« Live-Blogging the Last Debate | Main | What Kind of Mormon Are You? »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

wow. if the secret service didn't hear it, that is proof positive that nobody said it.

case closed.

While there is a slight anti-Republican bias I think the bigger problem is that the press wants to go sensational. The issue is that they don't care about an honest contextual presentation of important facts rather they recognize the importance of interesting stories. Given the decline and probable collapse of newspapers this is hardly surprising. (Their main revenue stream - classifieds - has been upseated by the Internet)

Expect things to get far worse before they get better. It'll get better only once the transition with the new media is over. And realistically that transition is just getting started. (Movies and TV is just now where music was when Napster came out)

Now I'm SURE you're voting for McCain.

Ronan, I'm voting for America.


The news media loses further credibility every time I listen. It seems so crooked and bigoted.

Instead of the pretense that every news source is the gospel truth, so help me God, I wish the media sources could identify their own bias ahead of time. A simple label would do. So, NYTimes stories could be prefaced, "flaming liberal slant". It would save a great deal of time to understand this from the beginning.


objective media: those who agree with me.

liberal media: those who disagree with me.


these people must have all been fabricated by the media too.

You're just a broken record, narrator. Here's another commentary on the false media report phenomenon: "Report of bloodthirsty McCain-Palin supporters are mostly exaggerated or simply false. During the debate, Obama quoted these false reports as fact in his rejoinders to McCains accurate comments on Obama's associations with Ayers the unrepentant domestic terrorist. He's great with speeches, it's just facts he has a problem with.

Great system -- the press makes stuff up; Obama relies on it in a national debate to rebuff accurate comments by McCain; impressionable independent voters believe Obama (after all, if he was wrong on the facts, wouldn't TV or the newspaper point it out?) and he gets elected. Maybe the word for this is "truthiness."

Granted, we expect a fair share of truthiness during national elections, but from candidates, not the media.


did you watch the video in the link? Are you saying that all those people in the videos are actors? Are you saying that those people are fabrications of the 'liberal media'?

I see...

"broken record" = things repeated that you disagree with

"Dave's super awesome world of objective truth" = things you repeat


nobody is shouting "kill him," but I'm guessing this people here were all fabricated by the 'liberal media' as well.

even worse... these people were fabricated by the terrorist liberal media al jazeera. so i guess you can dismiss it as well.

I think we're talking in circles, narrator. If you've got something new to add, fine.

I did. I added two video clips of mccain and palin supporters shouting threats, accusing him of being a terrorist, and explicitly being racist and xenophobic. Did you watch them? Or did you pre-emptively toss them aside as being fabrications of the 'liberal media'?

And I might add that your whole blog post was fallacious. All the article says is that the secret service did not specifically hear someone shout the line "kill him." They do not claim that it was not said. Your absurd conclusion that this means the "Reporter apparently spreading false reports of Obama threats" is foolish.

And your citing the National Review while trying to accuse other presses of possessing a liberal bias is hypocritical to say the least.

Narrator, you don't have to agree with me and comments are what that is for, but when you call the entire post fallacious and call me a hypocrite, you've worn out your welcome. Go insult someone else.

Are we really supposed to believe that some political rallies are different than others? It sounds like a lot of nonsense. Even the mobs would not be so easy to manipulate. Or perhaps the reports are supposed to imply that some groups are more violent than others, because of who they favor for politicians. Or I don't know what we are meant to conclude from the articles. Are we supposed to think that it is part of campaign strategy to whip the rally into a violent frenzy? Of course the other camp behaves itself. They get a gold star for behaving like angels. How silly the whole thing has become.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Now Reading

General Books 09-12

General Books 06-08

General Books 04-05

About This Site

Mormon Books 2015-16

Mormon Books 2013-14

Science Books

Bible Books

Mormon Books 2012

Mormon Books 2009-11

Mormon Books 2008

Mormon Books 2007

Mormon Books 2006

Mormon Books 2005

Religion Books 09-12

Religion Books 2008

Religion Books 2004-07

DMI on Facebook

Blog powered by Typepad