Will the press ever give the president tough coverage?

[dsummoner]

Yeah, you told me that.

And you listened and followed the instruction perfectly!

It helped that you wanted to excel at the act of worshiping government and protecting your Leader. A Leader, Master, Lord and Savior without whose guidance there would be nothing for or of you.

[soulflower]

It would be nice if the article gave specific topics from specific outlets. Then the comparison could be made.

When have they ever needed supporting evidence?

[Sprightly]

On any given day you can easily find dozens of negative articles about Obama all over the web. If its negative you seek, you don't have to search very long.

Just visit sites like RealClearPolitics.com

Thank you. I did not realize that RealClearPolitics is considered mainstream media. I appreciate the information.

[dialtone]

And you listened and followed the instruction perfectly!

It helped that you wanted to excel at the act of worshiping government and protecting your Leader. A Leader, Master, Lord and Savior without whose guidance there would be nothing for or of you.

Right, right, do you have more words to share???

[pepper]

On any given day you can easily find dozens of negative articles about Obama all over the web. If its negative you seek, you don't have to search very long.

Just visit sites like RealClearPolitics.com

Sure, all over the web. And we should be thankful for the variety there. On the main networks? Not nearly as much.

You may be too young to remember, but I recall when you got your news at 6 or 11, fed by the main networks and nothing more. That allowed for some serious manipulation. Consider JFK ( that reference is a bit dated but the point is valid) the media, along with the WH were able to perfectly craft an image causing lots of folks to see him as a sort of god. No drug use, not womanizing...JFK would be torn up in todays media. Bill Clinton was really the first President to face that sort of intense scrutiny.

Even with Clinton, major outlets that knew of his affair wouldn't touch it until they had to, their hands forced by the upstart Drudge.

Today, theres MSNBC and CNN, NBC, ABC etc..clearly not focusing on the negative aspects of Dem pols. Thats been proven time and time again so it's not really worth going into except to point out that those negatives, rather than the positives, are what we should be aware of and focusing on.

The line has blurred between reporting and commentary. FOX is as guilty as any of them in the bias area, but take away FOX and it's a love fest.

The media in general does a real disservice to the American people by pushing an agenda one way or the other.

[dsummoner]

Right, right, do you have more words to share???

Anything besides 'worship government and protect the Obaloompa' would be lost on you.

[dialtone]

Anything besides 'worship government and protect the Obaloompa' would be lost on you.

Got it.

[soulflower]

Thank you. I did not realize that RealClearPolitics is considered mainstream media. I appreciate the information.

RCP links to articles from various MSM news websites. It's a right-wing news aggregator site so most of the articles they post are negative towards the President and Dems.

[soulflower]

Sure, all over the web. And we should be thankful for the variety there. On the main networks? Not nearly as much.

You may be too young to remember, but I recall when you got your news at 6 or 11, fed by the main networks and nothing more. That allowed for some serious manipulation. Consider JFK ( that reference is a bit dated but the point is valid) the media, along with the WH were able to perfectly craft an image causing lots of folks to see him as a sort of god. No drug use, not womanizing...JFK would be torn up in todays media. Bill Clinton was really the first President to face that sort of intense scrutiny.

Even with Clinton, major outlets that knew of his affair wouldn't touch it until they had to, their hands forced by the upstart Drudge.

Today, theres MSNBC and CNN, NBC, ABC etc..clearly not focusing on the negative aspects of Dem pols. Thats been proven time and time again so it's not really worth going into except to point out that those negatives, rather than the positives, are what we should be aware of and focusing on.

The line has blurred between reporting and commentary. FOX is as guilty as any of them in the bias area, but take away FOX and it's a love fest.

The media in general does a real disservice to the American people by pushing an agenda one way or the other.

Given that the Network news shows are less relevant today than 40 years ago, you guys have even less reason to complain.

If you want negative views of the President, they are very easy to find today between Fox News, talk radio, and the internet.

