I’m going to ask you to do something very difficult and put your opinions of the candidates away for a moment and look at this election from another angle. I think I've got it figured out now, it's not pretty, and I hope I’m wrong.
When the network and cable news see either one or the other candidate gaining a sizable lead, they seem to concentrate on the underdog until his poll numbers are as close to equal with his opponent's.
It’s obvious (to me anyway) that news organizations need viewer numbers; ad revenue, it's the name of the game. After all, who's going to watch every developing news flash if McCain or Obama were so far ahead, that the election was a foregone conclusion? I’m beginning to suspect that the heads of those news and print media organizations go out of their way to do everything possible in the tone of their reporting to make sure the candidates are as "separated at birth" as they possibly can get them. That means right up to the day of the election the TV and print media absolutely need as much suspense as they can create. It sells magazines and newspapers, and awards top ratings that add up to big ad revenue bucks.
Last year Senator Hillary Clinton had what for all intents and purposes was a lock on the Democratic nomination. She even had more votes than Obama, so by how much and how did she lose the nomination? Was it only my perception that the news media suddenly hung on every word out of Sen. Obama’s mouth to the point of practically ignoring her… and McCain for that matter?
Last year, it looked like Rudy Giuliani had a lock on the Republican nomination, but what happened-the press concentrated on every fault or scandal in his history, to give the other candidates-mainly McCain-a chance to catch up to him... by the way McCain was nearly dead in the water a year ago, but suddenly he’s the “comeback kid.”
If I’m right, it might explain why suddenly this country has a lot of razor-sharp margins in the Senate, the House and the last two presidential races, (to the point that the Supreme Court had to decide the 2000 presidential election,) and why the current one is so close when it didn’t used be perceived that way.
Obama needed Clinton in the Vice President slot to energize his chances of winning. McCain need Giuliani for the same reason, but look who they picked for running mates instead? I'm an undecided democrat. I really don't like Obama for the reasons I’ve stated in an another article, and I can't stand Governor Sarah “Church Lady” Palin-I cringe every time I think of her probably becoming president two years after the election and I wonder if she was separated from birth from Karen Walker of “Will and Grace”.
Of one thing I'm absolutely sure... and I hate it.
I'll be voting against someone, instead of for someone this year... damnit
When the network and cable news see either one or the other candidate gaining a sizable lead, they seem to concentrate on the underdog until his poll numbers are as close to equal with his opponent's.
It’s obvious (to me anyway) that news organizations need viewer numbers; ad revenue, it's the name of the game. After all, who's going to watch every developing news flash if McCain or Obama were so far ahead, that the election was a foregone conclusion? I’m beginning to suspect that the heads of those news and print media organizations go out of their way to do everything possible in the tone of their reporting to make sure the candidates are as "separated at birth" as they possibly can get them. That means right up to the day of the election the TV and print media absolutely need as much suspense as they can create. It sells magazines and newspapers, and awards top ratings that add up to big ad revenue bucks.
Last year Senator Hillary Clinton had what for all intents and purposes was a lock on the Democratic nomination. She even had more votes than Obama, so by how much and how did she lose the nomination? Was it only my perception that the news media suddenly hung on every word out of Sen. Obama’s mouth to the point of practically ignoring her… and McCain for that matter?Last year, it looked like Rudy Giuliani had a lock on the Republican nomination, but what happened-the press concentrated on every fault or scandal in his history, to give the other candidates-mainly McCain-a chance to catch up to him... by the way McCain was nearly dead in the water a year ago, but suddenly he’s the “comeback kid.”
If I’m right, it might explain why suddenly this country has a lot of razor-sharp margins in the Senate, the House and the last two presidential races, (to the point that the Supreme Court had to decide the 2000 presidential election,) and why the current one is so close when it didn’t used be perceived that way.
Obama needed Clinton in the Vice President slot to energize his chances of winning. McCain need Giuliani for the same reason, but look who they picked for running mates instead? I'm an undecided democrat. I really don't like Obama for the reasons I’ve stated in an another article, and I can't stand Governor Sarah “Church Lady” Palin-I cringe every time I think of her probably becoming president two years after the election and I wonder if she was separated from birth from Karen Walker of “Will and Grace”.
Of one thing I'm absolutely sure... and I hate it.
I'll be voting against someone, instead of for someone this year... damnit
without the author's permission
© 2008 by Jet in Columbus
0 comments:
Post a Comment