Comments - Latest Popular Stories, Instablogs Community by Chartreuse

Pratyush

Pratyush — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

If you do expect balanced reporting from media in any part of the world including US, you have no sense. Media doesn’t believe in balanced analysis because it runs because of political personalities and industrialists’s indirect support. I am talking about media in any country. There are groups of media organisations with hidden loyalties to different pressure groups that decide policies of government. Media organisations-supporting Obama do write and show programs against Hillary and vice-versa. It is foolish to think why media is biased against anybody because it is their own job to stay in any power group. You can say that Hillary isn’t successfully manipulating biggies sitting in big media houses in US. If Hillary fills biggies’ mouths with funds and then see...you will raise question here tomorrow - ”is the us media bias against Obama?”

Ravinder Makhaik

Ravinder Makhaik — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

The losing side nearly always tends to shoot the messenger.

‘Blame in on the media’ is an easy way out.

Now that Hillary election campaign is faltering, it is but natural to hold media biases being responsible for it.

Losing 11 caucuses in a row could not be a media bias, especially after a reputed newspaper like New York Times endorsed Hillary as the democrat primary candidate.

After all, the media is not above board, it only reflects views of a society where it operates.

The Hillary campaign is a classic study on how to loose out the advantage one holds in a marathon campaign.

Early starters in long race find it difficult to hold onto the initial lead as the race intensifies, testing endurance and grit to come out a sure winner.

The Bill Clinton White House legacy has only given more ammunition for the media to scrutinize, dissect and judge the Clintons.

’Experience’ ’ready from day one’ from being touted as an asset has turned out to be the biggest liability for Hillary.

Bill Clinton blaming the media before the South Carolina caucus, only got the biases stronger, if there were any.

With the media you can’t run with the hare and hunt with the hound.

On the other hand, Obama is a freshman who has been able to find great support among younger democrats.

Surely there are a lot of young men and women out there in the media too, who have grown out the color divide that America has been struggling with for more than two centuries.

Biases or no biases, the game is decisively tilted in favor of Obama and Hillary will need more than a win at Texas and Ohio to catapult her back into the White House race.

Scott

Scott — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Somebody is charging anti-Hillary campaign due to gender biasness, somebody is charging anti-Hillary campaign due to media biasness, nobody is charging anti-Obama campaign for religion and race biasness. It happens always, there is nothing new and unique. it is part of US politics.

Eric

Eric — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

@ Pratyush- what you wrote here might be the USP of Indian media, it doesn’t happen in US. Media here is not biased against anyone.

Pratyush

Pratyush — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

@ Eric, I know it happens in India but if you are saying that it is not the USP of US media then you are taking opposite stand just against media of your own country. We here in India are saying what the US newspapers and broadcast media are writing and presenting to the whole world. Don’t justify odd things , this is global world and we have also the resources to know what is going on there in your country. We know it...

Yash

Yash — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Read here to know US media acting bias or not...

Scott

Scott — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

@ Eric- you are acting like a 4-yr kid who breaks his toy and repeatedly says he didn’t do it to save him from father’s anger. Don’t say US media is not bias because Americans would criticize before Indians.

Gerry

Gerry — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

What a lesson US would give to the world if the US elect a man whose name is Barack Hussien Obama.

Mili

Mili — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Yes, US media biased against Hillary and no one knows the exact reason of it.

Josh

Josh — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Yes, it is correct and i tell you the reason..because Obama is simply better person to lead the country than Clintons.

Josh

Josh — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Mili i wrote single reason here, I think it is enough for you. There are other reasons too..

Robert

Robert — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

You answered the question in a single sentence - “There are more negative stories about Hillary because there are more negative stories to tell.”

Heidi

Heidi — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Did you people watch CNN in past one week their biasness for Hillary is sickening.

Sean

Sean — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Are you Hillary’s fan? Hillary thinks half of Americans are idiots.

Carolina

Carolina — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I have heard the media is reporting about Hilary both positively and negatively. The same is happening with Barack too. I think I am hearing less negative about Obama because he is a poster child. He looks better.

Beesan

Beesan — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Larger part of US media is in the control of men and those men do not like a woman like Hillary who is strong in mind and determined at work.

Heidi

Heidi — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Obama is young, smart, charismatic, good public speaker and reasonably good looking. People began to notice him, so did the press.

Jay

Jay — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

So what? Do you have any problem?

Heidi

Heidi — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Hillary Clinton is a victim of media bias. It has been proved now.

