Patterico's Pontifications

10/28/2008

Politico: Is There Media Bias? So What?

Filed under: 2008 Election,Media Bias — DRJ @ 8:18 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

The Politico’s Harris and VandeHei seem surprised that a Pew Research study suggests there is media bias against the McCain-Palin campaign, but they aren’t letting that keep them from their ultimate point: “So What?”

“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.

And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.

So what?”

At times, the one-sidedness makes even the Politico folks “cringe” but they try not to focus on that. Instead, they think the whole media bias topic is a “drag” and even if there is media bias, it’s not an issue in this race because McCain’s campaign is going poorly and Obama’s campaign is going well. As Harris and VandeHei put it: “Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.”

What can I add to that? It’s such a bad explanation that I can only laugh. And as we used to say in the old days, I’m not laughing with them, I’m laughing at them.

— DRJ

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: This is a good place to note that Slate has announced the results of its traditional survey of its staffers’ presidential picks. The overwhelming winner this year: Obama. The overwhelming winner in 2004: Kerry. The overwhelming winner in 2000: Gore.

Although it’s funny in its own way, I admire Slate for doing this. It’s no surprise to any honest person that most journalists are Democrats. I appreciate transparency in the media, and Slate provides it with this feature.

It’s also amusing to watch a crew of Democrats justifying their decisions. Some are honest and just say “I always vote for the Democrat.” Some others, however, are entertaining in their rationalizations, like the people who say they’re voting for Obama because of his calmness — as if they wouldn’t vote for Howard “YEEEARGH!” Dean over Fred “ZZZZZZZZZ” Thompson.

UPDATE x2: Now Mark Halperin is whining about alleged bias on Drudge. Sheesh.

UPDATE x3 by DRJ: Don’t miss this comment from Karl.

100 Responses to “Politico: Is There Media Bias? So What?”

  1. One thing that we Republicans need to address, though, is to what degree the Party should be controlled by the social conservatives.

    This has come to a head in the last 4 years, with much of the political center repelled by the stridency of Bush on social matters, while traditional Republican values (balanced budget, small government, rights of the individual) have seen short shrift.

    I have no doubt that the reaction of the press is in part to this, and it resonates with the uncommitted center (as it must or the press couldn’t get away with it).

    Win or lose, there is going to be a Republican bloodbath as we sort this out.

    Kevin (0b2493)

  2. “So What?” is not what they say when they complain endlessly that the press didn’t do enough to challenge the Iraq war.

    They’d like it both ways.

    That admission eliminates them as journalists, and fools like this can’t comprehend how the loss of a free press due to the abandonment of the idea of a free press threatens Democracy, along with their ultimate existence.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  3. Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election.

    The media may be the only voting bloc that votes for Baracky in greater percentages than the African-American community.

    JD (5b4781)

  4. As for Patterico’s update: It’s also amusing to watch a crew of Democrats justifying their decisions.

    Tell that to Howard Stern.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  5. This article is just another hit piece, in a different wrapper. It claims momentum for Obama, without showing the evidence (in fact, the evidence is opposite). It claims the media follows the momentum, but the media has consistently understated (to the point of lying) about turnout at some GOP events [AP’s piece on the Cedarville event said “hundreds,” there were 8-20 thousand]
    .

    These stories are driven by the flood of Republicans inside and out of the campaign eager to make themselves look good or others look bad. This always happens when a campaign starts to tank. Indeed, there was a spate of such stories when Obama’s campaign hit turmoil after the GOP convention and the Palin surge.

    .
    McCain’s campaign is tanking. A -flood- of Republicans sniping at each other. Where is this spate of stories driven by the flood of Democrats inside and out of the campaign eager to make themselves look good or others look bad?

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  6. I really don’t understand what the big deal is. If you want to see media that’s biased for Republicans, turn on Fox News, or talk radio, or look up any of the hundreds of blogs and web sites from Drudge to Malkin to this one.

    You will find virtually nothing positive about Obama on any of them — just an endless stream of Ayers, ACORN and Obama is a socialist.

    In fact, I see very little that’s positive about Obama, because I mostly just read/watch these publications. As far as I can tell, Obama gets hammered all the time. There’s your balance. What’s the problem?

