Palin's tell all book

[bk1983]

He did not endorse Obama

He did endorse Obama. The editorial in the NY Post endorsing Obama was the doing of Murdoch. That's what the reporter asked him. And he answered. The HuffPuff even reported on it.

Hilary Rosen: Rupert Murdoch Says Obama Will Win

Sounds like a glowing endorsement of Obama to me, and a pooh-poohing of McCain.

Here's some more for you

Charles Warner: Murdoch's NY Post's Strategic Obama Endorsement

Barack Obama’s Unlikely Supporter Rupert 'Fox News' Murdoch: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

Murdoch endorses 'rock star' Obama

Those are not endorsements, they are quotes of positive things Murdoch said about Obama.

 

[bk1983]

You might want to read his reasononig for having the NY Post endorse Obama before you post. Just a thought.

"I hate the NY Times and want to position the NY Post as its opposite, especially after the NY Times endorsed Billary. By endorsing Obama I appeal to many of my core readers, especially younger ones, which advertisers love. By endorsing Obama before the Daily News does, I get a nice little circulation pump and I put the Daily News in a bind -- a strategic dilemma. If it endorses Billary like the NY Times did, it will piss off many of its readers and look like it is taking a cue from the NY Times. If the Daily News endorses Obama, that's good because it might help defeat Billary, plus it will make it look like it is following the NY Post -- a win/win in either case for me."

 

[DiveCon]

You might want to read his reasononig for having the NY Post endorse Obama before you post. Just a thought.

"I hate the NY Times and want to position the NY Post as its opposite, especially after the NY Times endorsed Billary. By endorsing Obama I appeal to many of my core readers, especially younger ones, which advertisers love. By endorsing Obama before the Daily News does, I get a nice little circulation pump and I put the Daily News in a bind -- a strategic dilemma. If it endorses Billary like the NY Times did, it will piss off many of its readers and look like it is taking a cue from the NY Times. If the Daily News endorses Obama, that's good because it might help defeat Billary, plus it will make it look like it is following the NY Post -- a win/win in either case for me."

that says he endorsed him
what part of "endorsing Obama " did you miss
for whatever reason, he endorsed Obama

 

[Midnight Marauder]

He did not endorse Obama

He did endorse Obama. The editorial in the NY Post endorsing Obama was the doing of Murdoch. That's what the reporter asked him. And he answered. The HuffPuff even reported on it.

Hilary Rosen: Rupert Murdoch Says Obama Will Win

Sounds like a glowing endorsement of Obama to me, and a pooh-poohing of McCain.

No, it was reported that it almost sounded like an endorsement. He only said Obama will win, he said McCain was in trouble, in no way did he ever say he endorses Obama.

Predicting a winner and endorsing someone are two different things.

I know it's tough for partisan hacks to accept, but Murdoch DID endorse Obama and directed the NY Post to write it on the editorial page. If there was criticism later, it was fair. It was also after the secret meeting Murdoch had with Obama and Roger Ailes, (Fox News President) where Obama was basically begging them to give him more favorable coverage. But the facts turned out to be, of all networks, and by any measure, FNC was actually the most fair to both candidates.

 

[bk1983]

You might want to read his reasononig for having the NY Post endorse Obama before you post. Just a thought.

"I hate the NY Times and want to position the NY Post as its opposite, especially after the NY Times endorsed Billary. By endorsing Obama I appeal to many of my core readers, especially younger ones, which advertisers love. By endorsing Obama before the Daily News does, I get a nice little circulation pump and I put the Daily News in a bind -- a strategic dilemma. If it endorses Billary like the NY Times did, it will piss off many of its readers and look like it is taking a cue from the NY Times. If the Daily News endorses Obama, that's good because it might help defeat Billary, plus it will make it look like it is following the NY Post -- a win/win in either case for me."

that says he endorsed him
what part of "endorsing Obama " did you miss
for whatever reason, he endorsed Obama

NY Post endorsed Obama, not Rupert Murdoch. That is not Murdoch endorsing Obama, that is Murdoch using his company endorsement to position itself to increase readership and ad revenue. What part of "Murdoch never endorsed Obama" did you miss? He never did endorse Obama,period. Before the election he called Obama's policies dangerous and said his election would worsen the financial crisis. Yea, true words of a supporter.

