General discussion


Is it just me, or are the media . . . . . .

By maxwell edison ·
..... falling all over themselves covering and sensationalizing Chelsea Clinton's wedding much more than then they did Jenna Bush's wedding? It seems pretty obvious to me that they are.

I hate it when the media play favorites. And it's SO obvious.

I also hate it when the Republicans are tagged as the party of the rich, but yet it seems more Democrats are actually the rich. And they flaunt it with impunity.

I also hate it when Americans are treated like Royalty: Hollywood types, musical types - and the Clintons.

Okay, there's my soapbox rant of the day.

And stepping off said soapbox for something a little lighter:

If you want to kill six hours on a Saturday night, watch the Clint Eastwood Dollars Trilogy Westerns. While watching them last night, I recalled another time I watched all three in a row - at a drive-in theater circa 1967-68, riding there in the back of a neighbor's pick-up truck.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Whoooaaaa there pardner

by mr_m_sween In reply to I've been wondering about ...

like the western reference? heh.

Anyway, theres something you need to recognize right out the gate. Dems and Reps are both rich, old, politicians. Working class joes dont get into the highest office except under rare circumstances. I've often said that America is not a Democracy but an Aristocracy where those with the most money or prestige are the only ones that can get into office. The only reason for these 'political parties' is to consolidate power away from voters by limiting their choices.

Collapse -

Max, the media is always fawning over someone.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Is it just me, or are the ...

At the moment it happens to be someone politically connected. Most times it's someone from the entertainment industry. Occasionally the US media gets an obsession with foreign royalty. It's always going to be someone as long as the content consumers continue to demand (pointless) coverage of famous people, and as long as the majority of those people continue to cooperate with the media.

Collapse -


by mr_m_sween In reply to Max, the media is always ...

....It's a heckuva lot easier than doing their real jobs which involves investigating facts and confirming rumors. Why go out and do research when you can simply read the press release.

Path of least resistance.

Do you think the "journalists" that have to spew this crud wanted to do this as children when they dreamed of being in the news biz? Somehow I think they originally had some loftier goals than "fluff piece of the week".

Collapse -

For the last two days it's been Bristol Palin again.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to besides....

The media couldn't get enough of her and her boyfriend and their offspring during the 2008 campaign. We saw far more of her than Obama's daughters. Now we're getting another round of her and his apparent need to hump everything female in Alaska except (maybe) the moose.

Equal time for a Republican daughter after the Clinton wedding but in both cases, who shives a git?

Collapse -

replacement post: previous one didn't take for some reason

I haven't heard news about either wedding, but I wouldn't be surprised is this was true.

The media is going to play favorites from now until the end the universe. The obviousness of it will most likely fluctuate over time.

Old habits die hard, I guess?

American paradox?

Collapse -

...it's just you.

by jck In reply to Is it just me, or are the ...

I think it has to do with the fact that Bill Clinton was liked as the President by Americans and most of the world, not to mention Hillary is now Secretary of State. Has there ever been another couple who had/has so much power in politics in US history?

BTW, if the media is playing favorites they sure aren't doing it with Obama, Pelosi, Reid, or even Graham.

The media is reporting on what will sell. That's what drives their business model.

Collapse -

Maybe it's pity.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to ...it's just you.

"That poor girl. Stuck with that embarrassing tomcat of a father, and a carpetbagging mother who obviously didn't divorce him only because keeping him furthered her own political ambitions. I'm so glad she turned out okay despite them."

Collapse -

Yeah...that or...

by jck In reply to Maybe it's pity.

Because the press can't believe someone would marry her.

Even tho she's not a troll, she's not the best looking girl either.

BTW, like Bush should be getting accolades for being a drug user and alcoholic who admitted having driven drunk with two small children at home to take care of?

BTW, I agree about Bill's infidelity. He's a pig for that. But, it doesn't diminish the fact that people respected him for his diplomacy and ability to get people to talk.

Finally, Hillary didn't need to stay with him or be married to him in the first place. Her father, Hugh Rodham, was a HUGELY powerful man politically. Bill needed her, not vice versa.

Collapse -


by CharlieSpencer In reply to Yeah...that or...

Chelsea is a darn sight better looking than poor Amy Carter. That young lady was homely. You didn't hear a peep when she got hitched.

But looks aren't everything. For all we know, they're both great dancers with terrific personalities. Or maybe they understand the relationship between a golf ball and a 50-foot garden hose.

Collapse -

Message has been deleted.

by famalegoods127 In reply to Is it just me, or are the ...

Related Discussions

Related Forums