Why is the MEDIA forcing Sarah Palin on Americans?
That's my question? What is the agenda? They are making Americans look like FOOLS. People are buying into it hook line and sinker. When is the last time the media covered a book tour like this? Ron Paul sells out arenas nationwide with no help from the media. So.....what's the motivation? Why is the media choosing to do this? Also, from reading posts here at the DailyPaul it seems even you guys are succumbing to this propaganda.......there is a reason they are pounding this coverage 24/7......you need to ask yourself ....WHY?
I can't stand watching FOX so I watch MSNBC when I want to watch propaganda.....and let me tell you I can barely handle watching MSNBC....I'm not sure what programing is going on at FOX but if MSNBC is covering this non stop I can only imagine what FOX is doing.
In the past three days : Within one minute of me turning on MSNBC I heard Palin's name.
Last night I came home from work.....turned the tube on and it happend to be on MSNBC and within THREE SECONDS....SARAH PALIN.....
Today.....turned the channel to MSNBC and less than a SECOND......SARAH PALIN.
WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?
I do not understand why this woman is being force fed down our throats.......... Whatever the reason, I assure you it's not good. This is obvious propaganda and brainwashing.....repeat over and over and over and over and over...
Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin and on and on and on and on and on..............WAKE UP PEOPLE!
It's obvious; every Establishment shill
in the country is salivating for Palin as the next Republican Pres. candidate.
They know they can easily knock her out with even more snarky "news" than last time, because they have even more ammunition every time she opens her mouth (or publishes a book) revealing non-stop how utterly ignorant and unqualified she is for any job with actual responsibility attached to it.
They're anointing her as the dream Republican candidate to insure their dream Pres. has smooth sailing in 2012, just as last time.
Will Americans justify our hope that they are smarter than politicians think, and stop voting for dishonest fools, or will the pols be right again?
abso
lutely
She's on tv so much right now because
she's shilling for her book. She's hoping that out of all this hustling, she'll be offered a tv show like the Huckster has. Then, like him, she'll have a daily commercial for herself so she, like him, can be positioned for a POTUS run. Pray that she does not get a show. Pray that once her 15 days of fame ends, that we won't hear from her any more. Pray that ole Levi Johnston has no more tales to peddle to Nat'l Enquirer. Pray that his Playgirl shoot backfires when he's pursued by so many gay guys he regrets it forever.
Right now, all this publicity for her is normal because of the book release. It won't be normal if this book helps her. From what I've heard, it's one big whine.
DOn't turn on your TV set.
Then you won't have to watch Sarah Palin.
I get my news from the internet and ignore mainstream media.
Trained monkeys
promoting trained monkeys. Not even very well trained. Unfortunately it doesn't take much to impress most Americans. They seem to be simple with short attention spans and memories. Oh and just swallow what they are told without question. TV commercial mentality. Sad. How do we change that?
Good Grief!!!
That is SAD..........sigh. Agreed. Wish I knew how to change it. Somehow make being aware a cool thing?
baubaublacksheep
I once remember
a particular phrase in an article in The New Yorker. It was about Italy's prime minister Silvio Berlusconi who owns a majority of the media. The phrase was, that since Berlusconi controlled a substantial amount of the media, he exerted influence on 'what people think they think'. That phrase stuck with me.
Assuming the people around me think like the television has been very isolating. I have found however, that it's largely an assumption on my part. There is a lot of ignorance out there. The root of which is 'ignore'. I find it hard to blame someone who doesn't know.
And I've found that when I listen to people and ask them appropriate questions there is actually a lot of common ground. I talked with some lib at a healthcare protest and it was funny to see how people would jump down his throat with talking points from TV. And he approached me as if I was some doofus he'd heard about on TV. Funny thing is when I listened to him and asked him questions he realized I was a thinking, feeling, human being. And then he listened to my interpretation of events. And he actually left questioning his position on healthcare.
Anyway...point being, it makes me think of that phrase. TV controls what we think others are thinking...(but we may not be as alone as we assume)
I don't think I'm ..we're....alone
but we're most definitely outnumbered.
baubaublacksheep
Carlin, I will say this for
Carlin, I will say this for the last time:
The size of the Federal government means that we do NOT have a free market in media, Are there any examples of the government abusing its newsmaking power? YES! Scott McClellan pointed out that White House scripts were read on air on Faux news, and when challenged, he said "well, the other networks do it too". I was told to my face by a CNN reporter that if I held my Ron Paul sign in the view of the camera(far away, not obstructing anything) that the piece would not air, because "anything with Ron Paul on it will not air". The piece was about the GOP primaries, by the way.
Ventura 2012
I'll say this for the last time.
If the media reads a script given to them by the government, and it's voluntary, then that's simply the exercise of the First Amendment. It's free speech. That's free market.
Violation of the First Amendment only occurs when the government FORCES something on the media.
And so what if a CNN reported asked you to move your sign out of the way? You don't support his right to ask you that? What's your point?
It's not a conspiracy.
Practically all media outlets showed preferential treatment to candidates other than Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW5kOB1pmg
It's one thing to do so if you're blatant about it, but media giants like CNN, MSNBC and especially FOX (who claims they're "Fair and Balanced" dozens of times a day) are representing themselves as unbiased, trustworthy news sources.
Even in the general election, Ron Paul had a relatively high number of write in votes, but only small town news outlets reported on it.
I think his point is news distortion.
Carlin, if the media is reading gov't scripts and distorting the news, that is not journalism. As such, they could hardly be considered ~the press~ and therefore would not be entitled to special press privilege.