 

[DiveCon]

You might want to read his reasononig for having the NY Post endorse Obama before you post. Just a thought.

that says he endorsed him
what part of "endorsing Obama " did you miss
for whatever reason, he endorsed Obama

NY Post endorsed Obama, not Rupert Murdoch. That is not Murdoch endorsing Obama, that is Murdoch using his company endorsement to position itself to increase readership and ad revenue. What part of "Murdoch never endorsed Obama" did you miss? He never did endorse Obama,period. Before the election he called Obama's policies dangerous and said his election would worsen the financial crisis. Yea, true words of a supporter.

but you have already been shown, he DID
you are a blind partisan
you will NEVER get it

 

[bk1983]

He did endorse Obama. The editorial in the NY Post endorsing Obama was the doing of Murdoch. That's what the reporter asked him. And he answered. The HuffPuff even reported on it.

Hilary Rosen: Rupert Murdoch Says Obama Will Win

Sounds like a glowing endorsement of Obama to me, and a pooh-poohing of McCain.

No, it was reported that it almost sounded like an endorsement. He only said Obama will win, he said McCain was in trouble, in no way did he ever say he endorses Obama.

Predicting a winner and endorsing someone are two different things.

I know it's tough for partisan hacks to accept, but Murdoch DID endorse Obama and directed the NY Post to write it on the editorial page. If there was criticism later, it was fair. It was also after the secret meeting Murdoch had with Obama and Roger Ailes, (Fox News President) where Obama was basically begging them to give him more favorable coverage. But the facts turned out to be, of all networks, and by any measure, FNC was actually the most fair to both candidates.

I know it is tough for partisan hacks such as yourself to recognize a slick business move. In no way shape or form did Murdoch ever say he was an Obama supporter, he gave one interview where if you listened to the whole thing, he praised Obama's popularity more then anything else. Hence the "rock star" term, he said he supported his education policy. That was 1 interview, care to read the rest? The majority are highly critical, and you have to be dim to think Murdoch actually supported Obama.

 

[bk1983]

that says he endorsed him
what part of "endorsing Obama " did you miss
for whatever reason, he endorsed Obama

NY Post endorsed Obama, not Rupert Murdoch. That is not Murdoch endorsing Obama, that is Murdoch using his company endorsement to position itself to increase readership and ad revenue. What part of "Murdoch never endorsed Obama" did you miss? He never did endorse Obama,period. Before the election he called Obama's policies dangerous and said his election would worsen the financial crisis. Yea, true words of a supporter.

but you have already been shown, he DID
you are a blind partisan
you will NEVER get it

As if you, "the republican lover to death" can call anyone a blind partisan.

 

[Avatar4321]

You might want to read his reasononig for having the NY Post endorse Obama before you post. Just a thought.

that says he endorsed him
what part of "endorsing Obama " did you miss
for whatever reason, he endorsed Obama

NY Post endorsed Obama, not Rupert Murdoch. That is not Murdoch endorsing Obama, that is Murdoch using his company endorsement to position itself to increase readership and ad revenue. What part of "Murdoch never endorsed Obama" did you miss? He never did endorse Obama,period. Before the election he called Obama's policies dangerous and said his election would worsen the financial crisis. Yea, true words of a supporter.

So what your saying is that when Rupert says "By endorsing Obama, I. . ." He is really means the NY Post endorsed Obama. I = NY Post. When did I get such a new definition?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Before the election he called Obama's policies dangerous and said his election would worsen the financial crisis. And it turned out to be oh so true!.

Fixed your post for you. And also, I'm sure a few of us would like to see some links from you, to back your assertions.

It matters not WHY Murdoch endorsed Obama in May of 08, it does matter that he did, and directed his NY Post newspaper to write it in an editorial. Murdoch called Obama a "rock star" and said he loved what he was saying about education. He called McCain "unpredictable" and said he didn't know what McCain stood for.

Then later on as some of Obama's policies started to become known, not only was there fair criticism but also, as it turns out, prophetic.

Now, let's get to the right question: Why do you want ANY media or press to support Obama or any candidate for that matter? They're not supposed to be cheerleaders, they're supposed to be watchdogs.

