|
An interesting Rasmussen poll out today pooh-poohs a hobbyhorse of Yawn McCain, campaign finance reform. It seems that folks figure that politicians will find a way to bend rules in favor of their campaign donors, regardless of efforts to the contrary.
That’s okay, to some degree, because it’s factored in to how folks view the politicians, the lobbyists, and the issues.
That same Rasmussen poll, however, shows that what folks don’t dismiss is media bias.
Surprise! They want political information straight. They don’t look kindly on the big newspapers and the network news shows presenting stuff as “unbiased” when the items have been filtered and slanted to fit the worldview of the editors, reporters and talking hairpieces.
It is amusing to note that the poll respondents felt that both Yawn McCain and Obamarama are unduly influenced by campaign donors:
People believe media bias is a bigger problem even though 63% believe most politicians will break the rules to help campaign contributors. Just 14% believe most politicians would refrain from breaking the rules for a donor. Forty-four percent (44%) say that lobbyists and campaign contributors have too much influence on John McCain’s positions. Forty percent (40%) say the same about Barack Obama.
Yawn McCain has spent a lot of political capital on campaign finance reform that was supposed to weaken the influence of donors. It’s a key part of his “maverick” persona.
And Obamarama is supposed to be a new kind of politician above the venality of political influence.
So maybe voters aren’t as stupid as John Edwards thinks they are. (May his wife and children find solace and privacy, and may he find a way out of the hole he dug for their sake.)
UPDATE: Stephen Green at Pajamas Media on media bias in the John Edwards story:
It’s understandable when Democrats want to sweep the story under the rug — Mickey Kaus valiantly excepted — but isn’t the MSM in the business of providing news in exchange for money? Not at the New York Times, they aren’t. NYT “Public editor” Clark Hoyt freely admits that his paper “never made a serious effort to investigate the story .” Hoyt goes on to say that he doesn’t think that “liberal bias had anything to do with it.” However, in the very same column he admits that the Times freely reported totally unsubstantiated rumors about an affair involving John McCain. If you treat a Republican one way and a Democrat another and it isn’t liberal bias — then what is it? A Sulzberger family suicide pact?
(Links omitted from original — read the whole article!)
Again, my prayers for Elizabeth Edwards, her children and her worthless self-involved husband. May he slink off to private life, and stay there until he gains insight on the depth and breadth of his betrayal.
Technorati tags: Alternative Media, Barack Obama, Campaign Finance Reform, Election 2008, John McCain, Mainstream Media, Politics.
Tags: alternative media, barack obama, campaign finance reform, election 2008, john mccain, mainstream media, Politics
