news-record.com

I hope the media remains ever vigilant concerning the hard right leanings of the American press. Good job.

wink...wink..nudge...nudge

Based on this link, it seems the only thing this guy did wrong was not toeing the party line and supporting Obama, as the Mainstream Media seemingly is required to do.

It says a great deal about the Mainstream Media that so much attention is paid to this one reporter, who may or may not be voting for McCain, when there are so many other examples of left-wing bias.

I'm waiting to see if the mainstream media's coverage of the Republican convention will be as extensive and in-depth as what we've seen so far of the Dem convention.

They're usually pretty much the same.

Bias on either side masquerading as balanced coverage is wrong.

Allen, bias is the exact reason newspapers are dying. you can live in your fantasy land that, newspaper are dying for other reason, your customers know better. I was at the news racks yesterday, trying to decide what papers, to buy. A man came up and started walking away, I asked him, nothing suits you, his reply, hell I can see all of the Obama #$%% on television .
Jaycee, you will be waiting for hell to freeze over. Pelosi, made this remark, this week, God sent Obama to save civilization. If you did not see her make it , when she said it, you never read are her about it again. Even Fox took a dive on this, except Hannity. Pelosi, does not want God in class rooms, on coins, are in the Pledge of Allegiance, but makes a remark like that! The press should have eat her alive. They are to concerned about how many houses McCain has. I all was thought, you were, suppose to work hard and buy things. I could not run for public office, I have 6- 7 sets of golf clubs. Shame on me. do I feel bad, yes, so to make me feel better, when I go to Virgina, Friday. I am going to buy me a set of Taylor made r7. Would have got them in Greensboro last night, sales tax to high.

But, Doug, you have to admit, it is a little hard to brand your opponent as elitist when you've lost count of how many houses you own, isn't it?
And I don't remember you defending John Edwards when the issue of his one big house came up.

Oh, come on, Allen. The "how many houses do you own" thing is a bit of a stretch, even for your liberal leanings.
The real question was, "How many houses are owned by the trusts and management companies belonging to the children your wife had with another husband before you married her?"
Hardly germane to anything, really, and I'm a bit surprised that you would participate in this "rabbit chasing."
Allen, do you honestly think we'll see Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, et. al., sitting around with Republican bigwigs talking about how great McCain is and how horrible Obama is? Well, we've seen those same guys this week conduct non-stop Republican bashing on the tube 24/7. Will we be treated to Wolf Blitzer showcasing Republican leaders and leading them on and on with discussions on how McCain will be a much better president than Obama?
Like Doug Johnson said, we'll wait till hell freezes over before we see the kind of coverage favoring McCain that we've seen this week favoring Obama.

But you avoided the question. Please answer.
If John Edwards' house is fair game, why not McCain's?
And what again makes Obama an elitist?

Allen:

I don't think that reasonable people can fairly argue about whether folks in the media are pretty biased towards the left. It is sort of like arguing that the world is flat.

Now, about elitism. I think elitism is about one's view of himself and his fellow man more than it is about wealth. Let me give you a classic example: Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart. Despite his billions, I don't believe that anyone could call him an elitist as he was all about serving the middle class by offering them good products at a fair price. T. Boone Pickens may be another fabulously wealthy man, who still has a high regard for his fellow man, and a reasonable view of himself.

Now, to Obama and McCain. It is possible, but not likely, that someone can go to Harvard and not be an elitist (I think we can agree that George Bush is no elitist). In fact, I think that that is the whole reason that schools like Harvard exist - to turn out an elite group of people who have high regard for their own opinions and a relatively cynical view of others. So, the fact that Obama went to Harvard does not necessarily make him an elitist, but it's a pretty good indicator. Moreover, when we look at probably his most candid statement about others, i.e. people in Pennsylvania holding on to their religion and guns, it seems pretty clear that he is contemptuous of the beliefs of what most of us would consider "average folks." If we take him at his words, Obama is an elitist.

