The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

I never thought you would be one to run David.

"Stand and shoot it out" seems to be more your motto.

I remember being so upset about the pouring rain in Columbus on election day 2004 (Bush carried Ohio, barely).

Quote:

Well, unlike you and soz, I don't believe it's nonsense

What? When the **** did I say it was nonsense oh captive of preconceptions? I was asking a genuine question - which I think you actually answered - but you couldn't stop your inner asshole from shining through. When I find who coined that it's going in great sig lines.

The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by some 500,000 votes.

While I appreciate that not a single person among the 21% self-identifying as liberal believe the media has a liberal bias, I feel pretty safe in assuming that a bunch of those who consider themselves moderate do.

Myth: The U.S. has a liberal media.

Fact: The media are being increasingly monopolized by parent corporations with pro-corporate or conservative agendas.



Summary

The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues. Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news. On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits -- who do engage in noisy editorializing -- leans heavily to the right. The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal.

...

The Media Monopoly

Easily the most famous book on media trends in the last 15 years is Ben Bagdikian's 1983 book, The Media Monopoly. In it, he predicted that deregulation under President Reagan would allow media ownership to concentrate in fewer and fewer corporate hands. This, in turn, would result in a more pro-corporate media. Ridiculed as "alarmist" when it first came out, it has since been praised as a classic for the accuracy of its predictions. "I derive no pleasure from having been correct," writes the former dean of American journalism in his most recent edition. (3)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

It's a well known fact that the more conservative a person gets, the more apt they are to self-delusion.

It is, is it?

These are the sort of comments that reveal that you are not simply obsessive, but that you are rather stupid as well. If you had written it is widely believed that the more conservative a person gets, the more apt they are to self-delusion I probably could have agreed with you, but then it is also widely believed that Jesus was the Son of God and that UFOs patrol our skies nightly.

I would ask for evidence but am quite sure you will supply some self-serving paper by a social-scientist from Berkley.

You are a prime example, Finn. A body that is as often wrong as you would be more reluctant to keep showing their face and embarrassing themself. But you, gunga and h2oman just keep truckin' on.

Quote:

Myth: The U.S. has a liberal media.

Fact: The media are being increasingly monopolized by parent corporations with pro-corporate or conservative agendas.

There's another opinion, of which you subscribe, that laughably attempts to masquerade as fact.

Huupi.com Now that's a domain name that exudes seriousness and credibility.