Covering the coverage
Posted By: Goldie on 2008-08-27
In Reply to:
Just watch it before you judge anything. All this stuff can be easily checked for accuracy. The question one needs to ask him/herself is: "how accurately and fairly is my station of choice covering this stuff?"
It seems awfully odd that the 3 celebs from the alphabet stations couldn't get on that European/Middle East tour fast enough, yet McCain has been over to Iraq (and elsewhere) multiple times. None of them have gone along. How can that possibly be objective? Don't all of you want objectivity?
And why no debates between the 2 yet? McCain has been asking for months. Is that what you really want for a potential President?
Take your voting preference out of the mix before you answer these questions to yourself. If you allow the above, you aren't demanding true and unbiased information. Remember, there's a big difference between a news "reporter" and one who gives his/her opinions. There should never be a blurry line between the 2.
Convention Dishonesty
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
They are covering the news....(sm)
That's what they do. LOL.... Palin is the one asking for these interviews. So if Palin wants to speak out and is offering to be in the news, what's your problem with that?
None of them insisted on covering
a Christian symbol, so it seems this president is extra concerned with appearances when it comes to Muslims, was my point. One would expect a US president to object to speaking in front of a swastika (or to be seen as endorsing what it stands for) or some other symbol of hatred but to give a Christian symbol at a Catholic university that classification, especially when he says he is a Christian, is mystifying.
Noticed Fox covering mostly, others ignoring
for the most part. From what I noticed on Fox the crowd seems to be extremely small. Some talk on Huffingtonpost about tea bags not being able to be dumped where they wanted them to go and now truck driving around with all those bags. I think this was mostly a big to do about nothing really.
So only "real" news outlets are covering
??
Why no coverage
My guess would be that Bush doesn't want people to know the truth. He has refused to take the advice of his advisors regarding this war. He has refused to admit that he's capable of making a mistake. He has stomped on freedom of expression by limiting his "town hall" meetings to only those who worship him. Anyone disagreeing with or questioning his policies wasn't permitted inside. It's becoming more and more evident that he and his administration certainly don't have much fondness for the truth, either, considering all the lies perpetrated by them, which is what got us into Iraq to begin with.
I'm very, very concerned about what his policies have done to the safety of everyone in America. We are certainly in a quagmire, and it will take many future Presidents to fix what Bush busted.
first too much coverage of
Obama . . .now not enough . . . can never please you guys and gals.
CNN has done coverage throughout the
Some of the interviews weird rather odd.
My husband is a vet so has VA coverage....
but he also works for the government and is a federal employee. I don't claim to know all there is to know either, but I believe the federal employee insurance depends on the best deal the government can get with a private insurance company. His happens to be Blue Cross/Blue Shield of the state we reside in. Maybe it is BC/BS across the board. But, at any rate, it is a private insurance company, not an entity for all federal employees in the United States administered from a central location. As to whether or not a person working at a VA hospital is a federal employee, my first inclination would be yes, because the government administers the VA hospitals. But, I do not know that to be a fact. The supplemental programs you talk about are state administered and vary state to state. Even Medicaid is to some degree controlled by individual states. What people are talking about when they talk about socialized medicine is like in Canada, in France, in Cuba...and other countries, where it is all centralized in the federal government. The federal government decides on the coverage, it administers the whole thing, from one place. Everyone gets the same plan, regardless. To some people, it looks good that the "rich" and the "poor" have the same plan and even if you have money you cannot jump "the line." "The line" being the waiting list for anything nonemergent. That is why Canadians come across the border in droves for procedures, etc. Recently two high risk pregnancies had to come to Seattle because there was no room for them in Canadian hospitals. I saw France's President on TV talking about how their health care plan is becoming nonsustainable and talking about having to cut benefits, raise taxes, or something soon. He talked about free market health care...so while some people might view socialized medicine as a cure-all, it isn't, and it is not sustainable, because it doesn't attack the core issue, and that is finding a way to bring costs DOWN. Historically, the free market system where there is competition brings costs down. The great minds of this country need to sit down and talk about that, reason it out, and not trot out the mother of all entitlement programs. People complain about HMOs making their health care decisions, yet are thrilled to let the government make their health care decisions for them in return for not having to pay a premium. That just makes no sense to me.
Insurance companies, health care providers, and a set of arbitrators need to sit down and work something out that will truly make health care more affordable for everyone in the country without handing it over to the government hook line and sinker. They should be able to do that. It would not happen overnight, but it could happen. I would like to see any candidate talk about that.
If you are watching the coverage you know much is being done...
okay, you don't believe in prayer. Couldn't you at least say you hope they will be okay? There is only so much men can do...we are talking a huge storm on a town below sea level.
What a nasty attitude.
full coverage for how much
x
Obama's grandmother and the media coverage
I feel very bad that she is terminally ill. I have lost many close relatives myself and those have been the worst of times for me.
But, I feel his campaign has used this situation to his media gain.
Put it this way, if it was me and I found out my grandmother was so sick, I would have been on the first plane there (I don't have my own jet). What if she died before he got there? As I said, there were a few days of a delay in there where the situation has been reported repeatedly. If she was so sick, he should have just gone. Everyone would have understood.
There. I said it. Many may think it was heartless thing to say, but wouldn't you have just dropped everything and gone?
Biden could have taken on more in his absence.
Ummm, the part about raising the coverage
Did you not click on the link? It has to do with Medicaid.
I, at least, read it. Thanks for finding it.
No danger of no shows. Media coverage alone
imagine that. W being upstaged by an elite, Islamic, racist, terrorist, socialist, commie pinko Nazi.
there's no media coverage because they issued a gag order -
nm
I did not think Obama was for universal health coverage... see message
I thought he was just for a coverage to be available to all people - but not mandatory to take it. Am I wrong?
Full coverage based on income for people whose...sm
employers do not offer insurance.
gee, one-sided U.S. news coverage...go figure....it's how Obama
For convention coverage minus spinning, bashing, biased
Tired of attack politics? Don't need reporters telling you what you just saw or what to think about it? Want a one-on-one convention experience? Want to digest the content without the interference of disconcerting and distracting commentary? Want to be in charge of deciding what is and what is not pertinent during the course of the conventions? Do anchors and networks promoting their own hidden agendas get under your skin as they invent issues of no consequence, discount messages of great importance and try to stir up conflict? Do you find most coverage obnoxious, rude and insulting to your intelligence? Does their reporting look and sound like make believe? Do you think our candidates, conventions, parties, issues, policies and political process deserve more dignity than a big-top circus/carnival presentation?
The solution is easy. Switch that channel. Try CSPAN. Not to worry. If you feel you are missing something in the way of staying abreast with the pundit's play-by-play smear scripts, you can always get caught up on all those issues the next time you log onto MT Stars political forum.
|