    The real problem is that the McCain campaign can’t formulate a message of it’s own. It, and the Republicans, entire campaign has become “Don’t elect Obama.” How much positive press, really, can such a campaign generate?

    Phil (3b1633)

  7. Racists.

    Phil – If it is no big deal, just something to sneeze at, then how about this. We will give you Fox and Rush and all of the reich-wing blogs, and in return, we get ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, the LA Times, the NY Times, Reuters, AP, and all of the news magazines. Deal?

    JD (5b4781)

  8. Again, I wish I had an elegant catch phrase for what I am going to write.

    Those folks at Politico? Would they be saying the same thing if the majority of the press was carrying on about Obama in the same fashion that they trash McCain’s crew? Whispers about dissension among the campaign staff, sniping about the cost of various campaign items, gaffes by certain Vice Presidential nominees, and so forth? And worse still, NOT mentioning things that are a big deal? What if the nominee had an association with an organization under investigation for voter fraud? A racist church? Serving on boards with people who literally had been involved with setting terrorist bombs? And what if critics of the nominee were being investigated by government officials?

    But the Reflexive Journalistic Left (RJL?) thinks that it is correct, has the “right” opinions, and is generally on the side of the angels. So they cannot imagine that they are doing wrong.

    Why, there is an effigy of Sarah Palin hanging from a noose in North Hollywood…and it’s a laugh, and not taken seriously in the media—let alone roundly condemned by the Democratic nominee (in fact, I know of only one candidate who has openly criticized excesses of their own party). Imagine something similar done to an effigy of the other candidate?

    Ah, but that is different. No big deal. Move along, folks. Hope and Change is on the way…from the Chicago Machine, with help from ACORN. And the press claps itself on the back about it…when they would not tolerate similar things from the other side of the political divide.

    Well, the facts are simple. Chances are, the press are going to get their way. And sooner or later down the road, their own excesses will be used in support of a candidate that more than 80% of the press does not support. But it will be too late then, because the precedents will have been set.

    My father taught me that the measure of the goodness of a person was how they treated people whom they despised. Were they civil and polite? Did they give their opponent every opportunity for fairness? This, my father told me, is because of a simple rule (and it is one that Politico needs to remember): you should be nice to people on your way up the ladder, because you might see them again on your way down. You might even need their help.

    All this “it is impossible for journalists to impartial” is so much intellectual Onanism. Their impartiality, and defense of fairness, is the measure of their journalistic integrity.

    But we know about that, I realize.

    A bit of rant, and I apologize. Heck, I’ll beat JD the punch: I condemn myself for my obvious support of heteronormative nondistributionist political incorrectness.

    Eric Blair (51924c)

  9. Also, what do you mean ‘overwhelming winner’?

    There was only one guy voting for McCain, and Jack Shafer, who always votes Libertarian.

    Even the foreigners, unanimously, would vote Obama if they could.

    An absolutely unrepresentative section of America.

    Oh, how we’d hear the screams if the press were 99% Republican.

    But then again, we have no press.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  10. Phil–

    I’ll make you a bet. We put the top 50 media names on a dart board. For each one on the left I hit, I get $1000, for each one on the right you hit, you get $1000. You’d better be a damn good dart thrower if you want to hit Fox again and again.

    And until Fox came along, the count was 50-0.

    Kevin (0b2493)

  11. But then again, we have no press.

    Apogee is right. They ceased being the press a long time ago. Now, the best descriptor would be a cheerleading squad.

    Eric – Thanks for saving me the effort.

    Everyone else – consider yourself denounced.

    JD (5b4781)

  12. CNN fact checked Sarah Palin on her statement that she cut 500 million from the budget. Verdict ?

    She was right !

    Even a blind bird gets an occasional worm.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  13. Interesting email to PUMA

    The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.

    We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama”

    We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.

    We did this the whole primary and it worked.

    Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.

    This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.

    [snip]

    Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and “fair and balanced” and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.

    This is why nothing sticks.

    [snip]

    Our goal is to continue to make you lose your moral. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all.

    There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.