I am not a McCain fan by any means, as he has stuck a thumb in the eyes of conservatives every chance he had, but I think it is much easier to make the case that he is not an elitist: he has two sons; one in the Marine Corp. and another in the Navy (I think). I believe the Marine is an enlisted many in Iraq. Now, we know that elitists don't send their children into harms way (remember all the flack over Cheney and Bush during Vietnam?) Moreover, although McCain's father was in charge of the navy in the Pacific during the time he was in a POW camp, and could have been released because of his value as a propaganda tool, he declined to do so. I believe that an elitist thinks that he is more important? valuable? than others and had McCain been one would have jumped at the chance to get out of there.

Best regards,

Paul Daniels

You're basing that belief on one statement, Paul?
Obama was a community organizer after college. Is that the work of an elitist?
Frankly, most of these labels are shallow and disingenuous.
After all, we're talking about two rich guys, one of whom just happens to be richer.
I'd be more interested in the issues than the petty labels.

Then, in the interest of being fair and balanced.... Allen, why dont you give us your opinion of CNN's coverage.

My opinion... It was not so much coverage as much as a pep rally. Keith O? For goodness sakes, he is no more than a hard lefty blogger with a TeeVee show. He constantly uses blog-speak (McSame, Bush-lite, faux-News). I no longer have any idea what Matthews is even talking about. He was babbling on and on and on last night. His thought process is to coherent what his hair is to well coifed!

Unfortunately, I believe CNN will have a counter part when the R's get their turn in the spotlight. If I were at Fox Id bend over backwards to make coverage truly unbiased just to stick it to CNN.

I just dont think Hannity, Keith O or their ilk have a place when discussing real news issues. Both are like the soaps... "watch" once a week and you got the whole thing. Shheeeesh!

Allen, I think I posted several times who cares about Edwards house. I think he was wrong, talking about working people,then getting $400 hair cuts. I griped when my barber raised his price to $9 after being $8 for a long as I can recalled. Now backed to the fair and unbalanced, your paper went wild because Ann Coulter, said speaking of fags, about Edwards. Now Michelle Malkin, was attacked by liberal wackos. I have channel hopped all day, not one peek from the liberal media. Nothing to do with your paper, my wife gets the Danville Register and Bee, home delivery. It has had front page coverage of Obama for 95% of the days the last month. The only time McCain is mention is the editorial page slaming him daily . Good news is my liberal wacko wife , is not become disgusted with the superstar Obama. Now I am the one that puts my quarters in the rack for your paper. seems, I got this idea, you folks are pretty much liberal in your coverage.

The difference between McCain's houses and Edwards's house is that McCain isn't primping as one of the little guys standing up against bad old rich America. Both can own houses (as many and as big as they like, as far as I'm concerned), but Edwards's house contradicts his message in a more explicit way.

As for Obama's "elitism," this is, IMO, another one of those liberal talking points like "he's questioning my patriotism." First, I'd like to see where McCain calls Obama an elitist. I may be wrong, but I suspect the "proof" will be some banal claim that "he's out of touch with the views of everyday Americans." Or "comments that cast [in the opinion of the reporter] Obama as an elitist." Of course politicians are going to paint their opponents are being "out of touch" with the public, and thus less fit to represent them.

On media bias, the article--or "analysis" (which is the name for an editorial column in the news section)--is indeed pro-McCain. Unlike the vast majority of such "analyses" and "stories," which skew heavily toward Obama. If CNN is about as far left as Fox is to the right, MSNBC is off the charts to the left.

Good points, Brian.
And, for the record, the charges of elitism didn't originate with the Republicans. They started with Hillary Clinton after Obama's comments about religion and gun ownership.
The GOP gladly latched onto them, though I'm not sure McCain himself has used those words.
On Edwards, is your assertion that a rich person inherently shouldn't care about the poor?
Or if he says he does care, then he has to be lying because he lives in a big house and gets ridiculously expensive haircuts?

On Edwards, is your assertion that a rich person inherently shouldn't care about the poor?

>> No, I permit them to care as much as they want. But I don't really care how much (or how little) they care; I care about the public policy that emerges from their care (real or professed, present or absent): in Edwards's case, populist, redistributionist policies that assume that poverty is the fault and responsibility of the rich (both premises are incorrect, IMO).

