Not that I'm at all surprised, but Fox News is burying the Parliamentary report on Rupert and James Murdoch.
They are, however, diligently covering the John Edwards sex scandal.
There story is the second link in "Latest News" which is one below where it sits at CNN.
And other than showcasing the lack of diversity in conversative news show hounds (on a Sunday), I'm not entirely sure what that chart is meant to illustrate; it's the content that matters not who is actually on.
About half the women were Bachmann and half the African-Americans were Cain. I'd guess the other half of the African Americans was Harold Ford, Jr. Maybe Clyburn once.
I assume you guys all noticed ThinkProgress's implied point - that the political right is made up almost entirely of white men? Because that was tolerably crafty of them. Anyone hazard a guess as to the total on-air time represented by all those interviews combined? From where I sit, that chart is mostly good for liberals to fap over while trying to push back against the bias charge.
Really, cause I'm pretty sure it shows a huge bias in media reporting, which is it's point.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Pretending that there isn't a bias toward old white men even on MSNBC is a fairly goosey thing to do.
This will be the way of things so long as we have to pretend to give a shit about boomers as the majority vote.
Don't get me wrong, James O'Keefe is human garbage, but the link provided doesn't show him as a "craven coward".
He was going to give a speech in NH, up till the Attorney General for the state started looking for him so he could face a grand jury about the actual voter fraud he conspired to commit. He then gave the speech remotely.
NPR did another piece on an Obama campaign commercial yesterday.
I'm struggling to understand how this is news but if 2008 is any indication, the next few months will be All Blowjobs, All The Time over at Obama Public Radio.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
So Obama changing the official biographies on the website is the WORST POSSIBLE THING, but what Obama is actually saying is not news?
I listened to NPR this morning and Planet Money talked about the effectiveness of Facebook advertising, a decent part of Obama's outreach. Their experiment showed it to be not so great.
When will NPR stop wasting time demonizing liberals and focus on real stories?
NPR did another piece on an Obama campaign commercial yesterday.
I'm struggling to understand how this is news but if 2008 is any indication, the next few months will be All Blowjobs, All The Time over at Obama Public Radio.
This morning, NPR did a 3 minute story on a coordinated Obama attack on Bain capital, including a speech by Biden, comments by Obama, comments from the reporter, and audio of an Obama campaign commercial. About 15s of that was given over to a poorly recorded one-line response, I assume given over the phone, from the Romney campaign. The reporter took the last couple of lines of the story to rebut the response and talk about Obama's strategy.
NPR did another piece on an Obama campaign commercial yesterday.
I'm struggling to understand how this is news but if 2008 is any indication, the next few months will be All Blowjobs, All The Time over at Obama Public Radio.
This morning, NPR did a 3 minute story on a coordinated Obama attack on Bain capital, including a speech by Biden, comments by Obama, comments from the reporter, and audio of an Obama campaign commercial. About 15s of that was given over to a poorly recorded one-line response, I assume given over the phone, from the Romney campaign. The reporter took the last couple of lines of the story to rebut the response and talk about Obama's strategy.
Well, yeah, it's an aggressive attack, and people want to know if it's accurate. It is, so the feature will be pro-Obama. Similarly, they gave a lot of airtime to Romney's claim that the auto bailout was his idea, with the general conclusion being "strategic but untrue."
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
NPR did another piece on an Obama campaign commercial yesterday.
I'm struggling to understand how this is news but if 2008 is any indication, the next few months will be All Blowjobs, All The Time over at Obama Public Radio.
This morning, NPR did a 3 minute story on a coordinated Obama attack on Bain capital, including a speech by Biden, comments by Obama, comments from the reporter, and audio of an Obama campaign commercial. About 15s of that was given over to a poorly recorded one-line response, I assume given over the phone, from the Romney campaign. The reporter took the last couple of lines of the story to rebut the response and talk about Obama's strategy.
Well, yeah, it's an aggressive attack, and people want to know if it's accurate. It is, so the feature will be pro-Obama. Similarly, they gave a lot of airtime to Romney's claim that the auto bailout was his idea, with the general conclusion being "strategic but untrue."
As Stephen Colbert remarked to George W. Bush, reality has a liberal bias.
NPR did another piece on an Obama campaign commercial yesterday.
I'm struggling to understand how this is news but if 2008 is any indication, the next few months will be All Blowjobs, All The Time over at Obama Public Radio.
