FACT: In the Modern world. You dont choose the leaders, the media does.
 

Its not even there to debate and discuss.

Its a FACT.

thread closed.

/

ahh a few slight annoyomilies in my statement.

** China doesnt count. then again its debatable as to wether its 1st word or not.

The media doesnt choose leaders, thats a fact.

end of

dicsussion

How the media portrays a candidate is everything. The public believes what it wants to hear and the media plays to that.

The fucking polls also change minds because some naturally want to associate with a winner.

In communist Russia, the TV watches you!

Which media? FOX, CNN, Time Magazine, Wall Street Journal? Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh?

Who have "the media" chosen to win in 2008?

In America, you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia, Party finds you!

I smoke crack rocks.

ScottyBuzz,I knew that and Im only 20.

I was the only one in the office who said Bush would get in again and based it on media as I dont have any idea of politics,everyone laughed at the time but well its seems I laughed longest :thumbsup

I have to agree,

Mass Media are the biggest thing of the 20 th century, the amount of people you are able to reach with any bullshit is incredible.

Majority of people BELIEVE in TV and media because it's EASY and they are a part of the WATCHING MAJORITY and have things to talk about with their peers.

Also, a lie repeated 100 times becomes a truth (as the catholic church spreaded for hundreds of years..)

The first thing you need to do to keep power is to control the TV and media, Berlusconi / Chavez / Bush - very clear examples..

Are the Clintons losing their grip on the media? Let's hope so.

Not necessarily true. Our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, won an election despite most of the media being against him for years.

The New Media (blogs) is making it more and more difficult for the Old Media (newspapers, tv) to carry on as they always have. There is a reason why newspaper subscriptions and tv viewership are plummeting.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

It's not that the media chooses who wins. It's more of an indirect controlling of the process in the name of increasing ad revenues.

The success of Obama creates so many more story options than Hillary right now. Everybody knows Hillary, so unless she does something unusual she is just dead air to the news.

On the Republican side Giuliani has failed to give the media anything they haven't been airing since 9/11. Giuliani currently amounts to infotainment reruns, so they would rather not put him on TV at all. Romney ended up being too clean and a stiff that provided no good soundbytes so they just recently turned to Huckabee for that.

Both Obama and Huckabee owe their recent success to Hillary and Romney being too clean and predictable in their campaigning. There is just enough controversy and mysteriousness in Obama and Huckabee for the media to primarily cover them over the others right now. But the flavor of the month changes....

Easy solution...is to watch C-Span. They shoiw the speeches...debates...etc. raw and with very little comment (if any) and very little bias (if any). Mainstream media does have talking heads (that are often confused with being news commentators) and built in bias.

I personally spend around 80 or 90 percent of my time watching C-Span. I watch all of the important House and Senate debates as well as the committee hearings that I find to be of interest to me. In the mornings they read the headlines of multiple news papers (big and small) across the nation and have a call in period to discuss the headlines.

You also can monitor the C-Span channels via the internet either via live streaming video or check the archives. I find C-Span to be the most unfiltered and least biased source of news that is available.

i could use your exact same arguments and defend the opposite idea... "that people decide what they want to see and the media gives it to them"

and yet you still are an unhinged lunatic, ultra-nationalist, neo conservative, one sided, moron that everyone thinks is a buffoon... a point which you strongly defend with brilliant arguments to the contrary like "reminder, gfy is full of retards"

you don't watch anything for "information", you watch for "affirmation"

The media sucked Obamma' dick after he won Iowa. Ok he got 16 delgates Edwards got 15 Hillary 14. You need 2100 to get the nomination and yet the media potrayed his victory as some sort of landslide. Not to mention that 62% of Iowans that particiapted in the democratic caucus DID NOT vote for the "winner". I'm not sure how you can brag about "winning" something you didn't even come close to getting 50% of the votes on. Yeah 2/3 of the voters still hated you. You go.

If he wins NH ,another nothing state it'll be worse. Actually if you count super delegates Hillary has a 100 delegate lead on Obama as we speak.

Utter pigshit...wrong on every point...but feel free to think whatever you care to think sport...frankly Scarlette...I don't give a damn.

but Pathfinder, you do care.. thats what makes it funny. you care enough to tell everyone how stupid they are and how patriotic you are. its all very disturbing... yet amusing at the same time. you are Timothy McVeigh/Unibomber looney and scary... but many of us just can't look away.

The English prime minister wouldn't win through the media. He's a grumpy cunt, but that's why I like him.

He's a fucking wanker, he would of never been prime minister if there was an election, i can garruntee you that. He is a compulsive liar.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup

the men in grey suits choose, they are the front runners really
congratulations, but age is no condolence. I am only 19. so I am younger and guessed first :1orglaugh
no you retard. you have obviously missed the point of what i was saying.
well that may be more proof to my theory., may be why he didnt go through with the snap election.

did I say theory? I meant fact, of course i did. FACT

common knowledge now forever preserved in a sql database.

ummm yeah... explain GW then ok. The media hated him and it is very hard to find anyone who voted for him but guess what.

But guess what the Israel lobby that controls America decided he would be the best prez to serve the intrests of them so he got picked. :error

These people control the media and the elections

http://www.aipac.org/

Media doesn't control politics....Corperate Industry does....They own media
and use it to control politics.

Them too but then again their members ARE corperate industry for the most part

true that.

aka - men in grey coats.

look at what server genius has to say about it.

And Bank Pyamas aka suits:1orglaugh

So your "fact" was wrong? Who would have thought it.

:winkwink:

Seriously as has been pointed out, no one can even agree on what the "media" is. Whenever you think the US system is really fucked up just take a look at almost any other system.

Wow you rock. A random pick would be right 50% of the time and incuments are actually much higher then that so lets see in picking one presidential race you went with the odds on favorite and you were right.... Wow!!!

:winkwink:

Right. After.

Media influences the public which influences the media and so on. It's reflexive. Rush Limbaugh, I am guessing, isn't doing anything to help Hillary. He is part of the media. Air America isn't doing anything to help Huckabee. They are part of the media.

So what you have is many diverse media sources with many different voices and opinions - all of whom both ARE the public, are influenced by the public and influence the public.

It's not like there is collusion. It is not like Sean Hannity gets together with al Franken and they choose which candidate to push. In fact i am sure Franken thinks Hannity "is a big fat idiot".

If Obama makes a big mistake the media will be all over him. So they haven't chosen Obama. Obama's campaign is a story because of well, Obama.

Saying the media MAGNIFIES stories is completely different than saying it CHOOSES our leaders. The story has to exist in some way in the first place. The best campaigns and candidates make that happen.

And the media in turn is controlled by a massive network of secret societies known by some as the illuminati.

Yes, it's a fact! That people just follow to what media brings out to them! Soo sad and disappointing! :disgust

Aren't they all, and Cameron is such a public school fool he'd jump about doing whatever the polls of the day told him to, at least Brown is always a cunt, hehe.

Everyone but you, of course. Right? ;-) ;-)

why do some of you both living such hopeless, grim and depressing lives? lives controlled by evil men, by massive government conspiracies... by governments who seek only to subdue you so they can pursue hidden agendas.... why bother living in a world full of stupid, brainwashed "sheep" being led to the slaughter.

seriously.... why bother? why not just end it? is it American Idol that keeps you around? Yo MTV Raps!? stuffed crust pizza?

i don't get it. if i had the dismal and depressing outlook of some of you, i wouldn't hesitate to off myself. it would only make sense.

Are we talking Democracy here?

Regardless this is a blatant fallacy. Even in a Democracy.

People feel disenfranchised because there are so many people out there who think that they do not matter, that their voice is not heard. People like this tend to not even vote because they think it won't make a difference. Just because the US has had a bad leader for the past few years is not evidence that the popular media dictates who will win elections. There are many other factors at play and to disregard this is to admit you do not understand the process in my opinion.

Yep lol Cameron seems more human than brown but i still don't like him.