Mainstream Media bias for Obama
Debate Rounds (3)
The mainstream media is biased in favor of Barrack Obama.
As a note, and in an effort to avoid a silly point of contention, I'll define the mainstream media to be inclusive of the following televised sources:
ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX news, MSNBC, and CNN.
In the political news, it has been difficult to avoid conversation about the republican VP nominee Sarah Palin. In a weeks time she went from a political unknown to one of the most recognizable faces and names in politics. She brings with her a proven executive record. A reformer, Sarah Palin has fought corruption in her own party, she has drastically cut government spending, and is the most popular Governor in the United States. As great as these things are the media hasn't given them much attention. Instead they concentrate on Palin's lack of experience in the foreign policy arena.
Attacking Palin on her foreign experience is legitimate. However, the media neglects the real argument. Instead of relentlessly questioning the #2 on the Republican ticket why aren't they questioning the #1 on the Democratic ticket. Barrack Obama's foreign policy experience is equally unimpressive. Obama has sat on the foreign relations committee, he spent a few years in Indonesia, visited Baghdad Airport, and gave a wonderful speech in Germany. Wow! I know some tourist with the same level of experience in "foreign relations." So at best the experience question is a wash between the Democrat #1 and the Republican #2 on the issue of foreign policy.
Sarah Palin is a more experienced executive than Barack Obama. Even if we count Obama's campaign as executive experience he loses hands-down. As a legislator, Obama has accomplished nothing of significance but you wouldn't know it. Bottom line, if we add it all up Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Barrack Obama. An objective media would undoubtedly place a fair amount of focus on Obama's experience. Instead, Sarah Palin bears the burden and she's not even running for President.
But this isn't the biggest issue. The media has gone out of it's way to attack a 17 year-old minor. Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant and media has harped on that fact. It has been suggested that Sarah Palin is a bad mother and that she should not have excepted the VP nomination. She should be at home tending to her family. This is a far cry from the media that promotes the shattering of the "glass ceiling" and women's rights. But the media doesn't see a women, they only see a republican and opponent to their champion, Barrack Obama.
This alone does not prove a media bias and I realize that. However, what the media decides to report is perhaps less important than what they neglect to report.
As discussed earlier, the media, as demonstrated by its actions, deems the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's daughter as a relevant issue. I can only wonder why the following Barrack Obama associations have escaped scrutiny:
Bill Ayers (American terrorist, neighbor and fellow board member) :
Klein, the Jerusalem bureau chief for WorldNetDaily, recently published Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans to a Jew. He says from 1999 to late 2002, Senator Obama (D-Illinois) served on the board of an organization known as the Woods Fund, alongside William C. Ayers, who was a member of the notorious Weathermen terrorist group in the 1970s.
"This guy Bill Ayers has a very interesting relationship with Barack Obama," notes Klein. "And the only reason Bill Ayers, a confessed, boasting American terrorist, is not in prison is because of prosecutorial conduct because the FBI apparently illegally surveilled [sic] him."
Klein says Ayers -- who still serves on the Wood's fund board -- contributed $200 to Obama's senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements. And when still on the board, Klein says Obama helped provide grants to an organization known as the Arab American Action Network, co-founded by Rashid Khalidi.
"They actually mourn the 'catastrophe' of the founding of the state of Israel," says Klein. "They have held and sponsored anti-Israel events. Barack Obama has spoken at some of these events."
Terry Trippany on Jun 11 2008 Election 2008, Feature Article, Politicians at Work
I only have 8000 characters to work with here so in an effort to conserve to squeeze it all in (believe me there is a lot) I will simply list and describe the other associations of Barrack Obama. If my opponent wants sources I'd be more than happy to provide them.
Zbigniew Brzezinski (anti-Semitic adviser with a history of anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian writings )
Tony Rezko (Convicted political deal maker that provided a sweetheart deal that no regular person could get on a chunk of land for Barack Obama and his wife. The loan came at a time while Rezko was already under the cloud of a federal indictment)
Rashid Khalidi (Hyde park neighbor, frequent dinner companion and anti-Israeli Columbia University Professor)
Hatem El-Hady (Fundraiser and former official of the Hamas-linked charity Kindhearts, closed by the Justice Department. El-Hady's web page—with Michelle Obama listed as an opt-in "friend" where Michelle Obama was required to make the friend add)
Father Phlegar (Trinity United regular, Obama supporter from the pulpit of his now former church and big mouthed embarrassment)
We are not supposed to discuss any of this because as Barack Obama says, the actual act of mentioning this in public is just a dirty game of politics.
Somehow, all of these associations have escaped any serious media scrutiny. They have all been swept under the rug. Are these associations unimportant? Is the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's daughter more important? No and No. Obama's associations and activities speak volumes about his character, judgement, and hidden agenda. So why doesn't the media mention these things about Obama?
There can only be one conclusion. The media is biased in favor of Obama.
Allright, ladies and gentlemen. I intend to prove to you right now that the Mainstream Media has not been bias towards Obama (or any other liberal candidate moreso than usual.....)
First and foremost. Sarah Palin is nothing better than any other goon from the Republican Party, granted, she is hot as ****.
The list of scandals please... (from Blog:Common Mistakes, they already had it listed out and it saved me time the scandals are however, real and verifiable)
Censorgate. She asked her town librarian if the library "could live with censorship of library books." (Note that factcheck.org disputes that the librarian was fired). Still, coming in at eight as it signals most succinctly to voters that she's the darling of the hard right.
Mayberrygate: Palin fired the Wasilla police chief because he was trying to clean up drinking and concealed weapons in the town. Coming in at number seven because it's the delicious kind of small-town backdealing story that seems to be where this campaign will be headed.
Hockeygate. The Hockey rink she built in Wasilla required raising taxes and sinking the town in debt. Can we say "George W. Bush"-style conservatism?
Bricknergate. Palin's preacher invites a speaker to spew anti-semitic nonsense while she sits in the audience and listens. Can we say Reverend Wright? Coming in at number five: this one has the potential to turn off crucial Jewish voters in the two key states of Ohio and Florida. If McCain loses either of those states, he's done. (Debate:I find Irony in the fact that Obama was given such a hard time for Reverend Wright and yet no one is speaking out for Palin...where is this Media Bias you were talking about?)
Bridge-to-Nowheregate. She was for it before she was against it.
Porkgate-Palin lobbied Washington for frivolous funds. Fact. Follow the money.
Oilgate. She's vetoed legislation for wind and solar energy and is securely in the pockets of big oil (her husband works for British Petroleum). She's even willing to let polar bears die for oil. Nate Silver points out, "taking on the oil industry" for Sarah Palin means getting them to drill more and cough up more scratch for Alaskans. This is a "put Alaska first" policy not a "put America first" policy.
Troopergate. She fired her public safety commissioner because he refused to fire a state trooper who was the ex-husband of her sister and engaged in a bitter custody battle.
Whinergate. She called Hillary Clinton a whiner. THIS is the candidate who's supposed to win over disgruntled Clinton supporters?
Junogate. I agree with Obama: family should be out of bounds. I think camp McCain has chastised the media enough...and there are enough other scandals...that this will effectively be put to bed.
Dairygate - Apparently she mismanaged a failing state-run dairy. This one seems a little bit obscure and hard to fact-check to me. Haven't seen much else about it.
Affairgate. National Enquirer breaks "story" she had an affair with her husband's business partner. But it's the National Enquirer. Let's wait till ABC picks up the story.
Cluelessgate. She sounds totally clueless talking about Iraq or foreign policy.
Buchanangate. She was a big supporter of Pat Buchanan's 1996 rather hard-right, somewhat anti-semitic run for office. That ought to win over voters in Florida. However, this fact is now being denied by the McCain campaign, so this one will probably go away.
Superstitiongate. Not only is Palin anti-science, she wants to teach Creationism in schools. But since there are more Americans who would accept Creationism than censorship, Censorgate takes the list.
Sexual Scandalgate. She appointed a known sexual-harassment offender to office then had to fire him. But this hasn't gotten much pick up so far.
Secessiongate - Turns out Palin didn't belong to this anti-American organization promoting that Alaska secede from the union, even though her husband did.
Yeah so I just needed to tarnish your mural that you painted for all of us here. Just to show that she is not your man of wax. So to speak. This list alone is a really great reason to not vote for her. I don't think there is even a very credible list of top ten's for Obama, because he hasn't been that dirty in his whole life. (Again, this is from a hardcore republican)
Now then, your, "biggest issue" the 17 year old minor....
First of all. If you can't keep your 17 year old daughter from getting pregnant, you have already failed as a parent and probably lack the management skills to be president.
Second, I found the medias personal attack on her daughter rather distasteful. I understand why they did it.
Third. I rescind my previous statement and applaud the media for doing this. Why you ask? Because I found this little tidbit..
Long story short. She cut aid for teenage mothers. She doesn't approve of teenage mothers. Unless it's her daughter and her tail on the line for the VP.
You then begin to babble about Ayers and how he donated 200$ to Obama...
Why don't you check out who has been donating to John McCain? Now check who has donated to Obama. Notice a difference? McCain gets more from corporations (percent-wise) than Obama does. Obama has returned lobbyist money. McCain accepted and kept money from corrupt corporations.
Now then, the fun part.
Your guilty by association argument.
Let's say, Hitler was in my graduating class. So...therefore...I'm a terrible dictator who wants to rule the world and eliminate all other races?
Just because someone spends time with someone, does not mean that they believe with all of their positions. I've gone to speakers at college that I thought were totally bogus...but I still sat through it. Doesn't mean I adopted their school of thought.
Bottom line. Barack Obama is probably one of the worst choices for a President ever. But he's got more game than McCain will ever have... not that I think he knows what game is. He knows how to speak, how to empathize with people, and his smile can warm a stadium.
mikehughes8 forfeited this round.
Harboggles forfeited this round.
mikehughes8 forfeited this round.
Harboggles forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed to agree that there is a bias (game that could warm a stadium with his smile), even if it coming from being charming, is still a bias. However since both sides dropped out, I'm just going to call this a FAIL DEBATE.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.