• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Already 17 Times More Coverage on Christie Scandal Than obama"s IRS scandal

rocket88 said:
Nobody really wants the truth in the IRS or Benghazi. If we actually knew the truth, it probably would be less of a big deal than they get to make it in an election year. In fact, we'd probably find out that the IRS scandal wasn't too far off from this.

The real point of this thread is that sawyer's butt-hurt because the media doesn't skew the way he wants it to.
Click to expand...

One can't control the media, so why worry about it. This is fresh news, IRS is old news. Well for the most part. What I don't like is the finally appointing of an Obama backer to dig for the truth. But doing things like this is nothing new either. This has been tried since Nixon, appoint a crony to an investigation and know the investigation will go nowhere.

But neither really bothers me. Neither will effect what I personal think of each. I have been around way too long and seen way too many shenanigans pulled by both sides. It just sticks in my crawl that the ones who crucify Obama for one thing will defend their guy to the max for their thing and vice versa. In politics it boils down to the R and the D. Not what's is right or wrong, the truth or a lie. Such is our politics.
 
Lets face it, Obama and his staff are simply leaps and bounds better at obfuscation, manipulation and deception to keep wrong doings under wraps than NJ. I mean, how can NJ compete? They've gotten rid of all the NY/NJ mob guys to teach them long ago.
 
Ockham said:
Lets face it, Obama and his staff are simply leaps and bounds better at obfuscation, manipulation and deception to keep wrong doings under wraps than NJ. I mean, how can NJ compete? They've gotten rid of all the NY/NJ mob guys to teach them long ago.
Click to expand...

Got any emails linking Obama to the IRS scandel?
 
And here you have the result of the liberal medias disproportionate coverage of Bridgegate.
Pollster John Zogby reports in our White House report card that President Obama got off light in the new book from his former Pentagon chief and that “Bridgegate” diverted attention away from the White House.

"The president had a better week than New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Even with the aggressive rollout of former Defense Secretary Robert Gates' new tell-all book, I think Obama was pretty much unscathed. He didn't believe in the Afghanistan surge? I happen to have been wide awake during that debate and it was widely reported then that the president was churlish about the success of a surge, agonized over the debate, and finally compromised with a more limited surge.
Click to expand...
Zogby Report Card: Obama benefits from Chris Christie's woes | WashingtonExaminer.com

Which, frankly, was likely the point of that disproportionate coverage after all.

Please tell me again how the media doesn't have a liberal bias. Really?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Well it seems that bridge scandals seem to outrank the disaster in west Virginia according to what gets more attention on this site.
Click to expand...

Yeah, how about that. I guess it all boils down to what sells or draws viewers. I hadn't noticed that. But when I watched the news today, you are right on. A little piece on West Virginia and a whole show on Christie and Bridgegate.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Got any emails linking Obama to the IRS scandel?
Click to expand...

Didn't you read how much better Obama is than NJ? I mean quoted it.... do you need me to explain it in more detail?
 
Oh look, newsbusters makes up more "stats" and sawyer buys it. Again.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
The bias in our media is reaching the point of absurdity and the network news has become a complete farce.


In less than 24 hours, the big three networks have devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they've allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama's Internal Revenue Service controversy. Since the story broke on Wednesday that aides to the New Jersey governor punished a local mayor's lack of endorsement with a massive traffic jam, ABC, CBS and NBC have responded with 34 minutes and 28 seconds of coverage. Since July 1, these same networks managed a scant two minutes and eight seconds for the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups.

Read more: There's Already 17 Times More Coverage on Christie Scandal Than in Last Six Months of IRS | NewsBusters
Click to expand...
A lot of the mainstream media is very liberal leaning. Fox News is an exception, it gives people a right leaning option. Chances are if you want the actual facts on certain issues, you go to MSNBC, or CNN for one side, Fox News for the other and somewhere in the middle is the truth.
 
Steve Ja said:
A lot of the mainstream media is very liberal leaning. Fox News is an exception, it gives people a right leaning option. Chances are if you want the actual facts on certain issues, you go to MSNBC, or CNN for one side, Fox News for the other and somewhere in the middle is the truth.
Click to expand...

Of course, Fox is also covering the crap out of this. I wonder how much of the "17 times" is Fox's coverage. When I looked the other day, this story was at the top of their website, and nary a mention of the IRS.

Those Liberals at Fox...:lamo
 
rocket88 said:
Please tell us again how this is the media's fault. Do you really think they should ignore it because it's a Republican?
Click to expand...

No, never said ignore it. Nor should they over play it, which is exactly what they are doing.

In 2 days the media has 17 times as much air time to this story when compared to 6 months of the IRS scandal.
Even you have to admit that this is very much out of proportion. But it's nothing new.
The media rarely will cover anything that makes Obama look bad.

