Media Conspiracy

[Objectitron]

Does anyone out there believe the conspiracy theory that the liberal media (everyone except for FOX News) is elevating McCain as the only candidate who can actually beat the Dems in an effort to get him nominated, while actually believing that Romney would actually be the stonger candidate?

[JonLanceBarker]

i don't know, and i don't care.

[Whipartist]

Does anyone out there believe the conspiracy theory that the liberal media (everyone except for FOX News) is elevating McCain as the only candidate who can actually beat the Dems in an effort to get him nominated, while actually believing that Romney would actually be the stonger candidate?

Obviously there's a media conspiracy. They are private interests like everyone else. I don't know what that conspiracy is. Perhaps you've boughten into it without knowing it in just believing that either one of those candidates are the real potentials to win? Whatever the case, if it wasn't for the media telling us who's really going to win in advance, maybe we'd all go out and vote for who we really believe in, instead of voting for candidates we don't really believe in in an effort to comply with who the media has already told is will win. It's all fixed by those in power.

[Sheepdog]

It is beyond dispute that every news outlet has an agenda, and that agenda both colors what they report and how they report it.

I tend not to take conspiracy theories very seriously. I do wonder though why McCain doesn't seem get the negative press that Huckabee did immediately after the Huckaboom. Maybe he does and I missed it. If not, I could come up with a few possible explanations (e.g. it's not PC to attack an old person, much less a vet), so I can't opine regarding their motives.

[hamandcheese]

I'm not cynical enough to believe in a media conspiracy. Nevertheless, your premise is contradictory. Why would the "liberal" media, attempt to nominate the best candidate to beat the "liberal" democrats?

This is beside the point. I watch CNN a lot and I have been noticing that they broadcast McCain and Obama and awful lot more than the other candidates. I reject that they are the news channels secret favourites, and rather contend that it is a mix of pattern seeking and playing for ratings.

[Pilgrim]

Obviously there's a media conspiracy. They are private interests like everyone else. I don't know what that conspiracy is. Perhaps you've boughten into it without knowing it in just believing that either one of those candidates are the real potentials to win? Whatever the case, if it wasn't for the media telling us who's really going to win in advance, maybe we'd all go out and vote for who we really believe in, instead of voting for candidates we don't really believe in in an effort to comply with who the media has already told is will win. It's all fixed by those in power.

Any idiot who votes against his or her desire based on what the media says doesn't deserve the right to vote. If you're not strong enough to vote your own will then please stay home because you're making it worse for the rest of us.

Seriously, if you feel you have to "comply" with the media please burn your voter registration card before you do more damage.

[Whipartist]

Any idiot who votes against his or her desire based on what the media says doesn't deserve the right to vote. If you're not strong enough to vote your own will then please stay home because you're making it worse for the rest of us.

Seriously, if you feel you have to "comply" with the media please burn your voter registration card before you do more damage.

I hope you understand that I agree with you completely. I'm totally upset because I see this happening around me all too often. This sort of thing is skewing the election from what I can tell. I have people agree with my candidate but they don't think he has a chance of winning so they are going to vote for someone else so that their vote won't get wasted and someone worse will win. That's a horrible strategy!!

[Objectitron]

I'm not cynical enough to believe in a media conspiracy. Nevertheless, your premise is contradictory. Why would the "liberal" media, attempt to nominate the best candidate to beat the "liberal" democrats?

This is beside the point. I watch CNN a lot and I have been noticing that they broadcast McCain and Obama and awful lot more than the other candidates. I reject that they are the news channels secret favourites, and rather contend that it is a mix of pattern seeking and playing for ratings.

It's not contradictory...I'm curious if the "liberal" media is hyping up McCain and saying he's the strongest candidate to beat the Dems while really believing Romney is the strongest threat so the Republicans will nominate the weaker guy.

[Zeluvia]

You mean like deliberately voting in the wrong primary so that the weaker guy goes against your guy?

The question is, which is coming first....are the candidates covered more because more people vote for them, hence making them more "newsworthy" or do more people vote for them because the news "covers" them?

I have been watching this election since way before Iowa. McCain actually got mostly BAD press. Hilary got mostly BAD press.

Huckabee was on Colbert.

Unfortunately NO ONE is advertising in Texas yet BUT McCain, and I have only seen ONE commercial.

If I add up all MY media exposure to the candidates, it seems to come out with Huckabee ahead = p

[Ryokan]

Does anyone out there believe the conspiracy theory that the liberal media (everyone except for FOX News) is elevating McCain as the only candidate who can actually beat the Dems in an effort to get him nominated, while actually believing that Romney would actually be the stonger candidate?

Nope. Its real simple actually. John McCain ahs a very open campaign, he talks to journalist, lets them in on things, gives them a steady stream of mildly controversial McCainism to bash him about. He is friendly to them and makes there job easy. Same with Huckabee. Mitt Romney is distant, cotnrolling, and only gives out carefully controlled and modereated statements. Romney gets worse press than any of his opponents because he annoys journalists. Its a very human and real thing.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Does anyone out there believe the conspiracy theory that the liberal media (everyone except for FOX News) is elevating McCain as the only candidate who can actually beat the Dems in an effort to get him nominated, while actually believing that Romney would actually be the stonger candidate?

No.

[steveeden]

Does anyone out there believe the conspiracy theory that the liberal media (everyone except for FOX News) is elevating McCain as the only candidate who can actually beat the Dems in an effort to get him nominated, while actually believing that Romney would actually be the stronger candidate?

No. With the media being "liberal" and all (except for Fox News), would they not want to elevate the candidate who had the least chance to beat the Dems? So, according to your theory, Romney should have been the one who the liberal media would want nominated, since, according to your post, he has the least chance to beat the democrats even if, as you say, he is the stronger candidate. The conspiracy theory does not make much sense, does it?

[Objectitron]

No. With the media being "liberal" and all (except for Fox News), would they not want to elevate the candidate who had the least chance to beat the Dems? So, according to your theory, Romney should have been the one who the liberal media would want nominated, since, according to your post, he has the least chance to beat the democrats even if, as you say, he is the stronger candidate. The conspiracy theory does not make much sense, does it?

I think you have it backwards. The conspiracy is the liberal media building McCain up as the best candidate when he really isn't through favorable exposure and such, thus influencing public opinion polls; Romney is the real threat so they covered him in a negative light or not at all. This is the conspiracy. I never said I believed it or not, but this is the theory.

[steveeden]

That is not the way it reads, but, thanks for clearing it up.