Joe Scarborough, Mark Halperin & Lou Dobbs on the bias and failures of the media

Hello Everyone:

Right below is the NewsBusters transcript of Morning Joe from Tuesday, Oct. 28 where Joe Scarborough and Mark Halperin talked about the blatant pro-Obama bias and failures of the media in this election.

The NewsBusters article opens up with this quote from Mark Halperin:

"Editor at large of Time magazine Mark Halperin appeared on Tuesday's edition of "Morning Joe" and admitted "mistakes have been made" in regards to the media's coverage of Barack Obama and that "people will regret it." Analyzing the fawning press that the Democratic presidential candidate has received, he added, "If Obama wins and goes on to become a hugely successful president, I think, still, people will look back and say it just wasn't done the right way..."

A transcript of the exchange, which occurred at 6:01am on October 28, 2008, follows:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: "But I got to say this, the media, the media has been really, really biased this campaign, I think. But it's not been a Republican/Democratic bias. It's 6:01 and I'm jumping right in. But, actually, I'm starting to have this conversation with other members of the media, who say, you know what? We may be- This may end up like 2002, 2003, where we weren't as tough as we should have been. Some hand wringing. But this- Hillary Clinton's campaign also complained that there was a lot of bias shown against her. Is the media just in love with history here, Mark, do you think?

MARK HALPERIN (Editor at large, Time) : History and the story is just- it's great for us. It's been great for us. He's a great story. But I think, I think mistakes have been made and people- and people will regret it. [Joe laughs] You know, we talk- They will-

SCARBOROUGH: They will regret it. Because the media, it always blows up in the media's face.

HALPERIN: Even if he goes- If Obama wins and goes on to become a hugely successful president, I think, still, people will look back and say it just wasn't done the right way..."

I completely agree with this analysis because it is an accurate reflection of what the polls verify:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/majority_say_reporters_tried_to_help_obama

Majority Say Reporters Tried To Help Obama

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16816

PEW: By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama win

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 23, 2008 - 2:51am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16130

POLLS: Much of the media are still in the tank for Obama and that is NOT right!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 22, 2008 - 6:07am.

I also agree with Lou Dobbs and his bipartisan panel about pro-Obama media bias and that we did NOT have an effective public debate and discussion of the issues in the 2008 Presidential election:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/02/ldtw.01.html

LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK

Roundup of the Week's Reporting; Campaigns Down to Two Days

Aired November 2, 2008 - 19:00 ET

LOU DOBBS, HOST: "We're back with Diana West, Errol Louis, and Hank Sheinkopf. Let me begin, if I may, with you, Diana. This campaign as it winds down, do you believe that we've had an effective public debate that we're going to have as is always the desire in our presidential campaigns? A national consensus built on a strong, public discussion of the issues?

DIANA WEST, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST AND CNN CONTRIBUTOR: No. Shall I go on? No, this has been, I think because of our situation with the media being absolutely in the tank for Senator Obama, we have not had any sort of airing of the kinds of issues that are important for voters to make their minds up, including the character issue, including the ideology issue. And I would just add for the last segment, the...

DOBBS: Are you talking about Obama or McCain in that?

WEST: I'm talking about Senator Obama. McCain, we know about.

DOBBS: I know that. I'm just kidding, I know. But I happen to think that both - that question applies to both of these candidates. Pretty recently, frankly.

Every time I heard, Errol Louis, Senator McCain talking about who is Barack Obama, I thought who is John McCain here because he's -- he's distanced himself from his base on a host of issues. I'm not sure about his relationship with his party. I mean, it's very confounding.

ERROL LOUIS, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS AND CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Sure.

DOBBS: The man says he wants to be away from George Bush and then calls himself the greatest free trader on the planet.

LOUIS: Yes, you know, I feel a little cheated, to tell you the truth. I have not reported on McCain prior to this election campaign. and the one day that I spent in the press pool to follow him around, and you know, he absolutely ignored the entire press pool. You know, and maybe he decided that we were all in the tank anyway, there's no point in talking to anybody from any news organization.

DOBBS: Only 90 percent of you.

LOUIS: Well, you know, regardless, you know? Regardless it's like you're going to just leave me to draw my own conclusion then that's just what I'll do. But I think it's unfortunate because whether or not you're for or against the candidate, whatever they think about the mainstream media, I think we could have conducted a better campaign.

There's been a campaign to inform the public.

DOBBS: Right.

LOUIS: We have a few shows like yours that will just talk about an important issue, regardless of whether or not it's leading in the polls or coming out of the mouths -- on the stump speeches of the candidates, but that's the exception and not the rule. There aren't enough instances in which people in the press say you know what, I don't care if nobody talked about this today. Here's an important piece of information and an important issue we need to tackle.

DOBBS: I use 90 percent of the national liberal media being in the tank, Hank, because politico.com used 80. I thought I'd trump them by 10 percent.

HANK SHEINKOPF, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST AND CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You didn't trump them. They are in the tank. And they've been in the tank since the beginning and they continue to be in the tank. But part of the problem of staying in the tank is McCain's problem..."

A lack of reporting about foreign policy and national security issues, how important that they are, and how they relate to the economy was a very huge failure of the media in the 2008 election in my opinion:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16804

Howard Kurtz and Lara Logan analyzed lack of foreign policy media coverage!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 21, 2008 - 3:58am.

I agree with Lou Dobbs that "The national media was basically derelict on its reporting for the campaign" and with his guest Rick Shenkman who said "I don't think this was the shining hour for the media:"

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/10/ldt.01.html

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT

Obama Plans Swift Policy Changes; Another AIG Bailout; New Wave of Layoffs; Country is Unhappy

Aired November 10, 2008 - 19:00 ET

LOU DOBBS, HOST: "It's also a reflection, is it not, on the national liberal media, without question, even now most recently, the Washington Post, politico.com, a number of news outlets are acknowledging that the national media was a part of the tank for Obama. But it really goes beyond that. The national media was basically derelict on its reporting for the campaign according to most critics. What do you think?

RICK SHENKMAN, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, I don't think this was the shining hour for the media. I think the media was made up of liberal reporters and they were happy to see Barack Obama come in. They haven't liked George Bush terribly much over the last few years although initially they certainly I don't want to say they were in the tank for him but they liked him personally and they gave him an advantage, certainly, over Al Gore in 2000. It's not quite the ideology is driving this. They were fairer to George Bush than they had been to Al Gore in 2000 even though they were liberal then. I think in this case they were sick and tired of the republicans and Obama seemed like a breath of fresh air..."

Here are the Washington Post and Politico articles that Lou Dobbs was referring to:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage

By Deborah Howell
Sunday, November 9, 2008; Page B06

"The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts..."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html

Why McCain is getting hosed in the press

By JOHN F. HARRIS & JIM VANDEHEI | 10/28/08 10:02 AM EST

"OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico..."

Even Judge Judy Sheindlin who voted for Obama and who seems to be very liberal in her views admitted "I think that the media loves Barack Obama" and agreed that the press was unfair to Sarah Palin:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/10/lkl.01.html

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Bush, Obama Meet Privately Today; Interview with Judge Judy

Aired November 10, 2008 - 21:00 ET

LARRY KING, HOST: "How long a honeymoon does he (Obama) get?

JUDGE JUDY SHEINDLIN, "JUDGE JUDY": I think he gets a long honeymoon. I think that the media loves Barack Obama. I think that the print media, the electronic media love him, and are prepared to cut him an awful lot of slack...

KING: Was the press unfair to her (Sarah Palin)?

SHEINDLIN: Yes, I think they were. I think they looked for her to make mistakes. I think there was a certain gloating when that unfortunate prank was pulled on her with the president of France. I think instead of being outraged that somebody did something like that, as they would have been for another candidate, they sort of were snickering that she was so dumb that she fell for it, or that someone wasn't smart enough in her office to have put her on the phone.

I think there was a mean-spiritedness that I sensed. And I didn't vote for her. But there was a mean-spiritedness that I find objectionable, I don't know if it was because she was a woman. I don't know if she was a woman that came into the national attention after Hillary Clinton, who was a very popular woman, and there was a sense that maybe they were trying to change one woman out for another, which I think is sort of ridiculous. You can't do that with people. But I think she is a smart lady. I think she was underrated. I think she needs a little more time if she wants to get into the natural picture. But I think that the criticism and the vitriol and the mean- spiritedness have to stop. It's disrespectful..."

With so much media bias, I appreciate that there are still some honest brokers of news and information such as media critic Howard Kurtz who are asking the tough questions about Obama's press coverage:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/09/rs.01.html

CNN RELIABLE SOURCES

Did Media Hype Obama?; McCain v. Palin

Aired November 9, 2008 - 10:00 ET

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: "Doyle McManus, but people already think the press was way more favorable to Obama than McCain during the campaign. Is there a danger that all this will be seen as some kind of love-fest involving the media?

DOYLE MCMANUS, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": Sure. There's a danger it's being said that way already...

KURTZ: Well, one conservative, Jake Tapper, Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, said this was the media narrative, that America is a better country because Obama won, and the implication was that if you voted for John McCain, you were somehow against racial progress.

JAKE TAPPER, SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, ABC NEWS: I think there was some of that..."

I also appreciate Howard Kurtz for bringing up the very important question of "how President Obama will be covered once he starts making decisions" and Joe Scarborough for keeping biased media pundits honest like Chris Matthews at his own network by reminding him of what his job is supposed to be:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/09/rs.01.html

CNN RELIABLE SOURCES

Did Media Hype Obama?; McCain v. Palin

Aired November 9, 2008 - 10:00 ET

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: "Doyle McManus, you mentioned how President Obama will be covered once he starts making decisions and so forth. Let me play for you the reaction of Chris Matthews on MSNBC. I think he made pretty clear where he's going to stand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC: I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work. And I think...

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist.

MATTHEWS: Yes, that's my job. My job is to help this country.

SCARBOROUGH: So your job as a journalist is to make this presidency work?

MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully, because this country needs a successful presidency more than anything right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOYLE MCMANUS, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": That is not the job of the reporters covering Barack Obama. Chris Matthews, you will recall, is the pundit who had a thrill running all the way up his leg when he heard Barack Obama speak. So...

KURTZ: And apparently it hasn't vanished.

MCMANUS: I guess it's still there. I think he needs to see a neurologist..."

Here is the video of this dialogue between Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e46Ueu6USU

Chris Matthews Auditions For Press Secretary (0:59)

Posted: November 06, 2008
Posted By: MarkF
Views: 114,919 | Network: MSNBC

"Appearing on "Morning Joe," Chris Matthews of MSNBC said his job is to make Barack Obama's presidency a success."

Here are my five conclusions about the state of the media now and going forward:

1) I agree in principle with Chris Matthews that "this country needs a successful presidency more than anything right now" BUT it is NOT the job of the media to help make that happen, Obama has to earn it!

Individual people on a bipartisan basis should want to see Obama be successful in my opinion:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/09/le.01.html

CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER

Interview With Arnold Schwarzenegger; Interview With Harry Reid; Interview With John Podesta

Aired November 9, 2008 - 11:00 ET

GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (R-CA): "I have made it very clear that now, since the election is over and the people have chosen Obama, that I will be 100 percent behind this man. Anything that he needs, we as a state will work with him. We want to make sure that he is successful, because then the country is successful. It has absolutely nothing to do with politics. I'm all about getting the job done, whatever party it is. Let's work together, Democrats and Republicans, and I think a lot of things can be accomplished..."

But I cannot emphasize enough that it is NOT the job of the media to help make Obama successful. It is the job of the media to be objective, to ask Obama the tough questions, and to keep him honest:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/06/sitroom.02.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Obama Names Chief of Staff; Obama's Top Security Briefing; Foreign Hackers Hit Campaigns; Protest Against Gay Marriage Ban; Journalists Emotions Show

Aired November 6, 2008 - 17:00 ET

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST-CNN'S "RELIABLE SOURCES": "Once the euphoria wears off, we in the news business will have a new administration to deal with. And the challenge will be to put aside any personal feelings and cover President Obama fairly and aggressive -- Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: But, as you know, Howie, there are journalist out there who no longer go by the so-called old school rules. They want to show their opinions out there openly, not only on television, but in the print media, as well.

KURTZ: Well, for columnists and commentators who want to either identify with President Obama or take him down a few pegs, I think that's fine. But I am somewhat old school in saying that reporters, people who aim, at least, to be fair and balanced and objective, they, I think, are going to be in a very different role after Obama takes office than they were during the campaign. The traditional adversarial l relationship will kick in when he starts to make controversial decisions. People forget, Wolf, that there were very tense relations between President Clinton and the press, even though he was a Democrat..."

2) IF Obama is not successful because of either incompetence or extreme ideology, then I would hold the media mostly responsible for that because they were the ones who gave him a near free ride to both the Democratic nomination and to the White House without asking a lot of tough questions:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15744

VIDEO: Dan Abrams asked about Hillary's primary loss "Is it the media’s fault?"

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 9, 2008 - 5:58pm.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15744#comment-309677

There is NO question in my opinion of anti-Hillary media bias...

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 9, 2008 - 6:07pm.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/majority_say_reporters_tried_to_help_obama

Majority Say Reporters Tried To Help Obama

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16816

PEW: By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama win

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 23, 2008 - 2:51am.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=1728

The Obama Love Shack: That's Where It's At (04:28)

Because of this, no reporter or media pundit who was in the tank for Obama has any right to complain if Obama either does not succeed or if he does something that they do not like. They made their bed when they went in the tank and now they have to sleep in it for at least the next four years!

3) With power comes responsibility and the voters can easily take away what they gave in the next election IF there is a lack of performance:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/28/sitroom.03.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Dow Jumps Nearly 900 Points; McCain, Palin Call For Alaska Senator to Resign

Aired October 28, 2008 - 18:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "The first question, Gloria, to you.

Are Democrats poised right now to become, at least for the time being, a permanent majority party, as the Republicans were for a time?

GLORIA BORGER, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. I mean there's nothing permanent in Washington and there's nothing permanent in politics, Wolf. So while they're poised to clearly become the majority party controlling the House, controlling the Senate and controlling the White House, you know, the Republicans can tell you that these things don't last forever. And what the public demands is performance.

And, you know, be careful what you wish for, Wolf. I talked to lots of Democrats who say oh, my God what if we get to 60?

We're actually -- 60 votes in the Senate. People are going to hold them responsible to get something done. And it's going to be a tough road, even if they're in control of everything..."

I definitely agree with both Gloria Borger and Dana Milbank that Obama has very high expectations:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/13/sitroom.03.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Biden Meets with Cheney; Sarah Palin Holds Press Conference

Aired November 13, 2008 - 18:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "What do you think, Gloria? These are really high expectations. Can he go forward and meet these expectations?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: The expectations are huge. And that's a bit of a problem for the Obama team because they've set up these high expectations, because he has promised so much. He's very well liked by the American public. There's a real sense he has a mandate out there. And he's got to perform at a very, very high level. Some folks say, well, the bar is low because George W. Bush is at 26 percent popularity. I disagree. I think the bar is really high for them and they know it.

BLITZER: All right, Dana, what do you think? This is a huge challenge, because the expectations game, as you know, in politics, is enormous.

DANA MILBANK, CNN CONTRIBUTOR "WASHINGTON POST": Exactly. You know, during the campaign, Obama joked that he was born on the planet Krypton and sent by his father, Jorel, to save the planet Earth. But now it seems the joke is on him, because people actually do believe that he's superman..."

4) While there may be a few good journalists left such as Howard Kurtz and Joe Scarborough, I definitely believe that the state of serious and objective journalism is in a very broken condition right now:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16746

Aaron Brown said "serious news at risk" in 2006 & Bernard Shaw confirmed it now!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 12, 2008 - 8:04am.

5) 2008 in my opinion is the year that serious and objective journalism died. It is my very sincere hope that there will be some kind of a serious media reform movement to try and bring back the type of serious and objective journalism that Walter Cronkite stood for and wanted to be remembered for:

http://www.grandtimes.com/cronkite.html

That's The Way It Is... with Walter Cronkite

by Kira Albin, interview conducted in 1996

GT (Grand Times): "But don't you think that journalists' personal opinions do come into play?

WC (Walter Cronkite): The mark of a professional journalist is that we do adhere to an ethic. A professional journalist recognizes his or her prejudices and biases and avoids them in writing and reporting. There's no place in journalism for biased reporting on the front page. There is no place for subjective, personal opinions to creep in...

GT: How do you want to be remembered?

WC: [laughs] Oh, as a fellow who did his best. I'd like to be remembered as a person who tried to give the news as impartially, as factually, as possible, and succeeded most of the time..."

Please feel free to forward this information on so that more people will know how the media failed to do their job in the 2008 election and so that hopefully something can be done where this kind of unprofessional media bias will NEVER happen again in a future election!

Mitch Dworkin

http://www.securingamerica.com/

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16039
RESOURCES: Speeches, Articles, and Career Highlights to help define Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 7, 2008 - 2:51pm.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.

http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!

--------------------

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2008/10/28/editor-time-fawning-obama-coverage-media-will-regret

Editor of Time on Fawning Obama Coverage: Media Will Regret This

By Scott Whitlock (Bio | Archive)
October 28, 2008 - 18:30 ET

Editor at large of Time magazine Mark Halperin appeared on Tuesday's edition of "Morning Joe" and admitted "mistakes have been made" in regards to the media's coverage of Barack Obama and that "people will regret it." Analyzing the fawning press that the Democratic presidential candidate has received, he added, "If Obama wins and goes on to become a hugely successful president, I think, still, people will look back and say it just wasn't done the right way."

Joe Scarborough, host of "Morning Joe," prompted the brief discussion when he opened the MSNBC program by declaring, "But I got to say this, the media, the media has been really, really biased this campaign, I think." He then asked Halperin if journalists are "just in love with history?" Halperin candidly responded, "History and the story is just- it's great for us. It's been great for us. He's a great story." He then went on to make his "mistakes have been made" quip, prompting Scarborough to burst out laughing.

Scarborough then proceeded to vaguely describe the type of journalists who have gushed over Obama. Without naming names, or explaining if he was talking about a fellow MSNBC host, the former Republican congressman explained:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: But there's certain white guys...that just barely missed the party in the civil rights movement. They're the late '50s, early to mid '60s. They wish they had been there with Brokaw, holding a, you know, being in Selma and all these other places. But they weren't. So, they seem to be the ones that are completely in the tank because they want to be a part of the history this time. They want- They want to help elect an African American president and they can put that on their, you know, bedpost.

A transcript of the exchange, which occurred at 6:01am on October 28, 2008, follows:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: But I got to say this, the media, the media has been really, really biased this campaign, I think. But it's not been a Republican/Democratic bias. It's 6:01 and I'm jumping right in. But, actually, I'm starting to have this conversation with other members of the media, who say, you know what? We may be- This may end up like 2002, 2003, where we weren't as tough as we should have been. Some hand wringing. But this- Hillary Clinton's campaign also complained that there was a lot of bias shown against her. Is the media just in love with history here, Mark, do you think?

MARK HALPERIN (Editor at large, Time) : History and the story is just- it's great for us. It's been great for us. He's a great story. But I think, I think mistakes have been made and people- and people will regret it. [Joe laughs] You know, we talk- They will-

SCARBOROUGH: They will regret it. Because the media, it always blows up in the media's face.

