I don't think I ever hated Kerry. I just didn't care, or see him as much better than Bush because I hadn't seen anything impressive. A lot of that has to do with the little bit I saw of him in the media during that time. I saw some pretty wacky stuff about him and Vietnam, mainly him talking about Vietnam. Things that kind of made me question him, but not hate him. However he didn't make me think dictator, which Bush does, so that was the only reason I was going to vote for him. Now, after the debate, he has come off as a strong leader. So my reason for voting for him has flip-flopped to actually casting a vote for someone I think is capable of doing the job. It's all a popularity contest and Kerry just hadn't made his entry until the debates. It was a well played hand. He will hopefully be able to ride this brief wave of victory all the way to Nov. 2, which I imagine was the plan. His big sprint at the end of the long race where his opponent is already spent.
Concerning the media: I'm not very well educated on the matter, so excuse me while I talk out of my ass for a moment.
A while back I became interested in Columbia and the FARC. Finding information about this became somewhat difficult. Very few news stories actually appear on events in Columbia. I had to dig to find out about it. Basically this is the case with almost all media coverage. You are told only what you seek out. I read both the BBC news site and CNN. There are always different spins on the same story. However, I rarely find that at the core it is all that different. I feel that the media falls somewhere in between. Not to the left or the right, but not balanced either. I think the whole "Pepsi commercial/Woodstock" thing was a good example of how I feel the media acts. It presents the whole package but, different parts are filtered out by other stories. There is fairly constant coverage of Columbia on CNN.com (virtually none on BBC) but it is buried. Buried under "news" that is barely news, repeated stories, and the latest movie/rock stars wedding. It's all a matter of reading between the lines and paying attention to what is RIGHT in front of you, and the mass of American Society has no desire to do so, which explains why they like Bush so much...At least in my opinion.
later,
-junc
Concerning the media: I'm not very well educated on the matter, so excuse me while I talk out of my ass for a moment.
A while back I became interested in Columbia and the FARC. Finding information about this became somewhat difficult. Very few news stories actually appear on events in Columbia. I had to dig to find out about it. Basically this is the case with almost all media coverage. You are told only what you seek out. I read both the BBC news site and CNN. There are always different spins on the same story. However, I rarely find that at the core it is all that different. I feel that the media falls somewhere in between. Not to the left or the right, but not balanced either. I think the whole "Pepsi commercial/Woodstock" thing was a good example of how I feel the media acts. It presents the whole package but, different parts are filtered out by other stories. There is fairly constant coverage of Columbia on CNN.com (virtually none on BBC) but it is buried. Buried under "news" that is barely news, repeated stories, and the latest movie/rock stars wedding. It's all a matter of reading between the lines and paying attention to what is RIGHT in front of you, and the mass of American Society has no desire to do so, which explains why they like Bush so much...At least in my opinion.
later,
-junc