Wait till Romney wins tomorrow. The Presstitutes of the MSM will then spontaneously awaken from their 4 year Obama coma. After their shock, gnashing of teeth, they'll go back to anti-Bush type mode, just substituting Romney for Bush. Lies, distortions, highly selective coverage/non-coverage of news, doing everything they can to undermine the Romney Administration and "protecting Obama's 'legacy'"...and patting each other on their backs for their "courage" in "speaking truth to power".

Macbeth wanted to kill all the lawyers, but only because he'd never met an MSM "journalist".

Grew up in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) and was a young lad around the time Mugabe and his henchmen were close to taking power. I had finally saved up enough money to buy the parts to make a shortwave radio. Built it with great enthusiasm, with a long antenna wire that I strung around the roof of the house.

I had always heard that the BBC was the *pinnacle* of journalistic excellence, and couldn't wait to listen. Finally got the radio working, curled up in bed at night, put on the BBC...the anticipation, the excitement.

To use the same word, as lance I remember my *profound* disappointment at what I heard. Lies, half truths, important facts purposely omitted. Indeed I could hardly believe they were talking about the same country I lived in, and the bias was disgusting. They were so pro-Mugabe it made me sick to my stomach, especially knowing that my father was patrolling the streets late into the night with others to try and keep the neighbourhoods safe from Mugabe's so-called "freedom fighters".

It changed my view of the media forever. The media stream media and public broadcasters are disgusting individuals, with some rare exceptions. It is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful for this blog, which is an oasis of freedom and free thought.

I hope Romney wins because he is the better man for the job, but also because it will be a huge loss for the mainstream media. Never before in the history of America has the media been so biased toward one candidate. I hope this election is their downfall.

Excellent insight, Lance.

It will be TJ, the same thing has been happening here for years, why do you think Turdough and Cretin spent so much time in power while stealing so much of the publics contributions, the urnalists kept them there for the perks. There are not enough eggs in the US or chickens to lay them,to place on the faces of the media dorks after tomorrow, just like here last spring when honey dodo was waltzing to power. Business comes first, sometimes it takes a while, but it will always win out.

Related: Two Paths

Awesome vid, Robert.

My own response ...

@BumfOnline: @InklessPW It's this type of refreshing candor from our media overlords which compelled me to allow my Macleans subscription to expire #hack

I'm sure they're firing up the printing presses already with all kinds of hit pieces on Romney and his potential cabinet choices. I'm sure they've got crack teams of dumpster divers ready to go too. These people have proven themselves to be enemies of the people.

Dave, King Richard wanted to kill all the lawyers but you're right- the press will take their anger out on Romney big time.

I'm so glad blogs are wiping the floors with them.

One of the few benefits of a Romney presidency will be the media 'rediscovering' their scepticism of executive power.

Philistines, the lot of you. Dick the Butcher wanted to kill all the lawyers.

If Romney wins the media will FREAK. OUT. It will be worth watching.

"Everyone knows why. I, as a blogger (and thus 'media') know why. It's a hell of a lot easier to fill content when you're 'against' something."
~Paul Wells, Professional Journalist & Amateur Tweeter

It suffices to say that Paul Wells is at minimum on the other side because it's would have been just so easy to have had 'fun' being against Obama these last 4 years were Wells to have been at all 'unbiased'.

Oz, that was me, not Wells.

”Macbeth wanted to kill all the lawyers, but only because he'd never met an MSM "journalist".
~Dave in Pa

False dichotomy. Killing the lawyers and killing the MSM journalists are not exclusive endeavours.
Furthermore, it presupposes that either group needs killing at all by Obeth when they are clearly co-conspirators with the him and profit in hiscontinuation in public offices.

Waal that campaign commercial with the foul mouthed senior citizens is a sign of things to come. The old "cock puncher" referred to "stealing the election".

Hint: they will be in denial that they actually lost for good and proper reason. It will be worse than the hanging chads thingy...much worse.

The donkeys is desperate and so expect record election fraud....because they know it will be their last chance...the world's closin' in on them. Photo ID will be federal law.

Thank you lance, my misapprehension.
My apologies, Mr. Wells.

*
why is a news-reader considered some sort of quasi-elite job?
they don't think about anything... they read a teleprompter.
you only get the so-called news (actually info-tainment)
their media overlords choose to disseminate.

this is a job, much like delivering the mail, that could be just
as easily (and more genuinely) performed by any random
ten year old child.

*

No doubt there are some reading these comments and thinking "these posters are so biased that they can't even see how wrong they are." For any who might think this way, I would ask that you take some local story the goes national that you have a LOT of information about, far more than could ever make the news. Look around at all of the various news suppliers, and see who does the best job of covering it, not only in terms of what they say, but what they don't say (how much they editorialize or extrapolating from what is known). Whoever does the best job of covering that story that you know so well so that someone with no previous knowledge of the story would come to the same conclusion about it that you with your deep and detailed knowledge have come to. To me, that's what TJ is talking about. He KNEW that his dad was out trying to protect his family, but the BBC portrayed as a racist thug who couldn't think (my extrapolation only, I'm not trying to put words in TJ's mouth). That moment of clarity for me was coverage of Indian land claims in northern BC the summer than Oka heated up.

I assume that the news that lied so much that summer about a story that I knew well would lie just as much when I didn't know the back story. Once they've shown me that they are liars I won't trust them again unless they cover another story I know intimately in a fair manner. It hasn't happened yet.

You guys drink sooooooo much Kool-Aid; all so oblivious that you're about to lose decisively. Yes, a pummelling awaits you. It's not the media. It's you. All of you are totally unwilling to accept reality. I could understand and do understand articulate philosophically conservative positions. There is merit in many of them. But when every real indicator is saying that Mitt Romney will not be president on November 6th, and the cavalry here is wholly denying it, I can't help but shake my head. The sheer absence of objectivity or the ability to acknowledge the validity of mechanisms (i.e. polls) which have successfully predicted winners in the past... and then going on to rationalize it as bias or attempts to influence the electorate... Seriously everyone... It was obvious to me that Bush was going to win in 2004. I didn't like it, but I accepted it. You all need to take a break from your vacay on "Bullsh*t Mountain". Hopefully this will knock some sense into all of you. Happy Tuesday. Please look up 'objectivity' in your household Oxford.

"Happy Tuesday."

May yours suck big time, for all our sakes.

J Garrett - just like the polls accurately determined Reagan's victory, John Kerry(didn't he serve in Vietnam?)'s loss, and the Wild Rose Party majority in Alberta?

If you still believe polls accurately reflect election results, methinks you should look up "reality" in your handy dictionary.

Oh, and check out "the Bradley Effect" while you're at it.

One thing that the US has which Canada doesn't is talk radio and Fox News. While in Florida I was listening to a radio program and was thinking whoever was on really knew what he was talking about - it turned out to be Herman Cain.

The MSM is dying and the only thing that will save it will be if it becomes the propaganda arm of the totalitarian state. It has already voluntarily adopted this position which is why it is so loathed by all people still able to think independently.

If Obozo wins, expect to see some major attacks on the first amendment all in the name of "balance". From what I've seen of the MSM in my involuntary exposure to this medium 2 days ago, it can't disappear soon enough. It reinforced my decision to totally tune out this crap and do my own research on every significant issue. We just have to convince a larger segment of the population to do the same.

Another thing one can expect from an Obozo win is censorship of the internet. This is far easier than one would expect given the small number of connections in the US internet backbone. That's why I've started looking into the open wireless movement; a truly distributed mesh network of open routers with open source software that would provide a means of communication that statists couldn't shut down unless they employed tactics that would make the people rise up and shoot the bastards. For those that are interested, there's more information at:
http://openwireless.org/

Hey C_Miner, Canadian elections, nor American elections of the past have had the level of polling or analysis that the last few in the US have had. This is an industry of exponential proportions now. Statisticians, who you would all claim are biased till their death are staking their reputations on being right in making these calls. We're not talking about Gumbo's gut feeling from the drudge report or your daily Limbaugh hack.

And you cannot, with a straight face, say that the Alberta polling situation was anywhere as comprehensive as that which is going on down south. For crying out loud. Obama has it in the bag. If you don't think so, let's put some money on the line. $10,000 bucks?! >:)

J Garrett - wow, you're sure of your point. One might even say there's a consensus supporting your viewpoint. Of course, models or incorrectly assembled data (how's the cell phone segment collected?) has no bearing on reality, does it? Statisticians are a different breed than pollsters. GIGO rules their world. Pollsters are the ones that are regularly wrong. How strong of a + democratic sample do you think is correct? I don't think the dems are as motivated this time as the "hell, no, not another 4 years" crowd.

