Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (431544)	10/31/2008 12:09:14 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572320

It's being covered much more than Keating. Keating was covered ad nauseum 20 years ago. There is nothing new; McCain was totally cleared of any wrongdoing in Keating and in fact, his involvement was limited to being the target of Dems who didn't want it to be apparent that Dems are corrupt since there would otherwise be no Republicans involved. Having a presidential candidate befriending a terrorist is a contemporary event.

To: Road Walker who wrote (431544)	10/31/2008 3:38:59 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572320

John, I think a lot of what you consider to be "unbiased coverage" depends greatly on what you think should matter in society today. I'll just say that all of my examples can be argued away from that perspective, except the hit job on Joe the Plumber. That to me sealed the deal. McCain brings him up way too often, for sure, but the tone of the NYTimes and the AP articles went overboard and were completely irresponsible, IMO. And I don't care what Rush says that's so offensive. Or Michael Savage. Or Anne Coulter. Shock jocks love being offensive. Just ask bentway on this very thread. But I hold the mainstream media to a much higher standard. Is that wrong? Tenchusatsu