Good Morning America Asks Will Obama's Lower College Loan Payments Plan Help?

Good Morning America (GMA) is an American morning news and talk show that is broadcast on the ABC television network; it debuted on November 3, 1975. The weekday program airs for two hours; a third hour aired between 2007 and 2008 exclusively on ABC News Now. Its current one-hour weekend edition debuted in 2004. Image Credit: ABC News via ShareTV.org


Good Morning America Asks Will Obama's Lower College Loan Payments Plan Help?
or ... Why Corporate Media Gets It's Label "Lame Stream Media" - Polling Question Analysis

About 20 hours ago, Good Morning America posted up this question at the polling centered social web portal known as SodaHead:

Obama Unveils New Plan to Lower College Loan Payments. Will It Help?
by Good Morning America - Posted October 26, 2011 (20 hours ago)

The answers were posed/written as follows:

Yes, I think it will make a difference to students. - 1,917 responses

No, the plan doesn't go far enough! - 1,562 responses
[Reference Here]

A SodaHead "Thumbs-Up" graphic that people click on if they like an answer to a poll question. Image Credit: SodaHead

The most popular answer to a question as per the number of "thumbs up":

By - Tinka123 (edited) / 19 hours ago

Q) No, the plan doesn’t go far enough!

A) These answers aren't skewed. I guess we know what answer Good Morning America wants - too bad they didn't include us [people who are not liberal or progressive] in their poll. How about NO - it won't work?

A YES answer offered this opinion (it was the only opinion left by a YES answer respondent out of 26 total opinions offered in 3479 total poll answers):

State Street / 19 hours ago

Yes, it will help tremendously. Education should be affordable to everyone. A society that's healthy, educated, and confident is harder to control than one that isn't. That I believe is why there are many elements on the right that don't want something like that to come to fruition.

One person decided not to answer but just leave a comment on someone else's NO answer as a REPLY:

Lanikai / 7 hours ago

I refused to pick one of the two BIASED answers. So I am tagging on you, if you don't mind. The break down I saw this morning on MSNBC, showed that a $212,000.00 private college education for 4 years, would mean the student eventually paid back just under $29,000.00 and the taxpayers eat the rest. UNFAIR on every level.

What is SodaHead? - SodaHead informs and entertains a loyal and passionate following that visits our site to discover, debate, and discuss the day's hottest issues. We offer marketers new and innovative ways of engaging with young, hip, and digitally savvy consumers. We enable partners to leverage SodaHead’s product suite to enhance their offerings. Image Credit: SodaHead

We, at MAXINE, left the following response to the Good Morning America Poll:

I voted NO ... but it is not a matter if The Executive Branch's plan goes far enough or not.

Instead of punishing banks and other money lenders of student loans … make the Colleges issue a REBATE – on behalf of those having trouble meeting the terms of their loans – to the Banks! Isn’t it time that the real gougers of students/society be made to pay for their own action of pricing themselves out of a formally stable market?

Instead of punishing banks and other money lenders of student loans … make the Colleges issue a REBATE – on behalf of those having trouble meeting the terms of their loans – to the Banks! Isn’t it time that the real gougers of students/society be made to pay for their own action of pricing themselves out of a formally stable market?

Just asking.

Hey, ABC! … Nice posed/written poll answer choices … NOT!


[Article first published as Good Morning America Asks Will Obama's Lower College Loan Payments Plan Help? at Technorati]

NY Times & McCain – Secures Expected "Flatline" Response

John McCain and his wife Cindy refute a critical story in The New York Times at a press conference in Toledo, Ohio, Thursday. Image Credit: AP Photo

NY Times & McCain – Secures Expected "Flatline" Response

Nobody really thinks that the New York Times … or any mainstream newspaper … actually pursues reporting (just the facts) or working in a professional journalistic manner any more. Especially on topics that involve the Government and Politics. What the MSM has trouble doing is separating the liberal, socialist agenda biases and activism with the job of providing useful information based upon true investigative and written journalistic ethics.

John McCain is a target for the New York Times because he holds his attitude and character out to be hallmarks of un-impeachable behavior.

The New York Times sat on this “story” until now because John McCain, for the first time just this last week, took off after the Democrats in their bid to become the preferred candidate for the office of President of the United States.

It is the opinion here, at MAXINE, that the New York Times wanted to place the first “brush back” move on John McCain in order to have him shrink back into his familiar “Maverick” territory and move back to his more liberal center positions.

