Dear Dr Niman, what a great article.
Sure, America is a teenager, spoilt, sheepish, prone to whining and
dangerously self-opinionated. The sustainable culture of 10,000 years was
wiped out by colonial rapists a mere 232 years ago and naturally the
progeny is repeating the habits of the past (with results plain for all to
see.)
Puritans and shakers, if you will, have become McDonalds driven by the
strange concept of ownership and executed by the slavish behaviors of
unthinking, or at least mute, employees.
But freedom of speech reigns. When the dim-witted puppet of the Grumpy Old
Poopers strikes up the mantra, "Our country is better because you can say
what you like without getting beaten up" he may not know what he is saying
but he is slavishly preserving the most dynamic, most hopeful and
self-correcting economy in the hood. See, he's an employee like yoo and
mee.
Churchill said that Americans would do the right thing after exhausting all
other options. When Americans see that the stock in trade, sanctified
greed, is, after all, a laughing stock around the world then, like
teenagers discovering humility again, they will step up and correct.
It's not democracy that accomplishes that, it's freedom of speech. So have
a care for Rush to judgement Jaw Jaw and U R profanity Hannity. They may be
part of the entertainment complex but the sheep after all stay in the
meadow chewing grass and do not bother to come downtown to club the nurses
leaving the women's clinic after a shift. They might try but they would
get lost en route.
Not yet.
Have faith: while their words may alarm you it's their actions that
demonstrate their convictions, not their words.
I want to register my appreciation of your writing: clear, consistent,
enjoyable to follow and laden with a vitriolic vitality that is as
refreshing as tonic water. Thanks.
Pollyanna Sagittarius
Getting a Grip |
Keeping McCain in the Gameby Michael I. Niman |
|
|
The Money Bowl
American elections are won not by the best qualified, the most educated, the more experienced, articulate, levelheaded, or intelligent candidate, but by the candidate who raises and spends the most money on political advertising. This reality has proven itself over and over again in the vast majority of local, state, and national elections for the past two generations. This is the major obstacle standing between the United States and democracy—the fact that the real election, the Money Bowl, takes place well before the balloting in November.
John McCain
This year’s Money Bowl winner, according to media reports, is Barack Obama, who broke presidential campaign fundraising records in August by raising $66 million, then more than doubled that number in September, raising an additional $150 million. So far, Obama has raised more than a half billion dollars in campaign contributions. If Obama wins the election, it will not be because he was the better candidate, but because he was able to buy enough corporate media time to respond to, and ultimately drown out, his opponent’s factually dubious attack ads.
Checkbook democracy
The better candidate has a chance of winning—and maybe by enough of a margin to overwhelm voter caging and other now traditional GOP election fraud tactics—not because he is the better candidate, which he is, but because he is the better-financed candidate. Hence, we have the historical anomaly: the corporate candidate, John McCain, as an outspent “underdog.”
There’s actually much more to this story. The Obama campaign didn’t just break records for funds raised. More importantly, it blew through all records for the number of hands actually signing checks or clicking mice, having registered more than three million campaign donors—most of them writing small checks averaging, according to the New York Times, less than $100. This is a new twist on our politics—checkbook democracy.
It still sucks, however, empowering the middle class over poor and working class voters who can’t afford to write checks in any amount. Ultimately this checkbook populism resembles a poll tax more than a democratic election. It is, however, a vast improvement over the old system of letting corporate interests and their PACs bid on candidates.
McCain’s uncounted fundraising
But there’s still more to this story. Obama’s fund-raising supremacy is actually a media-created myth. Once you take in-kind corporate contributions into account, the combined value of campaign resources and money received by the McCain/Palin campaign is actually larger than that received by the Obama/Biden campaign. Yes, the record has been broken, but once again it’s the GOP that has broken it.
Where my math differs from commonly accepted formulas reported in the media is that I’m counting the value of airtime donated to the McCain/Palin campaign by corporate-right media outlets such as Fox “News” and Clear Channel Communications. It goes like this: Try to watch Fox “News” for 30 minutes. A friend challenged me to do this. He himself was unable to endure. It’s not journalism by any stretch of the imagination. It’s not news. It’s nonstop, unabashed Obama-bashing punctuated by occasional edited clips struggling to catch a coherent Palin quote or an image of John McCain where he doesn’t look like he’s just come up from trapping rats in the basement.