1513310_680855941945963_1704337637_n.png
 
rocket88 said:
Of course, Fox is also covering the crap out of this. I wonder how much of the "17 times" is Fox's coverage. When I looked the other day, this story was at the top of their website, and nary a mention of the IRS.

Those Liberals at Fox...:lamo
Click to expand...
A lot of conservatives also consider Christie a RINO. I'm saying in general somewhere in the middle is the truth. I think the IRS scandal deserved more press and this incident which I believe had nothing to do with the Gov shouldn't be much more then a blip
 
rhinefire said:
As a staunch conservative I can't imagine these stooges sitting a room coming up with something as stupid as a traffic jam as a revenge tool. This is something a group of 10 year old boys would come up with. So one idiot voices this idea and others say yay that's great, that'll show them!!! WTF?! Now Christie says the buck stop with him and he is right, he is responsible for his people. What shocks me is how infantile this prank is. Is this the BEST tactic those professional adults can come up with? Why not put gum in the hair of their targets or put poop on the front door landing and light it on fire then ring the door bell? If Christie actually interacted with these people as part of his job and did not sense how stupid they are then he ought to step down and hand old Hillary the keys to the White House. Now who are we going to run against Old Ironsides, Peter Griffin, Homer Simpson, Bullwinkle?
Click to expand...

That is the main point that is the most depressing. Where in hell do they gets these morons.

To top things off they email about their little mission.

Two tips for politicians:
1. Emails live forever in internet space.
2. A microphone is like a gun, always consider a microphone to be ON.
 
eohrnberger said:
No, never said ignore it. Nor should they over play it, which is exactly what they are doing.

In 2 days the media has 17 times as much air time to this story when compared to 6 months of the IRS scandal.
Click to expand...

The last 6 months of the 8-month-old IRS scandal. It's not a valid comparison.
 
When I posted the OP I thought that this was such cut and dry bias that nobody could be stupid enough not to see it, apparently I was wrong. To paraphrase PT Barnum, there is a moron born every minute.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
When I posted the OP I thought that this was such cut and dry bias that nobody could be stupid enough not to see it, apparently I was wrong. To paraphrase PT Barnum, there is a moron born every minute.
Click to expand...

The article you linked is dishonest as all hell.

The article says there is more coverage of the Christie scandal than there has been of the IRS scandal for the last six months. Which may very well be true. However, the IRS scandal broke eight months ago (in May), not six. It's ignoring the two months when the "scandal" was front and center. It's simply not a valid comparison.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
When I posted the OP I thought that this was such cut and dry bias that nobody could be stupid enough not to see it, apparently I was wrong. To paraphrase PT Barnum, there is a moron born every minute.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who believes the narrative that the MRC is putting out there.

It's the new scandal, so it's getting more coverage. You just want to see everything through this prism of "Liberals are bad, and I'm being persecuted by them." While no doubt, you'd be happier if they ignored it, being a potential front runner to get the GOP's nomination rightly makes one the subject of scrutiny.

And even if they are doing it to "get the Republicans," that's the First Amendment. There never has been and most likely never will be an unbiased media. Expecting it to be different is just going to make you die before your time.
 
Kobie said:
The last 6 months of the 8-month-old IRS scandal. It's not a valid comparison.
Click to expand...

The comparison of coverage is, and definitely tells the story of a Biased Lame Stream Media at work.
 
eohrnberger said:
The comparison of coverage is, and definitely tells the story of a Biased Lame Stream Media at work.
Click to expand...

Comparing the first few days of coverage of one scandal to the sixth months that followed the first two months of a different scandal is valid?
 
Kobie said:
Comparing the first few days of coverage of one scandal to the sixth months that followed the first two months of a different scandal is valid?
Click to expand...


No. A more valid comparison would be the amount of news coverage of the two respective stories at the same time after the event became known.
 
Kobie said:
Comparing the first few days of coverage of one scandal to the sixth months that followed the first two months of a different scandal is valid?
Click to expand...

Only the first 2 days, and yet it's already a 17:1 ratio of time covering one and not the other.

You point out the first 2 months of the IRS scandal are not included. Fine.
I'll still wager that the time comparison stated still holds up, because I don't ever recall the IRS scandal getting much or as intense coverage as this scandal is getting, even in the first 2 months after it broke, especially in the Biased Lame Stream Media.
 
eohrnberger said:
Only the first 2 days, and yet it's already a 17:1 ratio of time covering one and not the other.

You point out the first 2 months of the IRS scandal are not included. Fine.
I'll still wager that the time comparison stated still holds up, because I don't ever recall the IRS scandal getting much or as intense coverage as this scandal is getting, even in the first 2 months after it broke, especially in the Biased Lame Stream Media.
Click to expand...

Okay.
 
Birdzeye said:
No. A more valid comparison would be the amount of news coverage of the two respective stories at the same time after the event became known.
Click to expand...

Which Newsbusters didn't bother with, likely because it doesn't fit Newsbusters' preferred narrative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom