digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Mainstream media lacking in journalistic integrity

huffingtonpost.com — BRILLIANT PIECE. They say the media is too liberal ...no, they are too sensationalized. They invent drama to make stories. Whatever happened to pride in country, respect for the process of democracy, integrity to report the news as fact? Seems all we get these days is a whole lot of nonsense and I dont think the American people are buying it.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • booksnmore4you, on 07/24/2008, -20/+21Brilliant piece indeed! Wow....
  • FTWmovin2canada, on 07/25/2008, -17/+51The MSM covering up McCain's foreign policy misstatements is disturbing.
    • thedealwentdown, on 07/25/2008, -3/+2Nothing to see hear people, move along
    • Dibou, on 07/25/2008, -4/+2Did you see (or not see I should say) the media editing out Obama seeing dead people? They help him all the time as that is just one example.
    • postaldave, on 07/26/2008, -2/+3the media donates 15 to 1 to democrats, you can stop it with the media covering for mccain *****.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3SOURCE? Or just more right-wing "talking points"?
    • kyyled, on 07/26/2008, -2/+1Don't let facts get in the way...nobody was paying attention this week...McCain is the safe choice...move along now...
    • Naieve, on 07/26/2008, -2/+3Why do you care if you are moving Canada?

      You're abandoning us and running away, you get no say.
  • nbeck2, on 07/25/2008, -16/+11The MSM will continue to paint Barack Obama as "too risky" and "cocky" unless and until we demand that they stop it. And by "we," I'm also including the Obama campaign who need to come down hard on these bumbling fools.
  • Airforcefalco, on 07/25/2008, -9/+65If this is news to anyone then you have not been paying attention.
    • beesaretasty, on 07/25/2008, -3/+4If this is news to anyone, you might be a redneck.
    • oldgal, on 07/25/2008, -1/+4News provides factual information, I see none here (although admittedly I did not finish the article). In fact I see very little in either the liberal or conservative media. Mostly what I see is frenetic screaming about: sentences taken out of context; incremental statements deemed to be incorrect; speculation about the impact of some activity on the candidate's campaign; hysteria and speculation about the impact of statements by surrogates, friends, associates on the campaign; and speculation about who's ahead and why they are ahead. What I don't see are reports with factual content and intelligent discussions of the issues and problems. Public TV and C-Span seem to be the only places where information is actually available.
    • kaelyiesta, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3The most obvious flaw in our MSM is the echo chamber snow balling effect; Say fox news brings some 'analyst' on the air and asks them questions of opinion that 'some people' say(should Obama be upset about the new yorker cover for example). The bit is completely meaningless, the opinion of 'some people' are actually just made up by fox news themselves, and the piece is played over and over throughout the day. Then another station gets in on it, citing fox news or making up their own opinions again. This goes on for about a week, where by the end, the entire MSM is in a goowy circle jerk and rolling around in their own cum. By now their opinion starts moving into public opinion, further stoking the flames of an issue that never existed in the first place. And by the end of two weeks, politicians are catching on and starting to have to make statements about an issue that never actually existed until MSM made it up. It's appalling behavior.

      This is just one very small problem MSM has, but it's getting bigger. These companies thrive on gossip or near-gossip, and they are pushing towards that style of 'journalism' more and more.
  • supersav85, on 07/25/2008, -14/+18Its funny how Bush was offered favoritism in the media during his second run for office and yet once the tables turn, the GOP is so quick to play the childish "it's not fair!" card. I just hope we can all see through the press enough to make an accurate and ethically right choice for the country and the world.....or maybe that's too presumptuous.
    • tufftugg, on 07/25/2008, -3/+3 Yes, but it's the nature of the GOP
    • petrikigor, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3It's not funny, its the sad state of American politics.
    • Dibou, on 07/25/2008, -4/+4"Bush was offered favoritism in the media during his second run for office"
      What do you call your fantasy world?
      • justbloggin, on 07/25/2008, -2/+3Just remember...don't ask any questions or you are showing you are anti american, against the troops and even worse...a flaming Liberal! Crank up the security level at the airports!
      • Dibou, on 07/25/2008, -4/+5Was that before or after the Bush = monkey pictures?
        Before or after some reporter called Bush a monkey?
        Before or after he was called the worst president in the world by the media?
        Before or after the media's 'warmonger' label? Or the AWOL label? Or the drunk label? Or the frat guy label?