It probably wasn't
It probably wasn't voluntary, it was at the very least tit-for-tat, which is not free market because government spending is not free market. I thought these were free market companies, that cave in only to the almighty dollar?
My point is that it was their policy to exclude Ron Paul.
Ventura 2012
What evidence do you have that
it wasn't voluntary? Sounds like a conspiracy theorist ASSUMPTION to me.
Maybe CNN did have a policy to exclude Ron Paul. But what's your point? You don't support the First Amendment?
Very true. He who owns the press has the freedom
I fully agree. But. . .campaigns are serious business and should be covered with integrity. Most Americans don't know wednesday from soup so it's not hard to control them.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
You really like that word
"conspriacy theorist" don't you? You use it a lot. It's like a word you can use to discredit someone or an idea. Oh, you must be a "conspriacy theorist".......poof...discredited. Right? Is that how you see it? Your idea of free market and capitalism kinda didn't work in the Rosie O'Donnel/The View scenario did it? Must be "conspiracy" huh?
baubaublacksheep
because it is a for-profit
because it is a for-profit corporation that only cares about money....rwned.
My point is that they WERE BIASED, and it had nothing to do with polling data.
Ventura 2012
I could argue that that is proof of them trying to avoid bias.
Ron Paul's supporters were the most vocal and had the most signs, out of proportion with this supporters in the real population. So to be neutral, the news might not want to make it appear as if it Paul has the most supporters overall and present a distorted image. I don't know the real reason, but that's one possibility. You may be right that they just didn't like Ron Paul. I do support their right to be biased tho, if they actually were.
you're a real wanker. the
you're a real wanker.
the mainstream media over reports and under reports all sorts of stuff.
to this country's detriment.
hope you don't expect people to take any of your posts seriously....
LOL what a dumb thing to
LOL what a dumb thing to say. To be neutral, the news media called Ron Paul a 9/11 truther and mocked him to the point of openly laughing at him during the debates.
You respect the right of the White House to influence media regarding coverage of domestic elections? Where in the Constitution are they given THAT power?!?!? The Government-media complex doesn't have any rights. Run along now, troll.
Ventura 2012
Omg. I can't believe you said that, Carlin.
Of all the silly, argumentative things you've said, I think this takes the cake.
Because
it gets people talking? I think it was some clip of Morning Joe or someother, where the anchor commented off the cuff during an interview of Ron Paul. He said something like 'Everytime we have Ron Paul on our ratings go up.'
I suspect Palin has some ratings appeal among certain circles. She's gotta book out. She wears designer glasses. She's had a bru-ha-ha with David Letterman. She's young, which is tantamount to attractive in our society. She's got the ingredients for a politician-cum-celebrity... Just like Obama. She did O. She's the buzz right now. Whatever.
My perspective is the media could care less who, what, where, when, or why.
So long as people tune-in to watch.
The more asanine the subject the better, so that two absurd perspectives can be fabricated to facilitate a faux discussion comprised of talking heads 'weighing in'. Eyeballs on the screen. Cash money. Dollar bills.
They want her to run because she's easy to beat
When the MSM/PTB have their guy in power they try to protect him by giving credibility to his least credible/palatable/competent competitor, until it's time to strike expose them for the fraud they are.
At least that's what it seems like to me .
I'm hearing some of you say
it's about capitalism and the all mighty dollar and ratings.....noting that Oprah's show got the highest ratings she's had in a while. Well to that I say..........DUH......it was advertised and talked about non stop....and....................if the media only cares about the all mighty dollar then why didn't ABC do all it could to keep ROSIE O'DONNEL? The View's ratings were throught the ROOF when she was on there. She was "let go"....why? It was good TV was it not? It was discussed on cable and late night talk shows just about every day. Rosie getting into it with Elizabeth...Trump...even the network itself............oh, yea....she was trying to get people to question 911 and the WAR......If it's about money and ratings why did they care?
baubaublacksheep
If 9/11 conspiracy theories sold on a large scale
it would be discussed in the media all the time. The fact is, few people take the 9/11 inside job seriously. I, for example, just laugh at it. People just don't care about it. They've heard of it, maybe gave it a few minutes thought, realized how unlikely it is, and are no longer interested. It's had its day. If you a show is run on 9/11 inside job theories, I'm probably going to change the channel, just as I would on a show on Big Foot. I think most people are with me on that. It just doesn't bring in the big bucks. It's boring.
because having a CIA "audit"
because having a CIA "audit" DOESNT SELL, dumbass. You remind me of the liberals crying that this collapse was "caused by capitalism", completely oblivious to the specter of Big Government.
Ventura 2012
Then why was
Rosie "let go"? 9/11 is discussed on talk shows ALL OVER THE WORLD....with the exception of the United States. Do your homework. Here in the US there is no discussion on talk shows about 911. The only discussion about 911 being an inside job is to make it laughable and joke at it and make fun of those that think that way. Oprah Winfrey can do shows on people talking to the dead and ghosts and UFO's but not about 911.
baubaublacksheep
Well I've given you my best opinion.
You asked "WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?"
So I'm trying to help you understand why, in my understanding. My answer is that capitalism is why.
If you're not buying it, fine.
No...
I asked why in my original post............above.....i asked you specificly.....WHY WAS ROSIE LET GO? if it's about ratings and money. The View was MONEY when she was on. and she was talking about NINE ELEVEN.....people were not turning the channel off........they were turning it on.........IN DROVES. Many people........like myself made it a point to watch THE VIEW because of her and what she was talking about.
baubaublacksheep
Capitlism work fine,It's the
Capitlism work fine,It's the crony capitalism or corporatism that we are concerned about.