This morning, NPR did a 3 minute story on a coordinated Obama attack on Bain capital, including a speech by Biden, comments by Obama, comments from the reporter, and audio of an Obama campaign commercial. About 15s of that was given over to a poorly recorded one-line response, I assume given over the phone, from the Romney campaign. The reporter took the last couple of lines of the story to rebut the response and talk about Obama's strategy.
Well, yeah, it's an aggressive attack, and people want to know if it's accurate. It is, so the feature will be pro-Obama. Similarly, they gave a lot of airtime to Romney's claim that the auto bailout was his idea, with the general conclusion being "strategic but untrue."
It's accurate but misleading - Romney's time at Bain was largely successful, with net job growth in the companies he took over. The main company featured in Obama's attacks (a steel mill in Kansas City) went bankrupt after Romney left Bain, and he had no ability to affect what happened or responsibility for it. They accuse him of profiting from that because Bain made money, but Bain donates mainly to Democratic political campaigns and Obama seems not to have a problem with his fellow politicians benefiting from that support.
It's quite inaccurate, but when NPR reports on the attack, rather than investigating the attack, they give the impression that it is accurate while really only repeating Obama's angle. Basically you've made my point for me. NPR investigates and refutes a Romney claim, but repeats, without analysis, an Obama claim.
This is a theme I fully expect to continue throughout the campaign.
NPR did another piece on an Obama campaign commercial yesterday.
I'm struggling to understand how this is news but if 2008 is any indication, the next few months will be All Blowjobs, All The Time over at Obama Public Radio.
This morning, NPR did a 3 minute story on a coordinated Obama attack on Bain capital, including a speech by Biden, comments by Obama, comments from the reporter, and audio of an Obama campaign commercial. About 15s of that was given over to a poorly recorded one-line response, I assume given over the phone, from the Romney campaign. The reporter took the last couple of lines of the story to rebut the response and talk about Obama's strategy.
Well, yeah, it's an aggressive attack, and people want to know if it's accurate. It is, so the feature will be pro-Obama. Similarly, they gave a lot of airtime to Romney's claim that the auto bailout was his idea, with the general conclusion being "strategic but untrue."
It's accurate but misleading - Romney's time at Bain was largely successful, with net job growth in the companies he took over. The main company featured in Obama's attacks (a steel mill in Kansas City) went bankrupt after Romney left Bain, and he had no ability to affect what happened or responsibility for it. They accuse him of profiting from that because Bain made money, but Bain donates mainly to Democratic political campaigns and Obama seems not to have a problem with his fellow politicians benefiting from that support.
It's quite inaccurate, but when NPR reports on the attack, rather than investigating the attack, they give the impression that it is accurate while really only repeating Obama's angle. Basically you've made my point for me. NPR investigates and refutes a Romney claim, but repeats, without analysis, an Obama claim.
This is a theme I fully expect to continue throughout the campaign.
Even if I bought your characterization of the Obama ad - and I don't - but even if I did, you describe Obama's ad as "accurate but misleading." Meanwhile, Romney's claim that he can take credit for the success of the auto bailout is completely ridiculous. Any equivalence between those two things is a false equivalence - and if the things themselves aren't equivalent, neither should their coverage be.
GOP may be planning to repeal the unpopular parts of Obamacare (like the mandate) but keep the popular parts (like requiring insurers to cover those with preexisting conditions). You might think that at some point in the two-page article the author would note that the one without the other is unworkable policy, but nope. Apparently the only downside to keeping the requirement but losing the mandate is that Democrats might "attack" Republicans for doing it.
0
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
NPR did another piece on an Obama campaign commercial yesterday.
I'm struggling to understand how this is news but if 2008 is any indication, the next few months will be All Blowjobs, All The Time over at Obama Public Radio.
This morning, NPR did a 3 minute story on a coordinated Obama attack on Bain capital, including a speech by Biden, comments by Obama, comments from the reporter, and audio of an Obama campaign commercial. About 15s of that was given over to a poorly recorded one-line response, I assume given over the phone, from the Romney campaign. The reporter took the last couple of lines of the story to rebut the response and talk about Obama's strategy.
Well, yeah, it's an aggressive attack, and people want to know if it's accurate. It is, so the feature will be pro-Obama. Similarly, they gave a lot of airtime to Romney's claim that the auto bailout was his idea, with the general conclusion being "strategic but untrue."