        Swiftboating is now the media buzzword for a republican attack that hurts a democrat (regardless of the fact that the swiftboaters had valid arguments).

        Should I even go on about how Kerry was made into a war-hero? Or was 'cerebral'? Or was sophisticated?

        Again Bush being favored by the media is a fantasy world.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3@Dibou -- this is true, you are correct, and to deny it you'd have to be living in a fantasy world.. oh wait.
    • scojac, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1How dare you! Presumptuous Liberal Yuppie!!!

      (insert more fistshaking, crying, numbnuts bawwww)
  • bgrah449, on 07/25/2008, -5/+16Our abilities to manipulate the human mind have far outraced our abilities to resist that manipulation. We evolved when the stories that entertained us were the same stories that were good for us, and that's just not true anymore. A heartbreaking story about a statistical outlier is not a good reason to vote for a policy, and yet that's often offered up as a compelling rationale for the policy instead of measured, tempered, peer-reviewed studies.

    The population needs information to make up our minds, but we're offered stories that entertain us because that's what brings in advertising revenue. Between a free press feeding us trash and a state press feeding us lies, I opt for the free press ... but not by a large margin.

    BTW, this is my 500th comment on digg! Long live Digg!
  • sandersdamnit, on 07/25/2008, -10/+36No ***** *****
  • AchaIemoipas, on 07/25/2008, -9/+32BREAKING: SKY IS BLUE!

    Good job finding 6 similar phrases in almost a year of campaigning...Especially coming from the most obviously pro-Obama news source in America.
  • miamidolfan13, on 07/25/2008, -4/+3Really. This is no surprise.
    http://www.bluetidalwave.com/2008/07/walmart-women ...
  • chester27, on 07/25/2008, -14/+58This coming from the Huffington Post?

    In-*****-credible.
    • thegreenspanput, on 07/25/2008, -3/+5lol
    • robbiemuffin, on 07/25/2008, -2/+4huffington post is great. given any negative fact, they can smear it on someone else... even when it really does apply to their writers as much as to anyone else. in fact I think it is the thinking in this article that inspired the hijacking of the huffington post by the interns there, in the first place.

      it's also like kucinich's articles of impeachment. If he'd stop playing drama, he'd have the democratic base so fast he wouldn't know what to do with it.
    • MarthaStewart, on 07/25/2008, -4/+2The irony is pathetic.

      I hate it when the media feels it needs to do my job of interrupting information to form a judgment, both liberals and conservatives. The Huffington Post is the FOX of liberals, except they have a fraction of viewers.
    • elshizzo, on 07/25/2008, -4/+4I know everyone likes to bash on the Huffington Post, but can anyone actually name an example where the Huffington Post deliberately misled or lied to its readers?
      • Scheissen, on 07/25/2008, -4/+2http://huffingtonpost.com
      • elshizzo, on 07/25/2008, -4/+5good one, Scheiss. But seriously, can you find an actual example of disinformation?
      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/26/2008, -2/+0Of course not. That would require a...........FACT! And we all know that those aren't things the right-wing likes to trade in.
  • kingUssop, on 07/25/2008, -5/+20MSM = sensationalists, panderers, sell-outs. Don't call them liberal, conservative or anything, none of them are authentically engaged to what they're doing.
  • MrFurious2k, on 07/25/2008, -27/+34Huffingspam post. Buried.
    • DrVonNugent, on 07/25/2008, -9/+16Seconded. Too bad we'll both be buried for our non-liberal opinion.
      • hmphargh, on 07/25/2008, -7/+7Oddly enough, this is one of the decent pieces they've done, I suggest you read it.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/26/2008, -1/+0DrVonNugent - there is nothing non-liberal or conservative about your "opinion". Failing to actually read & respond to the content of an article, yet feeling the need to comment anyway with your inana crap, is just plain lazy & arrogant!