Now move over to the radio dial and add a drug-cocktail-carbureted Rush Limbaugh and a few hundred local Viagra-powered Rush Mini-Mes into the mix, and you have a multimodal, 24-hour, corporate-sponsored McCain/Palin propaganda machine.
To be fair, you have to subtract from my formula the small change tossed to Obama by the talking ashtrays on Air America. What you are left with, however, is a massive campaign contribution that cuts out the middleman. Instead of lots of hands writing checks to allow the Obama campaign to buy media, McCain has Fox and hundreds of right-wing talk radio channels just turning over their airwaves.
Chilling with Palin’s peeps
I did more than watch 30 minutes of Fox. I left the somewhat safe confines of “liberal” Buffalo and drove up to politically reactionary Essex County—New York State’s mountainous little Alabama on the Alps. There I chatted, or more accurately, listened, as locals who got all of their “news” from Fox and talk radio channeled Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. The experience was more than frustrating—it was downright frightening.
Faces actually turned red with anger as people explained the immediacy of the threat that an America-hating Obama posed to the very survival of this great nation. It was like listening to an old dying pickup truck trying to start. “Bill Ayers…ACORN, Bill Ayers…ACORN—billayersacorn…billayersacorn…billayersacorn-corn-corn-corn-corn…”
The combination of glazed looks coupled with red-faced anger was frightening. But what’s more frightening, when talking to Bill’s minions and Rush’s “Dittoheads,” is their lack of any coherent political position. They don’t subscribe to any ideology. They espouse “small government,” when it comes to education, health, or protecting the environment—but support large government when they talk about funding the police state or the military-industrial complex. They chant “state’s rights” and “religious freedom” when it comes to teaching public school kids that God literally created the earth 4,000 years ago (and spread all those dinosaur bones and fossil fuels around to test our faith), yet the federal government reigns supreme when it comes to constutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage, even among states and religions that recognize it.
On social issues, black and poor teenagers having babies is abominable and evidence of parental failure. Upper class white kids getting pregnant are respecting the sanctity of life with the admirable support of their parents. Sarah Palin is the face of conservative social values even though a bipartisan investigation just found her to have acted unethically, and in a recent appearance of Saturday Night Live, she agreed to a sexually objectified script describing her as “way hotter in person.”
The inconsistencies seem boundless. Money for environmental protection is “socialism.” But a federally subsidized nuclear power industry is “good energy policy.” Money for education is “socialism,” but an expanded prison system to incarcerate the uneducated is “law and order,” unless the prisoners are Mexican, in which case they get to go home since we aren’t going to pay for their “free ride.” Deficits are bad, so let’s increase military spending and cut taxes—but let’s cut them only for those rich enough to be able to afford to pay them. And that Joe Lieberman—the only Democrat with integrity. And Israel? What a wonderful nation—that is, until the Rapture.
Not conservatives
I have conservative friends. They have a coherent ideology. I’m conservative on some issues, such as protecting the Bill of Rights. Fox’s Republican “talking points” don’t follow any identifiable ideological path. They’re not “conservative,” as self-described “liberals” would like to have us believe. That’s the wrong word. They don’t even smack of the self-interest that drove the Reagan agenda. These new school Republicans follow the talking points no matter where they go: Barack Obama is not qualified to be president, but Sarah Palin is. Any notion to the contrary is sexist. And Hillary is a bitch.
They’ll vote against their own economic interests—poor, uneducated, marginally employed folks voting to cut education funding while giving tax breaks to the rich.
This is a truly scary phenomenon—a large chunk of the nation’s voters don’t really have political beliefs one can argue with. They’re just followers. They believe in slogans rather than ideas. They’re not open to new ideas or arguments because the whole concept of an idea or an argument is alien.
I suspect most McCain/Palin supporters don’t support the ticket based on ideological or political positions. With McCain regularly changing positions, they really can’t. They’re not voting for or against any ideological belief—they’re just plain voting. They’re voting for “country first.” They’re voting for Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, and Alan Colmes (yes, Colmes). Fox and the mouth-breathers on talk radio have created a movement with an ideology crafted by the highest bidder. The only coherence I see as this Fox agenda twists and turns, slinking through the political landscape, is that it makes its every move in service to capital—to monied and corporate interests, whatever they may be, with social issues thrown in like peanut butter on a rat trap.
