"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:52:23 -0600, JimC said:

Those two words -
"liberal media" - are guaranteed to work magic with their constituency.

But of course we know there's no truth whatever in those words, right?

It doesn't matter. What matters is credibility. During the days of the great
evil empire (the Soviet Union, not the USA for you liberals) Pravda was the
official and only newspaper. The title "Pravda" meant truth. How may people
do you think believed what was printed in it? The only reason it sold copies
was people needed something to stuff into their boots to stay warm while
standing in line for a bar of soap, fish head or ill fitting underwear. Look
at the numbers for the traditional "media" - newspapers going out of
business, tv viewership down, etc. The only media that is growing is the
fair and balanced, objective media such as Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Of
course the brainwashed will scream they're not fair and balanced.
Apparently, to a large number of viewers (and those who wished to be
interviewed) these are the only outlets that provide news that people seem
worth watching and perhaps, believing. Look at the tremedous resources being
poured into Obama's campaign - the free media bias, teachers in schools
duping children and college students, the tremendous social pressures, the
personal attacks, villification, etc and the best Obama can do is maybe be
ahead by a few percentage points. There is even a campaign dubbed "Educating
the Idiots" by the Democrats to get people to vote for Obama. That alone
rips the lid off of the sewer of what it takes to get their man elected.
Bias alone will not sell a bad product to most people. It takes deception,
lies and misrepresentation. Unfortunately in the present case one cannot
return the defective product for a refund. So, in closing, let them be
biased, as biased as possible and as blatant as possible. The bottom line is
money and if they can't make money selling deceptive, biased "news"
reporting perhaps their candidate can push for a bailout. Obama has a lot
more to spend in media advertising, why would the media bite the hand that
feeds it?