 

[DiveCon]

NY Post endorsed Obama, not Rupert Murdoch. That is not Murdoch endorsing Obama, that is Murdoch using his company endorsement to position itself to increase readership and ad revenue. What part of "Murdoch never endorsed Obama" did you miss? He never did endorse Obama,period. Before the election he called Obama's policies dangerous and said his election would worsen the financial crisis. Yea, true words of a supporter.

but you have already been shown, he DID
you are a blind partisan
you will NEVER get it

As if you, "the republican lover to death" can call anyone a blind partisan.

except im not

but you are nothing but a blind partisan

 

[bk1983]

that says he endorsed him
what part of "endorsing Obama " did you miss
for whatever reason, he endorsed Obama

NY Post endorsed Obama, not Rupert Murdoch. That is not Murdoch endorsing Obama, that is Murdoch using his company endorsement to position itself to increase readership and ad revenue. What part of "Murdoch never endorsed Obama" did you miss? He never did endorse Obama,period. Before the election he called Obama's policies dangerous and said his election would worsen the financial crisis. Yea, true words of a supporter.

So what your saying is that when Rupert says "By endorsing Obama, I. . ." He is really means the NY Post endorsed Obama. I = NY Post. When did I get such a new definition?

My point was, he never stood up and publicly endorsed Obama. He used his company to do it, and clearly explained the reason for it. It had nothing to do with liking the canidate Obama. It was a clear business move, when asked his opinion on Obama policies he was very negative. I will admit you guys are technically RIGHT, but my point was you cannot use the NY Post endorsement to show that Murdoch is some kind of fair minded guy. Because his intentions were to increase profits, not support the candidate he wanted to win. I don't think anyone seriously believes Murdoch wanted Obama to win.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

FNC is about the only news organization not sucking Obama's dick, and these partisans are all upset with them. All bent out of shape. ONE organization not falling in line.

Why are Obamaphiles so thin-skinned?

 

[bk1983]

FNC is about the only news organization not sucking Obama's dick, and these partisans are all upset with them. All bent out of shape. ONE organization not falling in line.

Why are Obamaphiles so thin-skinned?

There is nothing "fair and balanced" about FNC. They are just as partisan as MSNBC, except for the other side.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

FNC is about the only news organization not sucking Obama's dick, and these partisans are all upset with them. All bent out of shape. ONE organization not falling in line.

Why are Obamaphiles so thin-skinned?

There is nothing "fair and balanced" about FNC. They are just as partisan as MSNBC, except for the other side.

Many independent studies disagree with your regurgitated and parroted line.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Again, why do you want ANY media or press to support Obama or any candidate for that matter? They're not supposed to be cheerleaders, they're supposed to be watchdogs.

 

[DamnYankee]

You might want to read his reasononig for having the NY Post endorse Obama before you post. Just a thought.

that says he endorsed him
what part of "endorsing Obama " did you miss
for whatever reason, he endorsed Obama

NY Post endorsed Obama, not Rupert Murdoch. That is not Murdoch endorsing Obama, that is Murdoch using his company endorsement to position itself to increase readership and ad revenue. What part of "Murdoch never endorsed Obama" did you miss? He never did endorse Obama,period. Before the election he called Obama's policies dangerous and said his election would worsen the financial crisis. Yea, true words of a supporter.

Clearly, you are being just plain obtuse. Separating Murdoch from his paper is like separating a CEO from his corporation. Do try explaining that to the stockholders. I'm sure that Bill Gates would love to hear your explanation as well.

 

[bk1983]

Again, why do you want ANY media or press to support Obama or any candidate for that matter? They're not supposed to be cheerleaders, they're supposed to be watchdogs.

When did I say I wanted any media or press to support a candidate?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Again, why do you want ANY media or press to support Obama or any candidate for that matter? They're not supposed to be cheerleaders, they're supposed to be watchdogs.

When did I say I wanted any media or press to support a candidate?

You haven't said you don't, yet. And attacking the only one that doesn't openly suck Obama's dick and swallow.... Makes it look like you think they should.

 

[bk1983]

FNC is about the only news organization not sucking Obama's dick, and these partisans are all upset with them. All bent out of shape. ONE organization not falling in line.

Why are Obamaphiles so thin-skinned?

There is nothing "fair and balanced" about FNC. They are just as partisan as MSNBC, except for the other side.

Many independent studies disagree with your regurgitated and parroted line.

Well obviously FNC is preaching to the choir, it is sad you cannot recognize that. There are many independent studies out there. I saw one that showed Obama getting more negative press then McCain, do I believe the media favored McCain?

This past summer, just as the view that journalists were going softer on Barack Obama than on John McCain was becoming widely accepted, CMPA issued a report showing that 72 percent of the statements in TV news reports about Obama in late spring and early summer were negative, whereas 57 percent of the statements about McCain were negative.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=media-bias-presidential-election