    The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

    [snip]

    Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can’t imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.

    this is a big conspiracy and I am so shocked that its not realized.

    We released a little blurb the other day that the Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts towards 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, its a lie. David is very smart, but its a sticky ugly not very truthful kind of intelligence.

    Its not over yet, but I think the machine is working. And its a hill to climb.

    Sarah Palin draws crowds of more than 20,000 wherever she goes … but you won’t see that in the MSM coverage.

    The fix is in and places like Politico don’t care any more if we know. The LA Times sits on a Obama tape and tells people to go pound sand. They don’t care if they bleed out every last reporter … the fix is in and they will do everything to suppress votes for McCain.

    Darleen (187edc)

  14. Mike K – I am sure they followed with a segment on starving old people, dying children, and oppressed minorities, all resulting from said budget cuts.

    JD (5b4781)

  15. I really don’t understand what you guys want done. Do you want to make all the media report like Fox News does? Why not just let everyone report the stories the way they think they should be reported, and then let the consumers decide who to watch?

    I don’t think it’s possible to be objective in political journalism, because politics is by definition subjective. At best, you simply report two very biased, subjective perspectives (the McCain campaign, and the Obama campaign). But as soon as you accurately report Obama’s perspective, McCain’s supporters think you’re biased, and vice versa. It’s ALL spin — there is no objective perspective, because there’s no agreement as to what “objective” is.

    I have to agree with Politico that a big part of why there are so many negative McCain stories this election season is because McCain’s campaign is all about Obama. If McCain had an actual platform, other than “Obama is xxxx, yyy and zzzz,” there would be a lot more opportunities for positive stories out there.

    Phil (3b1633)

  16. “…Most political journalists we know are centrists…”

    They should stop hanging out at Bolshevik conventions.

    Another Drew (2f298d)

  17. Facts are objective.

    In this election, we would like the MSM to actually act like the media is supposed to. We would like to see them quit fellating Baracky on a daily basis. We would like to see them do their jobs, rather than spew out Baracky talking points, acting as a spokesman for his campaign.

    Again, I ask …

    If it is no big deal, just something to sneeze at, then how about this. We will give you Fox and Rush and all of the reich-wing blogs, and in return, we get ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, the LA Times, the NY Times, Reuters, AP, and all of the news magazines. Deal?

    JD (5b4781)

  18. Easy example here, Phil.

    Baracky once said,”

    “I was elected yesterday. . . . I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I’ve never worked in Washington. And the noion that somehow I’m immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn’t make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I’m the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois. . . . I am not running for president in 2008.”

    Were the media doing their job, they would have asked him about this.

    They would confront Baracky about Sarkozy’s quote, and it would be covered by all of the networks in their leads. They would run repeated articles and segments about how Baracky promised to take public financing of the campaign, until is was politically expedient to not do so. The list is practically endless.

    JD (5b4781)

  19. Comment by Phil — 10/28/2008 @ 9:01 pm

    I suppose this doesn’t qualify as a platform.<a href=”http://www.johnmccain.com” target=”_blank” title=””

    Another Drew (2f298d)

  20. Someday I will figure out how to do this linky thingy.
    http://www.johnmccain.com

    Another Drew (2f298d)

  21. “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

    If the media was doing its job, this would be hung around Baracky’s neck, constantly.

    JD (5b4781)

  22. The LA Times sits on a Obama tape and tells people to go pound sand

    Actually, they said they “…did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.”

    …because they are ethical and honest like that. And non-biased. And objective.

    Why not just let everyone report the stories the way they think they should be reported

    Seriously?

    Dana (658c17)

  23. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.”

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

    Darleen (187edc)

  24. The old media is the enemy. But they are starving to death.

    A new list was just released of the audited circulations of the top 25 daily newspapers (for the 6-month period ending Sept. 2008) with year-over-year change:

    The dog-trainer lost plenty of readers:
    4. LOS ANGELES TIMES — 739,147 (-5.20%)

    And so did these losers:
    9. HOUSTON CHRONICLE — 448,271 (-11.66%)
    14. BOSTON GLOBE — 323,983 (-10.18%)
    16. STAR-LEDGER, NEWARK, N.J. — 316,280 (-10.40%)
    19. PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER — 300,674 (-11.06%)
    22. ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION — 274,999 (-13.62%)

    In the past week alone, the Newark Star-Ledger laid off half their newsroom, the Los Angeles Times laid off 75, the Christian Science Monitor announced it will cease print publication, and Standard and Poor’s downgraded the New York Times Company’s bonds to junk. The evening newscasts of CBS, NBC, and ABC are each down in viewership about 10% from a year ago.

