Question: How can the people take the enormous amount of power that BIG MEDIA has in presidential elections?
The press plays a vital role in our democracy, shaping citizens’ understanding of social and political issues and functioning as gatekeepers through which issues, people, and events must pass. No matter what you care about — gun rights or abortion rights, the environment or economics — the media influence the perceptions of citizens and policymakers, affecting the policies that touch us all. Media must not be considered just another business: they are special institutions in our society. Information is the lifeblood of democracy — and when viewpoints are cut off and ideas cannot find an outlet, our democracy suffers.
Traditional media, telecommunications and cable are converging, all becoming firmly linked to the Internet. The ways we share information, the ways we receive information, and the ways this information is produced are all changing rapidly. In the halls of power — from corporate boardrooms to the corridors of the Capitol — policies are being rewritten to prepare for this new era.
Big Media, Big Cable and Big Telecom are some of the strongest and fiercest lobbies in Washington, and, indeed, across the country. One of the most profitable industries and one on which politicians depend to make their views heard, it is difficult to battle such clout. Media outlets unwilling to report on their parent company’s interests and broader issues of media reform put more obstacles in the way of public interest advocates.
BIG MEDIA has a huge effect on who wins presidential primaries. the major television news outlets are viewed by most americans, which gives them the power to manipulate the masses’ opinions on candidates that would help them by relaxing laws on media ownership. They also have the power to essentially blacklist candidates who would be a threat to them by passing new laws that would be more in line with the constitution. So you can see how a candidate that values the constitution would be a major threat to them.
if Dr. Ron Paul got the amount of attention that Obama, hilary, edwards, romney, mccain & guiliani get, i am sure that he would win the election by an enormous number of votes. If the average american knew who he was, and what he is all about, he would be a huge threat to hillary’s presidential campaign. Ron paul is EXTREMELY popular among the people that know who he is because he truly represents the american people, not the establishment. Ron Paul has a voting record in congress that demonstrates that he will not be pushed into voting for any unconstitutional legislation, such as the patriot act, or the real id act, or the torture bill. He is 1 of only 6 republicans that voted against the war. Ron Paul has also been named “the taxpayers best friend.”
Many web sites and forums have had to shut down, due to the overwhelming number of people writing messages of support for Ron Paul. a MySpace page titled “Opinion Polling” posted the following note this week: “Temporarily shut down due to Ron Paul. will be back eventually.” A source said that the page’s owners shut it down because Paul supporters “invaded the place.”
here is a website called techPresident.com that has an ongoing internet poll displayed on it.
http://techpresident.com/scrape_plot/myspace
the poll shows that Ron Paul is the top republican candidate among internet users.
Yet, the big media companies IGNORE Ron Paul on their 24 hour news networks. Every other story is about which celebrity is endorsing barak obama, or what color dress Hillary wore last week at a fundraiser. How did this happen? WHat can be done about it? i am thinking maybe the fairness doctrine should be applied to the big cable news networks, even though i am a libertan.
here is an article (which i used some quotes from) that explains this further:
(http://ronpaul.rescue-us.org/2007/03/02/ron-paul-support-on-the-internets-continues-to-get-noticed.aspx)
————————–
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who has explored a presidential run, doesn’t register very high in the national polls featuring 2008 presidential candidates (1 percent, tops). But there’s one place that he simply rules: the Internet.
Fans of the libertarian have stormed the Web — in ways both good and bad — to show their support. Over at TechPresident.com — a Web site that tracks candidates’ “friends” on the popular social networking site MySpace.com — Paul is tops for Republicans, with 3,107 “friends” (Mitt Romney is second with 1,785).
But elsewhere, the voraciousness of Paul’s supporters has sparked the ire of others. The Web site 2008HorseRace.com, which features an ongoing poll for candidates, issued this notice on Feb. 23: “Ron Paul has been suspended for two weeks because of repeated use of mob intimidation tactics and multiple threats made by Ron Paul supporters against racetrack operators, racetrack officials and racetrack sponsors.” PajamasMedia.com removed Ron Paul from its presidential polls after it was discovered that someone had rigged the poll system in his favor. It has since implemented a rule that it will only include candidates polling at 1 percent or more in credible national news polls.
And a MySpace page titled “Opinion Polling” posted the following note this week: “Temporarily shut down due to Ron Paul will be back eventually.” A source said that the page’s owners shut it down because Paul supporters “invaded the place.”
Paul’s exploratory committee spokesman Kent Snyder thinks he knows why Paul’s supporters are so gung-ho for their guy. “One of the reasons that Dr. Paul is getting a lot of cyber support is because he voted against regulating the Internet,” Snyder told Yeas & Nays.
go to http://www.freepress.org/ to read more about the problem with big media in the united states.
sorry its so long, but i thoguht i had to give you a little background on the issue. The question is:
How can the people take the enormous amount of power that BIG MEDIA has in presidential elections?
Answer:
Answer by Wolfgang P
The Yahoo censors are watching………..
