If the media would report the news instead of making it, this country would be much better off. Of course, if Americans would get their head out of the sand and see what is going on, the MSM would lose their ability to control the news.  

No RINOs in '08 - Mike Huckabee is the best choice 

The MSM want Rudy vs. Hillary. I have no idea why (other than Clinton of course), but that is how all the media paints it. Hell, even Fox will defend Rudy to no end for every scandal that comes out. Looking at all of the most likely candiates and I would say that we are all screwed. I do not trust anyone of them and the ones who are truely honest get booed for saying some hard truths. Too bad really.

The MSM has to walk a fine line here. They do not want to pay too much attention to the Republican nomination process. If they did, they would have to discuss the differences between the conservative and liberal Republican candidates. They would have to actually talk about conservative values, what they mean, and to what degree each candidate is conservative. They would be educating the public on conservatism. OH THE HORROR!!!!

On the other hand, they have to try and pick a candidate that anyone who comes out with the Democratic nod can beat. If they make it obvious who they want to win, it will send up a red flag to the conservative masses that this individual should be avoided at all costs. The MSM is beginning to understand that no consertative and that most Republicans DO NOT trust them. They are beginning to understand that any influence they try to exert here will backfire.

The trap here for the MSM is obvious and will be tough for them to avoid.

Many think that a close race for the GOP nomination will help the Dems win, but I think the opposite is true.  As it was stated earlier in the thread, the media will be forced to cover the story continually if the race stays close.

I think it will the closest race in the history of the GOP because you have two candidates competing for the social conservatives, two other candidates competing for strong foreign policy, one Reagan conservative, and views across the board about border security and rights for illegals. 

I was a Rudy guy at first but I've moved back into the "undecided" category until I get more information about Thompson and maybe even Hunter.  These were the guys that got my attention at the most recent CNN bash the GOP with meaningless liberal questions...errr....debate.   

 The media always have some influence.  Not all Republicans are out there seaching the internet and reading alternative media.  Many watch the Alphabet Networks and believe they're telling the truth, so the ability of the MSM to influence choices should be obvious.

The only reason I say some is that everyone, Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, has grown a little skeptical of the MSM.  They've proven they can't be trusted all the time.  The question is, when can't you trust them? Since no one knows for sure, their influence will only be some.

Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.

The mainstream media has HUGE influence. Fortunately, other media avenues are here now to offset at least some of it, but the "in your face" TV media is rather influential, by the nature of their medium.

It's not quite as apparent how they "pick" the candidate on the Republican side, but I think that might be because the MSM generally doesn't want anyone on that side to win so they really don't push for anyone, except those who are more liberal leaning of the bunch. And unfortunately, that aspect of even the Republican candidates is growing. I personally would have liked to see Newt Gingrich run, but you know the media would have gone into his closet on day one and never let it die. His conservatism, in my view, is greater than any in the current group, and that's unfortunate.

On the Democrat side, well it's almost orgasmic for the media. From the beginning, why was Barrack Obama so highy touted and talked about? I'm talking about when the candidates first were announcing, well before people really could get any issue-related info on anyone (other than Hillary whose name has been in the spotlight for years). It was because the media saw something that could be great for Democrats, and they love those Democrat superheros of theirs. The "tier 1," "tier 2" etc BS is nothing but media concoction. Biden has 20+ years in the Senate. Dodd has more than that. Richardson was governor, Congressman, and Ambassador. How's that for "experience?" But how much did you hear their names as things got started? Pretty much here and there, just like now. Why? Media runs the show on who gets noticed and the little snowball is formed and sent rolling down the hill from that point forward.

Look at how often Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are talked about. I don't need data printed out for me, it's apparent that they talk about them a ton more than Republican candidates. I'm speaking about "positive stories" that is. And it's lopsided enough that it's very easy to notice. I watch alot of news and flip around to different shows and it's easy to see.

The media, acting as it does today, framing the news, framing what they want us to hear, is a sad thing. Objectivity should be their calling, but that went away a long time ago.