        Although you do make a good point that it tends to be the right wingers that "shoot the messenger" rather than having the brains and balls to address the message.
    • phydeaux70, on 07/25/2008, -9/+4/third.
    • AWBoy666, on 07/26/2008, -5/+2/Fourth.
    • reaperhatch, on 07/26/2008, -1/+1oh the irony.
  • ericdano, on 07/25/2008, -5/+5I think most of my issues with "news" and "print" media is their total lack of researching something before they publish it. That right there is lacking journalistic integrity. That, and news shows like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox that take something that might be false and start commenting on it. Ogerman, Bill O, etc.......especially Ogerman.
  • DeathToAmerica, on 07/25/2008, -9/+3Allahu Akbar!
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/25/2008, -18/+25More Obamamonica spam. buried.
    • bhod, on 07/26/2008, -2/+1You can never get enough of Obamamania. Get ready for 8 years of it, even if he isn't the "change" he says he'll be.
  • SirCharge, on 07/25/2008, -12/+17Yes, the media is sensationalistic and obnoxious. Its also extremely pro-obama. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
    • rewinn, on 07/25/2008, -9/+7Katie McCouric editting McCain's answers so they appear coherent ... is pro-Obama?

      Find ONE comparable example.
      • bhod, on 07/26/2008, -3/+2I didn't know Katie Couric did the editing herself. She must have a lot on her plate. That lady needs a raise and a vacation.
    • falstaff, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=3 ...

      Campaign money is pretty easy to track these days.
      • enclaved, on 07/25/2008, -3/+2That guy is so full of *****. He's manipulating numbers of SELF REPORTED OCCUPATION TO MAKE IT LOOK OMINOUS.

        At one point he compares donations to the entire democratic side to only those of McCain, if that didn't red flag this as ***** for you, you are a moron.

        Not to mention those numbers include ANYONE who said they worked for those companies. This includes the guy writing obits and calls himself a journalist. This includes the guy playing about quark express to arrange *****. Like it matters who they gave money to. This guy acts like everyone who wrote down journalist is on TV trying to blow obama.
      • falstaff, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2I agree that some of the more sensationalist numbers are a bit outlandish (100-1 only comes by eliminating Paul and Gulianni, for example), but the 13-1 to 15-1 range in favor of the Democrats is right in line with every other time this type of thing has been done.

        Self-reported occupations work both ways, but let's say that the folks on the right are more fearful of their names being associated with their occupations (backlash from employers? doesn't really do much to dispell the myth of the liberal editors-in-cheif), and the numbers there should *triple*. Now we're only at 80% of the money going to Democrats.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/26/2008, -1/+1@falstaff
        Even if these figures were true, how much influence do these donations have on the reporting of their relevant employers networks?

        Based on the fact that the table shows FOX as giving $40,573 to Democrats & NOTHING to Republicans & Fox News as $1,280 to Democrats & NOTHING to Republicans, I hardly think even the most biased right winger could pretend that these donations influence the reporting at Fox!
    • elshizzo, on 07/25/2008, -5/+4Maybe they are pro Obama because Obama is a superior candidate, did you ever think about that? A common misconception is that an ideal media is one that reports positive stories about each candidate an identical amount of times. What if Hitler was running against Jesus? Should the media still report both candidates with the same number of positive stories?
  • enotswhat, on 07/25/2008, -3/+4please the MSM is like the little kid pitting mommy against daddy to get all the toys they want. You choose who the mommy and daddy is in this two party system
  • FeargusMcDuff, on 07/25/2008, -8/+9It seems to me like the American mainstream media is not biased towards McCain, the problem is they want an election to come down to the wire, like its done on previous occasions, because that's the best way to get ratings in such a fiercely competitive atmosphere. Obama is clearly the superior canditate so the only way to create the appearence of a close election (the most interesting election) is to ignore McCain's blunders and to create or exagerate Obama's and to do all the stuff accused in posts like this one.
    How boring would it be if Obama was the clear winner for 3 whole months?
    • xcspyder, on 07/25/2008, -3/+3wow you actually believe the article. amazing
    • elshizzo, on 07/25/2008, -3/+2Feargus, you are exactly right.

      Whenever people say that the mainstream media is biased to the right or biased to the left, it pisses me off.

      No, the media is biased in that they will do whatever it takes to maximize viewers. In the case of presidential elections, they consistently help the underdog, because a close election brings them a lot more viewers than one that is a blowout.

      For instance, when Hillary was beating Obama, they were showing Obama in a positive light. Then when Obama started beating Hillary, it switched. Then when Hillary took back the lead, the media switched again. ETC...
  • Arkons24, on 07/25/2008, -18/+20Trash. Buried as Obamaganda. You all need to wake up.
    • kinerry, on 07/25/2008, -9/+5Actually, you need to wake up

      Stalemate sucka!
    • kingUssop, on 07/25/2008, -6/+7Wake up, by using right wing slam phrases right? Yeah, cool, I could spend the rest of my life tuning in to Rush to find out what I'm supposed to be saying the next day.
      • Arkons24, on 07/25/2008, -2/+3Obamaganda came from my head alone. If Rush wants to copy me then more power to him.

