The traditional media is playing a very, very dangerous game. With its readers, with the Constitution, and with its own fate.
The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.
But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun ”” for the first time in my adult life ”” to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer”, because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist….
…Nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current Presidential campaign. Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass – no, make that shameless support – they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press. I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather – not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake – but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.
See the preceding topic for a fine example (that one paid for by your tax dollars, I might add).
Don’t miss the conspiracy theory at the end of the article!
Here goes: Reporters are “human torpedoes” who would, with proper direction, scrutinize and savage Obama. But their editors won’t let them do it. The editors, having spent 30 years working their way to the top, now find themselves “presiding over a dying industry,” with the Internet and alternative media stealing their readers, advertisers, and most promising young reporters.
The editors face a “career catastrophe.” Their “desperate times call for desperate measures.” Enter Obama, who “offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career. With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived Fairness Doctrine.”
I kid you not.
If you skip the last few paragraphs, in which the author shows that he still has enough confidence in reporters that he feels called to blame all the editors and come up with a reason which does sound a little shaky for their conduct, the piece points to serious problems.[blockquote]No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side – or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for Senators Obama and Biden. If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as President of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography. That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: his job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.[/blockquote]A fair analysis of the reporting on this campaign shows that everything about the Republican candidates has been gone over with a fine-toothed comb while news agencies have been content to repeat Democratic campaign press releases and look no farther. Obama’s past associations and writings should have been closely investigated during the primary campaign, and even more so since, and mainstream journalists (and their editors) should be ashamed of the poor job they’ve done.
All this, while McCain/Feingold has shut down “partisan” speech by grassroots organizations. What first amendment?
Yes, if McCain loses, one can say he was hoist with his own petard.
Democrats are talking about further First Amendment restrictions in the form of killing AM radio. If their plan includes broadcast TV, they will also kill the evening news, although that’s probably not what they intend.
[blockquote]I kid you not. [/blockquote]
The NYT’s bond rating was just demoted to junk status. Think Bill and Pinch didn’t notice?
“The NYT’s bond rating was just demoted to junk status” —#6
That clinches the conspiracy theory!
When advertising revenue slumps, the editors hatch political conspiracies.
It’s no more a conspiracy than standard hive behavior is a conspiracy, I. The NYT and other MSM organs are losing market share, so it’s natural for them to want to attempt to force competitors out of the market. Or does the narrative about capitalists red in tooth and claw have some exemption here?
The reporting during this election cycle has been outrageously bad. I did not think journalists and newspapers in the US could stoop so low. The balance in reporting is completely absent. Besides why do/should American newspapers endorse a candidate?
everything about the Republican candidates has been gone over with a fine-toothed comb while news agencies have been content to repeat Democratic campaign press releases and look no farther.
How, then, have we learned about Obama’s connection to Ayers, the rants of his preacher, etc. ,etc.?
Considering his conspiracy theory, I find it hard to take this writer seriously.
[blockquote]How, then, have we learned about Obama’s connection to Ayers, the rants of his preacher, etc. ,etc.? [/blockquote]
One word: blogs.
Sherri, what exactly have you learned from the nightly news about Ayers and Wright? Why has there been no large scale media analysis of a Presidential candidate’s connection to an unrepentant domestic terrorist? I wonder what would have been the reaction if McCain had dealings with a KKK bomber from the sixties.
“Does the narrative about capitalists red in tooth and claw have some exemption here?”
What an opportunity for rightward-thinking reporters and editors to distinguish themselves! What’s happened to the wingers at the Wall Street Journal? The New York Post? Fox News? The Washington Times? The American Spectator? The National Review? All those conservative think tanks? Rush Limbaugh? Fred Barnes? The Weekly Standard?
[blockquote]What an opportunity for rightward-thinking reporters and editors to distinguish themselves! [/blockquote]
Well, it’s been no secret how obsequious the MSM has been for Obama this year, even compared to years gone by. No less than Dan Rather, hardly a mouthpiece for mossbacks, acknowledged the fact. To my knowledge, this is the first that has made a connection to it also being possible business motivation. Democrat zeal for the Fairness Doctrine has been waxing as of late, now that I think about it…we’ll see what happens if and when Obama takes office, won’t we?
Chris Hathaway, I don’t know what is in the nightly news, because I don’t watch it and haven’t in years. But certainly every newspaper I’ve had a look at, hard copy and online, had stories about Wright and Ayers. Yours didn’t?
“Well, it’s been no secret how obsequious the MSM has been for Obama this year” —#14
Then why hasn’t Fox News or the New York Post (or any of the others mentioned in #13) chosen to stand out from the pack by offering the much-touted Untold Truth About Obama?
If all Murdoch’s horses and all Murdoch’s men can’t prove that Obama was born in Kenya, maybe it’s because he really was born in Hawaii.
As for campaign coverage . . .
If media bias has sunk McCain’s campaign, then why do veteran Republican political operatives say he has run an inept campaign?