HALPERIN: Even if he goes- If Obama wins and goes on to become a hugely successful president, I think, still, people will look back and say it just wasn't done the right way.

SCARBOROUGH: You know, in 2000, I actually was complaining that George W. Bush, even though I was for George W. Bush, as a Republican congressman at the time, I said to friends, why is the press giving Bush a free press on all of this stuff, but hammering Al Gore? It is usually- The bias is usually against Republicans, but sometimes it's against, like, an Al Gore in 2000 or a Hillary Clinton in 2008, 'cause Hillary, too, was running against history.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I just don't think it was black and white and there was some insidious bias. I think there was a real vexing issue of an incredible story versus a guy who's been around for a long time and how to cover it, how much to cover it, how many pictures to show. I think it's vexing. I think it's very difficult.

SCARBOROUGH: I will tell, you, Willie, what is not vexing is the fact that there are certain white guys, I'm not going to name any names because we love them all, and they come this show and they give us good ratings. So, we love you all. But there's certain white guys- no, no, no older than Mr. Halperin and us, that just barely missed the party in the civil rights movement. They're the late '50s, early to mid '60s. They wish they had been there with Brokaw, holding a, you know, being in Selma and all these other places. But they weren't. So, they seem to be the ones that are completely in the tank because they want to be a part of the history this time. They want- They want to help elect an African American president and they can put that on their, you know, bedpost.

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.

I hate having to admit when the other side is probably right:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2008/11/04/winner-mrcs-sweet-obama-sixteen

And the Winner of the MRC's Sweet-On-Obama Sixteen Is...

By Seton Motley (Bio | Archive)
November 4, 2008 - 12:52 ET

We began with sixteen of the most overtly biased journalists towards Illinois Democratic Senator and Presidential nominee Barack Obama.

http://sweetonobama.mrc.org/

You, the media's biggest fans, watched the videos and read the excerpts and cast your ballots for your selections.

First for the Enamored Eight, then the Infatuated Four and the Dynamic Biased Duo.

And now the moment has arrived, when we announce your choice as the Media's Most Valuable Partisan (MVP), the most pro-Obama reporter of them all.

And that alleged journalist is....

Was There Ever
Really Any Doubt?

Chris Matthews.

http://sweetonobama.mrc.org/

http://sweetonobama.mrc.org/?page_id=52

Yes, I know this will come as a galloping shock to one and nearly all, but that was how this particular media bias cookie crumbled.

So turn out the leg lamp, the party's over. Unless today's other vote turns up roses for the press's Most Beloved, in which case we will have to redo this contest on a fortnightly basis for the next four years.

Reconstituted as the Sweet-On-Obama Sixteen Thousand. At least.

Related Stories

Nearly Halftime of Round Three of the MRC's Sweet-On-Obama Sixteen

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2008/10/21/nearly-halftime-round-three-mrcs-sweet-obama-sixteen

Of the MRC's Sweet-On-Obama Sixteen, Only the Infatuated Four Remain

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2008/10/20/mrcs-sweet-obama-sixteen-only-infatuated-four-remain

MRC/NB's Motley on Fox News Discussing the LATimes Spiking Obama-Rashidi Tape

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2008/10/29/mrc-nbs-motley-fox-news-discussing-latimes-spiking-obama-rashidi-tape

It's Nearly Halftime of Round Two of the Sweet-On-Obama Sixteen Tournament

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2008/10/14/its-nearly-halftime

MRC's Sweet-On-Obama Sixteen Tournament Rolls On Into the Enamored Eight

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2008/10/13/mrcs-sweet-obama-sixteen-tournament-rolls-enamored-eight

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3179396&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/americasnewsroom/index.html (03:53)

Media Bias?

November 06, 2008: Poll: 51 percent of Americans say reporters tried to help Obama win election. Scott Rasmussen is interviewed.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3179396&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/americasnewsroom/index.html (03:53)

-------------------------

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/majority_say_reporters_tried_to_help_obama

Majority Say Reporters Tried To Help Obama

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

As the presidential campaign comes to a close, a majority of voters (51%) say most reporters have tried to help Barack Obama win the presidency. Just seven percent (7%) think they tried to help John McCain.

Thirty-one percent (31%) say reporters have offered unbiased coverage, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Ten percent (10%) are undecided.

Men are far more suspicious than women. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of male voters think reporters actively favored Obama, compared to a plurality of female voters (46%).

Eighty-four percent (84%) of Republicans and 51% of unaffiliated voters say reporters have tried to help Obama, but just 24% of Democrats agree. Nearly half of Democrats (49%) say reporters tried to be unbiased, and only 12% think they tried to help McCain.

Pluralities of those who voted early, those who say they are certain to vote and first-time voters say most reporters tried to help Obama, but, in a potentially troubling sign for McCain’s candidacy, voters in all three categories poll below the 51% national average.

The number of those suspecting a media tilt toward Obama has grown since June when just 44% believed reporters would try to help Obama get elected. At that time 13% thought they would work for McCain’s benefit.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/voters_give_media_failing_grades_in_objectivity_for_election_2008

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of likely U.S. voters now expect Obama to be elected president.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/59_expect_obama_to_win

The final Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Election 2008 shows Barack Obama with 52% of the vote while John McCain is six points back at 46%. One percent (1%) of voters say they’ll select a third-party option while 1% remain undecided.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls).

http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1102135387545&p=oi%5D

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters continue to believe most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, while 23% think most try to offer unbiased coverage. Nine percent (9%) are undecided. These numbers have been fairly consistent through the summer.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/69_say_reporters_try_to_help_the_candidate_they_want_to_win

Again, men are more suspicious than women, Republicans and unaffiliated voters more so than Democrats.

Forty-seven percent (47%) also believe that most reporters would hide information that might politically hurt a candidate they wanted to win. Thirty-three percent (33%) don’t agree, with 20% undecided.

This suggests why even though voters overwhelmingly believe politicians will “break the rules to help people who give them a lot of money,” 55% believe media bias is more of a problem than big campaign contributions.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/55_say_media_bias_bigger_problem_than_campaign_cash

Fifty percent (50%) said in a survey in July that the media makes the economy look worse than it is. Obama has taken a steady lead over McCain since mid-September when Wall Street’s problems began dominating the news.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/50_say_media_makes_economy_look_worse_than_it_really_is

Similarly, in a poll last month, nearly one out of three voters (32%) said this year’s presidential race is more negative than most. But 74% also said the media reports more on negative campaigning than the issues.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/32_say_election_more_negative_than_most_74_say_media_focuses_on_the_negative

Now 40% say this year’s campaign was more negative than most. Only 12% think it has been more positive than usual, while 46% rate it about the same as most recent elections. Forty percent (40%) of Republicans and 46% of Democrats say the campaign has been more negative than most, but they have different explanations for it.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Democrats say Obama has run the more positive campaign, while 66% of Republicans believe McCain has. Unaffiliated voters by a 53% to 25% margin rate Obama’s campaign more positive than McCain’s.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of all voters say Obama’s has been the more positive of the two campaigns, compared to 32% who believe that of McCain’s. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free)… let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1102135387545&p=oi%5D

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs available for Premium Members only.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

This telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on October 31, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Who knew?

This seems like pretty old stuff.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."

The principle itself may be old BUT the much of the documentation and polls that I quoted in this post are not that old.

The purpose of this post is not to rehash an old point that we already know about but rather it is to make the new point which Joe Scarborough, Mark Halperin, and Lou Dobbs made about how the media failed us in this election so that hopefully something like this will never happen again in a future election!

It is also to make another new point which Howard Kurtz made as recently as last Sunday about how the media needs to ask Obama the tough questions when he is President!

I found it almost unbelievable that John Roberts of CNN asked former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown what his opinion was about Obama's views of executive power AFTER the election was already over:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/10/ec.01.html

CNN ELECTION CENTER

Sarah Palin Speaks Out on Presidential Campaign; Obama Visits White House

Aired November 10, 2008 - 20:00 ET

JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: "Mayor Willie Brown, this current administration was famous for a dramatic expansion of executive power, most of it at the hands of Dick Cheney. Do you know where Barack Obama sits on this idea of expanded executive power? Would he give some back? Or is it a case where, once you got it, you hang onto it?

WILLIE BROWN (D), FORMER MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO: I know, based upon what he said through the course of the campaign, I think he rejects completely the Bush administration's expansion of executive power without consulting with the Congress for that purpose.

I don't think he will be taking the options of literally crossing out that with which he disagrees and executing in that fashion. I do think he will in fact remove a number of the authorizations with the executive orders that Mr. Bush has done. I also think he will establish the fact that you're entitled too due process when it comes to the business of accusations about terroristic acts that you may have engaged in.

But, beyond that, I don't think he will be at all interested in continuing the Cheney concept of expanding presidential power..."

This is an excellent question and I am sure that Willie Brown gave his honest opinion of it BUT this is a question that both Obama and McCain should have been asked long before the election:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12525

ANALYSIS: Democrats must make Bush's use of "executive power" a key 2008 issue!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 30, 2007 - 10:49am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11566

ANALYSIS: Why the fight between Bush & Congress is needed on executive power!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 23, 2007 - 4:33pm.

If I could think of bringing up this important question back in 2007, then why have I not heard it asked yet in the media of Obama BEFORE the election?

These are the kind of important questions and lessons from this election that I want people to think about and hopefully do something to correct BEFORE the next election!

I really hope that Obama is successful but people have to understand that if he is not, then most of the blame for it will be on the media for being in the tank for him instead of asking him the tough questions!

Mitch,

Excellent points -- and links, as always. Thank you for taking the time to do the research and sharing it.