        I don't particularly like him but whatever keeps Obama from turning the USA into the USSA is fine by me.
    • dustinadamsmith, on 07/25/2008, -3/+5How about this.....any of you that pay attention to what any of these ***** say, needs to "wake the ***** up". Yeah.
  • CloakandSwagger, on 07/25/2008, -2/+5All one needs to do is observe the ownership of the mainstream media outlets.
    Based on those relationships and their choice of cotton candy programming and diversionary news stories, you should quickly be able to determine if those owners and their pets are loyal to the people or to their profits.
    Hopefully, that isn't too much to ask Americans to think about, and not forget.

    • anonysumo, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0Also consider how deregulation has caused the number of big-media companies to dwindle to a handful, the homogeneity of news judgment among them, and how these might skew the terms of discourse in ways that lend themselves to contention in terms of black-or-white, us-vs.-them thinking.

      Many news outlets seem to make a facade of objectivity, while yet subtly (or not) cheerleading all the way in favor of the status quo.
  • str3ama, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2The news is just like a television show, they only show what the audience will find entertaining or thrilling, hence why it's all the more important to maximize the carnage shown, vilify the suspected criminals, and titillate the audience with sex and violence. And yet the news is able to pass without much criticism, while other mediums like video games and movies take a lot of heat for what they show. The news is given a blank slate in terms of what they can't show - they can pervert and dumb down large complicated issues in to a black and white, good and evil. I'm not even going to start on those "Action News"..
  • kraetos, on 07/25/2008, -5/+10The MSM has been lacking in journalistic integrity when it comes to ANYTHING for years now. This is non-news.
  • radicaldementia, on 07/25/2008, -9/+34You have got to be kidding me. The fact that this article is coming from the huffington post is the epitome of hypocrisy. I'm no fan of McCain, but I am so sick and tired of sites like this that do nothing except post ridiculously biased articles, and then have the audacity to call out other media outlets on their journalistic integrity.
    • beahmad, on 07/25/2008, -3/+7A digg in response to this wasn't enough so I wanted to give you textual support. ***** yes, well put.
    • jayfish, on 07/25/2008, -7/+2***** yes, well put. ...wait a minute. The last time I checked, HP wasn't pushing itself as a news site. Maybe your confused over the difference between a web based blog which a person needs to actively seek and network "news" program that is passively received on your TV set.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/25/2008, -3/+5So it's spam, then.
      • jayfish, on 07/25/2008, -3/+2@vexingmodstwovexingmodstwo

        If you consider blogs to be spam then I guess so.
    • Aikidi, on 07/25/2008, -4/+2Yeah. See, i agree that its stupid for someone like HP to get uppity about this considering their bias, HOWEVER, HP is not a national news outlet, and furthermore the people that read it don't take it seriously because they're insane.

      CNN and the like should probably equally report both candidates blunders, and you know that they are indeed trying to avoid being decried as liberal media. Not because they have souls, but because Bill O'Reilley and the like (conservative shouters) have the highest ratings in cable "news" out there. Clearly the money is in the conservative market.
  • h3smith, on 07/25/2008, -12/+11Agreed, they need to stop leg humping Obama as Jesus 2.0.
  • Bannedx5, on 07/25/2008, -13/+26Huffpost spam. Autoburied.
  • duckyinc, on 07/25/2008, -7/+13"Can you feel the wanting-Obama-to-win love radiating off your computer screen?"
    Yes and it's a bit hypocritical to say from the huffingtonpost.
  • sultanica, on 07/25/2008, -5/+2whichever of them that wins will make no difference and yes everyone will be disappointed and say "next president will be better". Well guess what, you've been saying that since JFK was killed and has it changed? The only thing that has changed is that they've revoked rights and imposed restrictions on your freedoms. The presidents are just puppets, don't ever forget that.
  • thegreenspanput, on 07/25/2008, -13/+8I feel all smug knowing that I never fell for the Obama BS. Wake up you dopes.
    • tufftugg, on 07/25/2008, -3/+3 But you fell for the Bush B.S..
      • thegreenspanput, on 07/25/2008, -4/+0no I didn't. I say get rid of the executive branch.
  • wright3279, on 07/25/2008, -7/+24digg is turning into the Huffington Post. One article after another!
  • beahmad, on 07/25/2008, -5/+5"...the notion of fairness in journalism has been guided by a miscalculated rule that in order to report good news about a liberal or a liberal success, news reporting has to be counterbalanced either with unearned praise for conservatives or trumped up and parroted negative news about the aforementioned liberal or liberal success."