It's accurate but misleading - Romney's time at Bain was largely successful, with net job growth in the companies he took over. The main company featured in Obama's attacks (a steel mill in Kansas City) went bankrupt after Romney left Bain, and he had no ability to affect what happened or responsibility for it. They accuse him of profiting from that because Bain made money, but Bain donates mainly to Democratic political campaigns and Obama seems not to have a problem with his fellow politicians benefiting from that support.
It's quite inaccurate, but when NPR reports on the attack, rather than investigating the attack, they give the impression that it is accurate while really only repeating Obama's angle. Basically you've made my point for me. NPR investigates and refutes a Romney claim, but repeats, without analysis, an Obama claim.
This is a theme I fully expect to continue throughout the campaign.
One of the things they are discussing about Bain is that it would buy a company in good shape, then use it's assets to basically borrow a ton of money, then leave, and let the company flounder in its death throes amidst all that debt. Sure Bain made money, and I'm sure they had jobs. But you're going to have to cite a couple things. Like that, and how you say Bain donates mainly to Democratic campaigns. I won't believe that kind of company would ever donate to anyone but Republicans.
0
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
I love how he says O'Keefe has a responsibility as a journalist to do simple fact-checking. That makes me laugh. The very idea of O'Keefe as an actual journalist and not some hack doing the bidding of his conservative masters...
NPR did another piece on an Obama campaign commercial yesterday.
I'm struggling to understand how this is news but if 2008 is any indication, the next few months will be All Blowjobs, All The Time over at Obama Public Radio.
This morning, NPR did a 3 minute story on a coordinated Obama attack on Bain capital, including a speech by Biden, comments by Obama, comments from the reporter, and audio of an Obama campaign commercial. About 15s of that was given over to a poorly recorded one-line response, I assume given over the phone, from the Romney campaign. The reporter took the last couple of lines of the story to rebut the response and talk about Obama's strategy.
Well, yeah, it's an aggressive attack, and people want to know if it's accurate. It is, so the feature will be pro-Obama. Similarly, they gave a lot of airtime to Romney's claim that the auto bailout was his idea, with the general conclusion being "strategic but untrue."
It's accurate but misleading - Romney's time at Bain was largely successful, with net job growth in the companies he took over. The main company featured in Obama's attacks (a steel mill in Kansas City) went bankrupt after Romney left Bain, and he had no ability to affect what happened or responsibility for it. They accuse him of profiting from that because Bain made money, but Bain donates mainly to Democratic political campaigns and Obama seems not to have a problem with his fellow politicians benefiting from that support.
It's quite inaccurate, but when NPR reports on the attack, rather than investigating the attack, they give the impression that it is accurate while really only repeating Obama's angle. Basically you've made my point for me. NPR investigates and refutes a Romney claim, but repeats, without analysis, an Obama claim.
This is a theme I fully expect to continue throughout the campaign.
Even if I bought your characterization of the Obama ad - and I don't - but even if I did, you describe Obama's ad as "accurate but misleading." Meanwhile, Romney's claim that he can take credit for the success of the auto bailout is completely ridiculous. Any equivalence between those two things is a false equivalence - and if the things themselves aren't equivalent, neither should their coverage be.
I wasn't characterizing an Obama ad, I was talking about an NPR report. None of the things I mentioned were part of the NPR report. So, they certainly weren't equivalent... in that the one about Romney was (apparently, I didn't hear it) analysis and refutation, while the one about Obama's coordinated attack was just a recitation of the points brought up in the coordinated attack, with no criticism beyond mentioning Romney wasn't at Bain when the steel plant closed and a caveat explaining why the attack is good anyway, a brief response from Romney's campaign, and a closing pro-Obama response to Romney from the reporter. None of the other clarifying information I mentioned, or the hypocrisy highlight, were included in the report.
GOP may be planning to repeal the unpopular parts of Obamacare (like the mandate) but keep the popular parts (like requiring insurers to cover those with preexisting conditions). You might think that at some point in the two-page article the author would note that the one without the other is unworkable policy, but nope. Apparently the only downside to keeping the requirement but losing the mandate is that Democrats might "attack" Republicans for doing it.
if the gop puts up a bill to kill the mandate, democrats should let it pass. it would destroy private health insurance
NPR did another piece on an Obama campaign commercial yesterday.
I'm struggling to understand how this is news but if 2008 is any indication, the next few months will be All Blowjobs, All The Time over at Obama Public Radio.
This morning, NPR did a 3 minute story on a coordinated Obama attack on Bain capital, including a speech by Biden, comments by Obama, comments from the reporter, and audio of an Obama campaign commercial. About 15s of that was given over to a poorly recorded one-line response, I assume given over the phone, from the Romney campaign. The reporter took the last couple of lines of the story to rebut the response and talk about Obama's strategy.
Well, yeah, it's an aggressive attack, and people want to know if it's accurate. It is, so the feature will be pro-Obama. Similarly, they gave a lot of airtime to Romney's claim that the auto bailout was his idea, with the general conclusion being "strategic but untrue."
It's accurate but misleading - Romney's time at Bain was largely successful, with net job growth in the companies he took over. The main company featured in Obama's attacks (a steel mill in Kansas City) went bankrupt after Romney left Bain, and he had no ability to affect what happened or responsibility for it. They accuse him of profiting from that because Bain made money, but Bain donates mainly to Democratic political campaigns and Obama seems not to have a problem with his fellow politicians benefiting from that support.
It's quite inaccurate, but when NPR reports on the attack, rather than investigating the attack, they give the impression that it is accurate while really only repeating Obama's angle. Basically you've made my point for me. NPR investigates and refutes a Romney claim, but repeats, without analysis, an Obama claim.
This is a theme I fully expect to continue throughout the campaign.
One of the things they are discussing about Bain is that it would buy a company in good shape, then use it's assets to basically borrow a ton of money, then leave, and let the company flounder in its death throes amidst all that debt. Sure Bain made money, and I'm sure they had jobs. But you're going to have to cite a couple things. Like that, and how you say Bain donates mainly to Democratic campaigns. I won't believe that kind of company would ever donate to anyone but Republicans.
tl;dr it invests in companies and sometimes downsizes them, or in a few cases even profits while the company declares bankruptcy. More often though, it profits from successfully rescuing companies that are unprofitable, and those companies go on to profitability and growth.
NPR did another piece on an Obama campaign commercial yesterday.
I'm struggling to understand how this is news but if 2008 is any indication, the next few months will be All Blowjobs, All The Time over at Obama Public Radio.
This morning, NPR did a 3 minute story on a coordinated Obama attack on Bain capital, including a speech by Biden, comments by Obama, comments from the reporter, and audio of an Obama campaign commercial. About 15s of that was given over to a poorly recorded one-line response, I assume given over the phone, from the Romney campaign. The reporter took the last couple of lines of the story to rebut the response and talk about Obama's strategy.
Well, yeah, it's an aggressive attack, and people want to know if it's accurate. It is, so the feature will be pro-Obama. Similarly, they gave a lot of airtime to Romney's claim that the auto bailout was his idea, with the general conclusion being "strategic but untrue."
It's accurate but misleading - Romney's time at Bain was largely successful, with net job growth in the companies he took over. The main company featured in Obama's attacks (a steel mill in Kansas City) went bankrupt after Romney left Bain, and he had no ability to affect what happened or responsibility for it. They accuse him of profiting from that because Bain made money, but Bain donates mainly to Democratic political campaigns and Obama seems not to have a problem with his fellow politicians benefiting from that support.
It's quite inaccurate, but when NPR reports on the attack, rather than investigating the attack, they give the impression that it is accurate while really only repeating Obama's angle. Basically you've made my point for me. NPR investigates and refutes a Romney claim, but repeats, without analysis, an Obama claim.
This is a theme I fully expect to continue throughout the campaign.
One of the things they are discussing about Bain is that it would buy a company in good shape, then use it's assets to basically borrow a ton of money, then leave, and let the company flounder in its death throes amidst all that debt. Sure Bain made money, and I'm sure they had jobs. But you're going to have to cite a couple things. Like that, and how you say Bain donates mainly to Democratic campaigns. I won't believe that kind of company would ever donate to anyone but Republicans.
tl;dr it invests in companies and sometimes downsizes them, or in a few cases even profits while the company declares bankruptcy. More often though, it profits from successfully rescuing companies that are unprofitable, and those companies go on to profitability and growth.
