Us Magazine - Perfect Example of Bias - The Political Machine Forums

Reply #1 September 4, 2008 7:02 AM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Well, it is a trash magazine. So what did you expect to find in a cess pool? Roses?

Reply #2 September 4, 2008 7:11 AM from

Stardock Forums Top

Oh yes, babies are a huge negative (rolls eyes out of head). That title alone offends me, babies, lies and scandal - vomitous.

Reply #3 September 4, 2008 9:44 AM from

Stardock Forums Top

Aren't they just admitting that they don't think Obama is a strong enough candidate t handle scrutiny?

Instead of "why she loves him", the headline should read, "why we love him". They are as giddy as a teenage boy who just found the hole in the girls shower over him.

Reply #4 September 4, 2008 10:56 AM from

Stardock Forums Top

I saw this on foxnews.com yesterday( link ). According to the article:

Us Weekly publisher Jann Wenner is an outspoken supporter of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Wenner, the magazine’s publisher, has given $130,308 to Democratic causes and candidates since 1993 — and only $3,500 to Republicans, according to records. Wenner also runs Men’s Journal magazine and Rolling Stone magazine. In March, Rolling Stone featured a glowing endorsement of Obama, “Barack Obama: A New Hope,” on its cover.

I guess it's no surprise to see such an article on this magazine. But this is what disturbs me the most about the artcle:

and is a blatant attempt to influence the votes of the magazine’s 12 million mostly female readers.

If such an article, obviously written by a person who supports Obama, can somehow convince any of the "12 million mostly female readers" to vote for Obama, than it's no wonder we have such poor choices for candidates this time around, not that we had the best choices 4 and 8 years ago either. It's sad when things such as these magazine covers can be deciding factors for people when chosing the leader of this nation. What's the point of free thinking when some would rather be told what to do.

Reply #5 September 4, 2008 12:15 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

If such an article, obviously written by a person who supports Obama, can somehow convince any of the "12 million mostly female readers" to vote for Obama, than it's no wonder we have such poor choices

IN all probability, they do not know what you know. And it will probably influence some of them. Thankfully, since it is a trash magazine, most of the readers will probably not vote.

Reply #6 September 7, 2008 12:14 AM from

PolMach Forums Top

I dont get it just as private republican talk radio can spread conservative views and call it news, why cant a private magzine choose to run articles the way they see fit? Or is it just the context of the article that irritates you? In that case perhaps we should just have a one party system like the one we just got rid of in Iraq. 99% of the vote for McCain. Maybe this would make you happy.

Reply #7 September 7, 2008 9:59 PM from

PolMach Forums Top

The magazine is so blatantly bias it makes me want to vomit. I need to lose weight, so I'll buy a US Weekly, hopfully I'll lose 30 lbs.

Reply #8 September 7, 2008 10:16 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

I dont get it just as private republican talk radio can spread conservative views and call it news, why cant a private magzine choose to run articles the way they see fit?

They absolutely have that right, they aren't a news magazine so they shouldn't be held to the standard of one. On the other hand, we have just as much right to trash them for their choices.

Reply #9 September 8, 2008 8:16 AM from

JoeUser Forums Top

I dont get it just as private republican talk radio can spread conservative views and call it news,

Which ones call it news? Please link to these "news" programs.

So your justificiation is that "everyone does it", and yet you have no proof of your statement? You really dont have anything but talking points do you?

Reply #10 March 12, 2009 2:29 AM from

PolMach Forums Top

President Obama had a law put on the books that no company receiving a bailout could pay any executive member more than $500,000 including bonuses. Google has just given out hefty executive bonuses to its board members. Ordinarily, this would be nothing that was remotely newsworthy, but after some firms lined already amply lined pockets with cheap loans that they got from the government, everyone is now watching executive's pay. Luckily for them, there wasn’t a bailout necessary for Google.