Fairness Doctrine, anyone? Too late, me thinks, it's death by marketing and manipulation for campaigns and electoral politics of substance.

RIP literate society.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16746#comment-331812

Bringing back The Fairness Doctrine would help to restore...

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 12, 2008 - 8:28am.

Gen. Clark also agrees with that:

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/wes_clarks_feeling_on_media_co.html

Wes Clark's feeling on Media Consolidation

"We need to distribute the ownership in media. We need to have the fairness in broadcasting rules put back in place."

about what his job as a serious journalist is supposed to be at 02:25 into this video, Mika Brzezinski agreed with Scarborough, and Joe Scarborough said that journalists have to ask the tough questions at 04:30 into this video. Rick Stengel was there and he agreed with Joe Scarborough about that:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27572502#27572502 (06:40)

The Obama transition: Who, when will he choose?
Nov. 6: Hardball host Chris Matthews thinks the new administration's chief of staff will be announced today and it will be Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and Time's Rick Stengel reveals the magazine's new cover.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27572502#27572502 (06:40)

one turns on the tube and watches the talking heads:

moar funny pictures

Said, applies to ALL talking heads...even the ones we agree with.

that Hillary is still "kind of mad" at him, and how that the Clintons "don't invite me to the parties anymore" at about 52 seconds into this Countdown video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27652312#27652312 (04:56)

Olbermann dishes on ‘View’ secrets
Nov. 10: Countdown's Keith Olbermann talks about his appearance on "The View" and how he was treated by Elisabeth Hasselback.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27652312#27652312 (04:56)

Here is the Countdown transcript of this part of the video when Keith Olbermann was on "The View:"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27699332/

'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Monday, November 10, 2008
Read the transcript to the Monday show

ELIZABETH HASSELBECK, "THE VIEW": "What do you say to critics who say you are particularly soft on Democrats. We see that you're hard on Republicans, but when they say you're soft on Democrats, give them an easy way out.

KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: Well, I would run that question past Senator Clinton, because she didn't think I was easy on her. She's still kind of mad at me.

JOY BEHAR, "THE VIEW": What a gentleman you are. What did you say to her?

OLBERMANN: Well, that tape you played, it was kind of like that, only instead of saying Bush or McCain, it said Senator Clinton. They don't invite me to the parties anymore..."

along with MSNBC's reputation for opinion on "The View" at about 4:40 into this YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCESJs87bSs

Keith Olbermann On The View (7:48)

Added: November 10, 2008

Keith Olbermann answered Barbara Walters by saying "I don't think anymore by 8:00 at night people don't know what has happened during the day. I wish-a lot of us in doing the news or news programming go to bed every night going, and please, when I wake up, let it be 1973 again. And they're really relying on us for the information. By the time I get to the office, the people who are watching me tonight know more about the news than I do."

I could not tell if this answer from Keith Olbermann was supposed to be a joke or if he was really being serious. If he was joking, then I do not see the humor. If he was really being serious, then that is more stupid of an answer than anything I heard Sarah Palin say to Katie Couric or to anyone else!

Keith Olbermann also admitted to Joy Behar at about 5:20 into this video that he sort of became a counterprogram to FOX News. As I have said before, two wrongs and two extremes do NOT equal one right. They only make the problems of reporter's personal opinions and lack of objectivity in the news even worse than they already are!

Keith is just an entertainer doing an impersonation of Edward R Murrow. And what is Barbara doing asking a question about being objective? (talk about calling the kettle black!)

One positive for me this last campaign season is that I used to like listening to these shows, but have now wised up and am no longer wasting any of my time with these guys. Lots of better things to do.

I completely agree with you Defoliate Bush!

I am basically monitoring (not "watching") them only until the election analysis is over so that I can do posts like this to credibly document what happened in the 2008 election!

I think that people need to understand what happened with the media in this election and see where the media went wrong in order to try and help prevent something like this from ever happening again in a future election!

Once the election analysis is over, then I will definitely no longer waste any more of my time with these guys!

Once the election analysis is over, then I will no longer watch him in order to monitor him. I want to watch real news and NOT a Democratic version of Rush Limbaugh who I do NOT think is credible!

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/16/rs.01.html

CNN RELIABLE SOURCES

Palin Mounts Media Blitz; Hillary for Secretary of State?

Aired November 16, 2008 - 10:00 ET

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: "But there was some good news at MSNBC, at least if your name is Keith Olbermann. Network executives tore up the liberal crusader's contract and gave him a new one -- a four-year deal worth $30 million.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KURTZ: Now that's real money. Almost Bill O'Reilly money, in fact, just for showing up and talking.

Well, that's it for this edition of RELIABLE SOURCES.

I'm Howard Kurtz..."

http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/msnbc-olbermann-renew-contract/

November 10, 2008, 12:32 pm

MSNBC Extends Keith Olbermann’s Contract

By Brian Stelter

"Keith Olbermann, the anchor of “Countdown,” will remain at MSNBC through the next presidential election season, the cable news channel announced Monday afternoon.

The announcement came less than two years into Mr. Olbermann’s current four-year deal. MSNBC essentially tore up his February 2007 contract (reported to be worth up to $4 million a year) and wrote a new one, according to two employees with knowledge of the agreement. The new contract is valued at about $7.5 million a year, one of the people said..."

as a journalist when he made these comments on Countdown last Tuesday, November 11:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27683348/

'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Tuesday November 11, 2008
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Guest: Jon Soltz, Thomas Friedman, Joel McHale

KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: "But first on COUNTDOWN, our three Best Persons in the world. Number three: Best farewell. The late Joanne Alter, our friend Jon‘s mother passed away Sunday at her home in Chicago. She was the first woman Democrat elected to public office in Cook County, Illinois, broke the glass ceiling there, winning the seat as trustee of the Metropolitan Sanitary District in 1972. Her last public act as her son proudly notes, was five days before her death, to insist that she be wheeled into the nearby polling place so she could vote for President-elect Obama..."

I am sorry about the death of Joanne Alter but Keith Olbermann did not do anything to help Jonathan Alter's credibility as a journalist when he made these comments that clearly reveal his personal feelings about Obama!

However Jonathan Alter in my opinion had already ruined his own credibility as a journalist back in March of 2008:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14911

VIDEO: Dan Abrams debated Jonathan Alter who called on Hillary to drop out now!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 3, 2008 - 5:37am.

of objectivity and when she can properly lecture Larry King about media bias the way that she did last Wednesday night:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/12/lkl.01.html

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Interview with Sarah Palin

Aired November 12, 2008 - 21:00 ET

GOV. SARAH PALIN (R), FORMER VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: "I would have greater respect, though, for the entire profession called mainstream media if we could have great assurance that there's fairness, that there's objectivity throughout the reporting world.

And, you know, Larry, there, too, if there is anything that I can do in terms of assisting there and allowing the credence -- the credibility that that great vocation -- that cornerstone of our democracy called the press -- if I can help build up that credibility in the press and allow the electorate to know that they can believe everything that is reported through the airwaves and through print, I want to be able to help.

I started out as a journalist. It's that important to me that that cornerstone of our democracy is given the credence and credibility that it deserves.

But we have to have a two-way street here going, where reporters are fair, objective, non-biased; we get back to the who, what, where, when and why, and allow the viewers and the listeners and the readers to make up their own minds and not so much commentary, I think, being involved in mainstream media's questioning and reporting on candidates.

I'd like to kind of help build back that credibility in that cornerstone of our democracy called our media...

LARRY KING, HOST: Don't you also...

PALIN: ...allowing for the checks and balances that government needs.

KING: Don't you think, Governor, that there's also a right-wing media?

PALIN: There's a right-wing, there's a left-wing. I tend to believe that what we need is, again, back to the who, what, where, when and why, and allow the electorate -- allow listeners, viewers to make up their own minds based on fair, objective, non-biased reporting. That's what I'd like to see.

At the same time, though, it's healthy, it's interesting, it's entertaining -- entertaining to be able to hear the commentary on both sides. But when mainstream media, especially, is expected to be non- biased, without the commentary being involved, I think we really need to get back to giving the -- some credence to the wisdom of the people, allowing them the ability to make up their own minds without hearing too much commentary infiltrated in the questions and the reporting..."

This Pew poll verifies that many people thought the press was too tough on Sarah Palin:

http://people-press.org/report/460/press-tough-on-palin

October 9, 2008

Many Say Press Has Been Too Tough on Palin

"While opinions about Palin coverage are highly partisan, many independents share the view that the press has been too tough on the Alaska governor..."

As I stated in the post, even Judge Judy Sheindlin who voted for Obama and who seems to be very liberal in her views thought that the press was unfair to Sarah Palin:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/10/lkl.01.html

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Bush, Obama Meet Privately Today; Interview with Judge Judy

Aired November 10, 2008 - 21:00 ET

LARRY KING, HOST: "Was the press unfair to her (Sarah Palin)?

JUDGE JUDY SHEINDLIN, "JUDGE JUDY": Yes, I think they were. I think they looked for her to make mistakes. I think there was a certain gloating when that unfortunate prank was pulled on her with the president of France. I think instead of being outraged that somebody did something like that, as they would have been for another candidate, they sort of were snickering that she was so dumb that she fell for it, or that someone wasn't smart enough in her office to have put her on the phone.

I did NOT agree with Sarah Palin on many of the issues and I also did NOT think that she was qualified to be VP BUT she is absolutely right about the media in my opinion!

I definitely think that a candidate should win or lose an election based on the issues, NOT because most of the media were biased against them!

Pro-Obama media bias was very clearly one of the main reasons why John McCain lost the 2008 election:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16930

ANALYSIS: Why John McCain lost the 2008 election and how he may have done better

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 6, 2008 - 11:03pm.

reasons John McCain lost?