    Offcial Internet Data Office (7800f2)

  25. JD, I still don’t see your point, at all. Are you trying to imagine a world where more journalists are Republicans? How exactly do you propose to bring this about?

    OK, fine . . . but that means you’re going to have to scoop up a bunch of Republicans from somewhere that they are much happier (since they obviously haven’t chosen to become journalists on their own) and force them to work as reporters/writers/editors.

    My guess is, if you did that, they’d very quickly become democrats. Because if their party is making them be something they don’t want to be, they’re not going to support that party for very long.

    In addition, you’re going to have to fire all of the liberal journalists — which will just make them more liberal, and hate Republicans even more. They’ll start up new media organizations, and be even more passionately anti-Republican.

    In other words, any attempt to make the media more Republican is doomed to fail, as far as I can tell. People who like Republican politics, for whatever reason, tend to do things other than become journalists, and vice versa. I don’t see how it can change — even if you tried, you’d just make the press more liberal.

    Phil (3b1633)

  26. No, Phil. I want to imagine a world where journalists are honest, unbiased, and actually act as journalists. How fucking difficult is that to understand?

    JD (5b4781)

  27. I think that’s the same place where the administration obeys the Constitution, JD.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  28. STFU sniffles.

    JD (5b4781)

  29. JD

    The problem resides in j-schools

    50 years ago reporters came up the ranks, an apprenticeship as it were just like any good plumber or electrician.

    Then came fancy j-schools staffed by Ayers-era teachers impressing the new “journalists” that advocacy is where its at…it is NOT enough to merely report a story, but to impart Truth(tm) to guide the poor benighted souls that don’t have the privilege or intelligence to complete j-school.

    Darleen (187edc)

  30. JD, I think the only thing a journalist can do is call it like they see it, say what they think is important. But the way they see it will always be biased.

    If you want truly “objective” you don’t want reporters. You need to go find things out for yourself, and stop asking someone else to summarize the important stuff for you. Because in so doing you will always be asking them to tell you what THEY think is the important stuff.

    Phil (3b1633)

  31. snuffles ignores that Obama doesn’t really like the Constitution all that much

    stuffy, restraining Founding Fathers with their document of negative liberties…. dead white slave owning males.

    Obama plans on appointing more judges with his way of thinking that the Consitution is not worth the parchment it’s written on..

    Darleen (187edc)

  32. More Dem on Republican violence …

    Which party is full of hate and anger?

    Phil – Obviously you are too dense to get it. Besides, we just want to kill, jail, torture, and oppress minorities. How freaking difficult is it to expect the media to be fucking honest?

    JD (5b4781)

  33. Back in February, Jeff Jarvis wrote an insightful piece on what he sees as the need for transparency from journalists just as they expect it from everyone else and that just because the claim to not vote does not make them objective. The point is that journalists and reporters do have opinions, biases, and strong ones at that. There shouldn’t be denial of them but rather a transparency so that readers have full disclosure and can assess based on that,

    Reporters are not just covering the story. This year, they are part of the story. The ethic of transparency that I have learned online and that journalists apply to everyone they cover should also apply to them. I say that journalists have a responsibility to reveal their own views and votes — even as they endeavor to report apart from them with fairness, completeness, accuracy, and intellectual honesty — and we have a right to judge their success or failure accordingly as we also have a right to judge their roles in the stories they are covering.

    http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/02/18/journalists-votes-matter/

    Dana (658c17)

  34. Comment by Kevin — 10/28/2008 @ 8:34 pm

    “…the social conservatives…”

    Kevin, don’t let the propaganda from the MSM divert your attention from where the true strength and center of the GOP is.
    That strength is centered on Main Street, in every small business struggling to pay the bills.
    On the few remaining family-run farms and ag operations that try to balance the demands of Dept of Ag regulations with what the market wants.
    It is in the pews of the Catholic Church, various Protestant denominations, Synagogues, Mosques, and other places of worship where people gather to give thanks to their Creator, and thank Him for the opportunity to live in freedom.
    The GOP is truly the party of the big tent. A party that recognizes the worth of the individual, and that all have a contribution to make.
    I truly believe that if John Kennedy were alive today, he would be a Republican.
    What else could a man be who said:
    Ask not what your country can do for you;
    Ask what you can do for your country!