(Emphasis added)
That would be the problem. Making a profit by saving a company = OK. Taking a loss when the company goes bankrupt = OK, you can't win 'em all. Taking over a failing company, extracting what you can and letting the workers take the hit? Not OK.
NPR did another piece on an Obama campaign commercial yesterday.
I'm struggling to understand how this is news but if 2008 is any indication, the next few months will be All Blowjobs, All The Time over at Obama Public Radio.
This morning, NPR did a 3 minute story on a coordinated Obama attack on Bain capital, including a speech by Biden, comments by Obama, comments from the reporter, and audio of an Obama campaign commercial. About 15s of that was given over to a poorly recorded one-line response, I assume given over the phone, from the Romney campaign. The reporter took the last couple of lines of the story to rebut the response and talk about Obama's strategy.
Well, yeah, it's an aggressive attack, and people want to know if it's accurate. It is, so the feature will be pro-Obama. Similarly, they gave a lot of airtime to Romney's claim that the auto bailout was his idea, with the general conclusion being "strategic but untrue."
It's accurate but misleading - Romney's time at Bain was largely successful, with net job growth in the companies he took over. The main company featured in Obama's attacks (a steel mill in Kansas City) went bankrupt after Romney left Bain, and he had no ability to affect what happened or responsibility for it. They accuse him of profiting from that because Bain made money, but Bain donates mainly to Democratic political campaigns and Obama seems not to have a problem with his fellow politicians benefiting from that support.
It's quite inaccurate, but when NPR reports on the attack, rather than investigating the attack, they give the impression that it is accurate while really only repeating Obama's angle. Basically you've made my point for me. NPR investigates and refutes a Romney claim, but repeats, without analysis, an Obama claim.
This is a theme I fully expect to continue throughout the campaign.
Even if I bought your characterization of the Obama ad - and I don't - but even if I did, you describe Obama's ad as "accurate but misleading." Meanwhile, Romney's claim that he can take credit for the success of the auto bailout is completely ridiculous. Any equivalence between those two things is a false equivalence - and if the things themselves aren't equivalent, neither should their coverage be.
I wasn't characterizing an Obama ad, I was talking about an NPR report. None of the things I mentioned were part of the NPR report. So, they certainly weren't equivalent... in that the one about Romney was (apparently, I didn't hear it) analysis and refutation, while the one about Obama's coordinated attack was just a recitation of the points brought up in the coordinated attack, with no criticism beyond mentioning Romney wasn't at Bain when the steel plant closed and a caveat explaining why the attack is good anyway, a brief response from Romney's campaign, and a closing pro-Obama response to Romney from the reporter. None of the other clarifying information I mentioned, or the hypocrisy highlight, were included in the report.
So you're comparing two reports, and one of them you didn't hear. The other you're characterizing comments from the reporter as "pro-Obama" without any specific quotes. Nor do you give any details about this "caveat explaining why the attack is good anyway"... This is not convincing to me.
NPR did another piece on an Obama campaign commercial yesterday.
I'm struggling to understand how this is news but if 2008 is any indication, the next few months will be All Blowjobs, All The Time over at Obama Public Radio.
This morning, NPR did a 3 minute story on a coordinated Obama attack on Bain capital, including a speech by Biden, comments by Obama, comments from the reporter, and audio of an Obama campaign commercial. About 15s of that was given over to a poorly recorded one-line response, I assume given over the phone, from the Romney campaign. The reporter took the last couple of lines of the story to rebut the response and talk about Obama's strategy.
Well, yeah, it's an aggressive attack, and people want to know if it's accurate. It is, so the feature will be pro-Obama. Similarly, they gave a lot of airtime to Romney's claim that the auto bailout was his idea, with the general conclusion being "strategic but untrue."
It's accurate but misleading - Romney's time at Bain was largely successful, with net job growth in the companies he took over. The main company featured in Obama's attacks (a steel mill in Kansas City) went bankrupt after Romney left Bain, and he had no ability to affect what happened or responsibility for it. They accuse him of profiting from that because Bain made money, but Bain donates mainly to Democratic political campaigns and Obama seems not to have a problem with his fellow politicians benefiting from that support.
It's quite inaccurate, but when NPR reports on the attack, rather than investigating the attack, they give the impression that it is accurate while really only repeating Obama's angle. Basically you've made my point for me. NPR investigates and refutes a Romney claim, but repeats, without analysis, an Obama claim.