The uncharacteristic failure of this noise machine to lock up this year’s election stems from a perfect storm embodied by the collapse of the military, environmental, and economic agendas it serves, and by a near-historic competence and quality mismatch between presidential tickets. That, coupled with record-breaking grassroots fundraising by the Obama team, may very well overpower the Fox/Rush contribution, and possibly even overpower GOP voter disenfranchisement efforts.
Let’s make no mistake, however: It’s the Fox/Talk Radio Money Bowl (and a healthy dose of racism) that keeps this ridiculous McCain/Palin ticket in the game. If the Obama/Biden ticket does triumph, this election will indeed be historic for more reasons than the American media is ready to talk about.
Dr. Michael I. Niman is a professor of journalism and media studies at Buffalo State Collge. His previous Artvoice columns are available at artvoice.com, archived at mediastudy.com, and available globally through syndication.
Reader Comments
Luis Clay 23 Oct 2008, 06:33
Andy2 23 Oct 2008, 11:19
Another irony here is the constant complaints from these right wingers
about media bias whenever anything is reported that they disagree with. On
the other hand they count on the "propaganda machine" to repeat anything
their candidates say without question. Yet I doubt any of them would draw
the logical conclusion of this line of thinking - that they favor state
censored media. if anything, as you point out so clearly, the media is dominated by convervative corporations that lean toward the Republicans, and in many cases (as you say) are outright advocated for Republican ideology. One of the best things about this election is that if the current polls hold up, the Atwater-Rove-Davis playbook will go down to defeat. I am starting to think Obama anticipated this a long time ago, and laid the groundwork in his books and speeches to neutralize the attacks once they inevitably appeared. It is definitely scary, as you said, to hear unthinking voters repeat slogans and catch phrases. Clearly the Republicans are aware of this and their plan is to manipulate the voters accordingly. One big factor in their success in the past was the indifference of the independents. This year it looks like a lot of people have taken an interest in the process, and have not taken the bait of the negative campaign tactics to sit this one out. Let's hope for a real change. I get the sense it may happen, if only due to the strength of the opposition to it. Another thing that's clear - the backlash against student demonstrations in the 60s that led to the Atwater et al tactics has also hurt education, and therefore threatens democracy itself (ironically of course the very thing the uneducated think they are somehow protecting).
Hold up a minute! 23 Oct 2008, 15:29
Dr. Niman, I agree with the majority of points in your article. However, you claim that John McCain is THE corporate candidate. The last time I checked, Obama was raking in more from the Wall Street fatcats than McCain. The same corporate donors who give to McCain give to Obama. They hedge their bets. BOTH McCain and Obama are corporate candidates. Will much change with an Obama presidency? I doubt it. The war in Iraq will continue indefinitely, our civil liberties will continue to be eroded, and we can expect another war. Yes, that's right. Under an Obama regime we can expect to see another war. Obama is already beating the war drum with Pakistan and Russia. He still claims that Russia is responsible for "invading" Georgia when Georgian troops (aided by the US)ran a sneak attack on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia. The last time I checked, Obama's top advisor was Zbignew Brzezinski. Google him and find out what this guy is all about. He's dangerous. It's scary. Obama voted for the 700 billion dollar corporate "bailout" (actually, the figure is closer to 4 trillion). He voted for immunity for the telecom companies for spying on your phonecalls. His top financial advisor is Warren Buffett. He's not that much different from McCain. What scares me most about Obama are his legions of unquestioning supporters. In Missouri, people are being arrested for saying anything negative about Obama. I know this sounds crazy. Research it for yourself. Sheriffs and prosecutors are arresting anyone who says anything untrue about Obama (they decide what's true and what isn't). They're even called "Truth Squads". Sounds like fascism to me. Don't believe me - research it for yourself. Of course McCain is terrible. His policies are ludicrous. He's a joke. I'm sure he and Palin really care about helping "Joe Six Pack" and "The Hockey Mom". But Obama isn't much better. He's "more of the same". Americans need to seriously consider a third party candidate this year more than ever. Vote your conscience. Vote for Ralph Nader or another third party candidate.
Eric Curley 24 Oct 2008, 17:39
Another fantastic article, Mike. The world needs more professors like you.
Eric Curley 24 Oct 2008, 17:42
And to the reader above me saying how much they're afraid of Obama's
"legions of unquestioning supporters" - are you serious? Do you not
realize how many unquestioning supports McCain & Palin have? Just as many,
if not more. Proof? Sure: "I can't imagine a President being named Obama" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwjlUMoLVvA I am embarrassed to share a country with people like her. Disgusting.
