On July 28th you yourself discussed it: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=&highlight=kenya#post Why are you deliberating on this issue? You seem to have a very short memory. If this isn't hypocrisy, what is? This fallacy is being discussed by the media because the nuts out there are wanting and trying to make it relevant and have recently stepped up their efforts in this endeavor. It is the media's job to report whatever is in the spotlight.
I posted a one line joke about a possible smoking gun that doesn't exist. Hardly hypocritical. It is the editors of the media that creates the spotlight. It was during the campaign that the "nuts" from the Hillary and McCain campaigns tried to bring this in to the spotlight. But the media refused to air it, unlke they way they seem to be doing it now.
That was no joke that you posted and you know it. You're not deceiving anyone. I'll repeat. The media reports the news. They report whatever is making news. Hillary and McCain's campaigns did not make this subject an issue, because it was baseless and had no credence to it. The frustrated "fringe elements" are trying to make it an issue and have gotten to the point where they have a host of Republican senators including Richard Shelby of Alabama endorsing this nonsense.
Based on my naivete, here is one more of your potent jokes. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=&highlight=kenya#post
So what is the "news" ? Based on your thoughts "news" is what is being reported. If it is not being reported then it is not news. Itâs a chicken or egg conundrum. Who decides what to report. Is there a big box that the media pulls all the "news" from? News is made up of press releases from all sides and journalistic reporting. Then the editors get together and DECIDE what stories will become news. During the election it was very hard to get any news agency to investigate Obama and his past. Unlike Palin whose life became front page everyday.
News gets reported on live events as they unfold and they get announced accordingly by the various media outlets. If McCain's and Hillary's campaigns so desired, they had the time and resources to make Obama's birth certificate an issue. They didn't because it was a non-issue. Palin was in the spotlight because she was McCain's choice for VP. What do you expect?
Don't be naive. Live events consume about 1% of a 24 hour newscycle. Cable news is all about talk and tape. By resources do you mean making commercials about a birth certificate? No way would a campaign do that. But they would like to find some interested reporter to help make a story. Palin was VP but Obama was Pres candidate. You can't honestly say that the background reporting of Obama was anywhere near the background reporting of Palin.
It depends on the magnitude and frequency of such events and to what extent they develop and morph. Not about percentages and period cycles. If there was legitimacy to Obama's birth certificate issue, there is no saying what would have happened. Since there was none it's a moot point. McCain and Hillary were not looking for an "interested reporter" because there was no story as relating to this aspect, period. Palin kept making a fool of herself and the press jumped on her. I can "honestly" say that there was "background reporting" and it was fair not only for Obama and Palin, but also for McCain. Now, I've got to run some errands but will be glad to continue this conversation later.