This is a theme I fully expect to continue throughout the campaign.
Even if I bought your characterization of the Obama ad - and I don't - but even if I did, you describe Obama's ad as "accurate but misleading." Meanwhile, Romney's claim that he can take credit for the success of the auto bailout is completely ridiculous. Any equivalence between those two things is a false equivalence - and if the things themselves aren't equivalent, neither should their coverage be.
I wasn't characterizing an Obama ad, I was talking about an NPR report. None of the things I mentioned were part of the NPR report. So, they certainly weren't equivalent... in that the one about Romney was (apparently, I didn't hear it) analysis and refutation, while the one about Obama's coordinated attack was just a recitation of the points brought up in the coordinated attack, with no criticism beyond mentioning Romney wasn't at Bain when the steel plant closed and a caveat explaining why the attack is good anyway, a brief response from Romney's campaign, and a closing pro-Obama response to Romney from the reporter. None of the other clarifying information I mentioned, or the hypocrisy highlight, were included in the report.
So you're comparing two reports, and one of them you didn't hear. The other you're characterizing comments from the reporter as "pro-Obama" without any specific quotes. Nor do you give any details about this "caveat explaining why the attack is good anyway"... This is not convincing to me.
I'm not sure you're following this very well. It was Bagginses who made the comparison. I'm summarizing a report I heard on the radio this morning, just like many, many posts in this thread.
0
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
NPR did another piece on an Obama campaign commercial yesterday.
I'm struggling to understand how this is news but if 2008 is any indication, the next few months will be All Blowjobs, All The Time over at Obama Public Radio.
This morning, NPR did a 3 minute story on a coordinated Obama attack on Bain capital, including a speech by Biden, comments by Obama, comments from the reporter, and audio of an Obama campaign commercial. About 15s of that was given over to a poorly recorded one-line response, I assume given over the phone, from the Romney campaign. The reporter took the last couple of lines of the story to rebut the response and talk about Obama's strategy.
Well, yeah, it's an aggressive attack, and people want to know if it's accurate. It is, so the feature will be pro-Obama. Similarly, they gave a lot of airtime to Romney's claim that the auto bailout was his idea, with the general conclusion being "strategic but untrue."
It's accurate but misleading - Romney's time at Bain was largely successful, with net job growth in the companies he took over. The main company featured in Obama's attacks (a steel mill in Kansas City) went bankrupt after Romney left Bain, and he had no ability to affect what happened or responsibility for it. They accuse him of profiting from that because Bain made money, but Bain donates mainly to Democratic political campaigns and Obama seems not to have a problem with his fellow politicians benefiting from that support.
It's quite inaccurate, but when NPR reports on the attack, rather than investigating the attack, they give the impression that it is accurate while really only repeating Obama's angle. Basically you've made my point for me. NPR investigates and refutes a Romney claim, but repeats, without analysis, an Obama claim.
This is a theme I fully expect to continue throughout the campaign.
One of the things they are discussing about Bain is that it would buy a company in good shape, then use it's assets to basically borrow a ton of money, then leave, and let the company flounder in its death throes amidst all that debt. Sure Bain made money, and I'm sure they had jobs. But you're going to have to cite a couple things. Like that, and how you say Bain donates mainly to Democratic campaigns. I won't believe that kind of company would ever donate to anyone but Republicans.
tl;dr it invests in companies and sometimes downsizes them, or in a few cases even profits while the company declares bankruptcy. More often though, it profits from successfully rescuing companies that are unprofitable, and those companies go on to profitability and growth.
I wonder who at Bain Capital last edited that Wiki page.
Wikipedia isn't really a reliable source when it comes to hot button political issues(see abortion, gun rights, Obama and the war on Terror). Too many people have an axe to grind one way or the other edit pages, resulting in questionable content.
Reading the page and it seems like a fairy tale version of how Bain Capital and companies like it operates. A big hint that somebody has done a PR piece on the Bain Capital page is that its too long. Bain Capital is a private equity company not traded on the public market, no way random OBJECTIVE strangers would take the time to write up something that long. Most of the time it would be half a page that basically says: "Yeah, this company exists, here is a link to their website!", with one or two citations. Not several pages long with 95 citations.