    Jesus Christ, can the author get any more close-minded? The intro paragraph paraphrases into "when I agree with what's being reported it's 'good news' and when I do not agree with what's being reported it's 'unearned praise'." It's like liberals are starting to get more and more close-minded to compete with the conservatives who have always been that way. I thought one of the left's functions was supposed to be there to PROTECT our two-party system from dogmatism and bigotry, not promote it.
  • Thrilltone, on 07/25/2008, -3/+7I am as anti-McCain as anyone but there is no doubt that the MSM is covering up the story about John Edwards and his mistress and love child
    http://www.slate.com/id/2195914
  • pnunn, on 07/25/2008, -4/+5An article seconding what anyone who isn't a puppet already knew...

    But we can still count on everyone angered with no real defense to "autobury" it for being from Huffington and act as though the interest taken in the story is caused by some internet conspiracy bots or some other nonsense!

    Way to go guys- seriously, it doesn't make you look like you can't defend yourself against ANYTHING.

    Autobury- there's a term that makes you look like you are REALLY into informing yourself....

    I await your predictable replies with baited breath, autoburiers!
    • OrigamiRonin, on 07/25/2008, -1/+4Don't hold your breath. I doubt you will get many replies, much less coherent ones, from people who are so proud of calling attention to their own ignorance.
      • pnunn, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3Excellent point. I probably ran off some by inviting it...

        Seems so strange from a group of people that are always so eager to charge into battles they can't win!
    • eh123, on 07/26/2008, -3/+0It's "bated" not "baited" ignorant fool.
  • whiterice0, on 07/25/2008, -4/+8No kidding. The most recent poll shows the media is totally liberally biased toward Obama.
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11912.ht ...
    • Aikidi, on 07/25/2008, -2/+3did you see the outcome of the last two elections? i wouldnt count on a random sampling of american voters for anything.
    • OrigamiRonin, on 07/25/2008, -2/+3Incorrect.

      The poll indicates that people *perceive* coverage to be biased. This does not prove it to be biased. Two different things.
    • FairDinkumMate, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2Comprehension not your strong point Whiterice?

      The VERY FIRST sentence in the article is:

      "Half of Americans THINK the press is trying to help Sen. Barack Obama win the presidential election, according to a new poll by Rasmussen Reports."

      About the same percentage believe in the creationism but that doesn't make it a FACT.
  • xcspyder, on 07/25/2008, -7/+2I feel sorry for the people who will read that and say "you know what, their right".
    • pnunn, on 07/25/2008, -2/+3Why? Because they used "their" instead of the contraction "they're" (the one meaning "they are" and not "belonging to they.") Yeah, I feel sorry for anyone who didn't grasp that one too...
  • hydrodev, on 07/25/2008, -10/+4News Flash: All of Humanity lacks integrity.
  • anubis2night, on 07/25/2008, -1/+7I never watch t.v and last night I turned the channels around to see what was on, my god, the dreck that they put out there and call entertainment, it's little wonder I've stopped watching. And yet the same thing goes for news today. If you were to ask the newsmen from 40 years ago to come in and participate in todays reporting I think they'd leave in disgust. There is no honor in news. Worse there is no journalism. What we are seeing is one person writing up a news story and sending it off to Associated press, then because the news media is hungry for it's next fix of late breaking news and opinions, they take the article and re-imagine it to use as their own, often times keeping the most powerful words and ideas as a framework. As such you start to hear the same phrases over and over again. You'll also note that when a mistake is made by the original article it often times get rehashed over and over again, and in many cases becomes snowballed and out of context. If the news was only run by journalist then it might not happen but our news media much like other major conglomerations is run by shareholders and now men who make decisions on the whim of what makes them the most profit today and tomorrow be damned. Our country and it's industries are a shadow of what they once were due to this mentality and I fear it will only get worse.
  • SpartanErik, on 07/25/2008, -4/+19Anyone care to assist HuffPo in pointing out their own sensationalist titles?