Turin 25 Oct 2008, 12:36
"Hold up a minute" is right. And, the only reason Obama hasn't gotten his
hands as visibly dirty as the rest is because he's newer and therefore
hasn't had the time. He has a good excuse for breaking his pledge to not
accept soft money, but he should have been expecting that problem to begin
with. Where it counts, on the big, pivotal issues, he will continue to
vote with the herd, because he will always "have" to.
Sarah 25 Oct 2008, 14:06
If you people even had a clue as to the give aways like Hud paying peoples
rent for what is majority of black people who are just as capabible of
working as I am fooling with these freeloaders. I am a small business
owner who has 102 apartment units. The people that they give this money to
are mostly drug dealers that I am constantly battling to get out (where the
government protects them more than me) and they move about 10 or more
people into a 2 bedroom and lie to Hud about it, and when reported they do
nothing but keep giving the money to those who don't deserve it. Most are
middle aged and very able to work but who would as long as the government
pays their rent. I had one that her only portion was 20.00 a month and had
to put her out because she wouldn't even pay that but sure made alot
dealing drugs which is another reason I put this woman out and the whites
that want to freeload get it to just in the minority. I really makes me
sad at what the taxpayers have to give up for these people who really don't
need it. Very few, such as elderly do and some of those can't get it.
Hold on to your wallet and better have some saved because more is going out
to people like this under Obama. Pretty sad when I have worked every day
since I was 15 and put myself through college by hard work. Anyone can if
they really want to but when your rent is free why work or do anything but
live off the hard working middle class working families. Your really
should see some of what I have seen. As an american I would think it would
make you (like me) mad as he...
Turin 25 Oct 2008, 15:20
Sarah is right in the sense that the Democrats have abandoned the once
staunchly loyal white poor, for (mostly) women and blacks' interests. For
blacks, there's a lot more justification for it, than for women, because
life for them in the U.S. has always been a catch 22. (Ex: "You're able-bodied, get a job" "What about discrimination?" "Oh, quit making excuses...there is no discrimination." ...meanwhile, these same bitching "middle-classers" have long been guilty of using nepotism to sew up the job market to the extent that they have long made it hard even for many whites to get into it and to earn some of what they themselves consider barely "livable" wages... And, even so, if you're still sympathetic to the bleeding middle-classer, you still have to wonder why you have to ask, "Hey, have you looked at the job numbers, lately? Business itself is folding." ...Talk about blaming the victim, instead of the system.) That being said, many African Americans have, in fact, become incredibly abusive of the system, thanks to longstanding populist tactics that once got lots of attention and results for them. But bleeding-heart liberals, like the author, won't say one word about that, because they know which side of the bread their niches are buttered on. Just like the fact that he stops short of directly mentioning Bristol Palin (because the little whore is a teenage female debutante, and, as such, all "young women" are symbols of female empowerment) a black person can do no wrong. No doubt, his excuse is that he's not really taking any position because he's just drawing a comparison for the purpose of exposing double-standards. But, it's also very clear that he never blows a whistle on a black or on a woman in any case, unless they belong to the wrong party. Sarah works off of a cliched way of thinking, but liberals have been at this game for a long time now, and she has an excuse. Not only is it infuriating how completely they've turned their backs on white men, it has reached the point that even plenty of their spoiled white female constituents - ie. Hillary/supporters - have started exposing some of the ugly racism that has underline the surface of their political alliance with African-Americans the entire time. They'll gladly condescend, but they won't be condescended TO, and they're not about to play second to a black MAN, if only because they're afraid of the same when it will come to dealing with a black female. And, THAT's what it is. Especially, when they know that they've helped prop them up no matter what. There's a lot of blame to be spread around on this subject, but that's all the more reason why it's infuriating when we have to keep listening to two-dimensional assessments of each situation: Blacks good/oppressed. Whites bad/oppressors. The solution would be to stop toeing party lines and to start casting blame *wherever* it lies. These Essex hicks, are no doubt as uneducated as the author claims and are predominately white males, too. Now, is that because *they're* the oppressors? Or, Are *they* - also - victims of socio-political systematic oppression and manipulation designed to keep them that way as a dull-witted laboring/wage-slave class? Watch just about any sitcom before answering that question. Either way, we'll never see this solution from any of the self-empowering baby-boomer classes. Obama is just another educated well-articulated, suit, like Byron Brown, and he won't address these issues, either, except in the same way that Brown did. Class-driven politics focus on the middle-class, and the middle-class is screwed. We need a more technology-oriented society, that is driven by interest in science and energy-policy than class and politics. The money and jobs follow. I may vote Obama, but I'm probably voting Nader.