Somebody put in the kind of time usually reserved for pages on Super Mario.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I did read the bottom of the wikipedia page, I even mentioned it in my original post. The Bain Capital page has 91 source citations. That's a lot for what is a minor private equity company. In fact its the hallmark of trying to hide shit in the crowd. Most of the citations are small newspaper articles and several www.sec.gov releases. Who keeps track of that sort of shit? If you answered Bain Capital PR department, then congratulations.
By comparison the main page on JP Morgan Chase, one of the largest Wall Street banks and one of the worlds leading financial institutions has only 77 source citations.
Wikipedia is open source, which means anybody can edit it. That is why universities and colleges refuse to allow it as a valid source when it comes to term papers. Its also become just another part of public relations for companies. Bain Capital has become a hot button issue, its only natural that people will try to pretty up its wiki page.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I did read the bottom of the wikipedia page, I even mentioned it in my original post. The Bain Capital page has 91 source citations. That's a lot for what is a minor private equity company. In fact its the hallmark of trying to hide shit in the crowd. Most of the citations are small newspaper articles and several www.sec.gov releases. Who keeps track of that sort of shit? If you answered Bain Capital PR department, then congratulations.
By comparison the main page on JP Morgan Chase, one of the largest Wall Street banks and one of the worlds leading financial institutions has only 77 source citations.
Wikipedia is open source, which means anybody can edit it. That is why universities and colleges refuse to allow it as a valid source when it comes to term papers. Its also become just another part of public relations for companies. Bain Capital has become a hot button issue, its only natural that people will try to pretty up its wiki page.
I think a better example would be the other private equity firms of the same size. Bain capital is the number 7 private equity firm in the west at the moment. By comparison, here's the wiki page of number 8 and 9.
Another good clue that someone from either the Bain Capital PR team, Romney Campaign or the RNC touched things up is the lack of a controversy section since it's been brought up in a negative light quite a bit.
Posts
There story is the second link in "Latest News" which is one below where it sits at CNN.
And other than showcasing the lack of diversity in conversative news show hounds (on a Sunday), I'm not entirely sure what that chart is meant to illustrate; it's the content that matters not who is actually on.
Really, cause I'm pretty sure it shows a huge bias in media reporting, which is it's point.
This will be the way of things so long as we have to pretend to give a shit about boomers as the majority vote.
I place the blame on the boomers because millenials are far more likely to not give a shit about your melanin and genital make up.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/07/1089497/-James-O-Keefe-scared-off-of-New-Hampshire-appearance-because-of-grand-jury-subpoena-nbsp-threat-
Don't get me wrong, James O'Keefe is human garbage, but the link provided doesn't show him as a "craven coward".
He was going to give a speech in NH, up till the Attorney General for the state started looking for him so he could face a grand jury about the actual voter fraud he conspired to commit. He then gave the speech remotely.
Yeah, that's craven cowardice.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/15/484462/james-o-keefe-voter-fraud-north-carolina/
I'm struggling to understand how this is news but if 2008 is any indication, the next few months will be All Blowjobs, All The Time over at Obama Public Radio.
When will NPR stop wasting time demonizing liberals and focus on real stories?
This morning, NPR did a 3 minute story on a coordinated Obama attack on Bain capital, including a speech by Biden, comments by Obama, comments from the reporter, and audio of an Obama campaign commercial. About 15s of that was given over to a poorly recorded one-line response, I assume given over the phone, from the Romney campaign. The reporter took the last couple of lines of the story to rebut the response and talk about Obama's strategy.
Well, yeah, it's an aggressive attack, and people want to know if it's accurate. It is, so the feature will be pro-Obama. Similarly, they gave a lot of airtime to Romney's claim that the auto bailout was his idea, with the general conclusion being "strategic but untrue."
As Stephen Colbert remarked to George W. Bush, reality has a liberal bias.
It's accurate but misleading - Romney's time at Bain was largely successful, with net job growth in the companies he took over. The main company featured in Obama's attacks (a steel mill in Kansas City) went bankrupt after Romney left Bain, and he had no ability to affect what happened or responsibility for it. They accuse him of profiting from that because Bain made money, but Bain donates mainly to Democratic political campaigns and Obama seems not to have a problem with his fellow politicians benefiting from that support.
It's quite inaccurate, but when NPR reports on the attack, rather than investigating the attack, they give the impression that it is accurate while really only repeating Obama's angle. Basically you've made my point for me. NPR investigates and refutes a Romney claim, but repeats, without analysis, an Obama claim.