Again, this week, on the campaign stump, John McCain began to position himself with a little more of the conservative base perspective when he spoke against the prospects of a Democrat controlled Presidency. What better way to have John McCain become more beatable than to have him become more supporting of liberal policies of the Democrat Party? By hitting McCain and smearing his character, McCain will go back to being more McCain like! If all we have is liberal policies and agendas to vote for … WHY NOT JUST VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT – or not vote at all.

When John McCain came out for his first news conference in front of reporters to answer questions, what we were treated to was a flatline response from John McCain. It was DEAD and without passion … one word responses without a clear indignation of the tactics of the New York Times. He was agitated, but without edge.

It is just this motive and response from John McCain we think the New York Times has moved this week with this smear story against John McCain.

The NYT got exactly what they wanted without much of a mark on them because this is what WE, the reading public, come to expect.

John McCain, left, and Vicki Iseman. Published reports later suggested a possible relationship between Ms. Iseman and John McCain. Both have denied it. Image Credit: Getty Images

This excerpted from CBS Broadcasting –

McCain: Reports Of Relationship 'Not True'
Reports Question His Relationship With Lobbyist Vicki Iseman
TOLEDO, Ohio (CBS)

John McCain denied a romantic relationship with a female telecommunications lobbyist and said a report by The New York Times suggesting favoritism for her clients is "not true."

"I'm very disappointed in the article. It's not true," the likely Republican presidential nominee said as his wife, Cindy, stood alongside him during a news conference called to address the matter.

McCain described the woman in question, lobbyist Vicki Iseman, as a friend.

The newspaper quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other before to his failed presidential campaign in 2000. In its own follow-up story, The Washington Post quoted longtime aide John Weaver, who split with McCain last year, as saying he met with lobbyist Iseman and urged her to stay away from McCain.

Weaver told the Times he arranged the meeting after "a discussion among the campaign leadership" about Iseman.

McCain said he was unaware of any such conversation.

The Arizona senator said he won't allow the report to distract him from his presidential campaign.

"I will focus my attention in this campaign on the big issues and on the challenges that face this country," he said.
----
"This is like the worst kind of tabloid journalism," McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told CBS' The Early Show. "We think it's unfair, unjust and inaccurate."

The published reports said McCain and Iseman each denied having a romantic relationship, and the paper offered no evidence that they had, saying only that aides worried about the appearance of McCain having close ties to a lobbyist with business before the Senate Commerce Committee on which McCain served.

The story alleges that McCain wrote letters and pushed legislation involving television station ownership that would have benefited Iseman's clients.
----
McCain defended his integrity last December, after he was questioned about reports that the Times was investigating allegations of legislative favoritism by the Arizona Republican and that his aides had been trying to dissuade the newspaper from publishing a story.

"I've never done any favors for anybody - lobbyist or special-interest group. That's a clear, 24-year record," he told reporters in Detroit.
Reference Here>>

This updated information from Bill Bradley at PJM's New West Notes -

** A MCCAIN STORY IRONY, AND A BIG CALIFORNIA CONNECTION**

The New Republic has a brand new story on the back story of the New York Times’ publication of the story. Some say the planned New Republic publication prompted the New York Times to publish late yesterday.

The New Republic reports that the Washington bureau chief of the Times, Dean Baquet, played the key managerial role in pushing the story forward, against the skepticism of Times editor Bill Keller.

What the New Republic piece doesn’t say, since it’s written by an Easterner, is that, prior to becoming the Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, Dean Baquet was the managing editor of the Los Angeles Times. And in his role at the LA Times, Baquet was deeply involved with and a key internal advocate of the late-breaking LA Times story during the 2003 California recall slamming Arnold Schwarzenegger.

That story proved to be a major backfire, as Schwarzenegger not only survived but went on to a landslide victory, with most not buying the convenient late timing of the story and its prior awareness by top Democrats. The LA Times and its influence has been on a steep downslope ever since.

I wonder if the McCain story will have a similar effect on the New York Times.
Reference Here>>

You know, when one has a chance to reflect:

That since it is well known that the New York Times editorial staff was “sitting” on this story for several months now (according to the New Republic) and that the paper had just given their formal endorsement as their choice as the Republican Party candidate they would like to see as President (if it had to be a Republican, presumably) just before the Super Tuesday primaries …

… This whole episode of a smear story about John McCain, of eight (8) years ago, published by the New York Times says a lot more about the character of the New York Times than it does about the character of John McCain.