in my post that china and latin america would probably be the only ones to vote for castro. he then looped in india. i disagree that india would prefer castro over obama.
my reading comp skills are just fine, thanks…yours? not so much.
and the 6% figure i quoted was from a washington post article by GEORGE WILL. know him?
here is the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
and the quote:
“Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).”
of course he was citing that stat to bash liberals. but the stats are accurate, nonetheless. and what he fails to fully analyze is that conservatives actually give most donations to churches, not charities. liberals actually give more to charities when you exclude religious organizations.