    Another Drew (2f298d)

  35. Sorry to bother you, JD.

    Continue playing the victim card to each other, I’ll rummage around for the world’s tiniest violin.

    Just 5 days ’til showtime.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  36. Dana, I’m really not sure that Republicans would be much happier with that. Since most media are Democrats, a “full disclosure” would, by itself, look bad for McCain and Republicans, because so many journalists would be flat-out saying “I think Obama is right, and McCain is wrong.” Do you really want America constantly being reminded even more directly that most reporters thing Obama would be a better president than McCain?

    Phil (3b1633)

  37. Do you really want America constantly being reminded even more directly that most reporters thing Obama would be a better president than McCain?

    You say that as though it is a good thing. Since journalists rank down around lawyers and politicians in polling, that might not be a plus.

    At the very least, their bias should be stated up front. All of their votes should be public information. That way the reader gets to make the determinations, rather than the reporter. As we all know, they do a great job of policing themselves.

    JD (5b4781)

  38. to guide the poor benighted souls that don’t have the privilege or intelligence to complete j-school.

    I think its a combination of this and the fear of the citizen journalist. The professionals borne from J-schools realize that with the ascendancy of technology and the availability of information, competition has been severely increased and no matter how much they sneer at the ignorant masses attempting to parse information and research for themselves, they know underneath its a new day and the poor benighted need less and less their Truth ™ because they are able to find their own.

    Thus they’ve become some sort of living contradiction: the public needs us, the public doesn’t need us and so it goes.

    Dana (658c17)

  39. I’ve actually never really understood that whole “ask not what your country can do for you” thing being such a popular, famous saying.

    How come when I tell people “Ask not what Phil can do for you . . . ask what you can do for Phil” they don’t get all excited about how insightful and inspiring I am?

    Phil (3b1633)

  40. I’ve actually never really understood that whole “ask not what your country can do for you” thing being such a popular, famous saying.

    SHOCKA

    JD (5b4781)

  41. But seriously, isn’t it kind of a socialist-sounding saying? From a capitalist perspective, you damn well do want to know what your country can do for you, don’t you?

    Phil (3b1633)

  42. Living proof that JFK would not be welcome in the modern Democrat party.

    JD (5b4781)

  43. Since journalists rank down around lawyers and politicians in polling, that might not be a plus.

    So now you believe in polling, JD?

    You sure are a “flexible” Righty, aren’t you?

    snuffles (677ec2)

  44. Kind of off-topic, but doesn’t Bill Burton, Baracky spokesman and meme spewer, look like of like a Muppet?

    JD (5b4781)

  45. Do you really want America constantly being reminded even more directly that most reporters thing Obama would be a better president than McCain?

    You are assuming the public places a great trust in the media. I know the media and their personal political views. Why its as if you think they (we) would see it as… truth. Of coruse the media is arrogant enough to buy their own crap but I give Americans more credit and discernment than that.

    Frankly, if one more media person on the left cuts off a discussion re Ayres, or ACORN, or Wright, saying “The American public doesn’t want to talk about this, I’m going to scream. I think the public is sick and tired of being told by some media mouth what we want to talk about. They can blow smoke all they want but I think the public is smarter than that.

    Dana (658c17)

  46. sniffles – What makes you think that I am a right-winger?

    JD (5b4781)

  47. The Politico today:

    It is not our impression that many reporters are rooting for Obama personally. To the contrary, most colleagues on the trail we’ve spoken with seem to find him a distant and undefined figure.

    The Politico, April 21, 2008:

    The difference seems clear: Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.