1. No idea…you’d have to ask them.
2. Murdoch is a Pennsylvania Democrat? Tell us more!
3. The two are not mutually exclusive.
On a blog navigation note, I just discovered the “Recent Comments Page” link in the right margin. What a nice feature…I can’t believe I didn’t notice it before.
Sheri, where were the stories on Wright and Ayers and what did they tell you? When my local quotes Obama telling McCain he’s 100% negative on page 1 and then analyzes it and says its really 70% negative for Obama and 80% for McCain on page 9, I’d say there is room to be suspicious whether the campaign coverage is fair. When the NBC Nightly News runs their first 10 minutes this far forward of an electionon poll results that they said sharply favor one candidate, what I’m hearing them say is “it’s a done deal stick a fork in it” and I wonder why they felt they had to tell me this and was that all that happened today? Whether or not Malone’s conclusions are correct or silly, from where I sit I either receive a Fox or antiFox-like twisting of the concept of “fair and balanced” and take all media with a grain of salt.
“If all Murdoch’s horses and all Murdoch’s men can’t prove that Obama was born in Kenya, maybe it’s because he really was born in Hawaii” —#16
“Murdoch is a Pennsylvania Democrat? Tell us more!”
Rupert Murdoch is the politically conservative news baron who founded Fox News, owns the New York Post and the Star, and recently acquired the Wall Street Journal. In Britain he owns the Times, the Sun, and The News of the World. He also owns Sky Channel and Star TV.
I know who Rupert Murdoch is, I. He’s not the guy who is suing in federal court to force Barack Obama to prove his citizenship. That guy is a [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_i8NHifI1g]big-time Democrat from Pennsylvania.[/url]
“[Murdoch is] the guy who is suing in federal court to force Barack Obama to prove his citizenship” —Jeffersonian [#21]
An exceedingly artful response to my choice of examples in #16.
No art was intended, I. I merely pointed to the only serious attempt to challenge Obama’s citizenship status comes, not from a pasha of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, but a rare sort of Democrat: One who actually believes the Constitution means what it says.
“A rare sort of Democrat: One who actually believes the Constitution means what it says” —#23
Ignoring that piece of tripe, I’ll ask whether you contend that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States?
[blockquote]Ignoring that piece of tripe, I’ll ask whether you contend that Obama is not a “natural born citizen†of the United States? [/blockquote]
I’m not contending anything either way, I. I’m pointing out that your contention that it was Rupert Murdoch’s minions challenging Obama’s status of being a natural-born citizen. It’s not, it’s a fellow Democrat and a well-respected, well-connect one, too.
The “rare” comment comes from a recent poll where Republicans and Democrats were asked whether a Supreme Court nominee should be selected based on whether (s)he will follow the Constitution. IIRC, about 75% of Republicans said yes, whereas only about 20% of Democrats did. QED.
I had to laugh today at how the Obama campaign has become so accustomed to softball interviews. When Joe Biden actually had to angrily scramble for stock answers during an [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM&eurl=http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/]unusually tough interview[/url], the Obama campaign responded by [url=http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/10/obama-campaign.html]cutting the station off[/url]. Change we can believe in!!!
Let me correct my above numbers…I was going from memory. Here are the poll results:
[blockquote]While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree. [/blockquote]
Gah…I meant to post the [url=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/supreme_court_ratings/supreme_court_update]LINK[/url]
I reject your characterization of Philip Berg as “well respected.” In addition to pursuing gadfly litigation, Berg charges that the U.S. government engineered the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Be that as it may, Berg has held many a high-level position in Pennsylvania. And he’s not part of Dark Lord Murdoch’s cabal, which was my point.
No newspaper or news magazine I’ve seen at the library (and we subscribe to quite a few) mentioned Ayers or Wright except to point out the ‘right’s obsession with them.
correction: subscribed. Since I don’t work there anymore. 🙂
BlueOntario, my regulary paper gave Wright front page coverage with followup stories about liberation theology and differences between Wright’s teachings and mainline black churches. Very interesting. Ayers connection and past was fully explored. I saw similar coverage in other papers.
“No newspaper or news magazine I’ve seen . . . mentioned Ayers . . .except to point out the ‘right’s obsession with [him]”
Here’s are Ayers-Obama articles published by the Wall Street Journal:
— April 17: “Clinton Attempts to Stir New Doubts About Obamaâ€
— April 18: “Campaign ’08: Woods Fund Could Become Obama’s ‘Swift Boat’—Name of Radical Raised in Debate Will Be Heard Againâ€
— May 2: “Obama’s Other Radical Friendsâ€
— August 30: “Obama Should Come Clean on Ayers, Rezko and the Iraqi Billionaireâ€
— Sept. 23: “Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism on Schoolsâ€
The WSJ has also published a passle of anti-Obama letters to the editor voicing conservative charges about Obama and Ayers.
The WSJ is perhaps the closest I’ve seen to what used to be called ‘objective’ journalism. Even so, one cannot read it uncritically. But thanks for those citations.
By the way, did you see the interview with Biden over the weekend? He finally got asked ‘tough’ questions and blew the interview, backtracking, lying, diversionary tactics and name calling.