The uninteresting vote is used by people who don't agree with you. It is a spite tool, the best I can tell.

Opps, I should of paid more attention when I made this Question,the word "isn't" should of been "is", dang,well I'll blame it on my newbieness.
@jeffhoard I realize that for the most part mainstream media are reporting it on their websites and I should of been more specific in my wording when i posted this Question as to refer to the televison affiliates of the various mainstream agencies.It just seems to me that they are passing over what appears to be a major event happening today and I can't help wondering why its not getting more attention then it is.
Although I believe that it is very important that news agencies have a responsibility to keep the public informed about the ongoing war our country is involved with, it is a fact that casualties will happen, unfortunatly. I do not believe that the death of serveral of our servicemen should take top story over an event happening all across our nation today, involving hundreds of thousands of people that very well could influence how our government's policies are implimented in the near future, including the policy being used to conduct the very war that cost these servicemen their lives. I am not callus about the loss of our servicemen, it saddens me a great deal to hear of any loss of life. I believe it saddens the vast majority of the very people participating in these protests too, and they, like myself want to know that their deaths are not in vain.
I'll make it a point to pay more attention to my details when posting questions in the future

Appears to me that FoxNews is the only news agency that is giving this the coverage that in my opinion it warrants.At least thats the impression I get as i click around the various channels.

I think @jeffhoard's answer demonstrates that Fox News ISN'T the only cable news network covering the event. Pretty solid evidence there.

Anecdotally, I'm not even trying to watch the news (let alone looking for stories about the "tea parties"), but I've noticed coverage. I know local news in Detroit is all over it. And it looks like the major networks are too.

No media conspiracy.

"Appears to me that FoxNews is the only news agency that is giving this the coverage that in my opinion it warrants."

Did I miss something? Since when has FoxNews been a "news agency"?

The thing's these people are doing and saying are absolutely sick!

Well said, God forbid all Americans have basic health care.

and don't forget the federal mandates that went with "no child left behind" it seems the conservatives don't care about the feds telling states what to do when their guy is office, and now George Will wants to cut and run from Afghanistan.

@shadowbear, I am being targeted and it's unfair :(

Reason for my unhelpful entry:
An ad hominem response.
You felt strongly enough to tag the question as uninteresting but yet you still chose to add your contumelious remark. Very ostentatious of you to do so.

It's 'tit for tat', I'm afraid, not 'tick for tack'.

I think this comes back down to the 'what is the uninteresting' vote for? I mean, if you didn't find it interesting, then why did you bother to answer? I'm not getting into the politics of the question, just curious about the uninteresting vote issue -- been wondering what folks use it for since I've come here.

Yeah, and the mechanics of *why* the mainstream news media got more "targetted" and "focussed" goes back to something that happened during the Reagan era.

Indeed, 25 years ago, the news media tended to present what was there, and the public would be free to react.

Advertizers and their clients were expected to focus on programming, but they were not to touch the news, and there were laws saying as much.

Specifically, the laws said that a sponsor and it's advertizer could not twist the wrist of the news, and if a broadcaster could show proof that wrist-twisting had happened, the sponsor would be charged and if found guilty would have to pay a big penalty to the broadcaster, such that the broadcaster could keep operating even without the sponsor's advertizing.

But those laws said nothing about what the *owner* of a broadcaster had to report news-wise. What was keeping the broadcasters honest *that way* was competition between broadcasters to deliver the kind of news that people want, which is facts about what is really going on.

However, under Reagan, some tax cuts were announced for anyone who would invest it in "business". The theory was that investment in business would create new industries and new jobs yadda yadda, but they didn't specify that the tax-break for business investment had to be investments in startups and/or new industries.

Consequently, big finance ran around using the windfall from the tax cut not to invest in startups, but in buying out operations already in progress, and they justified it - not irrationaly, if you think about it - that it was safer to "invest" (aka buy and take over) an operation that had already worked through the difficulties and risks of getting started and rolling, and you might remember how in the late 80's all big corporations and inveswtment houses seemed to be going on a buying binge of snapping up smaller companies, and that was totally *not* what citizen's who'd supported the tax cuts had been told and thought would happen.

Reagan supporters among the citizen-Joe thought the tax cuts would foster innovation and creation of new jobs, but given how the law was written, all it did was reduce the number of companies operating, it *dropped* the number of jobs available because consolidated operations would merge accounting and data processing departements, etc.

But another side effect of that poorly written Reagan tax-break legislation was that it enable huge holding companies to buy up a broadcaster on one hand, and a lead smelter on the other hand, and as the owner of both could stop the broadcaster from reporting if the smelter was leaking lead into the groundwater, because now it was an issue of an owner having the right to determine what any of his corporate possetions will or will not do.

That's why you're seeing how it's always the broadcaster that are owned by some big megacorp that seem to report with curious biases or holes in their reported. If you follow the pyramidal chain of ownership up, you'll find that at the top level, the people who own the broadcaster are the same people who own the malpracticing enterprises that the broadcaster won't report about, and there's really nothing you can do about it, because if you try, you're crossing a key line fundamental to the formation of western style democracy whether it be republic or parlimentarian or whatever, going all the way back to the Magna Carta, and that is, "A man's home is his castle", which means, you can make laws about what he can't do outside his home, but you can't make laws about what goes on inside, and by extention, it means you can make laws telling a business what it cannot be doing to the environment or the economy, but you cannot tell it how it is to organize itself internally.