This is a theme I fully expect to continue throughout the campaign.
Even if I bought your characterization of the Obama ad - and I don't - but even if I did, you describe Obama's ad as "accurate but misleading." Meanwhile, Romney's claim that he can take credit for the success of the auto bailout is completely ridiculous. Any equivalence between those two things is a false equivalence - and if the things themselves aren't equivalent, neither should their coverage be.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/media-general-announces-agreements-berkshire-120000630.html
I wonder what the gameplan is here.
Yeah, this isn't looking like just an investment.
GOP may be planning to repeal the unpopular parts of Obamacare (like the mandate) but keep the popular parts (like requiring insurers to cover those with preexisting conditions). You might think that at some point in the two-page article the author would note that the one without the other is unworkable policy, but nope. Apparently the only downside to keeping the requirement but losing the mandate is that Democrats might "attack" Republicans for doing it.
One of the things they are discussing about Bain is that it would buy a company in good shape, then use it's assets to basically borrow a ton of money, then leave, and let the company flounder in its death throes amidst all that debt. Sure Bain made money, and I'm sure they had jobs. But you're going to have to cite a couple things. Like that, and how you say Bain donates mainly to Democratic campaigns. I won't believe that kind of company would ever donate to anyone but Republicans.
I love how he says O'Keefe has a responsibility as a journalist to do simple fact-checking. That makes me laugh. The very idea of O'Keefe as an actual journalist and not some hack doing the bidding of his conservative masters...
I wasn't characterizing an Obama ad, I was talking about an NPR report. None of the things I mentioned were part of the NPR report. So, they certainly weren't equivalent... in that the one about Romney was (apparently, I didn't hear it) analysis and refutation, while the one about Obama's coordinated attack was just a recitation of the points brought up in the coordinated attack, with no criticism beyond mentioning Romney wasn't at Bain when the steel plant closed and a caveat explaining why the attack is good anyway, a brief response from Romney's campaign, and a closing pro-Obama response to Romney from the reporter. None of the other clarifying information I mentioned, or the hypocrisy highlight, were included in the report.
if the gop puts up a bill to kill the mandate, democrats should let it pass. it would destroy private health insurance
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/205025-dems-receive-more-bain-dollars-than-gop
Here are a few dozen citations on how Bain operates and the sorts of things it invests in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital
tl;dr it invests in companies and sometimes downsizes them, or in a few cases even profits while the company declares bankruptcy. More often though, it profits from successfully rescuing companies that are unprofitable, and those companies go on to profitability and growth.
(Emphasis added)
That would be the problem. Making a profit by saving a company = OK. Taking a loss when the company goes bankrupt = OK, you can't win 'em all. Taking over a failing company, extracting what you can and letting the workers take the hit? Not OK.
So you're comparing two reports, and one of them you didn't hear. The other you're characterizing comments from the reporter as "pro-Obama" without any specific quotes. Nor do you give any details about this "caveat explaining why the attack is good anyway"... This is not convincing to me.
I'm not sure you're following this very well. It was Bagginses who made the comparison. I'm summarizing a report I heard on the radio this morning, just like many, many posts in this thread.
I wonder who at Bain Capital last edited that Wiki page.
Reading the page and it seems like a fairy tale version of how Bain Capital and companies like it operates. A big hint that somebody has done a PR piece on the Bain Capital page is that its too long. Bain Capital is a private equity company not traded on the public market, no way random OBJECTIVE strangers would take the time to write up something that long. Most of the time it would be half a page that basically says: "Yeah, this company exists, here is a link to their website!", with one or two citations. Not several pages long with 95 citations.
Somebody put in the kind of time usually reserved for pages on Super Mario.
I take it you've never seen the occasional studies done on who edits Wiki pages?
By comparison the main page on JP Morgan Chase, one of the largest Wall Street banks and one of the worlds leading financial institutions has only 77 source citations.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_Chase
Wikipedia is open source, which means anybody can edit it. That is why universities and colleges refuse to allow it as a valid source when it comes to term papers. Its also become just another part of public relations for companies. Bain Capital has become a hot button issue, its only natural that people will try to pretty up its wiki page.
I think a better example would be the other private equity firms of the same size. Bain capital is the number 7 private equity firm in the west at the moment. By comparison, here's the wiki page of number 8 and 9.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.