First Palin, then Breitbart . . How will MSM react?

I recall years back when a democratic candidate "attacked" some media outlet, I think it was WaPo. The reaction from the rest of the media was fast and furious. And predictable. In defense of WaPo.

It is an obvious and simply truth that American Media can make or break candidates. We see what Fox News did to Howard Dean, using creative sound editing, and we see how it has tried to pump up the Tea Baggers all year.

Here we have major stars in the GOP stable, Sarah Palin attacking Politico (a semi-right wing outlet), we have Breitbart attacking ABC News, we have Sharron Angle refusing all media contact, and accusing them of being irresponsible and unprofessional, and we have Rand Paul attacking media for telling the truth.

At some point, don't we expect a reaction much like that one we witnessed years ago, with the MSM turning on these idiots?

yet he wasn't hounded by the press and got off with only probation for income-tax evasion, living out his years in obscurity - remarkably free from any criticism during his twilight years. It's OK if you're a Republican, and if individual journalists don't like it (the scant handful of journalists I consider true liberals, that is), well, their corporate overlords tell them it's tough titty toenail; their stories won't get run.

no hope.

we need to make it NOT OK to get away with reprehensible behavior by dint of political party.

kinda like Chicago voting, early and often.

The goal of the Citizen's United case was to allow GOP candidates to avoid answering ANY questions ... period.

As a candidate, you indicate your support for some policy outcome ... third party front groups run ads, using funding from secret sources. The Candidate never has to speak, except to "friendly media" ... the front groups handle the rest, TV ads, robo-calls, mailers.

There is no "secret agreement needed. The candidate makes their agreement publically. The corporate interests make their policies preferences known. The candidate set up a simple web-site that parrots those same positions. A third party group is formed, and they corporations give them money ... and the 3rd party runs the ads for their candidate. No hand shake needed.

If the candidate doesn't stay in line ... they get a "tea-party" primary candidate ... and the money at the 3rd party simply shifts its target ...

No secret deals. And no "promises".

Now ... if you are in the media, your days of interviewing candidates is about over. I don't need the media to get my message out.

look how strongly the MSM pushed the Tea Baggers as a real, widespread, serious, political bowel movement. A meeting of 200 people in Nevada was viewed as huge, but 30,000 coming out to see the president? It was not news.

Now, after the Tea Baggers start attacking their fiends in the media, the ones who made them, you would think that there would be some reaction by the media.

And so ... as long as a network gets the ad money, the talking heads, who have no problem talking to each other, will continue to do so.

I'm watching Tweety now ... no elected official on the show.

they'd save a ton of money, too.

I guess this is where the abolish the 17th amendment comes in.

This all makes me incredibly sad & mad. :grr:

When did they get to "semi"?

you are correct.

administration, House, and Senate, so they will support anyone who attacks liberals, no matter what else those people do.