Posts with the tag Sexism and The Media
About the Author
Well, it's decided. The media had declared Obama will is the chosen one. Is the primary over, has the party spoken?
No, because the media says so. They have been trying to control this campaign from the beginning, and there is no doubt as to who they have wanted as the Democrat's nominee. Even Keith Olberman said, at the beginning of this camapign, that he thought Hillary Clinton was being "SAVAGED" by the media. Now, apparently because he prefers Obama, or maybe he wants to keep his job, he bashes her constantly?
How's this for irony. Olberman got into trouble back when the "Liberal Media," includuding MSNBC, was firing people like Phil Donahue for being "too anti-war."
When Olberman's job was on the line, Sen. Hillary Clinton and her family spoke up on his behalf and helped keep him from losing his show. Olberman himself has admitted that Hillary did this for him.
So, is Olberman doing whatever his bosses say to keep his job? Has Mr. OLberman no concept of loyalaty?! What a snake either way.
Dan Abrams took the complaints of anti-Hillary bias in the mnedia, that began very early in this campaign, seriously enough to actually do a study on this. The study found that thre were roughly TWICE AS MANY ANTI-HILLARY COMMENTS on the news media. A study by "Media Matters" showed that many of the attacks against Hillary were very sexist in nature.
But no one made a big deal about these studies. Why not? Are gender issues just plain not worthy of discussion? If it had been Obama in a racist manner, would such a study have been disregarded?
Yet proof that the "News" media has spent this entire camapign bashing Hillary, attacking the first viable woman presidential candidate, often in profoundly misogynistic comments, has gone unmentioned. Again, Why?
From the other end of the political spectrum, Lou Dobbs has said that, in his entire time working in the media, he has never before seen such blatant and unfair bais against any candidate, until Hillary Clinton dared to run for president. Again, Why is that?
It's time the media resumes it's job, REPORTING THE NEWS, not taking sides in a campaign and even declaring the "winner" weeks before the end of the primary. That's the job of the American people.
Keep in mind this is the same so called "Liberal Media," who blocked out Ted Koppel's "Nightline" in six states, for reading the names of fallen troops in Iraq. Who blocked out the showing of "Saving Private Ryan" in on third of the nation, so as not to dampen enthusiam for the war. So what is the reason for this "Liberal Media" bias against Hillary Clinton, a "News" media that is owned mostly by a handful of right wing extremeists?
Could it be these right wingers know Hillary is by far the stronger candidate against McCain? Naw, we all know the righties never would try to rig elections.
No, because the media says so. They have been trying to control this campaign from the beginning, and there is no doubt as to who they have wanted as the Democrat's nominee. Even Keith Olberman said, at the beginning of this camapign, that he thought Hillary Clinton was being "SAVAGED" by the media. Now, apparently because he prefers Obama, or maybe he wants to keep his job, he bashes her constantly?
How's this for irony. Olberman got into trouble back when the "Liberal Media," includuding MSNBC, was firing people like Phil Donahue for being "too anti-war."
When Olberman's job was on the line, Sen. Hillary Clinton and her family spoke up on his behalf and helped keep him from losing his show. Olberman himself has admitted that Hillary did this for him.
So, is Olberman doing whatever his bosses say to keep his job? Has Mr. OLberman no concept of loyalaty?! What a snake either way.
Dan Abrams took the complaints of anti-Hillary bias in the mnedia, that began very early in this campaign, seriously enough to actually do a study on this. The study found that thre were roughly TWICE AS MANY ANTI-HILLARY COMMENTS on the news media. A study by "Media Matters" showed that many of the attacks against Hillary were very sexist in nature.
But no one made a big deal about these studies. Why not? Are gender issues just plain not worthy of discussion? If it had been Obama in a racist manner, would such a study have been disregarded?
Yet proof that the "News" media has spent this entire camapign bashing Hillary, attacking the first viable woman presidential candidate, often in profoundly misogynistic comments, has gone unmentioned. Again, Why?
From the other end of the political spectrum, Lou Dobbs has said that, in his entire time working in the media, he has never before seen such blatant and unfair bais against any candidate, until Hillary Clinton dared to run for president. Again, Why is that?
It's time the media resumes it's job, REPORTING THE NEWS, not taking sides in a campaign and even declaring the "winner" weeks before the end of the primary. That's the job of the American people.
Keep in mind this is the same so called "Liberal Media," who blocked out Ted Koppel's "Nightline" in six states, for reading the names of fallen troops in Iraq. Who blocked out the showing of "Saving Private Ryan" in on third of the nation, so as not to dampen enthusiam for the war. So what is the reason for this "Liberal Media" bias against Hillary Clinton, a "News" media that is owned mostly by a handful of right wing extremeists?
Could it be these right wingers know Hillary is by far the stronger candidate against McCain? Naw, we all know the righties never would try to rig elections.
Posts By Month
Posts