Ron just discussed on Fox News Bret's Special Report

[crusader]

They just talked about ron and the newsletters, however, the wording was careful, and suprisingly there was a lady [A.B. Stoddard] that pretty much blew them off as irrelevent.

[Charles Krauthammer] discussing them just said it was because now ron is in first in Iowa, and actually has a chance to win, so he is going to get more heat because of it.

 

[Bruehound]

Krauthammer was remarkably restrained and interesting to note Fox News choose to show a graphic of Ron's strongest Iowa poll, the one at 28%. Interesting.

 

[jcarcinogen]

They just talked about ron and the newsletters, however, the wording was careful, and suprisingly there was a lady that pretty much blew them off as irrelevent.

One guy discussing them just said it was because now ron is in first in Iowa, and actually has a chance to win, so he is going to get more heat because of it.

The line that they are only talking about it now because he is now relevant is what the 'redstate' piece of shit Erickson said last night as well as Blitzer today. Same memo?

 

[braane]

The media pretty much comes out and says "Yeah...we save material to attack candidates for when they start gaining popularity". Why don't they just come out and say "of course we only give positive spin to candidates we like". They can't make the argument that 'people started digging stuff up because he was a front runner'. People knew about this stuff 15 years ago when he ran for congress.

 

[sailingaway]

Krauthammer was remarkably restrained and interesting to note Fox News choose to show a graphic of Ron's strongest Iowa poll, the one at 28%. Interesting.

they are trying to raise expectations so a second place looks like a 'drop' and any future polls lower than his very highest is a 'drop' as well.

 

[Esoteric]

Krauthammer was remarkably restrained and interesting to note Fox News choose to show a graphic of Ron's strongest Iowa poll, the one at 28%. Interesting.

Why would they NOT show his strongest Iowa poll, when their goal is to spin it as "predictable" and irrelevant when he wins? The last thing they want is it to be a "surprise victory". Then, they have to cover it.

 

[camp_steveo]

I used to believe this program was the only legitimate source of news in the mainstream media. Now I know that there is no legitimate source.

 

[brandon]

If they are only talking about it because he now has a chance to win, then why did they do the same thing to him in late December 2007 when he was much lower in the polls?

 

[KingNothing]

We're so freaking close to winning this thing! The tone of these smears is changing. They know there's no substance to this slop.

 

[daviddee]

...

 

[h.k.]

I used to believe this program was the only legitimate source of news in the mainstream media. Now I know that there is no legitimate source.

Yeah it is too bad.

 

[Tina]

What I noticed was how carefully they were talking. It wasn't spontaneous at all. Right before Brett said the RP didn't write the newsletter he looked over at something or someone, I had the feeling he was making sure he could say that. It was strange. If there's a tube you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[Brett85]

Tube?

 

[Todd]

I used to believe this program was the only legitimate source of news in the mainstream media. Now I know that there is no legitimate source.

There's always the The MacNeil/Lehrer Report

 

[camp_steveo]

There's always the The MacNeil/Lehrer Report

I thought they were left-wing biased. ?

 

[h.k.]

There's always the The MacNeil/Lehrer Report

Why do you say that? Just wondering.

 

[CaseyJones]

tube!

 

[Todd]

I thought they were left-wing biased. ?

partially joking. It does have a bias. Every news source has a bias...but I remember when it was one of the few shows where people actually sat down and "discussed" the issues. That's why it's on PBS. It's boring and nobody watches it.

Today it's about "ratings" and not "deliberation". Long drawn out discussions from people who offer real "perspective" is snoozeville for average Americans.

 

[Perry]

The MSM are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get.

 

[camp_steveo]

partially joking. It does have a bias. Every news source has a bias...but I remember when it was one of the few shows where people actually sat down and "discussed" the issues. That's why it's on PBS. It's boring and nobody watches it.

Today it's about "ratings" and not "deliberation". Long drawn out discussions from people who offer real "perspective" is snoozeville for average Americans.

I used to watch it for those reasons, but I noticed that their panels never seemed to carry the message of all sides.

I thought you were joking, but I wasn't sure...LOL