Will Obama ever be asked these questions by the MSM?

hapa:

" Q: You said you would sit down, without preconditions, with leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Kim Jong Il of North Korea. You later agreed to hold such talks only under prearranged conditions. You further stated that such talks would occur only when and if you choose to hold them. Again, please clarify."

He's already been asked that a dozen times.

"Preconditions" to a meeting are things like "I won't meet with you unless you get rid of your nuclear weapons program first."

 

hapa:

"Q: You point to Kennedy's 1961 summit with Khrushchev, held without preconditions. But Kennedy's secretary of State, Dean Rusk, advised against the meeting, and Kennedy later declared the talks a disaster. Many historians say that Khrushchev sized up Kennedy as a novice, which emboldened Khrushchev in building the Berlin Wall and in putting missiles in Cuba. Is it wise to hold up the Kennedy/Khrushchev summit as a model?"

Nixon met with China, Reagan met with Gorbachev -- what was your point again?

 

hapa:

"Q: The Canadians recently agreed to accept 550 tons of yellowcake from Iraq. The Associated Press called it the remaining portion of Saddam Hussein's "nuclear program." David Kay, the weapons hunter, found no stockpiles of WMD, but maintained that Saddam Hussein possessed the intent and capacity to restart his chemical and biological program following the lifting of sanctions. Was President Bush, therefore, correct in saying that Saddam posed a "grave and gathering threat"?"

Uhhh... no. Not at all. Not even close. So silly it's actually laughable.

The Yellowcake is not weapons material, was from before the first gulf war, the IAEA inspectors already knew that Iraq had it because it had been declared -- and plus since they already had a stockpile -- why would they have sought yellowcake from Africa?

Notice how Republicans' two fictions just ran into each other.

 

I think this will answer your question

Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1
By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.

True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.

Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."

And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.

The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.

A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.

As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:

"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."

The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.

In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.

As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."

It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.

One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.

A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

Tate is a former journalist, now a novelist and the author of "A Time Like This: 2001-2008." This article first appeared on the American Thinker Web site.

 

John:

"The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen."

So when the New York Times repeatedly rejected Clinton's editorials -- even as a sitting president -- that was a glaring example of conservative bias?

'Cause, you know, the editorials might actually not be good editorials.

Oh, and your donation editorial appears to be made up. Can you support the numbers?

 

Well I didn't write the article it came from IBD but here is the link:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

 

Exactly. You gave your opinion about Bush, but did not address if BO had been asked this question by the MSM.

I never said I wanted you to answer the questions. I asked if Obama will ever be asked these questions by the MSM.

Not asking for your explanation. I asked if Obama will ever be asked these questions by the MSM.

Link(s), please.

Again, not interested in your personal opinion.

So how does that statement support what was in the original question - that BO said all military options are on the table? If US troops are pulled out of Iraq, that is removing a military option. Furthermore, the very link you point to states this:

Mr. McDonough said that Mr. Obama has favored diplomacy with Iran to resolve the issue. This approach is recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and has been tried three times by Ambassador Crocker in Baghdad with little to show for the discussions.

The Illinois senator has also said that he thinks the presence of American troops in Iraq has ended up strengthening Iran. This view, held also by the House and Senate Democratic leadership, was disputed last month in written testimony from General Petraeus in response to questions from his nomination hearing for his promotion as commander of Central Commander. "The presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the region has the potential to counter malign Iranian influence against the Government of Iraq, build common cause in the region, and expose the extent of malign Iranian activities to the world," he wrote.

But what does Petraueus know? Heck, BO didn't even bother to meet with him when he was in DC.

LOL! "Might be backtracking"? "Ultimately seems reasonable enough"??

ROFLMAO!

Thanks for your opinion and uh, yeah, it IS backtracking.

And oh, link please to who in the MSM actually asked that question.

He has been asked by the MSM in that context? To clarify his changing positions about meeting with Ahmadinejad and Kim? Links please...

The point - again - is not your opinion, but if the MSM has asked BO that question. And by the way, comparing Nixon meeting with China and Reagan meeting with Gorbachev to BO's apparent willingness to meet with nutcases like Ahmadinejad and Kim is disingenuous. And of course you totally dodged the Kennedy/Kruschev meet which was, ahem, the meat of the question after all.

Opinion.

Links, please.

Opinion.

In summary, you've provided a lot of personal opinion and conjecture, but almost nothing relating to the topic of the thread.

 

So, you don't see a problem with a paper like the NYT letting one CANDIDATE write a op-ed, while refusing the other CANDIDATE the same?

I can understand them refusing to print something from the Pres, especially of it looks political/partisan. But this is an election. Both candidates should be treated equally. If they aren't prepared to print both views, they shouldn't print either.

 

Imagine that, the NY Times making objectivity a core tenent of their "journalism."

Perhaps we'll live to see the day.

 

Arnie:

"So, you don't see a problem with a paper like the NYT letting one CANDIDATE write a op-ed, while refusing the other CANDIDATE the same?"

I'll let the New York Times speak for themselves -- this is from the email to the McCain campaign:

"I’d be very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page. However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft."