Thousands protest during Obama visit

Thousands protest during Obama visit

Thousands protest during Obama visit at the Weston St. Francis Hotel - 10/16/09 - San Francisco News - abc7news.com

People started lining up a few hours before Obama was scheduled to arrive at the Westin St. Frances Hotel. Protestors had a lot to say about health care and the war in Afghanistan. They argued with each other and held signs with strong messages for the president.
"People in this country had a lot of trust to vote for him to make a change and they really didn't know what kind of change," said Pleasanton resident Karla Bruen.
The majority of the protestors didn't vote for Obama, but some of them did. They said when it comes to health care reform, Obama isn't leaning as far left as they would like.
"I feel that he could be doing a lot more. I feel that Obama needs to come forward and support single payer health care," said Petaluma resident Stan Gold

Click to expand...

:lol: damn, in SF? Thousands? Really?


That seems like an awful lot especially in the liberal mecca of SF.... Is the honeymoon over?

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

:lol: damn, in SF? Thousands? Really?


That seems like an awful lot especially in the liberal mecca of SF.... Is the honeymoon over?

Click to expand...

The uber-liberals came out by the thousands... they're pissed Obama hasn't burned the Constitution and turned the country into one big welfare check yet. This is Pelosi territory - so any constituency that will vote that FUBAR hag into office over and over --- you know these protesters were straight out of loony town. I wouldn't even lump the liberals into this bunch -- to do so would be a cheap shot to the average liberal.

Having been born in San Francisco and living in the Bay Area most of my life, it is very true SF can be a bit looney, but that is what makes San Francisco unique and one of the reasons I love her so much.

While SF is left of center, it is the screamers that make it far left and what the news picks up. Most people in SF are left of center, but not off the map like some assume.

Plus, San Francisco, historically has been the mecca for future social changes for the rest of America. You can almost set a stop watch by what happenes in SF will be pretty normal a decade or two later in the USA. Some good and some bad. From equal rights to drug use.

Pretty awesome for a city that only has a population of 800,000.

.

Just Plain Jim said:

Having been born in San Francisco and living in the Bay Area most of my life, it is very true SF can be a bit looney, but that is what makes San Francisco unique and one of the reasons I love her so much.

While SF is left of center, it is the screamers that make it far left and what the news picks up. Most people in SF are left of center, but not off the map like some assume.

Plus, San Francisco, historically has been the mecca for future social changes for the rest of America. You can almost set a stop watch by what happenes in SF will be pretty normal a decade or two later in the USA. Some good and some bad. From equal rights to drug use.
Pretty awesome for a city that only has a population of 800,000.

.

Click to expand...

from Tattoo removal for crack whores,to the way they called our troops war criminals, this is a scary proposition for mynation.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

from Tattoo removal for crack whores,to the way they called our troops war criminals, this is a scary proposition for mynation.

Click to expand...

Sorry, SF may have been that way about our troops in the past, but the general consensus today is the troops are not to blame. Yes of course there are exceptions, but for the most part our troops are the best of what America has to offer.

Tattoo's have been in existence for thousands of years, I am not aware that SF led the way with removal. If you are right, I would think that would be a good thing. I wish I had never got the tats I got when I was 18.

Crack whores, probably no argument there. Drugs should be legal along with whores, just tightly regulated for the good of society. Not criminalized like it is today.

.

Someone that I know was there. It wasn't that big, but it was loud. Most of it was over inaction on gay rights issues at the Federal level, despite campaign promises.

Doesn't matter anyway... it will fall on deaf ears. Every one of those people should send a letter to Obama every day and get everyone they know to do the same thing.

"The majority of the protestors didn't vote for Obama, but some of them did. They said when it comes to health care reform, Obama isn't leaning as far left as they would like."

Click to expand...

Funny how they worded the article. Who is the "they" that the article references? Are they talking about the ones who voted for Obama or are they talking about those who did not vote for him?

If they are talking about the ones who did vote for Obama, why no mention of what the others were protesting?

If they are talking about the ones who didn't vote for him, was the majority complaint that he's not far enough left? If so, were there no right leaning protesters?

From watching the video, I would say that the ABC affiliate did a great job of slanting the coverage. They kept the crowd shots to angles where most of the signs were not visible and when interviewing they kept the shots close on the interviewee's face. You could still see pieces of signs from people who were not in favor of the opinions of the people they interviewed but you had to really look. they also took the shots from low angles looking up so that a row two people deep could easily be mistaken for a crowd of thousands. I saw people on 4 sides of one street corner and on a one block long barricade. Can't really tell more from the video.