Other industrialied nations had gone through this before, and *always* there was the dilema of news media. On one hand the citizens want open unbiased news, but on the other hand it's a serious investment being payed for by sponsors purchasing advertizing spots, and the solutions have varied.

Most of them, like Britian for example, would set up a public broadcaster, the BBC, unfettered by private ownership hand. Others, like Canada, would set up a public broadcaster, the CBC, but would allow private broadcasters, to be kept honest by the CBC. In Australia they set up the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), to hold their private broadcasters honest, and that's what New Zealand did too.

But in the US, they have such an anathematic knee-jerk reaction against the concept of things like news reporting or health insurance being Of the People, By the People, and For the People, that it's been a real problem, such that the citizens are doing what anybody would do, which is look for alternate sources that will tell them what's going on, and today that means the internet, such that in the US, the internet is devastating broadcast and newspaper news media on a scale unlike anything that's happening in any of the other english speaking industrial democracies.

Yes the newspapers in Canada and Australia and NZ are feeling a pinch, mostly through loss of classified ad reveniew because of Craigslist (I wonder if Craig ever thought, or even cares, that while bumbling through life looking for something to do he inadvertently punched a hole in a dutch dyke and now it's starting to break) but for the Canadian and NZ and Australian media, they are *not* feeling a pinch from loss of news audiences... but in the US with it's Foxie Newses they are, and the rush to the internet for information is hurting even venerable news sources like the New York Times, which is... sad, frankly... because in top shape, there was nothing like it, they set the standard, and they defined the form... all because of a poorly targetted Reagan tax-cut policy.

So... hmm... I dunno... it's kind'a sad, because in fact the US *is* surrounded by allies who, yes, were getting freaked out and were beginning to ponder notions like reformation of a modernized Commonwealth in order to disitance themselves from the looniness happening under ChenyBush, but now Uncle Sam seems to be getting back on track to some semblance of sanity on the international front, but his english-speaking free-market industrial-democracy allies still can only watch and shake their heads and feel sorry for the big guy while he tears himself up the inside 'cause he can't get his head wrapped around issues like universal health insurance and objective news media.

It used to be that Canucks and Brits and Ausies and Kiwis would think that it might be kind'a cool to live in the US, but frankly, right now, they're feeling lucky and are holding pat...

Understand something: they really do give their most heartfelt hopes and wishes that Uncle Sam will figure out a way to get it together... they really do care... believe it or not. But they also worry, because as allies everyone is sharing the same boat, and ol' Sam is the biggest elephant in it.

I attend Tea Party events and I can promise you its no game.

then where were you guys when Bush was president?

Oh it is all about games, I hate that guy because he has a D in front of his name, that is the game that has been played for years, it started with the rise of talk radio in the early 90s, it was saying that the Clintons had a role in the death of Vince Foster, it is calling Barack Obama a socialist or Marxist, it is worshiping Strom Thurmond protege Joe Wilson, it is thinking that right wing talk show hosts that could not be bothered to serve in the military somehow support the troops. it is pushing tort reform even though lawsuit awards are down and it is harder to sue in most states, it is backing new tough on crime laws and yet states like Texas, Alabama... which are among the toughest on crime are also the most violent.

@defolts
You didn't give an answer to the question. You only gave your bias opinion of a movement that,by your very opinion shows how little you really know about this movement.
If you would concider investing just a small amount of your time researching the new Tea party you would find the fault in your opinion.
This isn't about Democrates,or Republicans, its not about Conservatives or Liberals. The fact is our government is broken and has been since long before President Obama took office.
Its my personal opinion that regardless who is in the WhiteHouse, the time has come that the average american citizen is stepping up and staying, Enough! it is time to stop this out of control train and get it back on track. Only then can truely positive change take place.
It is time that we as a nation stop ripping ourselfs apart, we need to come together as a united people and demand that our elected officals do as we wish, not as they please.
I cannot believe that you and I are that far apart on what we would like to see happen in our country.
We are not the problem, but we can,if we chose, be part of the solution.
The world is watching. What happens in the USA will effect them.
Our future is at sake.
Shall we continue to argue with one another? Or shall we begin to engage in civilized dialog so that we can proceed to find solutions to the problems that concern us all?
The choice is ours, and time is of an essence.

shadow...
my answer was the GOP/Conservatives created this and want it to be a news story and it has gotten a lot of coverage, I personally find it dishonest that we went all this time and all the sudden now they have a movement, where were you guys when Bush was in office or even when Reagan was in because during those years we also ran up a lot of debt, and when Reagan was in he raised taxes when the revenue projects were not what he thought they would be.
I think the movement is because they hate Barack Obama, when I research the history of people like Joe Wilson and find he supported the confederate flag, when I see people questioning where the president was born, when I see people like Dick Armey involved, I think your solutions are work harder for less so someone rich can have more, its okay for countries like Japan and other to protect our industries but not the U.S. corporate tax revenues must continue to go down. even though their percent is about a third of what it was in the 1950s, the average worker must accept to compete in the world, but not the CEOs even though other countries like Japan Germany pay executives much less. unions are evil but union membership is about a 3rd of what it was in the 1950s and can you really say workers are better off now? or can you say it with a straight face, get all riled up about illegal aliens but do very little about the companies that hire them. I dont want them here but if companies did not hire them they would have no reason to come, they come for jobs, whatever else they get is incidental.
you have companies demanding tax breaks all the time, for what? they pay less and less. none of you seemed to care about the companies that ripped the government off in Iraq or the 9 billion that went missing.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145848,00.html notice I when I looked for the story I used the fox website, so you cant claim leftwing, but you are all stirred up over acorn