Galaxia 27 Oct 2008, 19:46
Hi Mike: Great job, as always. Keep up the good fight. You might appreciate lacan.com article by Jacques-Allain Miller on the psychoanalytic nature of capital crises. I will try to append it here, but you can see it on the site if it falls through. Question - As etymology would recall, there exist affinities between the word crisis and the word critical. Crisis calls upon judgment, but it is more than anything a swinging point, like a disease which can lead to death or to the cure. For an analyst, what is the meaning of the word crisis? Jacques-Alain Miller - The psychoanalyst is “crisis friendly”. To start analysis always constitutes for the subject a critical moment, which responds to a crisis, or unveils one. Only, once started, analysis becomes a hard work. A crisis of tears? You wait until it passes. A crisis of anguish, a panic attack? You defuse them. A crisis of madness? You avoid starting it… Besides, each session is like a small crisis, each one undergoing paroxysm and resolution. In short, there is crisis in the psychoanalytical sense, when speech, discourse, the words, the figures, the rites, the routine, all the symbolic apparatus, prove suddenly impotent to moderate a real which makes as it pleases. A crisis, it is the real unchained, impossible to control. The equivalent, in civilization, of these hurricanes by which nature periodically recalls mankind of its precariousness, of its land frailty. Q - How do you interpret the fear of losing money, our own money? To hoard money, is it the same for a small saver than for a billionaire? JAM - I happen to treat during a few weeks a patient who was billionaire, a maniac, who regularly announced me laughing that he had just gained or lost a million dollars that very morning speculating with currencies. The price of the session was for him a kind of tip, a something that did not exist. He ended bankrupted. There are other types of billionaires, more conservative, even miser, and more informed. But if you are really rich, you are rather “unanalysable,” because you cannot pay, you cannot yield anything significant: the analysis slips over you like water on the feathers of a duck. The “small saver”? To save, accumulate; it means to sacrifice desire, or at least to defer it. The Harpagon’s box, it is the jouissance-box, made of cold jouissance. Money is a signifier without signification, which kills all significations. When one is devoted to money, truth loses meaning, one only sees a booby-trap there. Q - Lure of gain, the will to stack large sums of money such as that they become unreal. Is this thrust to wealth related to the death drive? JAM - Yes, the thrust to save speculates openly on death, the fear of the disease, the desire to be perpetuated in the offspring. But there is also the thrust to borrow if I may say so, with immediate consumption as the supreme correlative, the unrestrained expenditure. And, then, there is the thrust to money for money sake, the pure pleasure of hoarding it. Death, jouissance, and repetition, these are the three sides of a pyramid which base is given by the unconscious nature of money: and here we are dealing with the anal object. What do we see in this moment of truth about the financial crisis we are in? That it is worthless; that money is like shit! Here is the real which unsettles all discourses. One calls that, politely, “the toxic assets”… Benedict XVI, always sharp, was expeditious in capitalizing on the financial crisis: “This proves,” he said, “that all is vanity, and only the word of God holds out! ” Q - This crisis contains a strong psychological dimension. What does explain the movements of panic, in particular the jolts in the stocks markets? What does start them, and how can they be alleviated? JAM - The monetary signifier is one of semblance, which rests on social conventions. The financial universe is an architecture made of fictions and its keystone is what Lacan called a “subject supposed to know”, to know why and how. Who plays this part? The concert of authorities, from where sometimes a voice is detached, Alan Greenspan, for example, in his time. The financial players base their behavior on this. The fictional and hyper-reflexive unit holds by the “belief” in the authorities, i.e. through the transference to the subject supposed to know. If this subject falters, there is a crisis, a falling apart of the foundations, which of course involves effects of panic. However, the financial subject supposed to know was already quite subdued because of deregulation. And this happened because the financial world believed, in its infatuated delusion, to be able to work things out without the function of the subject supposed to know. Firstly, the real state assets become waste. Secondly, gradually shit permeates everything. Thirdly, there is a gigantic negative transfer vis-à-vis the authorities; the electric shock of the Paulson/Bernanke plan angers the public: the