Bwaaaaaahahaaa!

that was one of 10 main reasons which I documented in this post:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16930

ANALYSIS: Why John McCain lost the 2008 election and how he may have done better

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 6, 2008 - 11:03pm.

The credible evidence of pro-Obama media bias is overwhelming:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/majority_say_reporters_tried_to_help_obama

Majority Say Reporters Tried To Help Obama

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16816

PEW: By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama win

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 23, 2008 - 2:51am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16130

POLLS: Much of the media are still in the tank for Obama and that is NOT right!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 22, 2008 - 6:07am.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage

By Deborah Howell
Sunday, November 9, 2008; Page B06

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html

Why McCain is getting hosed in the press

By JOHN F. HARRIS & JIM VANDEHEI | 10/28/08 10:02 AM EST

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=1728

The Obama Love Shack: That's Where It's At (04:28)

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=161063

CNN’s Lou Dobbs: Media In The ‘Tank’ For Obama (00:28)

http://townhall.com/video/Campaign08/1450_091208Dobbs

Townhall's Matt Lewis interviews CNN's Lou Dobbs on liberal media bias (07:34)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5bab7_clinton_news

Video: Joan Walsh and Howard Kurtz documented how the media swooned over Obama and hates Hillary (01:50)

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/10/lkl.01.html

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Bush, Obama Meet Privately Today; Interview with Judge Judy

Aired November 10, 2008 - 21:00 ET

LARRY KING, HOST: "How long a honeymoon does he (Obama) get?

Based on all of this evidence, it cannot be denied that most of the mainstream media are in the tank for Obama and were rooting for him to win the election. I can produce more of this kind of documentation all day long if you want me to!

Do you have any credible evidence to contradict my documented evidence?

in your narrow, biased, view, all the people who agree with that statement are laughable. You just couldn't say that you disagree and provide arguments as to why, you have to make shit of the message and the messenger. Typical. Right there, since you appear to be concerned about this, you have a prime example of why people are fleeing this site.

Nader WAS right - and he still is. It's now acceptable to lie, cheat, and steal your way to the White House.

Ohio's post, which merely laughed at the idea that McCain's loss was because of media bias, didn't warrant (yet another) personal diatribe. Your posts aren't exactly the most open-minded, unbiased, and courteous comments around, either.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."

up their continuous b.s., I will continue with my "diatribes" as well. (Not quite sure what you're talking about here - diatribe?) But, guess what?, your platitudes and sanctimonious blatherings aren't that much appreciated either.

Nader WAS right - and he still is. It's now acceptable to lie, cheat, and steal your way to the White House.

I'm cut to the quick.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."

Nader WAS right - and he still is. It's now acceptable to lie, cheat, and steal your way to the White House.

John McCain would never have won the Republican nomination in the first place, had the press (McCain's very own words: "my base") not given him a complete pass over the past couple of decades. SO many unanswered questions about "the Maverick".

So I find this entire premise completely ludicrous.

won the nomination because the repub field was the most sorry-assed collection of politicians in the history of the planet. That he happened to be the best of the litter says a lot for their sorriness. What you find ludicrous, despite admissions from the guilty as presented by their own voices, that the media wasn't biased in favor of the great 0, is a measure of of the depth of your voyage into fairy tale land.

Nader WAS right - and he still is. It's now acceptable to lie, cheat, and steal your way to the White House.

(as I said, you never disappoint)

point being the fact that the media has now taken to self-flagellation is ludicrous, given their long and notorious history of bias in favor of John McCain

you prove that? At least Mitch has provided evidence.

Nader WAS right - and he still is. It's now acceptable to lie, cheat, and steal your way to the White House.

Well, many of Mitch's links are to places where media people have admitted their own biased reporting -- or at least have admitted that OTHER media people were biased, LOL.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."

By Howard Kurtz

"Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says..."

Nader WAS right - and he still is. It's now acceptable to lie, cheat, and steal your way to the White House.

Personally, I'll take Joe Conason's word any day over Howard Kurtz'...

but that's just me.

Leftie, Righty, I'll take the leftie every time. But that doesn't mean that he's absolutely correct in everything. He also has his own bias to contend with.

Nader WAS right - and he still is. It's now acceptable to lie, cheat, and steal your way to the White House.

need to be fact-checked constantly.

and why weren't you paying attention during the primaries?

Media gives John McCain a pass

By George Curry

As Jon Steward said on The Daily Show, Rev. Jeremiah Wright has been dominating cable news coverage like a missing White girl. Meanwhile, John McCain has his own Rev. Wrong in the form of Rev. John Hagee, a San Antonio-based minister who refers to the Catholic Church as the "Great Whore" and calls Hurricane Katrina divine retaliation for New Orleans’ support of gays and lesbians.

Unlike O’Bama, McCain actively sought and accepted the support of Hagee. The Democratic frontrunner has been hammered about controversial statements of his former pastor even after strongly rejecting them. In the Feb. 26 debate alone, Farrakhan’s name was brought up nine times. On the other hand, McCain has not been hounded to denounce and repudiate Hagee.

Not counting recent stories, a study by Media Matters for America, a monitoring group, the New York Times and the Washington Post have published 12 times as many articles mentioning Obama’s ties to Wright as they have on McCain’s link to Hagee. From Feb. 27th until recently, the Washington Post had published 53 stories mentioning Obama’s relationship with Wright, but only three articles mentioning McCain and Hagee. Over that same period, the New York Times published 46 stories mentioning Obama and Wright, but only five about the McCain and Hagee connection.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich stated, "…It is disingenuous to pretend that there isn’t a double-standard operating here. If we’re going to judge black candidates on their most controversial associates - and how quickly, sternly and completely they disown them - we must judge white politicians by the same yardstick."

However, that isn’t the case. And it never has been. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blamed the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on abortion supporters, gays, feminists, the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way yet no one called on President George W. Bush, who enjoys their political support, to denounce and repudiate them.

As Rich pointed out in his column, former Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani allowed a former priest kicked out of a Long Island diocese in 2002 for sexual abuse to officiate one of Giuliani’s weddings. The candidate was never asked to denounce and repudiate the defrocked priest.[...]

http://www.hvpress.net/news/156/ARTICLE/4627/2008-06-25.html

.....and speaking of Jeremiah Wright, why didn't the media loop McCain's shameless performance during the Senate POW (cover-up) hearings in the same manner that they looped Wright's soundbites, 24-7?

A must-see 4-star performance by Angry-John-McCain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CazKanlYDg

+++++

Will the press get over its love for McCain?

The "straight-talking maverick" should be scrutinized like other candidates -- for starters on his soft-money operation called the Reform Institute.

By Joe Conason

Feb. 1, 2008 | Should John McCain emerge victorious from the Super Tuesday primaries next week, as now seems likely, his remarkable revival will impose a stark test on the national press corps. It is a test that the press has failed in years past, and that has only become more critical as the Arizona senator moves closer to his party's presidential nomination.

Given the unabashed affection that so many in the mainstream media display toward McCain, will he be covered fairly and without favoritism? Will he be subjected to the same sarcasm, gossip and investigative zeal so routinely applied to, for example, his potential Democratic rival Hillary Clinton? Will McCain's panders, flip-flops, gaffes and fumbles receive the kind of attention that embarrasses other politicians? Or will he remain exempt from the unsentimental scrutiny that is supposedly the standard of our political journalism?

Hey, almost everybody seems to know the answers already! But for a few minutes let's pretend we don't.[...]

Speaking of reform, just how much of a reformer is McCain? The myth as recounted by the maverick himself and his admiring scribes is that the searing experience of the Keating Five scandal purified his character. Never again would he allow himself to be turned away from the path of righteousness by lobbyists and donors, never again would he sell out the public interest to the high rollers, never again would he besmirch the honor of his office ... and so on.

This is inspiring stuff, and he may well believe it all, but there is a growing backlog of evidence that he has not always lived up to such exacting standards -- particularly during his tenure as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Consider just one McCain story that never drew the roaring gang of cable and print hacks who would surely show up if someone named Clinton (or Edwards or even perhaps Obama) had done the same thing. It is the story of an entity that the Arizona senator founded, known as the Reform Institute.

Created after his failed presidential run in 2000, the Reform Institute is a hybrid between a domestic issues think tank and a tasty sugar teat for campaign staffers. Among its senior fellows is former Mexican Cabinet member Juan Hernandez, who also heads the McCain campaign's outreach to Hispanic voters. Other Reform Institute employees have included lobbyist and political consultant Rick Davis, long a member of the McCain inner circle and now his campaign manager.[...]

[...] Then there was that contribution from American International Group, whose executives had been quite concerned in 2000 about McCain's vow to stop AIG from profiting illicitly on insurance overcharges ripped off from the Boston "Big Dig" project. Sen. John Kerry got most of the blame for the demise of McCain's reform bill, which would have banned insurance giants like AIG from overcharging federal projects and reaping windfalls from investing that money. But it was actually McCain who killed his own bill -- and nobody seems to have checked back to discover that AIG later donated more than $50,000 to the Reform Institute. How much more? That might be a relevant question now, notably because Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, the McCain backer who ran AIG in those days, has since been forced to relinquish the company under threat of criminal prosecution.