    (Harris only here: As one who has assigned journalists to cover Obama at both Politico and The Washington Post, I have witnessed the phenomenon several times. Some reporters come back and need to go through detox, to cure their swooning over Obama’s political skill. Even VandeHei seemed to have been bitten by the bug after the Iowa caucus.)

    (VandeHei only here: There is no doubt reporters are smitten with Obama’s speeches and promises to change politics. I find his speeches, when he’s on, pretty electric myself. It certainly helps his cause that reporters also seem very tired of the Clintons and their paint-by-polls approach to governing.)

    All this is hardly the end of the world. Clinton is not behind principally because of media bias; Obama is not ahead principally because of media favoritism. McCain won the GOP nomination mainly through good luck and the infirmities of his opposition. But the fact that lots of reporters personally like the guy — and a few seem to have an open crush — did not hurt.

    For a mostly online publication, these guys have not really caught onto that whole “the Internet will fact-check your ass” thing.

    [Great comment, Karl. I’ve updated the post to link it. — DRJ]

    Karl (1b4668)

  48. The American public doesn’t want to talk about this

    Amen, Dana. That has to be one of the more disingenuous memes that the media, and the Baracky campaign, trots out every time they do not want to discuss an issue.

    JD (5b4781)

  49. From John Harris (head of Politico),

    My belief is that being a journalist for an ideologically neutral publication like Politico, or the Washington Post, where I used to work, does not mean having no opinions. It means exercising self-discipline in the public expression of those opinions so as not to give sources and readers cause to question someone’s commitment to fairness.

    Heh.

    Dana (658c17)

  50. ideologically neutral publication like Politico,

    I am tempted to stop paying attention to him at this point, but shall proceed …

    or the Washington Post,

    Yup, I should have stopped paying attention. Dr. Pepper burns when it comes out your nose.

    It means exercising self-discipline in the public expression of those opinions so as not to give sources and readers cause to question someone’s commitment to fairness.

    I question their committment to fairness.

    JD (5b4781)

  51. these guys have not really caught onto that whole “the Internet will fact-check your ass” thing.
    .
    Yes they have. What they count on is that the public is too lazy/stupid to be aware of or participate in the fact checking. I read around, and the degree of error among supposedly self-educated (meaning they don’t blindly accept the media) readers is astounding. Getting the facts right is damned hard work, and getting the analysis right on top of that compounds the issue. Van denHai and the others know that a substantial fraction, but far from a majority, are on to him. It’s not a problem until the substantial fraction is big enough to cost him his job.
    .
    I don’t have a real-world solution, but in principle, people have to get smarter so they can detect the BS that the media and partisan hacks like Phil put out, disguised as “well meaning and balanced” presentations.
    .
    I take back part of that – the media COULD spend more ink on “almanac” sorts of disclosure. Pure facts, no characterization. Direct quotes, properly attributed. Everything else goes on opinion page.

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  52. “… seem to find him a distant and undefined figure…”

    And just whose fault is it that The One has not been defined?

    Could it be the multitude of disinterested, and uncurious members of the Fourth Estate?

    Another Drew (936c6f)

  53. Most political journalists we know are centrists

    Yea, right.

    Harris and VandeHei either are deluded, disengenous or comparing the ideology of their colleagues in the MSM with the fanatics running, say, Cuba or Venezuela.

    Or maybe they mean journalists are “centrists,” but only in the context of the prevailing opinions in a community like San Francisco or West Hollywood.

    Mark (a0e7cf)

  54. “IMPOSING ART-a fi
    a wi-fi
    haha-
    u cry/buh bye msm
    bye buy

    pdbuttons (359493)

  55. So what?

    I guess by the same token one can say “so what” to all the reports that keep coming out about the ongoing large decline in the circulation of most newspapers and the ensuing deterioration of their economic health.

    Mark (a0e7cf)

  56. Ping. (Brilliant, Karl.)

    Beldar (b09cab)

  57. Beldar — tremendous post on the campaign finance fraud coming to light since Obama’s last report. I’ll have something up tomorrow linking to your effort.

