President Palin?

[Chuckdom19]

A funny exterior link.
Click on everything in site!
Some things change after multiple clicks.
Have fun!

http://www.palinaspresident.us/

[Muskan]

While stumblingup at stumbleon, I always find advertises in favour of Obama and against Maccain or Palin.

I assume that american media is predominantly supporting obama. I wonder if media has any valid reason for this biasness.

[mkemse]

While stumblingup at stumbleon, I always find advertises in favour of Obama and against Maccain or Palin.

I assume that american media is predominantly supporting obama. I wonder if media has any valid reason for this biasness.

Just the way our Media has always been except for FOX owned stations

[lucy]

I assume that american media is predominantly supporting obama. I wonder if media has any valid reason for this biasness.
Working brains? :D

[Ragoczy]

I assume that american media is predominantly supporting obama. I wonder if media has any valid reason for this biasness.
Working brains? :D

How about a complete abandonment of journalistic ethics and integrity?

[lucy]

Sorry. It was a bad joke and i shouldn't have posted it. My apologies.

However, i first have to hear of the journalist, newspaper, radio or tv station that brings ONLY facts and never opinions.

[DesertDom]

Sorry. It was a bad joke and i shouldn't have posted it. My apologies.

However, i first have to hear of the journalist, newspaper, radio or tv station that brings ONLY facts and never opinions.

In journalism classes a long long time ago, impartiality was a central tenet of ethical reporting. Opinions were only supposed to be voiced in editorial columns. Part of the problem with our election process, the root of the anger towards politicians and reporting in general is the obvious bias that permeates the news today.

[gagged_Louise]

In journalism classes a long long time ago, impartiality was a central tenet of ethical reporting. Opinions were only supposed to be voiced in editorial columns. Part of the problem with our election process, the root of the anger towards politicians and reporting in general is the obvious bias that permeates the news today.

In those days, journalism was a lot less person-oriented, it didn't bring "everyday life" to the fore, didn't seek "the human side" of an event as strongly as everyone does now. People say sometimes that newspapers were so much more patriotic during WW2 than in modern wars - could be true, but the point is they didn't force their readers right up to the trenches, didn't interview lots of soldiers who had come home with crippled legs or blinded eyes, people who had lost their homes in bombings, or women who had lost their men in strange circumstances, and those people, if they were sought out once in a while, were not expected to be outspoken. It was supposed to be "cheery" but in wartime or right afterwards that's no more objective than a modern gossipy celebrity profile.

Of course, many of the soldiers they interviewed back then - or during the Vietnam war - had been picked by the Armed Forces, just like reporters are embedded now to get to the front, but also to be under definite army control.

Today "What do you feel like?", "What did you think?" are the standard questions of field journalism. Fundamental diffeence.

I think the Palin page was absolutely hilarious, very to the point too, and I'm so not for her ever becoming President.

[mkemse]

The page was great the Prospect of her becoming President is scarier then any Steven King movie ever made

[DesertDom]

In those days, journalism was a lot less person-oriented, it didn't bring "everyday life" to the fore, didn't seek "the human side" of an event as strongly as everyone does now. People say sometimes that newspapers were so much more patriotic during WW2 than in modern wars - could be true, but the point is they didn't force their readers right up to the trenches, didn't interview lots of soldiers who had come home with crippled legs or blinded eyes, people who had lost their homes in bombings, or women who had lost their men in strange circumstances, and those people, if they were sought out once in a while, were not expected to be outspoken. It was supposed to be "cheery" but in wartime or right afterwards that's no more objective than a modern gossipy celebrity profile.

Of course, many of the soldiers they interviewed back then - or during the Vietnam war - had been picked by the Armed Forces, just like reporters are embedded now to get to the front, but also to be under definite army control.

Today "What do you feel like?", "What did you think?" are the standard questions of field journalism. Fundamental diffeence.






Louise,


I am having trouble following your conclusion based on your reasons.

Journalists have always been craving to get to the 'bottom' or 'real reasons' behind stories. For the most part, they have been limited by technology. In the case of war, there have always been reporters on or near the front lines, they had to wait to get back to a base to use or phone or send a telegram with their stories. No satelite phones, digital cameras or wireless internet that can be used now. So, stories were censored in the name of 'security' or to 'protect the home front', etc.

Reporters have always wanted to dig into a story, but they had journalistic integrity to report on an objective basis and only report the facts. There had to be atribution for things put into stories. Editors jobs were also to edite the opinionated crap out of stories.

Yeah, there were exceptions, witness 'yellow journalism' of the late 1800 / early 1900's. But, because it was exceptional, it is now remembered. Opinions were supposed to be in editorials, not shading a tv or newspaper story to make either obami or mccain look good. That is not journalism, that is the kind of crap that belongs in supermarket tabloids.

It also sounds like you support thrusting a microphone in the face of a victim of violent crime or accident and asking them how they feel, that is so wrong on so many levels (taking advantage of a person in a bad time for a cheap sound bite), I am not sure how to even respond to that.

yeah i know the mantra is 'if it bleeds, it leads', I'm just glad I got out of journalism 20 years ago. Where the industry has went is embarrassing to one who studied for and worked in it in the late 70's early 80's.

That is probably why journalists are also respected about as much as politicians now.

[QuietMaster]

The page was great the Prospect of her becoming President is scarier then any Steven King movie ever made


There is a possibility that there could be:

President ------ Barack Obama

Vice President - Sarah Palin

Should there be a tie in the Electoral College votes, [ Obama ==> 269 and McCain ==> 269 ] then the matter will be determined immediately by the current sitting members of the House of Representatives for the President; and the Senate for the Vice President.

Since the Democrats has the majority in the House of Representatives, it is likely that Barack Obama will receive the majority of votes and hence be declared as the President.

Since the Senate is evenly divided, the most likely result would be a tie vote. Under a tie vote in the Senate, that is the only time that Vice President Cheney who is the President of the Senate can cast a vote. It is likely, should party loyalties prevail, that Cheney could vote for Palin who could then become the Vice President.

[denuseri]

I would rather have Palin in there any day over Obama.

The media has pretty much lost it's integraty on allmost evey level, alltough we discussed that to death and back in earlier threads.

Even the Christian Science Monitor that is supposed to be unbiased has "opinion" dripping from allmost every article, alltough it is more subtle by far than any news scource owned by Ted Turner (the modern day William Randolph Hearst).