Joel

Joel — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

News media was earlier praising Hillary everywhere but the trend changed all of a sudden. They realized the coming danger if she wins. Now, they are afraid of her. It all changed when she and her staffers threatened a reporter about what questions they can and can’t ask her. She openly showed her willingness to censor questions. She will behave like a dictator once he comes in power so media decided to favor Obama over Hillary.

Doug

Doug — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

NO I DONT THINK SO ITS ALL RUMORS.

Joey

Joey — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

She simply doesn’t deserve to become president of US because she has the surname Clinton and she is very arrogant woman.

Bradley

Bradley — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Yes, it is right and I suggest Obama also - ‘don’t trust media, they can’t be yours too.’

Mili

Mili — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I think first black president is more important than first woman president. So, I would vote for Obama.

Tita

Tita — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

In my opinion the media is biased against HRC mainly because she is less glamorous than Obama.

Chad

Chad — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

But ain’t the media doing its own job? Hillary has exposed her weaknesses and the inability to articulate matters when it mattered the most. No wonder why Obama looks such a smooth operator.

Jon

Jon — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Well, not really. The media isn’t actively biased against her. It’s only paying more attention to Obama then her. Hillary enjoyed tremendous media attention even before the race began. Now the shift in focus is stinging her and her die-hard supporters.

Alex

Alex — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Hillary is toast. Rumors are that she will call it quits if she loses Ohio or Texas. But then, you never know.

Jayanta Bhattacharya

Jayanta Bhattacharya — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

The other day you were saying the media asked an unfair question to Obama.

If you asked me, Jon is right.

Deborah

Deborah — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Samantha Bee in DS did a wonderful job last week. Did anyone watch it? If there is a YouTube video please post the link.

Jon

Jon — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Tita you are simply senseless for you Monica Lewinsky should be the next president. Isn’t it?

Prasad

Prasad — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Its interesting to see here ‘American battleground’.

Bradley

Bradley — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Hey Jonty you bell the cat finally with your comment and hit the weak point. Thats why I say don’t trust on media. they can’t be anyone’s.

Joel

Joel — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Obama will be the winner either with media or without media, Hillary is a loser.

Jim

Jim — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

This is amazing as just over a couple of months back the media was criticized for choosing the candidate for the people when they supported HRC. Now people are saying that the media is sabotaging her campaign. This is rubbish.

Nirav

Nirav — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Jon:

Where is Ms. Lewinsky these days? I thought she would have a wonderful running mate for Hillary.

Gall

Gall — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Hillary ripened too fast and now ready to drop. :D

Norbert

Norbert — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I think Colin Powell would have made a better president than Obama. In fact, Powell was a moderate amongst the neo-con sharks in the Bush administration. He just chose the wrong party.

Dennis

Dennis — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

This presidential campaign has turned into a media circus. The media just did the trapeze act with Hillary Clinton.

Muhammad

Muhammad — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

It is Hillary who is using the media to create an environment where it would seem that the media is biased against her. Her USP so far has been the whines and the cries.

The best candidate for the US presidency should have ideally being a devout Muslim so that he could have brought in some peace in this world. The Americans are missing out on something here.

Sean

Sean — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Leave discussion here, media can’t support everybody all the time.

Sean

Sean — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

All of a sudden media has started giving so much unnecessary attention to Hillary. No need to give give much credit to Clinton in Texas and Ohio. It was the result of the Republican cross-over, mischief voting pushed by Rush Limbaugh.

Renee

Renee — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

US media is also biased against Obama. He is a great candidate and media hasn’t still given him much space. He is the winner.

Heidi

Heidi — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Hillary showed she is a negative campaigner. She saved herself from a debacle with her shameful tactics, but she will be the loser.

Beesan

Beesan — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

The US media is still criticizing Hillary even after her winning performances shown recently. I was just election coverage on CNN, the three young black election analysts were repeatedly bashing Clinton. They even lost their cooland began ranting against Her.

Crystal Stevens

Crystal Stevens — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I did some research last week to investigate a theory I had on WHY the American media was so against Clinton. Guess what? It turns out that that GE, who owns MSNBC, the one network really seeming after her, donated MILLIONS to Bush in 2000. Same with CNN. These are REPUBLICANS owning these stations. And Republicans know Obama is easy kill in the general election. So it adds up, let’s make Hillary bad to defeat her in the primary so we can have victory against Obama in November.