General Discussion

Uncle Joe

(66,005 posts)

72. How could Citizens United not be considered "contemporary news?" This is the first

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:19 PM

Oct 2012

Presidential election to be run under the new rules and its' impact is clearly being felt.

President Obama publicly chastised the Supreme Court during his State of the Union speech for that expanded near century's worth of a precedent destroying decision.

What if women were granted the right to vote back when Citizens United was decided, would that be considered part of the "NEWS CYCLE" or would that be yesterday's news?

If the corporate media has given editorial overkill to anything, it's the Obama Administration's reaction to the Bengazi tragedy.

Perhaps this is because the corporate media is loathe to make a story or current controversy about their gold mine but are more than eager to nit pick words against the President publicly opposed to said gold mine?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

141 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

On the media "conspiracy." [View all] nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 OP

The overall problem here dipsydoodle Oct 2012 #1

I know, and the polls they like nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #2

Breaking Story This Morning Tying Romney & Big Coal to Voter Registration Fraud Ops BW561 Oct 2012 #129

As an institution they have an inherent conflict of interest placing them in Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #3

But that is not what the conspiracy tells me nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #6

They're not with both, they prefer a Republican corporate supremacist dominated government. Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #14

Not quite correct, nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #16

How many of them have covered Citizens United as of late in regards to Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #23

My local paper did nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #35

That's great but for the masses of American People; television Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #38

Ok, Rachel Maddow ran those stories nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #42

That's what I meant when I said "timing is everything" Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #46

No, it is not coincidence it is called the NEWS CYCLE nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #66

How could Citizens United not be considered "contemporary news?" This is the first Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #72

That is why you have stories of it every so often nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #76

"If we got a million bucks then we could do far more than what we do." Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #88

The slant is obvious in the editorial page nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #89

Yes but what is less obvious is the slant by omission or inflection in actual news reporting. Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #93

And you are forgetting that organizations that used to have their own media nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #95

"This actually reflects how little people know of how media actually works." zappaman Oct 2012 #97

I never said either "party owns the news" I said the system is corrupted. Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #99

the pull right nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #100

And which institution let that meme stick around and even repeated it? Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #102

You can thank Karl Rove for that one nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #103

I don't look for coddling of candidates or parties. Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #106

Well, at this point it wasn't the media nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #109

The Internet has democratized the exchange of information and allowed thought mobility. Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #116

As I said, I used to hold that view until I started to do serious reporting nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #122

The corporate media has not been helping the American People become familiar or enlightened with the Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #131

We will have to seriously agree to disagree nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #132

I can agree with that. Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #135

And here you raised another issue nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #136

That was part of Telecommunications Act, Clinton had a Republican controlled Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #137

I still blame him for it nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #141

The MSM only hires 'safe reporters'. So what we get as 'news' is what sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #139

Thank you for this rational post! zappaman Oct 2012 #74

I agree with you. There are all sorts of cross-currents in play in the media. randome Oct 2012 #4

They like a horse race. vi5 Oct 2012 #5

So the polls, on their own, could not have tightenend, LIKE THE DO EVERY GENERAL ELECTION nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #8

Huh? I'm a little confused. vi5 Oct 2012 #17

If yuo listen to the editorial pages nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #24

+1 ProudProgressiveNow Oct 2012 #53

Good point libtodeath Oct 2012 #7

I do not think it is RW, it is more like media likes a scandal nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #10

The media has become one giant editorial machine liberal N proud Oct 2012 #9

If you are watching Mathews or O'Reilly, you are watching the editorial page nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #11

Why do you believe anything right-wingers and republicans say? sadbear Oct 2012 #12

So if I have a local member of council tell city staff that nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #13

If you want to play little games with semantics, that's fine. sadbear Oct 2012 #15

I am giving you an actual example from a local city council nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #19

Again, I think you know what I meant. sadbear Oct 2012 #28

Again, you are taking a very dangerous position, nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #31

I don't understand. sadbear Oct 2012 #37

You think civil wars are civil? nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #41

So do you want to win or lose? sadbear Oct 2012 #44

Sadly you are mistaken nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #58

Sadly you make no sense zappaman Oct 2012 #63

Is that a response to me? sadbear Oct 2012 #71

The page is simple nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #77

Because the right-wing partisans claim victimhood for everything... sadbear Oct 2012 #81

Because left wing partisand claim victimhood for everything... nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #82

I can appreciate what you're trying to do sadbear Oct 2012 #85

No kid, it is not false equivalency nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #87

Condescend much? sadbear Oct 2012 #90

Well it is either that or cry nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #91

I said I can appreciate what you're trying to do. sadbear Oct 2012 #104

Perhaps because I work in the field nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #105

You work in the field? zappaman Oct 2012 #107

Sorry "kid" zappaman Oct 2012 #94

The media is corporate-run. It is STRUCTURALLY corporate, woo me with science Oct 2012 #18

