Mark Halpern said "McCain attacking the media is a plan, republicans base loves that tactic"

[AlCzervik]

heard it last night on Charlie Rose.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. It never really is about the truth with them. "Country Last" NT

[AlCzervik]

2. Halpern also said it was well organized.

[still_one]

3. After their B.S. convention, the REAL issues will come to the front burner

They can't run a campaign that all the problems are due to the "libural" media, when they have had control for the last 8 years

[AlCzervik]

5. i totally agree, McCain doesn't do "Issues" and i really think voters are sick and tired

of him referring to his pow time instead of addressing what he would do to make things in this country better.

[Motown_Johnny]

4. Another poor choice by McCain... this is when most voters start to tune in. Bad time to attack the

media

[Cha]

6. Well, that's just brilliant.. "the media", corporatewhore$ that

they are, have done nothing but help their stupid a$$es for the last 8 years of bush and gave them the War on Iraq that they all love to glorify.

[AlCzervik]

8. well it's easier to blame the liberal media (where is that?) than actually talk about issues.

[Cha]

12. But, that's Orwellian doublespeak..it's not "Liberal"

anymore. And, I've had it with their filthy "plans".

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. Correction: "LOSERS" love that tactic.

During political campaigns when a candidate is losing, he/she will resort to a common theme that always seems to work: blame the media. It worked for Hillary Clinton when she was losing. What did we see? More media scrutiny and 24/7 coverage of Rev. Wright and bittergate. It does work. And it'll do wonders for McSame because he is, was and will always be a Media Darling!!

[Median Democrat]

9. Summary Of Why MSM Has A Right Wing Bias - Charges of Liberal Bias Are Absurd

First, as the infamous ABC leaked memo shows, the MSM's corporate sponsors require the MSM to oppose liberals:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6570325.html

/snip

This week we learned that some 90 major corporations demanded that their ads be pulled from radio stations that run Air America programming, demonstrating the fundamental challenge facing everyone working to promote critical journalism and a vibrant free press.

First off, let's clarify why this is taking place: The crime isn't that Air America is partisan. All or most of these firms advertise on politically conservative talk radio programs and/or stations. And the crime isn't even being "liberal." Some of these advertisers have moderate or liberal executives who donate to Democratic candidates and are far from rabid conservatives.

So what is the problem? While "liberal" Air America clearly favors big D Democrats, unlike virtually all other programming on commercial radio and television, it gives airtime to reports that are critical of corporations and the powerful politicians they keep in Washington.

This is the heart of the problem: Air America commits a crime called journalism. Almost none of the so-called conservative radio shows or networks do any semblance of actual reporting. They merely pontificate -- repeating talking points that seem to be emailed straight from Karl Rove's laptop.

/snip

Second, Barack Obama is an outspoken supporter of a diverse and independent media:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6570325.html

Q: What prompted you to weigh in on media ownership and diversity at an FCC field hearing in Chicago (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/C ... ) last year?

A: I strongly favor diversity of ownership of outlets and protection against the excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one corporation, interest or small group. I strongly believe that all citizens should be able to receive information from the broadest range of sources. I feel that media consolidation during the Bush administration has had the effect of eliminating a lot of the diversity of information sources available to persons who have to rely on more traditional information sources, such as radio and television broadcasts and newspapers.

Q: What ill effects has the country suffered from media consolidation, if any?

A: This country’s media ownership rules that both chairman Powell and chairman Martin have wanted to dismantle protect us from excessive media concentration. However, even under current rules, the media market is dominated by a handful of firms. The ill effects of consolidation today and continued consolidation are well-documented -- less diversity of opinion, less local news coverage, replication of the same stories across multiple outlets, and others. We can do better.

Q: You co-sponsored the Dorgan bill to block the FCC’s media-ownership change, which Martin has argued was a moderate compromise that took into account the input of opponents to consolidation. Why block it?

A: Chairmen Martin and Powell both argued that their previous effort to deregulate the media market was moderate, as well. Both the courts and a majority of the Senate disagreed the first time. And a few weeks back, the Senate disagreed with chairman Martin again. While he argues that the rule is no longer in the public interest, the public response has heavily weighed in against him. And common sense tells us that the consolidation of outlets in local markets will lead to fewer opportunities for diverse expression of opinions.

/snip

Third, BIG MEDIA is bigger than ever before, and it controls what you see and hear, therefore it controls what you think:


<>


<>

[BeyondGeography]

10. DUH...and he gets paid big bucks for insights like that

[KittyWampus]

11. AMERICANS love attacking the Media. It's not just Republicans. I'm sick of Democrats never

calling the obvious whoring out when it happens right in their faces.