October Surprise

[krazy]

Fox News brought up an interesting idea today... The usual "October Surprise" seems to be coming from the liberal media this year... The X-amount of ammunitions, etc. Is this something that has happened before? Or are CNN/MSNBC/the nets going overboard with their liberal agenda? Anyone have a theory?

[AnchorAlum]

Originally posted by krazy
Fox News brought up an interesting idea today... The usual "October Surprise" seems to be coming from the liberal media this year... The X-amount of ammunitions, etc. Is this something that has happened before? Or are CNN/MSNBC/the nets going overboard with their liberal agenda? Anyone have a theory?

Uh, since 88% of the so-called mainstream press stated that they voted for Gore in 2000, I think they could safely be described as being very liberal. Left wing, actually.
This is the first time that a party, a newspaper, and a candidate have coalesced in order to effect an outcome. At least, in such a hands on way. They are focused and intent.
Evidence of that surrounds CBS, who should have been thoroughly discredited as a result of the bogus National Guard documents, is front and center again on the weapons at al Qaqqa ruse.

[hoosier]

In 2000, the weekend before voting, Gore and the media wing of the Democratic party popped a surprise - that Bush had a DUI some 30 years earlier.

That surprise made the race almost a tie.

There may be more and bigger surprises coming up.

The latest rumor, Osama will be captured about noon Mon. Bush can have an Oct. surprise too.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by AnchorAlum
Uh, since 88% of the so-called mainstream press stated that they voted for Gore in 2000, I think they could safely be described as being very liberal.

First, I saw the alleged numbers on that poll and find it highly questionable in terms of who was questioned, who responded, what percentage responsed and other methodology. And why would ANY member of the media, no matter which direction she/he leans admit to the public for whom they voted?

Second, even if a newsperson considers him/herself "liberal" or "conservative" most will try to find both sides of a story.

Third, Fox News is hardly an unbiased source. It's President ran the national campaign for Richard Nixon.

Fourth, according to Broadcasting and Cable magazine, the largest donor among Broadcasting executives to the Bush campaign was Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox. The second (tied with several others) highest donor was Robert Wright, President of NBC whos network updated the story recently. Neither donated anything to the Democrats.

Fifth, the folks who brought the alleged "facts" of when and where the ordnance was are members of an international agency. They had allegedly warned our military about the presence of the wepons. Crews that were "imbedded" with the Third Infantry and the 101st Airborne and could only go where the military took them seem to document that the stuff was still there when these two units first visited the compound.

The timing is certainly interesting, and maybe suspect, but go attack the people who brought the story to the media -- not the members of the media -- they're just the messengers.

But, I forgot that the tactic of every political party since the 1950's has been to attack and label the media. It's a hell of a lot easier than facing the truth sometimes.

[33girl]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Third, Fox News is hardly an unbiased source. Its President ran the national campaign for Richard Nixon.

Oh please!!!

Diane Sawyer was on the frigging PLANE with Nixon - she helped him write his memoirs - so are we to assume that every single piece she's done is skewed in favor of Republicans?

I'm not disagreeing that Fox favors the right, but believe it or not, sometimes people support the PERSON and not the PARTY. There are Nixon supporters out there who hated Reagan, and vice versa. Maybe some people hold their nose and vote for someone they detest because he's of their party, but there are LOTS of people who don't (thank God).

[honeychile]

Let's not forget that Diane Sawyer is invited to just about every Kennedy wedding, either. That would balance out a plane ride with Nixon, IMHO.



BTW, from the news I saw tonight, I'd say that the October surprise would be if Yassar Arafat lives to see the election. He certainly doesn't look on the healthy side...

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by 33girl
Diane Sawyer was on the frigging PLANE with Nixon - she helped him write his memoirs - so are we to assume that every single piece she's done is skewed in favor of Republicans?

Here's the difference.

Sawyer is a reporter and her reportage must pass muster with editors and news managers.

Roger Ailes is the President and thus FINAL decision maker for Fox.

[kappaloo]

Is your election over with yet? When it is - can y'all go back to being nicer to eachother?

I'm sick of hearing about evil Democrats/liberals and evil Republicans/conservatives and how if you vote for either your country is going to self combust - and I don't even live in your country.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by kappaloo
I'm sick of hearing about evil Democrats/liberals and evil Republicans/conservatives and how if you vote for either your country is going to self combust - and I don't even live in your country.

Then don't read these threads.

Personally, I think our campaign system has become really perverted in this election, and I'm not happy with all of the name calling and half truths either, but that's our problem to deal with.

