What got more "mainstream" media scrutiny, Palin's emails or Obama's past

The Palin e-mails. That isn't left-wing bias, though. The Palin e-mails were just released recently. Everyone has known about Obama's associations with Ayers & Wright for nearly half a decade.

I think you are just said that Weiner resigned and the right's "mainstream" media won't be able obsess over him as much without blatantly exposing their own bias.
 
the MSM spent thousands of dollars and hours printing out her emails and actually seeking volunteers to help in their trolling for evidence of anything at all that might embarrass Sarah and came up with bupkis. personally this is exactly why I hope the MSM goes the way of the dinosaur. I dream of the day I see Dan Blather begging in the streets for change
 
Rush Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck and Fox News were talking about Bill Ayers and Wright for MONTHS, they still bring them up from time to time.

The Palin emails lasted about a day.0
 
Probably the one that's real.

On a related note, what got more media attention, Weiner's scandal or the fact that Bush was a baby-eating space alien? Damn conservative media ;)
 
Stupid is a word I'd use to describe the frenzy of interesting in Obama's slight acquaintanceship with people and the scrutiny it got when it was actually news, as in not an old story. Old stories don't get news, and Pains emails are, or were only news because she took so long to release them, not because they were either interesting or revelatory. After all Alaska has a ten day release period for government emails so they should have been release a long time ago.
But at the time, the mainstream media was full to overflowing with Ayers and Wright and whatever other little ghosties they could think of.
Palins emails as a story has died out, is that why you are posting about it, gotta get her name out there one more time?
 
What you call "scrutiny" from the media and what I, a former journalist and editor, mean by the term are quite likely two different things entirely. Reporters have, by and large, become sensationalistic and lazy, skimming the surfaces of potential stories like someone lightly skipping pebbles across the surface of a pond. Only a few actually delve deeply into the entire subject being covered, and only a tiny few are unswayed by ad-buy dollars of their CORPORATE-greed-driven stations. News coverage these days is all about those dadburn...R A T I N G S...and rarely do we viewers or listeners encounter true SUBSTANCE.

Exceptions would be PBS's "News Hour," "The Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC (she's proving herself to be pretty good at investigative reporting and she tries to be both honest and fair), C-SPAN1 and C-SPAN2 (uninterrupted coverage of House and Senate sessions, respectively), and a few peripheral news reports scattered here and there over time. Most have become like the forest ranger who deliberately sets fires so he or she can be the one to appear "heroic" doing battle with the flames.

Ayers and Wright were never legitimate issues and were propaganda-driven to score hoped-for negative political "power" points or play "king of the Hill" mind-games with the voting public by the right-wing zealots horrified that a man of color was chosen to lead this nation to safety. The Palin e-mails had been requested in the hopes of stirring up a hornet's nest of "hidden" controversies, but proved to be LAME and almost BORING once everything was reviewed. Palin's TARGETS for Democrats should have been thoroughly investigated---reporters should have been asking WHY would an American woman, supposedly a public servant as governor, advocate GUN VIOLENCE against other American citizens who were also public servants and then POST this advocacy on a PUBLIC FORUM? If these questions had been asked at the time the offensive behavior occurred, perhaps Gabby Giffords and the other people shot would have been safe.
 
Back
Top