This thread should probably be in the news bias group as there was a very strong bias in this reporting.

I didn't watch the video, but you're exactly right about the article. I wonder if it was the author, or the editor?

jackalope said:

I didn't watch the video, but you're exactly right about the article. I wonder if it was the author, or the editor?

Click to expand...

Seems you notices one of the time honored tradition of teasing you into reading an article or watching a news sound bite, then discovering you've been had.

I worked in the business of news for a decade, wrote this about it.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/58273-why-news-so-baised-should-broke-up.html
It's a business like any other, driven by the bottom line. "Sexing" up a news story to get us to read or watch happens all the time. Like the balloon boy, just from a slip of the tongue by the parents the newspapers have gotten more mileage out of it.

.

Just Plain Jim said:

Seems you notices one of the time honored tradition of teasing you into reading an article or watching a news sound bite, then discovering you've been had.

I worked in the business of news for a decade, wrote this about it.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/58273-why-news-so-baised-should-broke-up.html
It's a business like any other, driven by the bottom line. "Sexing" up a news story to get us to read or watch happens all the time. Like the balloon boy, just from a slip of the tongue by the parents the newspapers have gotten more mileage out of it.

.

Click to expand...

Well, you said over there, that:

They will correctly state they give both sides of the story, yet like with buying real estate, its all about location, or in the news, placement. Most people get their news from headlines, a much smaller percentage get it from that and the first few paragraphs, and only a very small percentage read the whole article. This goes across to our audio and video news media with teaser ads to just setting the whole tone of the story with miss leading lead ins. If there is opposition in the story it is often buried and under reported.

Click to expand...

But, Easy Target is right, they didn't give the information about what the majority opposition opinion was at all (plus that ambiguous 'they', but I read the 'they' as referring to the minority).

This is San Francisco, I'm not surprised even they realized Barry is all talk and no walk; called it. However, like I said before, it is San Francisco. Literally, the lagging indicator of the left. All the true vanguards of public opinion have been saying this for weeks, if not months so it's only surprising in the sense that something has finally managed to penetrate that bastion of narcissism and extremism.

jackalope said:

But, Jim is right, they didn't give the information about what the majority opposition opinion was at all (plus that ambiguous 'they', but I read the 'they' as referring to the minority).

Click to expand...

Remember, bias is also based on demographics. SF will always have a liberal bias in the main stream press there.

If the main stream press does not pander to the demographics, then eventually they lose market share because someone else were go in there and fill the void. Like FOX news filled the void for conservatives.

News is not so much about telling the real truth, it is mostly about the bottom line.

.

Just Plain Jim said:

Remember, bias is also based on demographics. SF will always have a liberal bias in the main stream press there.

If the main stream press does not pander to the demographics, then eventually they lose market share because someone else were go in there and fill the void. Like FOX news filled the void for conservatives.

News is not so much about telling the real truth, it is mostly about the bottom line.

.

Click to expand...

sorry, I messed up the name and formatting on the post you quoted, but I thinkk you know what I meant.

It's still a disgraceful omission, don't you think? Do you think the author or the editor is responsible?

Just Plain Jim said:

Plus, San Francisco, historically has been the mecca for future social changes for the rest of America. You can almost set a stop watch by what happenes in SF will be pretty normal a decade or two later in the USA. Some good and some bad. From equal rights to drug use.

Click to expand...

Except gay marriage. :2wave:

jackalope said:

sorry, I messed up the name and formatting on the post you quoted, but I thinkk you know what I meant.

It's still a disgraceful omission, don't you think? Do you think the author or the editor is responsible?

Click to expand...

The editor at a newspaper is the final authority. Any important omission is wrong, period.

I have complained bitterly at the newspaper I worked about bias in the news. Not the subtle bias, but the in your face bias.

After 911 I was told to keep my mouth closed, that we were going to war whether I liked it or not. We were printing almost line for line what the NY Times was saying without asking the hard questions while burying the opposition in the paper. If the opposition was presented on page one (such as demonstrations against the war) it had a slant that the protesters were a bunch of kooks, while spending very little time on what they were protesting.

.

StandUpChuck said:

Except gay marriage. :2wave:

Click to expand...

Not really, people magazine had a story about gay marriage 4 or 5 years ago and one of the people I worked with at the newspaper was in there when he married his lover at city hall. Great guy too, never knew he was gay till I saw the picture and when I asked him, I kind of sheepishly asked him, who is the husband? We got a big laugh over that one.