These are precisely the kind of questions now aimed elsewhere -- at former President Bill Clinton's foundation, to take one prominent and appropriate example. The national press corps may never direct such skepticism toward their pal McCain, but it takes true willpower to resist reporting on a soft-money operation called the Reform Institute.[...]
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/02/01/mccain_problems/

++++++

Chuck Todd admits media gave McCain a pass over Iran/al-Qaeda gaffe and would have attacked the Dems

On Meet the Press this morning, NBC's Chuck Todd got honest and told us what we already know, but what the media rarely likes to confess. McCain has a lot in the bank with the media and they will help him out of his problems. You're all aware of McCain's linking al-Qaeda to Iran all last week---which is not happening because of the Sunni/Shia difference. He had to get bailed out by his Lieberman posse and his FOX friend Britt Hume, but the real story given to us by Chuck Todd is that the media would have attacked either of the two Democratic nominees for days on end over the same gaffe.

http://crooksandliars.com/2008/03/23/chuck-todd-admits-media-gave-mccain-a-pass-over-iranal-qaeda-gaffe-and-would-have-attacked-the-dems

sounds more like cover provided by the right wing of the media which, of course, is going to cover McCain's butt. Not to mention, they were covering for Chimpy, as well. BTW, most of your "proof" was written by lefties, which just shows their own bias. However, once 0 came along, the bias swung strongly to him; I wonder why.

Nader WAS right - and he still is. It's now acceptable to lie, cheat, and steal your way to the White House.

as per your request, but of course, you clearly can't be bothered to read or to follow the links

...you never disappoint, d0nj0

never

know what I did or not do?, 0Sybil0Liberty, defender of the Great 0. You, yourself, never disappoint to make a snide remark or put somebody down and that's totally remarkable. Are you trying to set a record? You must be one unhappy critter with a goal of trying to bring as many people as possible down to your level. How sad.

Nader WAS right - and he still is. It's now acceptable to lie, cheat, and steal your way to the White House.

I know how much I hate when it's done to me

So. What did you think of that senate committee youtube?

have the time right now to watch anything on Utube; could you kindly provide us with a transcript or summary? We all know how important this is.

Nader WAS right - and he still is. It's now acceptable to lie, cheat, and steal your way to the White House.

McCain for Obama!

Howard Kurtz is a respected and impartial media critic. Just look at what he reported about McCain's media coverage:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/22/study_coverage_of_mccain_much.html

Study: Coverage of McCain Much More Negative Than That of Obama

By Howard Kurtz

"Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says.

Fifty-seven percent of the print and broadcast stories about the Republican nominee were decidedly negative, the Project for Excellence in Journalism says in a report out today, while 14 percent were positive. The McCain campaign has repeatedly complained that the mainstream media are biased toward the senator from Illinois.

Obama's coverage was more balanced during the six-week period from Sept. 8 through last Thursday, with 36 percent of the stories clearly positive, 35 percent neutral or mixed and 29 percent negative.

McCain has struggled during this period and slipped in the polls, which is one of the reasons for the more negative assessments by the 48 news outlets studied by the Washington-based group. But the imbalance is striking nonetheless..."

Posted at 2:05 PM ET on Oct 22, 2008 | Category: Media Notes

Also as I have said before, two wrongs and two extremes (the media favoring Obama right now while they favored McCain in the past) do NOT equal one right. They only make the problems of reporter's personal opinions and lack of objectivity in the news even worse than they already are. What we need is media objectivity across the board for everybody!

The media favored Bush over Gore back in the 2000 election according to historian Rick Shenkman as I documented in this post:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/10/ldt.01.html

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT

Obama Plans Swift Policy Changes; Another AIG Bailout; New Wave of Layoffs; Country is Unhappy

Aired November 10, 2008 - 19:00 ET

Look at where that got us over the last 8 years!!!

If it can be justified that the media can favor Obama in 2008, then nobody has a right to complain about the media favoring Bush over Gore back in 2000 or if the media favors a candidate who you do not like in a future election!

What we very badly need right now is Walter Cronkite's standard of objective journalism to be fair to everybody:

http://www.grandtimes.com/cronkite.html

That's The Way It Is... with Walter Cronkite

by Kira Albin, interview conducted in 1996

GT (Grand Times): "But don't you think that journalists' personal opinions do come into play?

GT: How do you want to be remembered?

WC: [laughs] Oh, as a fellow who did his best. I'd like to be remembered as a person who tried to give the news as impartially, as factually, as possible, and succeeded most of the time..."

that go on and on (and on and on) as though re-hashing whatever subject is somehow going to end the evil.

They actually generate a number of posts. And every now and then they even remain civil. Granted, not often, but every once in a while....

Oops...my bad...must remember, never laugh...bad, bad, bad OHIO.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/13/sitroom.03.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Biden Meets with Cheney; Sarah Palin Holds Press Conference

Aired November 13, 2008 - 18:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "All right, Dana, what do you think? This is a huge challenge, because the expectations game, as you know, in politics, is enormous.

Credible polls confirm these very high expectations of Obama:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/13/sitroom.01.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Barack Obama Resigning U.S. Senate Seat; Automaker Bailout Stalling; President Bush Gives Economic Pep Talk Amid Job Loss

Aired November 13, 2008 - 16:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "He doesn't take office until January, but president-elect Barack Obama may be already bearing the burden of some very, very big expectations.

Our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, is taking a look at those expectations.

And, Bill, does the public really have high hopes for this incoming president?

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Sky-high. It looks like Obama will take office on a wave of goodwill.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BUSH: It is good for our country that people have hope in the system and feel vested in the future.

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): That, they do.

More than three-quarters of Americans believe conditions in the country will be better in four years. Barack Obama enters the presidency on an unprecedented wave of goodwill. Unprecedented? Well, at least for the past 30 years.

Three-quarters of Americans have a favorable opinion of Obama. That's higher than the favorable ratings for either President Bush or his father when they first got elected. It's higher than Bill Clinton's just after he got elected. The only new president who came close was Ronald Reagan, who got elected in similar circumstances in 1980, a wave of public discontent, an economic crisis, a foreign policy predicament.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The fact is, is that this president goes into office with more expectations than any president I can ever remember in my lifetime.

SCHNEIDER: What does the public expect of Obama? Two-thirds or more believe that, as president, Obama is likely to improve race relations, improve economic conditions, bring stability to the financial markets, cut taxes for most Americans, and make the country safe from terrorism.

Whew. Is that all? No. Most people also think Obama's likely to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, implement a plan to curb global warming, remove almost all U.S. troops from Iraq, without causing a major upheaval there, and win the war in Afghanistan.

FAYE WATTLETON, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN: I think that that's the great danger to his presidency, that it will be -- too much will be expected of him.

SCHNEIDER: OK, but it was Obama who wrote a book called "The Audacity of Hope."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER: Reagan and Obama do have something else in common: a political movement behind them, with a similar objective, to transform the world -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Bill Schneider, thank you..."

As I have previously said in this post, "this country needs a successful presidency more than anything right now" and "individual people on a bipartisan basis should want to see Obama be successful."

What I definitely think is needed to help make that happen is a media that will keep Obama honest by asking him the tough questions, NOT a media that is in the tank for him!

I really hope that the mainstream media is willing to make the transition from being in the tank for Obama to asking him the tough questions once he is President AND that Obama will be willing to answer the tough questions once he is President after he was given a near free ride to both the nomination and to the White House by the media!

Only time will tell what happens with Obama and I am hoping for the best despite how poorly that the media conducted themselves in the 2008 election as Joe Scarborough and Mark Halperin pointed out:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2008/10/28/editor-time-fawning-obama-coverage-media-will-regret

Editor of Time on Fawning Obama Coverage: Media Will Regret This

By Scott Whitlock (Bio | Archive)
October 28, 2008 - 18:30 ET

The media keeping Obama honest once he is President and the media learning an important lesson from their behavior when it comes to future elections are the two main points that I am trying to get across in this post!

which James Carville seemed to be concerned about:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/23/le.01.html

CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER

Interview With Mitt Romney; Interview With Jennifer Granholm

Aired November 23, 2008 - 11:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER, HOST: "According to all our poll numbers, James, expectations for Barack Obama are enormous, right now. People think he's going to turn things around relatively quickly.

How much of a political problem is this for the incoming president?

JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think it's potentially enormous. And, you know, one of the things that the incoming president has to do -- and I'm sure David and Rahm and all of them are very cognizant of this -- they want to give people hope, but you don't want to increase expectations beyond that which is possible.

I mean, and Ed's right. The infrastructure is a good expense of money money, and it's all right to use that for debt because future generations are going to reap the benefits of it.

But it's pretty -- you just can't throw a switch and start doing this kind of stuff overnight.

So it is a problem because you don't want to -- you want to tell people there's hope and that you can change things and things can get better. At the same time, you have to be realistic of what's going on in this economy.

So I think it's an enormous problem, and I think it's one that they're very, very cognizant of, and it's a very, very delicate balancing act that the administration's going to have to pull off, here..."

and "is doing themselves and our profession and our democracy a disservice" which Howard Kurtz called "an excellent point:"

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/19/rs.01.html

CNN RELIABLE SOURCES

Analysis of Third Presidential Debate

Aired October 19, 2008 - 10:00 ET

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: "Mark Halperin, we learned this morning that Barack Obama in the month of September raised $150 million, the early estimates had been about $100 million. They always kind of leak a lower figure so they can exceed it.

If a Republican had not taken public financing and had raised all that money, and the Democrat was struggling financially, wouldn't we see a lot of stories about one candidate essentially trying to buy the election?

MARK HALPERIN, SR. POLITCAN ANALAYST, "TIME": We would. We'd also see a lot of stories about his going back on his word saying that he would accept the public money and would reach out to Senator McCain to try to work out a deal. So I think this is a case of a clear, unambiguous double standard, and any reporter who doesn't ask themselves, why is that, why would it be different if it's a Republican? I think is doing themselves and our profession and our democracy a disservice.

KURTZ: I think that's an excellent point, and that's the point we're going to end on..."

As I go through these posts, it's obvious that many of the personalities used in support of the alleged media bias would rarely, if ever, be used in support of another topic.

