Comments on: Washington Post Admits Bias for Obama (Updated)

By: dl652

dl652 — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 03:05:26 +0000

Just another case of “Oops, my bad.” by the Post.

They are following the same plan as two years ago when they repeatedly savaged George Allen with scores of macaca stories and helped propel that cypher Jim Webb into the Senate. At that time, Janet Howell admitted that perhaps the Post had gone a bit overboard on the macaca stories — after it was too late to matter. I cancelled by weekday subscription at that time.

After this election I cancelled by my Sunday subscription. I refuse to give these dishonet shills one red cent more. Perhaps they will be bankrupt by the next presidential election.

By: Tony

Tony — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:29:32 +0000

Give it up Sheppard. The only liar here was Obama and the media that permitted his skeletons to be hid from the public. You can’t tell me anyone that sits in a church for 20 years and listens to a preacher teach hate and that the “White man is the devil” as his reverend did, you can’t honestly sit there and tell me he didn’t know it was going on all this time and that he wasn’t there for a reason. Reason was he agreed with it! Flat out! You don’t patronize an establishment for that long and have no vested interest. He has many other shady associations and NO ONE investigated it and don’t even get me started about the LA Times! Who Pays Hundreds of thousands of dollars for a story they CANT PUBLISH?!!! When you want to be honest, you let us know! Until then, keep your fairy tales to yourself because anyone that is capable of independent thought, knows what happened here and the only camp that brought up racism and race is the Obama camp! I am so sick of hearing that “if you didn’t vote for Obama, you must be a racist”. Fact is, McCain is NOT Bush and McCain should have been president 8 years ago and McCain is a leader that would have ruled in the center and got things done and the only racism that existed in this election was by Democrats & Acorn (which is a fraud itself and how Obama is permitted to use them and their fraudulent tactics to register false voters). How many black people voted for Obama just because he was black and haven’t a clue about issues? Racism works both ways. Racism got him elected. Racism and dumb white people that think they owe blacks something for stuff that happened before they were even born! Enough already with the racism baloney because if this election proved anything, it is that there are more blacks that are racists than whites. Blacks thought Sarah Palin was Obama’s running mate when asked often. That tells you all you need to know about why they voted! Preach your fairy tales elsewhere. People with intelligence know what happened here no matter what side your on yet you spin it like the media. Tag lines and talking points. Get real!

By: sa sheppard

sa sheppard — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:11:50 +0000

I’m not surprised that so much is being said about Mr. Obama, about who reported what and in what vein. What surprises me is that not more dis-graceful, malicious, out right lies weren’t printed. After all, isn’tthat the way?

By: Cris Cohen

Cris Cohen — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:20:28 +0000

In terms of breaking news, that ranks right up there with “The sun is hot” and “Rainfall linked to wetness”.

By: Virginia Atkinson

Virginia Atkinson — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 09:42:27 +0000

It’s nothing new that some news networks were so one-sided on election day, especially CNN. why is CNN kissing up to obama so much? Got something going there?

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 05:52:39 +0000

MSNBC and their cohorts is nothing more than a Democratic Party Pep-Rally daily. Turn the channel and stay away from any NBC affiliations.
Want proof how biased coverage really was in favor of Obama? Read this article by journalism.org who are they? They are THE Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Here is the proof.
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436
Check out MSNBC and their 73% negative coverage of McCain, dwarfing every other broadcast news channel and I didn’t need this study to tell me that, but it is here for all the defenders of this irresponsible media to see for yourselves.
A study that is completely non-biased.
So chew on that.

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 05:37:49 +0000

“Sure, we were biased for Obama but did you notice how well we anticipated public opinion”
What a JOKE! None of what the media did reporting the election coverage can even be remotely construed as real news. Palin and her clothes were the biggest story the last week which tells you all you need to know about the lack of responsibilty by the media in this coverage. They failed the citizens greatly. It was one big extention of the Democratic Party. Nothing impartial about it and to say they anticipated public opinion is a disgrace! They forged public opinion and for a man no one really knows much about because he sure didn’t get asked any tough questions and he wouldn’t interview the last 2 months. Everyone took him at his word and the media drank the kool-aid and handed him the job and a respected man, a man who gave his entire adult life to serving his country was shat on by the media in this abomnination of a media circus. I still will never ever watch NBC or anything that has to do with that company ever again as they may as well be headquarters for the next DNC. Biased much NBC? MSNBC is nothing more than a hate filled tirade towards conservatism and they are supposed to be against partisan politics? PLEASE! Fact all along was the media was in it to push their personal political agenda and news as we known it in the past is dead! This is a celebrity mentality in every facet of American life these days and the coverage of this election was proof positive of that.

By: Bleepless

Bleepless — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:19:50 +0000

“Oh, my God!” Slaps forehead. “I-I-I just learned that we have been unfair for the past year!” Wrings hands. “Whatever shall we do?”

By: daleyrocks

daleyrocks — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:10:08 +0000

Yoo Hoo snuffles

Caught making shit up as usual?

By: JVW

JVW — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:26:30 +0000

Here's a great story, related to this post because Newsweek and The Washington Post are part of the same newsgroup: Apparently the latest post-mortem of the McCain campaign passes along (anonymously, of course) the anecdote that Sarah Palin "refused to go onstage with New Hampshire GOP Sen. John Sununu and Jeb Bradley, a New Hampshire congressman running for the Senate, because they were pro-choice and because Bradley opposed drilling in Alaska." As pointed out by The Weekly Standard's blog, this story is probably bulls**t on a couple of levels: (1) Bradley wasn't running for Senate, he was trying to recapture his former House seat (but hey, why bother doing basic fact checking when there is Sarah Palin to smear?) and (2) John Sununu has a 100% voting record with right-to-life groups (but hey, why bother doing basic fact checking when there is Sarah Palin to smear?).