NBC News endorses Clinton

Apparently since they gave her five minutes or so of free publicity today, laughing it up with Brian Williams. Are they gonna cover other candidates later?

Not much time for the other candidates, but they did have time to do a story on OJ. All the news you need.

Anyway, congratulations Hillary on getting a key endorsement from the M$M.

Much more so than Edwards or Obama.

most likely to help the Republican Party.

:mad: :eyes:

Who the fuck is going to remember four minutes talking to Brian Williams in November???

nice of you to include a picture of a Clinton supporter.

Nice of you to disappear from my screen. You bashers will just not learn until no one replies to you.

as well as your contribution to the civility here.

Plus, isn't that a foolish strategery? It just give a free pass to any 'basher' without a chance for you to defend your chosen one.

eom

And if it was an ad for adult diapers I'd really be disturbed.

I understand during the 8 years when they were there before D.C. came alive like never before. Everyone loved it. Then Bush and his minions of death came in and overnight living in D.C. was like living in the Kremlin at the height of the Cold War. Dark, dreary and drab.

That may be part of it?

Don

the media used to get a ton of free perks from the old travel office. But I think the bottom line $$$ matters far more than the social life to the rich and powerful.

edit: "I head" What a fantastic typist I am.

Bush and his goons have turned the place into a generally depressing place to live. I guess that may go for all of us? But I have read they liked it better before Bush and his cowboys and cowgirls rode into town.

Don

they are ready to kiss and make up














much more bullshit to castigate him.

even for any other news outlet. Who has done a story on it?

Probably because they have all done it too, the same way Kucinich was excluded from even a PBS forum.

and no one does drama better than the Clintons.

I know newspapers have done it forever and nobody seems to object, but dammit, I want them to at least pretend to be open and unbiased

:sarcasm:

How much is five minutes worth of national advertising worth? Especially when it is not presented as an ad, but just kinda sneaked in "I am Brian Williams and I like this candidate". It's never said, but it is, instead, acted out. A more staged puff piece could not be designed for any candidate. Truly NBC is breaking ground as a muckraker. Meanwhile "liberals" like Cohen at the WaPo call Edwards and Obama liars, but you've gotta read the Nation to find out that it is Cohen who is the liar.

interested in a chart showing how much time each candidate used. I'm not sure if there was any bias involved, but it would be interesting to see the figures if you have them. Thanks.

Making up crap again.

and a gee shucks puff piece, an endorsement?

What exactly is 'made up'? It's an endorsement until my candidate gets equal time and equal treatment. It was not news. It was an ad.

See if you can defend it without calling me a liar. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe they alread did the same thing for Obama, Edwards and Kucinich and I somehow missed it. Maybe they were just unaware that a puff piece of publicity would help a candidate.

Maybe I should just forward this thread to Media Matters.

You admit you did not see the time spent with Edwards and Obama. I did. I enjoyed them both as well. Actually I've seen more of the personal interviews with Edwards and Obama overall. Some of them have been very soft while others were less so. Why cry foul and make accusations when you yourself admit you are doing so without knowledge?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#22687700

It begins with "Hillary sees each new day as a victory"

and then he asks the substantial question "explain the energy of the rope line"

Then she is given 30 seconds to bash Obama and compare him to Bush. Well, that's fair, right. Obama was given the same 30 seconds in his interview wasn't he? Maybe it just wasn't included in the clip. Then the question (?) is "explain your moment of grace in New Hampshire" versus Obama being asked "are you worried about death threats" and Edwards being asked (about 100 years ago when such an "ad" has little impact) "you are way behind, can you compete against Oprah?" and also "I read a report that you are angry, is that true" as Williams sits there looking stern and serious.

Then there's the ET celebrity treatment of Clinton. "What if Bill was here?" and finally we wrap it up with a lighthearted discussion of campaign food.

Williams might as well have been shouting "give me a C! give me an L!" It's all nicely packaged to be pro-Clinton, to make you think "gee, she's nice". It was NBC that did the packaging too. It's not like each candidate was given 4 minutes to present their message. NBC chose to put out 4 minutes of very pro-Hillary coverage and they also chose to do it at a very opportune time, right before a couple of key races just before super Tuesday. It's hardly equal time when Edwards got 4 minutes on November 27th and Clinton gets 4 minutes 4 days before a race. As for the piece on Obama, there was a story there. He had just won Iowa a day before.

If that looks fair to you, it may just be because your candidate got the favorable treatment and the favorable timing.

They've been running a segment all week on males and females. Yesterday it was about emotions and thought processes, today it was about inequities for women in college admission programs. Good series, but interesting timing.

their 5 minutes too, I'd bet a million on it. :sarcasm:

Still waiting on that Edwards coverage.

But at the time, he was news, having just won Iowa, and expected, according to the polls and the crowds, to win New Hampshire.

They did something on Edwards on November 27th.

I may sit corrected, but they seemed very pro-Hillary today "Every day is a victory for Hillary" and then she gets some time to take a swipe at Obama. Something Obama didn't do in his piece.

formality to make it offical. I believe the corporate media had set it up to enable Bush for eight years to be repeated by the Clintons, that was Bill Clinton's reward for giving them the Integrity issue on a silver platter. They knew Cheney wasn't going to run and they didn't want the primary political champion of the Internet in the White House, that would be too much power for the people at the expense of the corporate media.

Just doesn't seem right.

Just think of the ad revenue the Clintons brought them in the 90s.

We ARE in a recession, you know.

:P

Tweety loves it when Presidents swagger and blow shit up. :crazy:

he predicted that HRC would be the nominee and that she would win. I guess the fix is in re corporate Amerika and HRC.

Haven't seen anything for John yet have we? :shrug:

When nobody cared all that much outside of Iowa. There's still no comparison between what they did for Obama and what they did for Clinton.

The Obama piece was much more like a news story, and there was a story since he had won Iowa and was leading in New Hampshire. This piece was all "rah rah Clinton" and the interview with Obama sorta had a dark side "are you worried about death threats?" he was asked. Whereas Hillary was asked "explain your moment of grace in New Hampshire" and also given 30 seconds to bash Obama and compare him to Bush.

Other analysts saw a much more balanced and shared victory; but for some bizarre reason, Tweety kept saying "she acted like she was already president" - if anything, I would find such arrogance as a turn off.

The M$M sure has an agenda!

She's their pro war, pro corporate dream, thus they'll back her to the max, as should be obvious from the way that they've treated her in the debates.

or encourage the other candidates to attack her. I call that a turning point because at that point she looked like a slam dunk for the nomination, so they started bashing on her in preparation for the general election. Plus, they prefer a horse race, just like an NFL announcer prefers a close game. My thinking is that they prefer Republicans, but failing that are okay with somebody from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

Obama has been cut more slack than george w. so really...5 minutes for Senator Clinton? Egad...call the police.:evilgrin:

when YOUR opponent is given an unfair advantage. My guy is running against Obama too, but the piece on him last week simply was not as gushing. A serious interview is one thing. A promotional puff piece is another.

they want things to go on the same, didnt you know?

:eyes:

:sarcasm:

They've been shoving down our throats and up our asses since she announced. This should make it even MORE obvious that the fix is in. :nuke:

for years.

one on one with Charlie Gibson, NBC may have, or will do the same

(I don't know, I usually watch ABC News).

Who should they have endorsed? Would they have done a story on O.J. if they had endorsed another candidate? Should the MSM endorse or not a candidate?