Question: What Republican has called for censoring privately owned liberal media outlets like ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN?
11/18/10 Democrat Jay Rockefeller: “There’s a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, ‘Out. Off. End. Goodbye.”’ Of course this government bureaucrat is aware that FoxNews is a giant compared to MSNBC but, like all liberals, his main interest is to silence those who disagree with liberal opinions:
-12/08 Zogby poll on which is the most trusted TV news source: FoxNews 39%, CNN 16%, MSNBC 15%. The most trusted news personalities: Rush Limbaugh 13%; Bill O’Reilly 10%; Chris Mathews 2%.
-1/27/10 The Guardian, Nielson poll: “Fox most trusted news channel in U. S.”: Fox News 49%, CNN 39%, ABC 31%, CBS 32%, NBC 35%.
-1/10 Public Policy Poll, a Democratic leaning pollster, found that Fox News was trusted by more people than ABC News, CBS News, CNN, and NBC news.
So, liberals, does it bother you that your leaders want to shut us up because we disagree with you?
Didn’t think so.
Hey Jay! It’s not a little bug inside you, it’s a fascist germ!
But maybe liberals can’t help themselves? 10/28/10, NBC: UCSD, Harvard find “Liberal Gene” as partial answer as to why liberals think the way they do.
Notice that they can’t name one single Republican?
Notice that some people don’t even know that PBS is not privately owned but rather is a non-profit organization which receives tax money through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
Notice that, as I said, there can be no reasoning with socialists — I mean liberals?
Answer:
Answer by I Speak For All Liberals
We Liberals believe that our opinions are really FACT…and that anything a Republican says should be outlawed!
Question: Does this support the fact that there is liberal bias in the media?
Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.
By Bill Sammon
FOXNews.com
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”
Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.
“We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I’m wanting them to turn against him,” Greenberg admitted.
The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: “They don’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails.”
Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: “Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!”
The press followed Carville’s orders, never reporting his or Greenberg’s desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party’s top strategists, that Bush should fail.
That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.
“The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed,” Carville railed on CNN recently. “He is the daddy of this Republican Congress.”
Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama’s liberal policies.
“The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country,” Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. “I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama’s socialist agenda, that hurt my country.
“I deal in principles, not polls,” Limbaugh added. “Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It’s not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?”
Carville told Politico that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining Republicans.
“The television cameras just can’t stay away from him,” he said. “Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we’re going to succeed.”
Greenberg added: “He’s driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want.”
In 2006, 51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail, according to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/
Answer:
Answer by U can’t fix stupid!
I don’t watch the mainstream media. You do yourself a disservice if you do.
Question: Do media biased “polls” influence how people vote in the presidential primaries?
For example every news network seems to say after each democratic debate things like “hillary is ahead by this much and obama is ahead by this much being second place”… Those really annoy me, especially when they make certian candidates sound like they are ahead by a landslide. I really get the feeling that the media just changes the numbers in a hope that they will influence how people vote in the primary by tricking people into thinking that they are agreeing with the majority of there party if they vote in-step with everyone else, instead of opening their minds to other candidates. In my opinion there should be regulations on how the media does polls like that because I do get the sense it is affecting our voting system and making people close out other candidates. What do you think?
Answer:
Answer by Derek
I think both you and P.T. Barnum are right…
Question: How can the people take the enormous amount of power that BIG MEDIA has in presidential elections?
The press plays a vital role in our democracy, shaping citizens’ understanding of social and political issues and functioning as gatekeepers through which issues, people, and events must pass. No matter what you care about — gun rights or abortion rights, the environment or economics — the media influence the perceptions of citizens and policymakers, affecting the policies that touch us all. Media must not be considered just another business: they are special institutions in our society. Information is the lifeblood of democracy — and when viewpoints are cut off and ideas cannot find an outlet, our democracy suffers.
Traditional media, telecommunications and cable are converging, all becoming firmly linked to the Internet. The ways we share information, the ways we receive information, and the ways this information is produced are all changing rapidly. In the halls of power — from corporate boardrooms to the corridors of the Capitol — policies are being rewritten to prepare for this new era.
Big Media, Big Cable and Big Telecom are some of the strongest and fiercest lobbies in Washington, and, indeed, across the country. One of the most profitable industries and one on which politicians depend to make their views heard, it is difficult to battle such clout. Media outlets unwilling to report on their parent company’s interests and broader issues of media reform put more obstacles in the way of public interest advocates.
BIG MEDIA has a huge effect on who wins presidential primaries. the major television news outlets are viewed by most americans, which gives them the power to manipulate the masses’ opinions on candidates that would help them by relaxing laws on media ownership. They also have the power to essentially blacklist candidates who would be a threat to them by passing new laws that would be more in line with the constitution. So you can see how a candidate that values the constitution would be a major threat to them.
if Dr. Ron Paul got the amount of attention that Obama, hilary, edwards, romney, mccain & guiliani get, i am sure that he would win the election by an enormous number of votes. If the average american knew who he was, and what he is all about, he would be a huge threat to hillary’s presidential campaign. Ron paul is EXTREMELY popular among the people that know who he is because he truly represents the american people, not the establishment. Ron Paul has a voting record in congress that demonstrates that he will not be pushed into voting for any unconstitutional legislation, such as the patriot act, or the real id act, or the torture bill. He is 1 of only 6 republicans that voted against the war. Ron Paul has also been named “the taxpayers best friend.”