Today, thanks to technology, its easier than ever to get different points of view on any topic.

[Joy in Mudville]

Might the treatment of Obama harden in his second term? I’m moderately hopeful. I suspect a few in the media are privately embarrassed by the oh-so-soft coverage and would like to apply some accountability to the Obama presidency. If they do, they’ll discover Obama disappoints like other presidents and perhaps more often.

I guess you weren't around for the "teflon president".

Bush got a free ride for the first couple of years of his presidency. It wasn't until the press finally realized that they dropped the ball and allowed themselves to be steam rolled on Iraq that they turned on the president.

[pepper]

Given that the Network news shows are less relevant today than 40 years ago, you guys have even less reason to complain.

If you want negative views of the President, they are very easy to find today between Fox News, talk radio, and the internet.

Today, thanks to technology, its easier than ever to get different points of view on any topic.

Less relevant, yes. Irrelevant, not at all. The nightly news is still a prominent feature and the main networks are where a lot (most?) folks get their info.

You make two comments that caught me..."you guys" and "if you want negative views".

Are you implying that you would rather your info on pols and politics to be sugar coated?

I already realize there massive negatives to any President or pol, without being fed. These people are Human, and theres few groups as corrupt as politicians. That goes back to Roman times. What I would like is an end to protectionism based on party, nothing more.

[soulflower]

I guess you weren't around for the "teflon president".

Bush got a free ride for the first couple of years of his presidency. It wasn't until the press finally realized that they dropped the ball and allowed themselves to be steam rolled on Iraq that they turned on the president.

Presidents have to be extremely unpopular to get mostly bad press. Bush got a ton of good will in his first term from the 9/11 attacks

[BlandFood]

I guess you weren't around for the "teflon president".

Oh, you mean Bubba?

[BlandFood]

Haters never take a day off

ALWAYS hate work yo be done Mr. Flower....... The Landover's are on.

[soulflower]

Less relevant, yes. Irrelevant, not at all. The nightly news is still a prominent feature and the main networks are where a lot (most?) folks get their info.

"Most"? I'm not too sure about that. I consider myself a news junkie and I can't remember the last time I watched the news on a Broadcast network. I get most of my news from Cable news and the web.

And as far as print news goes, it used to be that you had to rely on local newspapers. Not anymore. Today, you can read newspapers from all over the world online.

You make two comments that caught me..."you guys" and "if you want negative views".

Are you implying that you would rather your info on pols and politics to be sugar coated?

As far as I'm concerned, all news has some bias. I tend to frequent sites like RCP which tends to be more republican leaning, to get more than the Liberal point of view.

I already realize there massive negatives to any President or pol, without being fed. These people are Human, and theres few groups as corrupt as politicians. That goes back to Roman times. What I would like is an end to protectionism based on party, nothing more.

Being fair and objective doesn't sell. Or do you think PBS and C-Span are more profitable than Fox and MSNBC?

I accept that there's bias from all sides of the media and use multiple sources for news before forming my opinions...

[dsummoner]

Got it.

BeLIEve Obama, damn it!

[dialtone]

BeLIEve Obama, damn it!

Got it.

[dsummoner]

Got it.

Indeed, you do.

[Calamari]

Study Finds Obama Received "Unrelentingly Negative" Media Coverage

Conservative media figures have frequently argued that President Obama has received favorable coverage from a supposedly adoring media, but a new study from Pew finds that "negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-to-1." While some observers (including Media Matters) have in the past questioned the usefulness of similar studies, conservatives have cited past Pew reports to portray the rest of the media as biased.

In short, title and opening post are complete baloney.

[sushilover]

The leftwingers are just angry and bitter that their incompetent, lazy -- what did Joe Biden call him ... a "homeboy"? -- comes off in public as little more than an inept, desperate racist with a huge chip on his shoulder.

And there's not a darn thing the leftwingers can do about that other than whine and stamp their feet like petulant little teenagers.