John McCain, up until this campaign the darling of the media, decided as a tactical move, namely, to incite the base, to run against the media. By decrying the media as have a left-wing bias, he appealed directly to a core belief of the base. "If the media's against us, we must be right." So the argument goes. McCain has generally praised the media up until this election, but apparently that's no reason to shun a Republican election strategy.

Palin said and did a bunch of stupid things right off the bat, and, true to form, she blamed the media for her own mistakes - all to the cheers of the base. Remember her comment at the vice-presidential. Something like, I don't care what the moderater or the media says, I'm going to speak to the American people.

Blaming the media has always seemed to me like working the refs. This time around, McCain and Palin intentionally set the media against them as a tactical strategy. Perhaps in Obama's case, the media may have been caught up in the concept of the first African-American president too much. Hillary Clinton, not John McCain, may have gotten the short end. I remember feeling the media was biased against the Clark run for presidency in 2004. Later, I had my doubts. I just wanted him to win.

In the end, I still think that focusing on the media as an election maker or killer is suspect. The media today is extremely diverse, and it's easy to find someone against you and the candidate you support. Meanwhile, people who are for the other guy (or woman) are hacked off at some other news person or organization. Shep Smith over at Fox News called down some guy who said the media was in the tank for Obama, or Democrats, or whatever. He rejected the idea that the media could have such an effect. He's probably right. There is no monolithic "media" anymore, not even an "elite" media, as the right-wingers like to say. You can always find someone on TV that agrees with you.

Unfortunately, a lot of the media really were biased against Gen. Clark which I have credibly documented:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15872

The biased media that did a hit job on Hillary also did a hit job on Gen. Clark!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 24, 2008 - 2:38am.

I appreciate Chevy Chase's honesty. It would be really nice if ALL journalists and media pundits on the television and cable networks would openly admit to their own biases just like how comedian Chevy Chase did in this video:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/showbiz/2008/11/03/intv.chevy.chase.cnn (4:23)

Chevy Chase on 'SNL' politics 4:23

Chevy Chase compares his President Ford to Tina Fey's take on Gov. Palin and talks about the impact, then and now.

Source: CNN
Added On November 3, 2008

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/showbiz/2008/11/03/intv.chevy.chase.cnn (4:23)

Here is the CNN link to this story:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/03/chevy.chase.snl/

updated 5:30 p.m. EST, Mon November 3, 2008

Chevy Chase: I wanted Carter to win

(CNN) -- "Chevy Chase didn't look like Gerald Ford and didn't sound like Gerald Ford. But in the mid-1970s, when "Saturday Night Live" first went on the air, Chase -- then a writer and cast member of the show -- made his impression of the president, rife with pratfalls and slapstick, the talk of the country.

He also made the president a butt of jokes, which was intentional, Chase told CNN in an interview...

Chevy Chase: "I just went after him. And I certainly, obviously my leanings were Democratic and I wanted Carter in and I wanted [Ford] out and I figured look, we're reaching millions of people every weekend, why not do it.

CNN: You mean to tell me in the back of your mind you were thinking, hey I want Carter ...

Chase: Oh, yeah.

CNN: And I'm going to make him look bad.

Chase: Oh yeah. What do you think they're doing now, you think they're just doing this because Sarah's funny? No, I think that the show is very much more Democratic and liberal-oriented, that they are obviously more for Barack Obama. [In the '70s], out of the Nixon era, and it was not unlikely that I might go that direction.

CNN: I talked to one political pundit who said, I think Chevy Chase cost Ford the presidency.

Chase: When you have that kind of a venue and power where you can reach so many millions of people and you've become a show that people watch, you know, you can affect a lot of people, and humor does it beautifully, because humor is perspective and has a way of making judgment calls. ... So I think there was no question that it had major effect and in fact, in speaking with his family and then later him, and even reading some of his books ... he felt so, too..."

"Are journalists fostering the notion that Obama is invincible?," "But can anyone imagine this kind of media frenzy if John McCain had managed to win?" and saying "Obama's days of walking on water won't last indefinitely. His chroniclers will need a new story line. And sometime after Jan. 20, they will wade back into reality:"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/16/AR2008111602374_pf.html

A Giddy Sense of Boosterism

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 17, 2008; C01

Perhaps it was the announcement that NBC News is coming out with a DVD titled "Yes We Can: The Barack Obama Story." Or that ABC and USA Today are rushing out a book on the election. Or that HBO has snapped up a documentary on Obama's campaign.

Perhaps it was the Newsweek commemorative issue -- "Obama's American Dream" -- filled with so many iconic images and such stirring prose that it could have been campaign literature. Or the Time cover depicting Obama as FDR, complete with jaunty cigarette holder.

Are the media capable of merchandizing the moment, packaging a president-elect for profit? Yes, they are.

What's troubling here goes beyond the clanging of cash registers. Media outlets have always tried to make a few bucks off the next big thing. The endless campaign is over, and there's nothing wrong with the country pulling together, however briefly, behind its new leader. But we seem to have crossed a cultural line into mythmaking.

"The Obamas' New Life!" blares People's cover, with a shot of the family. "New home, new friends, new puppy!" Us Weekly goes with a Barack quote: "I Think I'm a Pretty Cool Dad." The Chicago Tribune trumpets that Michelle "is poised to be the new Oprah and the next Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis -- combined!" for the fashion world.

Whew! Are journalists fostering the notion that Obama is invincible, the leader of what the New York Times dubbed "Generation O"?

Each writer, each publication, seems to reach for more eye-popping superlatives. "OBAMAISM -- It's a Kind of Religion," says New York magazine. "Those of us too young to have known JFK's Camelot are going to have our own giddy Camelot II to enrapture and entertain us," Kurt Andersen writes. The New York Post has already christened it "BAM-A-LOT."

"Here we are," writes Salon's Rebecca Traister, "oohing and aahing over what they'll be wearing, and what they'll be eating, what kind of dog they'll be getting, what bedrooms they'll be living in, and what schools they'll be attending. It feels better than good to sniff and snurfle through the Obamas' tastes and habits. . . . Who knew we had in us the capacity to fall for this kind of idealized Americana again?"

But aren't media people supposed to resist this kind of hyperventilating?

"Obama is a figure, especially in pop culture, in a way that most new presidents are not," historian Michael Beschloss says. "Young people who may not be interested in the details of NAFTA or foreign policy just think Obama is cool, and they're interested in him. Being cool can really help a new president."

So can a sense of optimism, reflected on USA Today's front page. "Poll: Hopes soaring for Obama, administration," the headline said, with 65 percent saying "the USA will be better off 4 years from now."

But what happens when adulation gives way to the messy, incremental process of governing? When Obama has to confront a deep-rooted financial crisis, two wars and a political system whose default setting is gridlock? When he makes decisions that inevitably disappoint some of his boosters?

"We're celebrating a moment as much as a man, I think," says Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham, whose new issue, out today, compares Obama to Lincoln. "Given our racial history, an hour or two of commemoration seems appropriate. But there is no doubt that the glow of the moment will fade, and I am sure the coverage will reflect that in due course."

One of the few magazines to strike a skeptical tone is the London-based Economist, which endorsed Obama. "With such a victory come unreasonably great expectations," its lead editorial says.

Web worship of Obama is nearly limitless. On YouTube alone, the Obama Girl song, "I've Got a Crush on Obama," has been viewed 11.7 million times. Even an unadorned video of the candidate's election night speech in Chicago has drawn 3.5 million views.

I am not trying to diminish the sheer improbability of what this African American politician, a virtual unknown four years ago, has accomplished. Every one of us views his victory through a personal lens. I thought of growing up in a "Leave It to Beaver" era, when there were no blacks in leading television roles until Bill Cosby was tapped as the co-star of "I Spy" in 1965. When the Watts riots broke out that year, the Los Angeles Times sent an advertising salesman to cover it because the paper had no black reporters. The country has traveled light-years since then.

It is hard to find a precedent in American history. Ronald Reagan was a marquee star because of his Hollywood career, but mainly among older voters, since he made his last movie 16 years before winning the White House in 1980. Jack Kennedy was a more formal figure after winning the 1960 election -- "trying to look older than he was, because he thought youth was a handicap in running for president," Beschloss says -- but quickly took on larger-than-life dimensions.

"The Kennedy buildup goes on," James MacGregor Burns wrote in the New Republic in the spring of 1961. "The adjectives tumble over one another. He is not only the handsomest, the best-dressed, the most articulate, and graceful as a gazelle. He is omniscient; he swallows and digests whole books in minutes; he confounds experts with his superior knowledge of their field. He is omnipotent."

Soon afterward, Kennedy blundered into the Bay of Pigs debacle.

The media would be remiss if they didn't reflect the sense of unadulterated joy that greeted Obama's election, both here and around the world, and the pride even among those who opposed him. Newspapers were stunned and delighted at the voracious demand for post-election editions, prompting The Washington Post and other papers to print hundreds of thousands of extra copies and pocket the change. (When else have we felt so loved lately?) Demand for inaugural tickets has been unprecedented. Barack is suddenly a hot baby name. Record companies are releasing hip-hop songs, by the likes of Jay-Z and Will.I.Am, with such titles as "Pop Champagne for Barack." Consumers, the Los Angeles Times reports, are buying up "Obama-themed T-shirts, buttons, bobblehead dolls, coffee mugs, wine bottles, magnets, greeting cards, neon signs, mobile phones and framed art prints."

A barrage of Obama-related books are in the works. Newsweek's quadrennial election volume is titled "A Long Time Coming: The Historic, Combative, Expensive and Inspiring 2008 Election and the Victory of Barack Obama." Publishers obviously see a bull market.

MSNBC, which was accused of cheerleading for the Democratic nominee during the campaign, is running promos that say: "Barack Obama, America's 44th president. Watch as a leader renews America's promise." What are viewers to make of that?