I guess close elections are something new nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #21

The media has a profit motive to create a "horse race," even if one does not exist. porphyrian Oct 2012 #20

So they did that fifty years ago, before media consolidation? nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #22

Fifty years ago, the media had actual jouralists with journalistic integrity. porphyrian Oct 2012 #26

Again, you are tellimg me that they are getting close now because of lack of integrity nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #29

You aren't understanding me. Allow me to clarify. porphyrian Oct 2012 #33

We are? Again, you are telling me that the trend for election to tighten nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #36

Never mind. You're right. I'm sorry to bother you. n/t porphyrian Oct 2012 #47

You have not the slightest clue what you are on about zappaman Oct 2012 #56

Automatic Rec for industry information from a professional that works in the industry slackmaster Oct 2012 #25

There are a lot of factors at work. The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2012 #27

WSJ used to have a barrier between the news page nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #30

If the paper is a good one, that's true. The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2012 #34

That is why I made the qualifier about the WSJ being good before nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #39

They can sell more soap with a perceived tight race WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2012 #32

MSNBC chuck todd is an editorial writer nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #40

He's a useful idiot... WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2012 #43

But we agree, this is not the news desk, right? nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #62

This has bothered me too loyalsister Oct 2012 #45

That presumes journalists aren't tools.. WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2012 #49

That's exactly the point loyalsister Oct 2012 #52

Hard to respond to this because I was attacking MTP (but I will) WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2012 #54

The sunday shows, all of them, have been known as editorials for a long time nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #65

Yes, exactly the same thing laundry_queen Oct 2012 #48

I am talking of the NEWS desk, not the editorial pages, nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #60

What news desk? nt laundry_queen Oct 2012 #115

ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as NPR nightly news programs nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #120

I think everything about anything in the media comes down to two words. RomneyLies Oct 2012 #50

Do you also believe that Fox News is "fair and balanced?" n/t Jamastiene Oct 2012 #51

Fox news is editorial now and most of the time nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #59

I used to think MSNBC was objective... WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2012 #64

"MOSTLY doing it's job" ronnie624 Oct 2012 #55

So you are tellimg me that overall they are biased and nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #61

When it comes to the US political landscape, ronnie624 Oct 2012 #119

No it makes zero sense nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #121

I don't see MSM as taking sides. ronnie624 Oct 2012 #125

There is a reason this thread only has 2 RECS zappaman Oct 2012 #57

+1 Cali_Democrat Oct 2012 #67

One serious problem with today's media is that reporters don't... WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2012 #68

That's true zappaman Oct 2012 #69

The budget, you are correct, nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #70

Can you measure "conspiracy?" WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2012 #73

We have first have to define media nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #79

The sample size was enormous. WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2012 #110

If believer means being able to differentiate between the editorial page nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #111

lol are any of us asking for your help? WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2012 #113

The laughs are becoming cheap round these parts nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #114

" It cannot be in the bag for both Romney and Obama at the same time. It just can't. " krawhitham Oct 2012 #75

Nationally, i would say yea, but locally no nolabels Oct 2012 #78

So polls never change, except when it is convenient to push a meme nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #80

I used to read both the Nation and the National Review treestar Oct 2012 #83

And doing it for real, it got drummed into my head nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #84

The media (with the obvious exceptions) isn't "red" or "blue"...it's "green" brooklynite Oct 2012 #86

Why the 24 hour editorial, so called nooz channels exist nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #92

With the exception of Faux, there is open media collusion. It is not for either Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #96

I'm not saying there isn't collusion, ronnie624 Oct 2012 #124

You're right, it is not required, but it invariably develops for just the reasons you cite. Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #140

Tell that to the employees of the Seattle Times countryjake Oct 2012 #98

san diego inion trib nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #101

as the number 1 propaganda machine in North America Fox News sure does its job! Media Lies Oct 2012 #108

Since Fox, CNN. MSNBC and Current are editorial papers best case nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #112

Junk media GeorgeGist Oct 2012 #117

Someone needs to remind the media that they are supposed to be liberal. I think they forgot. hrmjustin Oct 2012 #118

That is the problem nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #123

Thank you for reminding us in every single post... zappaman Oct 2012 #126

Media is PLURAL, dammit! carolinayellowdog Oct 2012 #127

If the media was doing it's job, we would have clean energy, safe food, ecstatic Oct 2012 #128

And you guarantee, cross your heart, people would be watching nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #130

By creating a narrow monopoly of media owners we have also created a narrow realm of coverage. LanternWaste Oct 2012 #133

Alas that is a problem with large media nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #134

I absolutely agree; otherwise it becomes something that is not in fact, media. LanternWaste Oct 2012 #138