I'm pleased that our neighbors to the North take an interest in our political process and am even happy to listen to any constructive criticism -- but, frankly, if you're "sick" of hearing about something -- don't listen.

This is our problem.

[kappaloo]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Then don't read these threads.

Personally, I think our campaign system has become really perverted in this election, and I'm not happy with all of the name calling and half truths either, but that's our problem to deal with.

I'm pleased that our neighbors to the North take an interest in our political process and am even happy to listen to any constructive criticism -- but, frankly, if you're "sick" of hearing about something -- don't listen.

This is our problem.

Oh, I'd love to ignore it... but the media up here is obsessed with y'all and I can't pick up a newspaper or watch tv without hearing about it.

Sorry, if that came off wrong. It's a pet peeve of mine (negative campaigning and stereotyping lib/con) on both sides of the border.

I'll leave y'all alone now.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by kappaloo
... but the media up here is obsessed with y'all..
...I'll leave y'all alone now.

You must be from the Southern part of Canada.

I know pretty much everyone is obsessed with this election and the process, and I'm embarassed by it this time around.

But it's still something we have to fix ourselves. If that's even possible.

[33girl]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Here's the difference.

Sawyer is a reporter and her reportage must pass muster with editors and news managers.

Roger Ailes is the President and thus FINAL decision maker for Fox.

You totally missed my point - maybe he campaigned for Nixon, but that doesn't automatically mean he'll love every Republican that comes down the pike. Not everyone votes on strict party lines.

I hate to quote Slick Willy, but at one point he said he was an Eisenhower Republican....and he was probably right.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by 33girl
You totally missed my point - maybe he campaigned for Nixon, but that doesn't automatically mean he'll love every Republican that comes down the pike. Not everyone votes on strict party lines.

He didn't just "campaign" for Nixon -- he RAN the entire campaign.

You have to know Ailes to understand how myopic he is about the Republican Party.

It's kind of interesting to me that Roger Ailes, Republican bulldog, and David Wilhelm, former chair of the entire Democratic Party in the US are both Ohio University graduates.

Talk about different.

[Rudey]

Why did you feel the need to bring up Fox? Did anyone say it was an unbiased source? No. Mainstream media was brought up and nobody said Fox wasn't a part of it.

It seems you just have a bias against Fox. I don't know the reason for it. You probably competed against their folks for whatever Network you served.

I do know that the only academic study comparing American networks for bias levels in several different categories found Fox to be the least biased network. While it is not unbiased, it is the least biased. You keep bringing up Fox's leadership which would be somewhat valid if the news proved to be incredibly biased. You don't bring up any other network's leadership...why? If the leaders of these orgs are correlated to the bias in the news then surely Fox would have the lowest correlation.

-Rudey

Originally posted by DeltAlum
First, I saw the alleged numbers on that poll and find it highly questionable in terms of who was questioned, who responded, what percentage responsed and other methodology. And why would ANY member of the media, no matter which direction she/he leans admit to the public for whom they voted?

Second, even if a newsperson considers him/herself "liberal" or "conservative" most will try to find both sides of a story.

Third, Fox News is hardly an unbiased source. It's President ran the national campaign for Richard Nixon.

Fourth, according to Broadcasting and Cable magazine, the largest donor among Broadcasting executives to the Bush campaign was Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox. The second (tied with several others) highest donor was Robert Wright, President of NBC whos network updated the story recently. Neither donated anything to the Democrats.

Fifth, the folks who brought the alleged "facts" of when and where the ordnance was are members of an international agency. They had allegedly warned our military about the presence of the wepons. Crews that were "imbedded" with the Third Infantry and the 101st Airborne and could only go where the military took them seem to document that the stuff was still there when these two units first visited the compound.

The timing is certainly interesting, and maybe suspect, but go attack the people who brought the story to the media -- not the members of the media -- they're just the messengers.

But, I forgot that the tactic of every political party since the 1950's has been to attack and label the media. It's a hell of a lot easier than facing the truth sometimes.

[33girl]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
He didn't just "campaign" for Nixon -- he RAN the entire campaign.

AGAIN, NOT MY POINT.

I have no idea who this guy is, nor do I care - just pointing out that everything on earth does not automatically run on party lines and you shouldn't assume that it does. If you had said "Fox's President is a major booster of the Republican party and gave them $45 million last year" that would be different. What someone did 30 years ago often has ZERO bearing on what they do now - witness the multitudes of hippies turned yuppies.