Since the high school teacher who wouldn't pay off when the NDP lost in BC I haven't bothered to engage in hearsay bets. Or are you wagering 10,000 quatlums?

Paul Wells; a tepid read at the best. Cheers;

J Garrett - wow twice.

Lame stream media polls are using 2008 Democrat turnout at a plus 8 for Obama.

Soooo,

If Romney is tied, he is a +6 counting the margin of errors.

CNN just had a poll at +11 for Obama,
he and Romney were tied at 48.

Which would put Romney up by at least +8.

-

Anyway..

Reminds me of that movie 'A Few Good Men'
when the prosecutor told the defense lawyer,

"Your man is going down and there is nothing you can do about it."

There will be weeping and wailing and a gnashing of teeth Nov. 7

Romney +6

Best be careful, TJ, lest BM call you rasicts for dissin' her bruthas and sistas in Zimbabwe...

After all, everyone KNOWS that Mugabe is Ghandi of Africa. Just like his other brother Mandela in South Sfrica...

An yes, Paul Wells. So many words, so little ability.

It wasn't Macbeth....it's a line from Henry VI,part 2.

I'm an occasional reader here, and I have nothing to add to the discussion.

I could, however use, $10,000. J Garrett, I have almost no doubts about the Romney victory.

So, I'll take your bet. Is it $10K US or $10K Canadian? (I'm hoping Candadian, since Obama and the Fed have so devalued US currency that the Candadian dollar is stronger.)

Oh, and related, I live in the most liberal part of Virginia. Obama isn't even going to win HERE, let alone the entire state. I know those polls are very skewed.

And at 9PM EST when the election is called for Romney, all these pollsters will say that their polls just had the wrong model of the electorate. No bias, just a mistake!

Also, you think the polls are significantly better than they were in 2004? Why?

Long time subscriber to the Financial Times. Always enjoyed it as a solid alternative to the US print media. A few months ago it went off the rails with Obama propaganda presented as hard news and gratuitous insults to Romney in the hard news stories. This was just about the time that Romney spoke out for Israel and against the Palestinian leadership.

So there must be a reason for the change. I found it. The FT is partially owned by the government of Libya. Who knew? There is a reason for everything, you just need to figure out what the reason is.

Bit early to be drinking, isn't it, Mark? Anyway, I'm not black-black you know.

Garrett, are you kidding us?

He's kidding us. Such a cut up. He said polls that were accurate in the past. That's the hilarious part. Polls were NOT accurate in the past and they are skewed even so far as +12 D today! They're utterly ridiculous. And now you use them as authority to ridicule people with sharper acumen than yourself. Garrett, do you have a point to make that isn't plain ad hominem and isn't just plain appeal to false authority? No? You don't. Goodbye. Kaching *votes*

"You guys drink sooooooo much Kool-Aid..."

Better that than the cyanide-laced Flavor-Ade you guys swill.

(Did you know Jim Jones was a darling of the Democrat left? That he was a "community organizer"? That the murders and suicides were committed in the same of "communism" not in the name of God? Of course not -- because the press has suppressed the fact that Jones was a far-left political fanatic in favor of the lie that he was some sort of Christian religious fanatic.)

"One of the few benefits of a Romney presidency will be the media 'rediscovering' their scepticism of executive power. " Posted by: LAS

That has never changed, they have always maintained their criticism of all things conservative, regardless of who is in power. When conservatives are in opposition, they get criticized. When they are in power, they get criticized. When they aren't even in politics, they get criticized.

If any other profession acted as unprofessional as Liberal media they'd lose their license to operate, can you imagine lawyers practicing that getting away with lying to the public?? Nope they'd be disbarred, doctors would be stripped of their medical license, trades' men black-balled. Personally I refuse to read anything that has the AP or Reuters tag line, boycot them into death.

Macbeth? Methinks not. Try Henry VI; Part II

My longer response to TJ got caught in the filter. Why, I don't know. Suffice to say the BBC never reported anything resembling the truth about Ulster either. So what if loyal Britons were being killed? It wasn't worth their invitations to cocktail parties thrown by Labour MPs who wanted Ulster and Rhodesia out of the headlines---assuming they weren't in Moscow's pocket.

They can't wait to get back to their real jobs. It's been so hard on them! Trying to come up with relevant questions while still covering up for Obama has been such a trial....

