Could the media fawn over Ann Romney's piffle filled speech last night a little more? She babbled on with a bunch of emo puke and people are acting like she gave the [dadgum] Gettysburg Address.
I have been assured by members of the board that there is a massive bias against conservatives. Therefore, you must be mistaken. It was in fact the Gettysburg address.
I like how imploring a group of people that you don't know to give up their biases... is not a form of bias. Somehow.
A Google News search of Ann Romney Speech shows articles titled: Where Ann Romney's speech veered off-track Ann Romney's Speech Was All Style, No Substance Ann Romney’s speech actually made her and Mitt seem more out of touch with the rest of us. Where is the fawning?
Are those actual news articles or opinion pieces? I had no desire to hear the speech, but is it possible they are telling the truth? Who cares anyway? It's a potential First Lady. Her name isn't on the ballot. Not to be an ass, but conservatives whine as much about "media bias" as liberals decry "racism". And both sides [itch bay] about the other crying foul all the time when there's basically no difference in their behavior. There's no moral high ground here.
I am sure they are mistaken about their industry and peers. On the Today Show this morning, Mark Halperin said the media basically does what the Obama campaign wants them to do: "I think the press still likes this story a lot, the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on this," said Halperin. Chuck Todd, political director and chief White House correspondent at NBC News, breaking ranks (sort of) with his fellow journalists. In an interview with Politico, Todd says, “To me, the ideological bias in the media really hasn’t been there in a long time. But what is there that people mistake for ideological bias is geographic bias. It’s seeing everything through the lens of New York and Washington.” Arthur Brisbane, the departing public editor at the New York Times, has accused the paper of having a progressive bias, even as he champions its disciplined approach to fair and balanced reporting. When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so," Brisbane writes in his final column. "Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times."
I agree she, neither she or it matters. I was commenting on how the supposed reaction to it is somehow a reflection that there is no media bias.
So which had you rather be accused of? Political bias or racism? One will sabotage your career, and the other will do virtually no harm unless you get caught running reports on highly questionable documents during a presidential election. Being called a racist in today's society is worse than being accused of most crimes. I agree with the claim that the accusations are equal in terms of frequency, but it can hardly be claimed that the morality of the situation is a wash. Call me biased any day of the week.
You obviously missed Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, and everyone else at NBC making utter fools of themselves every time they've opened their mouths the last two days. Williams made himself look and sound more idiotic than Chris Matthews verbally ejaculating about Obama's moment in Grant Park. I was sincerely hoping his fellow Jerseyite Chris Christie would come up to the booth and knock him back to reality.
Republican politicians have learned to use the "liberal media" claim to shelter themselves against any form of criticism.
See, you even claim what the other whines about is worse. Geez. That's no better than what conservatives claim to hate. It a "I know you are but what am I?" type of childishness.
I think criticizing the wife of the candidate would garner of lot of accusations of insensitivity from the general populace and most media sources wouldn't want the hassle for a fluff piece usually given by the prospective First Lady. Ann Romney could've burped the alphabet and most would've written nice things about her, not wanting to bother with the hassle. They have bigger fish to fry tonight and tomorrow night. Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton are the only First Ladies I can remember getting a lot of negative publicity and that was relating to the red meat thrown out from Fox for its core audience. The convention is choreographed these days that it's pretty much not worth watching. Everyone always loves the prepared speeches and fawns over the candidates. I can only remember three pivotal moments since 1988 at the conventions as it is. (1) Obama's 2004 speech, (2) Kerry's disastrous "Reporting for duty" speech and (3) Palin's wreck of a speech in 2008. Beyond that, there's little prospect of a 1980's Ted Kennedy moment or anything approaching the decisions actually made at the convention back in the earlier days of the gathering.
Pat Buchanan's speech at the 1992 GOP convention effectively ended any chance the Republicans had in that election. It looked and sounded like someone did a mix tape of late '30s Berlin and early '60s Montgomery.