There is always a level of excitement when a new president is coming to town -- new aides to profile, new policies to dissect, new family members to follow. But can anyone imagine this kind of media frenzy if John McCain had managed to win?

Obama's days of walking on water won't last indefinitely. His chroniclers will need a new story line. And sometime after Jan. 20, they will wade back into reality.

I think that John Ziegler is right about the media BUT he is wrong if he thinks that media bias is the only reason why Obama won. Obama also won because of the economic crisis, by massively outspending McCain, the race issue played in Obama's favor which even his own supporter Roland Martin admitted to, Bush's low poll numbers hurt McCain very badly, Sarah Palin hurt McCain with moderate swing voters because she was a VP pick mainly for the Republican base and this was not a base election, and Obama did run a much better campaign that McCain did:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16930

ANALYSIS: Why John McCain lost the 2008 election and how he may have done better

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 6, 2008 - 11:03pm.

Even people who claim media bias and have a valid point about it still need to be kept honest in my opinion:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,453929,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3205836&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes/index.html (05:30)

'Media Malpractice'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,453929,00.html

Documentary on How Obama Got Elected

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

November 17, 2008: New documentary reveals how little some Obama voters knew about the election

Videos
Watch Sean and Alan's Interview

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3205836&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes/index.html (05:30)

by media:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27784513#27784513 (9:18)

Tina Brown: Hillary Clinton treated unfairly by media
Nov. 18: Editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast Tina Brown discusses how her readers responded to a poll about how Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were judged over the course of the campaign.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27784513#27784513 (9:18)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15885.html

Halperin at Politico/USC conf.: 'extreme pro-Obama' press bias

By ALEXANDER BURNS | 11/22/08 3:15 PM EST

Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

Halperin, who maintains Time's political site "The Page," cited two New York Times articles as examples of the divergent coverage of the two candidates.

"The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies," Halperin said. "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."

The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is," according to Halperin.

The former ABC News political director acknowledged that some of the press coverage was simply reflecting the reality of Obama's presidential campaign.

"You do have to take into account the fact that this was a remarkable candidacy," Halperin said. "There were a lot of good stories. He was new."

New York magazine's John Heilemann, one of Halperin's co-panelists, offered another reason for all the positive press coverage Obama received.

"The biggest bias in the press is towards effectiveness," said Heilemann, who is authoring a book on the 2008 race along with Halperin.

"We love things that are smart."

Because Obama's campaign was generally so well run, he argued, the press tended to applaud even his negative tactics.

"We'll scold you for being negative," Heilemann said, "but if it seems to be working, the tone of your coverage becomes more positive."

Another of Halperin's fellow participants, Los Angeles Times writer Mark Barabak, disagreed more strongly with the Time writer's comments. Still, Halperin's general point met with little resistance

"I think it's incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we're being fair," he said. "The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I've ever covered, by far."

to do better:"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/halperin-decrie.html

Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior White House Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.

Halperin Decries 'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Bias in Election Coverage

November 24, 2008 8:06 AM

Via Politico we hear that at a recent conference, Mark Halperin -- of Time and ABC News -- decried the media coverage of the 2008 race.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15885.html

"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

"The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies," Halperin said. "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."

The Michelle Obama profile, however, was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is."

Halperin said that obviously some of the positive coverage was for fair reasons. "You do have to take into account the fact that this was a remarkable candidacy," Halperin said. "There were a lot of good stories. He was new."

But that said, Halperin believes that the coverage was way too slanted.

Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised to learn that I too wonder just how fair the media coverage of this campaign was.

Case in point: perhaps the most unfair and negative TV ad run during the entire campaign, by either side, was the Spanish-language TV ad Obama ran against Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, that got very little media coverage.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html

Why didn't it get more coverage? If McCain had run a comparable ad -- with unfair charges, trying to exploit racial tensions -- would it have been as under-covered?

In any case, Obama won for any number of reasons, not the least of which were the modern Gold Standard in presidential campaigns and a nation that wanted a dramatic change.

But I believe Halperin's larger point -- since he brought in the media's rather wanting coverage of the build-up to the war in Iraq as well -- is the fact that reporters have an obligation to be better.

What say you?

-- jpt

November 24, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (163)

the way you sell diet coke, a bag of potato chips, and more. Joe Scarborough in my opinion very clearly beat Donny Deutsch in this debate. Deutsch would not answer Scarborough's question if Obama was qualified to be President and Deutsch kept on trying to shift the dialogue to Palin in an obvious effort to try and avoid talking about Obama. Scarborough agreed that he did not think Palin would be elected President and that he would not vote for her.

When Joe Scarborough said "Barack Obama was sold as a rock star for a year and a half with cool looking posters and it was style before anybody knew if there was any substance there," Donny Deutsch did not try to deny that, he referred to Scott Brown, and then he said "that's the way people get elected, obviously you can assign whatever values you want to them" which I thought was a very ridiculous comment from Deutsch!

Joe Scarborough in my opinion made Donny Deutsch look like a Kool-Aid drinking idiot who would not answer his questions (while Scarborough answered Deutsch's points about Palin) in this Morning Joe video on February 12 starting at about 2 minutes and 30 seconds into it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/35365080#35365080 (06:12)

Deutsch: Palin a ‘media rock star’
Feb. 12: While debating the former GOP VP candidate’s electability, the Morning Joe gang examines the mutual dependence between Sarah Palin and the press.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/35365080#35365080 (06:12)

Joe Scarborough in my opinion exposed the complete truth about the media selling Obama in a very blunt manner and he taught the rest of the media a very important lesson about the error of their ways in this video which I hope that they listen to and learn something from. Way to go Joe!

right now in my opinion:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xd2G8z8zZu

NYer Editor (David Remnick): Media Correctly Taken With Idea Of Electing Black President In 2008 (1:29)

Submitted By: Noel Sheppard
Date Aired: June 20, 2010

"This is how a Pulitzer Prize-winner thinks!"

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xd2G8z8zZu

I was really surprised that Howard Kurtz allowed David Remnick to get away with trying to justify pro-Obama media bias because of Obama's race when he just moved on to another subject after Remnick said what he did:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1006/20/rs.01.html

CNN RELIABLE SOURCES

Press Pans Obama's Speech; Interview With Linda Douglass

Aired June 20, 2010 - 11:00 ET

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: "Legitimately so, except that you have another candidate for president. And a lot of people concluded, fairly or unfairly, that the media, or parts of the media, were in the tank for the Democratic candidate.

DAVID REMNICK, EDITOR, "THE NEW YORKER": Well, I'm only responsible for "The New Yorker" and for myself, and I thought we were fair to Hillary Clinton and I think we were fair all around.

Were we taken up with the extra story of race? Absolutely. And I think we should have been.

KURTZ: A couple of months ago "The New Yorker" ran a cover cartoon by Barry Blitt of Barack Obama walking on water, but then starting to slip into the water. And apparently, David Axelrod's office called you about that?

What happened?

REMNICK: Well, they wanted a signed version of the cover..."

It is an embarrassment in my opinion when I have to agree that the premise of this far right wing rapid response media article about David Remnick is correct but I always call things right down the middle the way how I really see them:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/06/20/nyer-editor-media-correctly-taken-idea-electing-black-president-2008

NYer Editor: Media In 2008 Correctly Taken With Idea Of Electing Black President

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
Sun, 06/20/2010 - 16:00 ET

"It's one thing for a so-called journalist to claim media members in 2008 were all taken with the historical notion of electing the country's first black President, but it's quite another to say they were right in doing so.

Despite the seeming absurdity, this is exactly what the Pulitzer Prize-winning editor of the New Yorker magazine told the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz Sunday..."

Clarence Page also tried to justify the media being in the tank for Obama because he was a cultural and economic phenomenon who sold newspapers, magazines, and who built TV ratings:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/24/rs.01.html

CNN RELIABLE SOURCES

Obama Vs. Cheney?

Aired May 24, 2009 - 10:00 ET

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: "Just 30 seconds here. With "TIME" and "Newsweek" again putting the Obamas on the cover this week, doesn't that enforce the impression that we in the media are just in the tank for this couple?

CLARENCE PAGE, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE: You know, Howard, I recently visited NBC Rockefeller Center. Their gift shop -- I walked in the door -- the first thing I see is a whole rack full of Obama books. You know, NBC Obama books. And it's true, Obama sells newspapers, magazines, builds TV ratings. It's like the Kennedy days all over again, but that's not politics, that's just bottom line.

KURTZ: You're all saying it's a cultural phenomenon, but I question whether...

PAGE: And economic.

KURTZ: And economic. Well, but there is also a political aspect.

Got to leave it there.

Chris Stirewalt, Karen Tumulty, Clarence Page, thanks for joining us..."

I wish that Howard Kurtz did not run out of time after Clarence Page made this ridiculous comment!

As far as I am concerned, people in the media like David Remnick, Clarence Page, and Keith Olbermann who were in the tank for candidate Obama and who did not ask him the tough questions during the 2008 election when it really counted the most have absolutely NO legitimate right to complain about Obama right now if they are upset with him or if they are disappointed with him:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17709

Keith Olbermann and many others in the media CANNOT complain about Obama now!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 22, 2009 - 1:42pm.

These people are getting just what they deserve in my opinion and hopefully any complaints that they have about Obama right now on issues where he was not sufficiently vetted before he was elected will teach them valuable lessons in future Presidential elections such as being objective and asking every serious Presidential candidate the tough questions!

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There are currently 3 users and 11 guests online.

Online users

LJM
Stan4Clark
Susan ClevelandOH

We're glad you've joined the conversation!

Secondary links

Comment viewing options

Recommended posts

General Discussion

Hot Topics 2

Recent blog posts

Recent comments

Who's online

Online users

Welcome to the Clark Community Network

User login

Navigation

My comments

Blogroll