Or if he says he does care, then he has to be lying because he lives in a big house and gets ridiculously expensive haircuts?

>>Pretty much. But I always assumed that Edwards was lying about everything. He just seems like that sort of guy.

Obama did not accomplish much as a Community Organizer. Name two things he did. There is confusion on the timeline for Obama. He did not turn down Wall Street offers when he graducated from undergraduate college. He was not offered any. He took the organizer job at 23k per year. This is about the same or a little more than a starting teacher at that time. He did not work for nothing. When Obama finished Harvard Law School, he went to work for a large Chicago law firm. He did not do any community organizing. He did make a couple of visits and made a couple of speeches but that is all we can find. The number one person that is confused is Michelle. She leads you to believe that he turned down big jobs on wall street to work in the community. This is not so.

"On Edwards, is your assertion that a rich person inherently shouldn't care about the poor?
Or if he says he does care, then he has to be lying because he lives in a big house and gets ridiculously expensive haircuts?"

Yes, Allen, he was lying about that just like he was lying about his affair with Ms. Hunter, but media such as you feel for it hook, line, and sinker. How do you run a poverty center, give speeches about terrible poverty and its horrible effects on people, then go live in your mansion fit for a king? I just don't see how you can spin that one favorably for Johnny. But, he was right, there are two Americas, and he didn't live in the poor one. Everything about John Edwards is bogus, including making his millions being an ambulance chaser.

So, does that then mean that neither McCain nor Obama, both being millionaires, will give a hoot about poor people?
Or that the only way they can is to give up all their worldly riches first?

Allen,

You continue to not get it. The difference is that Edwards waged a political campaign based upon the evils of poverty, while hypocritically living the life of the rich. Obama doesn't base his campaign solely on poverty. McCain is married to a rich woman, but he doesn't base his candidacy upon the backs of the poor. You will recall that John Kerry was married to an even richer wife when he ran for president. I do not recall him preaching against the evils of poverty either.

Simply, Edwards' whole existence and political career has been based upon lies.

It's just too bad that the News-Record's presidential candidate of choice was a fraud and fake. You fell for it, and you can't get over it. Heck, his staffers know he was lying to them and won't talk to him or give him the time of day. Perhaps, the News-Record needs to cut bait and move on with John Edwards. Accept it. He has lived a lie his whole life and doesn't deserve your defense of him. It looks limp, Allen. Your question provided an option whether he was lying when he said he cared, and I am saying yes, he lied, like he has lied about everything in his life.

I doubt Allen fell for it: he knew all along that Edwards was a fraud.

But Allen, you insist on framing the question in terms of "caring" and "giving a hoot." Who cares? It seems clear to me that Obama probably "cares" (real, true "care") more about the poor than Edwards, whose "care" always seemed (like everything about him) canned, artificial, and exquisitely pragmatic in nature. Certainly Obama "cares" about the poor more than I do, since I view the poor as, more or less, a group of people who have failed minimal civic requirements--graduate from HS and don't have kids until you're 20 and married and it's impossible to be poor in America--and on whom compassion is more or less wasted. (I use the liberal definition of "compassion," which translates as "tax dollars.")

But wait: I can present my position as more compassionate because I feel it will do the poor more good in the long run. As I tell my children, "I beat you because I love you."

And pretty soon the Oprahfication of America is complete: politicians are falling all over themselves to fawn more grotesquely over sentimentalized victims whom the government is only too eager to "help." Bush and his lousy "compassionate conservatism" are part and parcel of this debacle.

So instead of asking whether a rich politician "really cares," why not evaluate their policies on their own merits?

Back to the issue of bias, I notice that the paper today didn't have the AP piece Keith Olbermann was fulminating against last night.

It did, however, have an AP piece where Obama's mention of McCain's voting record is said to be a "scathing indictment" (only if you view voting Republican as criminal); McCain is said to "stand between [Obama] and his place in history" (what nerve, McCain!); and the issue of Obama's race is identified as the "long-smoldering issue that may well determine the outcome of the election" (because, you know, white people are racists).

Coincidence?