Many web sites and forums have had to shut down, due to the overwhelming number of people writing messages of support for Ron Paul. a MySpace page titled “Opinion Polling” posted the following note this week: “Temporarily shut down due to Ron Paul. will be back eventually.” A source said that the page’s owners shut it down because Paul supporters “invaded the place.”
here is a website called techPresident.com that has an ongoing internet poll displayed on it.
http://techpresident.com/scrape_plot/myspace
the poll shows that Ron Paul is the top republican candidate among internet users.
Yet, the big media companies IGNORE Ron Paul on their 24 hour news networks. Every other story is about which celebrity is endorsing barak obama, or what color dress Hillary wore last week at a fundraiser. How did this happen? WHat can be done about it? i am thinking maybe the fairness doctrine should be applied to the big cable news networks, even though i am a libertan.
here is an article (which i used some quotes from) that explains this further:
(http://ronpaul.rescue-us.org/2007/03/02/ron-paul-support-on-the-internets-continues-to-get-noticed.aspx)
————————–
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who has explored a presidential run, doesn’t register very high in the national polls featuring 2008 presidential candidates (1 percent, tops). But there’s one place that he simply rules: the Internet.
Fans of the libertarian have stormed the Web — in ways both good and bad — to show their support. Over at TechPresident.com — a Web site that tracks candidates’ “friends” on the popular social networking site MySpace.com — Paul is tops for Republicans, with 3,107 “friends” (Mitt Romney is second with 1,785).
But elsewhere, the voraciousness of Paul’s supporters has sparked the ire of others. The Web site 2008HorseRace.com, which features an ongoing poll for candidates, issued this notice on Feb. 23: “Ron Paul has been suspended for two weeks because of repeated use of mob intimidation tactics and multiple threats made by Ron Paul supporters against racetrack operators, racetrack officials and racetrack sponsors.” PajamasMedia.com removed Ron Paul from its presidential polls after it was discovered that someone had rigged the poll system in his favor. It has since implemented a rule that it will only include candidates polling at 1 percent or more in credible national news polls.
And a MySpace page titled “Opinion Polling” posted the following note this week: “Temporarily shut down due to Ron Paul will be back eventually.” A source said that the page’s owners shut it down because Paul supporters “invaded the place.”
Paul’s exploratory committee spokesman Kent Snyder thinks he knows why Paul’s supporters are so gung-ho for their guy. “One of the reasons that Dr. Paul is getting a lot of cyber support is because he voted against regulating the Internet,” Snyder told Yeas & Nays.
Answer:
Answer by ToYou,Too!
This is not a press. It is a commercially driven enterprise. Get started and begin a press again the way the US Constitution intended.
Question: Presidential Approval Rating Poll: Rasmussen vs. Gallup, is this an example of bias media?
Is Gallup in the tank for Obama and is this an example of bias media?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
“About Us” on Rasmussen:
“As a media company, we make our money by selling advertising, title sponsorships, subscriptions, and content. One thing we don’t sell is polls. Because we value our independence and credibility, Rasmussen Reports cannot be hired to conduct a poll for anyone. For our reports, we decide the questions to ask based upon the needs and interests of our audience. If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls. One thing we’re very proud of during the political season is our bi-partisan audience”
“About Gallup Poll”:
“Gallup Poll consultants assist leaders to identify and monitor behavioral economic indicators worldwide.”
Rasmussen seems to be a fair, non-partisan polling medium who cannot be hired for specific polling while Gallup uses consultants, upon hire, for their polling.
Teekno,
If you want me to break it down for you since you cannot read:
Rasmussen:
53% Approve
46% Disapprove
Gallup:
57% Approve
35% Disapprove
Rasmussen vs Gallup Approve:
Gallup +4
Rasmussen vs Gallup Disapprove:
Gallup -11
Gallup is obviously providing a bias poll, I did read the polls, try reading them yourself, nice try though.
Also, Vinny, I will have to disagree with you. Gallup is obviously in the tank for Obama, if not, then why such a higher approval rating and lower disapproval rating for Obama in comparison to Rasmussen?
Answer:
Answer by vinny_says_relax
Neither is in the tank for anyone, and Rasmussen is a registered Independent.
Categories
Tags
2010. about Americans approval believe better Bill black care down ever From gallup latest McCain media more news. Nielsen Obama Obama's only Opinion Part Paul people political poll polls Presidential public question Rasmussen Rating Reports Republican Republicans Scott Star Survey these think this white Would