"One of the few benefits of a Romney presidency will be the media 'rediscovering' their scepticism of executive power. " Posted by: LAS

That has never changed, they have always maintained their criticism of all things conservative, regardless of who is in power. When conservatives are in opposition, they get criticized. When they are in power, they get criticized. When they aren't even in politics, they get criticized.

After a divorce I recently moved to the inner city in St. Louis where I owned some apartments. I just voted at my 95% black polling place. I am white. I think Republican's are engaging in wishful thinking if they think black Obama voters are not motivated this year. The place was overflowing. After chatting up quite a few friendly folks in the line for an hour, I get the feeling that Axelrod/Plouffe/Obama have succeeded in institutionalizing high black voter turnout in America. I am feeling pretty depressed about your prospects and am thinking the pollsters know what they are doing when they use much larger samples of Democrats. I hope I am wrong for if I am not I think the Republic has been lost and Ben Franklin is turning over in his grave.

When Mitt Romney takes office in January - I'm hoping his press office changes the credentialling of the White House press pool to obtain a balance of about 50% 'alternative media'. (Not counting on it, he'll have plenty of other changes to be deciding, but it would be SO appropriate!)

"I will just say that as a biased and bigoted journalist, a Romney presidency would ensure more fun stories than an Obama re-election."

There, I fixed it for you.

Is there any way to interpret the original statement reasonably? Mitt Romney is a Mormon businessman... and through most of his political career, the adjective most attached to him was "boring". He doesn't drink, he doesn't smoke, he's a clean-cut success story. What's fun about that? Barack Obama, by contrast, is always making bombastic claims, always playing hard and protesting how smart he is, always taking credit for others' successes and blaming others for his failures. You could say that you don't want to make fun of him for any of that... but objectively, isn't there a lot more material there for a Real Journalist?

BTW, I discovered long ago that the BBC sounds wonderful, unless they're reporting on something you actually do know about. Then their bias is as obvious as a cat covering up on a tile floor. This bias in their Middle east reporting is downright disgusting, and the reason I haven't listened to BBC News in ten years or more.

I don't know why I bother to correct your errors, JGarret, because the blind will not see.

I wonder if the poll, in the following article, can get through to you. Reagan was losing against Carter until the last week before the election, when he was proclaimed as almost tied.

The election was close, the MSM said, when the result was a landslide for Reagan. How did the pollsters miss that?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/keep-calm-and-carry-on.php

The best news is that all the MSM are floundering. I could somewhat stomach CTV News when Count Floyd was on; I can't even watch commercials with Lisa LaFlamer. Haven't watched CBC news since Wendy Mesley went all spiky; Global's no better. All across the US, network news is going down for the count - people would rather watch Judge Judy, sitcom reruns, or Jeopardy! than hearing the daily bias. I think the MSM has blown themselves into irrelevance with this election. (Witness Saturday Night Live skewering Mathews and Madcow for a change, instead of just Fox.)

So, Mrs Garrett, you go on believing your "Obama in a walk" propaganda. As others have pointed out, the deliberate oversampling of Democrats to portray Bambam as leading, and the faux praise heaped on Bambam for non-events like his 'response' to Sandy (will someone tell me what the hell he did, other than show up for photos?) are all part of a deliberate MSM narrative to try to sway the electorate. Not going to happen.

I think it's funny that so many people have so much confidence in polls, when the polls have a 9% response rate--and that's not even counting those cell phone users who are unreachable.

Nonresponsiveness has been going down steadily for the past few years, but even at its peak, it was only 35% or so.

Who are these people that can't be reached? What do they think? Who are those people who refuse to answer polls, and why do they refuse to answer them?

This problem, in statistics, is formally called "nonresponse bias", and it should be clear that it's impossible to correct for.

And soon to be one with the Dire Wolf and the Short-faced Bear...

TJ wrote, To use the same word, as lance I remember my *profound* disappointment at what I heard. Lies, half truths, important facts purposely omitted. Indeed I could hardly believe [the BBC] were talking about the same country I lived in, and the bias was disgusting.

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Norvell (June 11, 1807)

Knoll's Law of Media Accuracy: Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge. -- Erwin Knoll, editor, "The Progressive"

"...it was the first time that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies--unless one counts journalists." --George Orwell, "Homage to Catalonia" (1938)

Also read Malcolm Muggeridge's account of his leftist reporting days in his essay The Great Liberal Death Wish.

Nate Whilk - and then of course there's Scoop.