    "Seems all we get these days is a whole lot of nonsense and I dont think the American people are buying it."
    Yeah, yet this stuff STILL manages to get onto Digg.
  • dustinadamsmith, on 07/25/2008, -4/+7Wow! I never would have figured that we couldn't trust the "mainstream media" that happens to be owned by all of the people with the ***** money. Who would have thought, right?
  • fleischner, on 07/25/2008, -7/+9This is just getting ridiculous now. The favoritism of the MSM for all things Obama is irritating enough, but to now actually write pieces about the opposite being true is beyond belief.
  • itstodd, on 07/25/2008, -6/+13gee, no *****.Huffington post knows from experience.
  • BOFH2, on 07/25/2008, -2/+2My question is this: Has this been going on for the last 25 years? Think about it, people were semi-isolated and were really unable to check facts until the internet became more mainstream. We now have personal accounts on the internet, video and people who can spot fake pictures(especially digg users :) ).
  • hydrogenbomb, on 07/25/2008, -8/+0Look who owns the news. NBC Universal/ General Electric/ CBS Westinghouse / ABC Disney / News Corp, Murdock, Fox news/ Wall street journal/ Weekly Standard (Published from the same building as the American Enterprise institute.

    They have total control over all american media. All pro-zionist and anti-arab. All for profit, all corporate board controlled, and mostly jewish owned and operated. One ethnic group, about 7 men total, own or operate all american media, including national newspapers, movies, cable news and programming, TV news and programming, national magazines, and even music. All jewish, all the time. When's the last time you heard any anti-Israel anything.

    Welcome to USrael. One nation under the star of David. Neocon zionist central.

    It is WORSE than the soviet press back in the day.
    • Aikidi, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2its just not an article about MSM without an anti-semite in the bunch. kudos
    • FairDinkumMate, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Murdoch may be a lot of things but he's certainly not Jewish(not that there's anything wrong with that!)
  • downneck, on 07/25/2008, -4/+7in other news: trees are made of wood
  • wwwonka, on 07/25/2008, -2/+7BINGO....
    sensationalism..FEAR FEAR FEAR! Hype..over-react, make something out of nothing. The media is a lost cause these days. Hell, just today our "premiere" TV Channel here in Milwaukee (WTMJ) announced that they are adding an EXTRA hour of coverage to their 5pm news cast...that is 3pm-5pm to hype it, then 5:30pm-6pm to recap it. Know what that means? More weather and Brett Favre news. Lame.
  • iamnotrich, on 07/25/2008, -4/+12haha coming from the huffpo..
  • GeauxLSU, on 07/25/2008, -6/+13If Huffpost really cared, they would do their part and shut down!
  • hydrogenbomb, on 07/25/2008, -5/+0American media, all for profit, all corporate board controlled, and mostly jewish owned and operated. One ethnic group, about 7 men total, own or operate all american media, including national newspapers, movies, cable news and programming, TV news and programming, national magazines, and even music. All jewish, all the time. When's the last time you heard any anti-Israel anything.
  • funkymoose, on 07/25/2008, -5/+9Yeah. I stopped reading when they kept using the word "McBush". ***** hypocritical bastards.
  • muckemuck, on 07/25/2008, -3/+3Geeez.. when are you all going to realize you're being played by the media. They'll boost up McCain for a few days while he's having a Bar-B-Que.. then it's Obama's turn.. then McCain.. the media focuses just enough attention on each candidate to keep them polling close. The real question though is why does the media do this when 44% of the people in the US (according to Zogby poll released yesterday) think the US is too far gone for the two parties to fix. If the media wasn't just sucking up to the two party duopoly then they'd give some coverage to third party candidates. Go here: http://digg.com/elections/ and you'll see there are more than two people running for President.

    We still have three full months before the election so there is still plenty of time for the media to give equal time to ALL of the candidates.... or.. we can continue to hear from the same two candidates just to make sure that the voters know that they are the only two choices and know that it's a "close race" so they should not "waste their vote".
  • rdizzle, on 07/25/2008, -5/+15This is just as accurately written as "Huffington Post lacking in journalistic integrity" They are so pro-Obama, it's not even a question anymore that they prefer Obama over journalistic integrity.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.