crisis is one of trust; and it will last till the subject supposed to know is reconstructed. This will come in the long term by way of a new set of Bretton Woods accords, a council enjoined to speak the truth about the truth. Bookmark and Share AskbackflipblinklistBlogBookmarkBloglinesBlogMarksBlogsvineBuddyMarksBUMPze e!CiteULikeco.mmentsConnoteadel.icio.us DiggdiigoDotNetKicksDropJackdzoneFa cebookFarkFavesFeed Me LinksFriendsitefolkd.comFurlGoogle HuggJamespotJeqqKaboodlekirtsylinkaGoGoL inksMarkerMa.gnoliaMister WongMixxMySpaceMyWebNetvouz NewsvineoneviewOnlyWirePlugIMPropellerRedditRoj oSegnaloShoutwireSimpySlashdotSphereSphinn SpurlSquidooStumbleUponTechnorat iThisNextTwitterWebrideWindows LiveWorlds MoviesYahoo! More » Powered by Bookmarkify™ 2 Comments Tim Themi Posted October 25, 2008 at 11:14 pm | Permalink Financial liberalization has effects well beyond the economy. It has long been understood that it is a powerful weapon against democracy. Free capital movement, capital flight, creates what some have called a “virtual parliament” of investors and lenders, who closely monitor government programs and “vote” against them if they are considered irrational: i.e., if they are considered for the benefit of the majority of people, rather than for concentrated private power. What Investors and lenders do here is “vote” by capital flight, through attacks on currencies and through other devices offered by financial liberalization. That is one reason why the BRETTON WOODS system established by the United States and Britain after the second World War had then instituted capital controls and regulated currencies. The Great Depression and the war had aroused powerful radical democratic currents, ranging from the anti-fascist resistance to working class organization. These pressures made it necessary to permit social
vince 28 Oct 2008, 10:02
Wow!! What a bunch of crap from another liberal school teacher that feeds
off of the moneys paid by the tax payers of this state. Niman forgets to
mention in his article a garbage spewed daily by MSNBC and Keith Obermann
(sports reporter at best) no less what most consider the liberal bias of
mainstream NBC, CBS, ABC and most major newspapers in this country such as
the revered garbage of the New York Times or the Washington Post, etc.
Where is his calculator when adding up all of the Obama gushings from these
outlets? To think that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh out way all of the other
media resources that sway in the liberal winds of the Democrat party is
nothing more a mouth piece professor sorry he can't be as fair and balanced
as them! My two sons went to Buffalo State and a very close retired friend was also a professor (Dr.) there but this quack takes the cake on what crap they fill todays youth with. Thank GOD my kids did not take any of his classes and GOD help any that do. Hey professor, Why don't you get a real job in the real world from a real employer so you don't sound like another government paycheck speaking to protect his next check!
What the?! 29 Oct 2008, 09:12
Vince writes: "Hey professor, Why don't you get a real job in the real world from a real employer so you don't sound like another government paycheck speaking to protect his next check!" Hey Vince - I find the fact that you choose to slam teachers humorous. How is teaching not a "real job" in the "real world"? Teachers get paid low wages and put in very long hours. They don't do it for the money but for the love of teaching. Sure, they have summers off but they don't get paid. You try teaching. I'm sure you wouldn't be able to last a day. If it were not for teachers, who would teach your children? You? That's a scary thought. Your post is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. Obviously, you did't pay attention in English class when you were a child. Did you even attend college? It's doubtful. The last part of your post hardly makes sense. Maybe if you valued education a bit more you would appreciate what teachers do for society. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Even Dr. Niman. That's one of the things that make America great. Just because Niman is a professor he should have to keep his opinions to himself?
Mike Kelly
03 Nov 2008, 17:47
Well Michael .. nice way to show a one sided story.. tell me anyone believe
in fair journalism.. You mention Fox news as an evil media yet all I hear
from CNN is how great Obama is and I 'll wager you that if you watch that
Rabid channel MSNBC you wont hear a SINGLE good thing about McCain .. but
plenty about Obama... Just wish all you SO CALLED journalists would go back
to reporting the news and not your opinions.. I dont know you and really
care less.. but please as JOE FRIDAY says JUST THE FACTS!! PLEASE!!
Leave a Comment:
|
|
Issue Navigation> Issue Index > v7n43: The Halloween Issue > Keeping McCain in the Game This Week's Issue • Artvoice Daily • Events Calendar • Classifieds |
Subscribe 