About this childish feud between Cruz and Trump over their wives.

Why is the media not investigating who this pro-Cruz PAC is that started this by bringing Trump's wife into it? 

I'll answer that for you.  It's because the media could care less about the PAC that started this.  All the media wants is a wrestling match between the two candidates.  Which is exactly what it's giving us with this bullshit.

Bob wrote:Why is the media not investigating who this pro-Cruz PAC is that started this by bringing Trump's wife into it? 

I'll answer that for you.  It's because the media could care less about the PAC that started this.  All the media wants is a wrestling match between the two candidates.  Which is exactly what it's giving us with this bullshit.

Of course it is...THE MEDIA TRIES DESPERATELY to control politics.

Neither one will be first lady....so how about a big who cares.

OK...the top GOP candidates for the highest office in the land have a feud over whose wife is either prettier or less slutty, depending on your point of view...and it's the fault of the MEDIA? Try again...not even close.

Floridatexan wrote:
OK...the top GOP candidates for the highest office in the land have a feud over whose wife is either prettier or less slutty, depending on your point of view...and it's the fault of the MEDIA?  Try again...not even close.

Don't be naive about this,  Tex.  The tv news media thrives on sensationalism. 
Why?  Because it knows how much THE AUDIENCE wants to see the sensationalism.  And when it gives the audience what it wants,  the audience grows bigger.  And a bigger audience translates to higher commercial rates.

The so-called "debates" are a prime example.  The debates start out with Trump and the rest mocking and insulting themselves,  and Trump mocking and insulting the main Fox Newsbabe,  and Trump mocking and insulting Vietnam War heroes,  and Trump making fun of people with physical handicaps,  and a whole litany of other sensationalism.  
And what results?  What results is the evening time slot going from having 3 or 4 million viewers,  to having 24 million viewers. 
Why do you think all the news outlets want to sponsor debates every few days?  Remember,  the debates have been exclusive to each news outlet meaning only that news outlet will benefit from the huge increase in audience.  So all of them are clamoring to have that debate with that size audience as often as they can make happen.   It's to make money,  it has nothing to do with anything else.  Not ideology,  not which candidate they support or don't support,  not informing the public and not having anything to do with public service,  only making money.

Yes it will make the media outlets fat and happy.  But is it worth it if it also destroys one of the two political parties. 
You may think you want a one party system,   but history has shown us how that is never a good thing.

Bob wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
OK...the top GOP candidates for the highest office in the land have a feud over whose wife is either prettier or less slutty, depending on your point of view...and it's the fault of the MEDIA?  Try again...not even close.

Don't be naive about this,  Tex.  The tv news media thrives on sensationalism. 
Why?  Because it knows how much THE AUDIENCE wants to see the sensationalism.  And when it gives the audience what it wants,  the audience grows bigger.  And a bigger audience translates to higher commercial rates.

The so-called "debates" are a prime example.  The debates start out with Trump and the rest mocking and insulting themselves,  and Trump mocking and insulting the main Fox Newsbabe,  and Trump mocking and insulting Vietnam War heroes,  and Trump making fun of people with physical handicaps,  and a whole litany of other sensationalism.  
And what results?  What results is the evening time slot going from having 3 or 4 million viewers,  to having 24 million viewers. 
Why do you think all the news outlets want to sponsor debates every few days?  Remember,  the debates have been exclusive to each news outlet meaning only that news outlet will benefit from the huge increase in audience.  So all of them are clamoring to have that debate with that size audience as often as they can make happen.   It's to make money,  it has nothing to do with anything else.  Not ideology,  not which candidate they support or don't support,  not informing the public and not having anything to do with public service,  only making money.

Yes it will make the media outlets fat and happy.  But is it worth it if it also destroys one of the two political parties. 
You may think you want a one party system,   but history has shown us how that is never a good thing.

Why in the world would you think I'm naive, Bob? Try and remember that I was in the ad biz for many years, both agency and in-house. The failure of the media to do actual journalism is epic at the moment. It's a shame that many people are all about the spectacle and don't realize how they're being fed reality show tripe in lieu of policy discussion. That's why the media should donate air time to the candidates. We need to remove as much money as possible from the electoral process; overturn Citizens United; bring back the Fairness Doctrine...and have actual on-air debates.

Side note: It appears that Rush Limbaugh's network is headed for bankruptcy...and the culprit is Mitt Romney.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/21/rush-limbaughs-hate-radio-network-home-facing-20-billion-bankruptcy.html