    WLS Shipwrecked (c1b09d)

  58. 24. The old media is the enemy. But they are starving to death.
    A new list was just released of the audited circulations of the top 25 daily newspapers (for the 6-month period ending Sept. 2008) with year-over-year change:

    They are saving trees to reduce global warming, and it’s working.

    Other snow totals, as of early this morning, are given below:
    Freeland, Pa.: 17.0″
    Bear Creek, Pa.: 16.0″
    Mount Jefferson, N.Y.: 16.0″
    Prattsville, N.Y.: 14.0″
    Mount Olive, N.J.: 11.5″

    Hazy (850cda)

  59. #41 – Phil, I really think politically opposite folks have their brains wired differently. You said:
    “But seriously, isn’t it kind of a socialist-sounding saying? From a capitalist perspective, you damn well do want to know what your country can do for you, don’t you?”
    No – and JFK’s “Ask not” wasn’t a call to Socialism either. I liken it more to a Churchillian appeal to sacrifice up and down the socio-economic scale. What Obama likens as “negative liberties” is what this Conservative is all about. The Government CAN’T is the beauty of our God given inheritance of liberty. That a generation of ill informed and self centered video game freaks is willing to “check out the alternatives, man” is just depressing. Ask a college grad how many Stalin killed, and get ready for the blank stare. I am getting my college stepson collectors editions of Orwell & Rand, just because they don’t get assigned anymore.

    rhodeymark (e86321)

  60. Regarding the difference between how Politico sees Obama today, and how it saw him in April, I’m the same way. I was far more enamored of Obama when he was doing the primary thing against Hillary. Having seen him in the general campaign, I agree that he comes off as less connected and personal. He’s basically holding his ground waiting to win.

    In the primary, he was the underdog who made amazing leaps in poll numbers after giving really good speeches and seeming to be very innovative and creative. It was a really exciting story.

    In the general election, Obama’s story has been much more mundane — he’s the Democrat, and he’s probably going to win because the Republicans suck. McCain was never the presumed winner, and Obama is no longer a Cinderella story.

    I think the media agrees. For all of their bias, they are human beings with evolving views. Right now, I think the media is ambivalent toward Obama, but somewhat creeped out by Republicans.

    In the general election, Obama is somewhat obscure and reserved. McCain could have used that to his advantage (and tried, with Palin) by offering a colorful, energetic, and detailed alternative. The problem is, he’s not, and neither is Palin.

    In fact, Obama’s been running an extremely conservative campaign, which I think has helped him a lot with the center, who doesn’t like the frothing rhetoric about communism and terrorism and religious populism coming from the right. Is Obama more fiscally liberal than the center would like? Probably, but the alternative — Palin/McCain’s single-minded warrior-christian paranoia — is a lot less palatable.

    Phil (3b1633)

  61. Ask a college grad how many Stalin killed, and get ready for the blank stare.

    Because Stalin is irrelevant to evaluating socialism. Kids today know that Canada and Norway are pretty socialist, and they both have an overall quality of life higher than the U.S. Stalinism is a lazy, red-herring critique of socialism, and they know it. (Reason McCain is losing #334 — the GOP is irrationally paranoid about socialism).

    Phil (3b1633)

  62. the GOP is irrationally paranoid about socialism
    .
    Spit. Ptui.

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  63. Why then, Phil, does the Obama camp keep denying that he’s a socialist? If the kids know how cool it is, why deny it?

    Pablo (99243e)

  64. Lest y’all forget, Phil is the one that said we just want to kill, jail, torture or oppress minorities.

    JD (5f0e11)

  65. Palin/McCain’s single-minded warrior-christian paranoia

    You realize that’s insane, right Phil? Maybe Ted Rall can draw that cartoon up for you.

    Pablo (99243e)

  66. Lest y’all forget, Phil is the one that said we just want to kill, jail, torture or oppress minorities.

    Right, because his adversaries are paranoid. But not Phil.

    Got it.

    Pablo (99243e)

  67. Phil, you ignorant ass. Did you ever stop to consider that Canada and Norway can afford to be feckless navel gazing soft socialists precisely because the USofA still holds back the totalitarian impulse that resides under the surface of all this metrosexual euroweenie blather? Enemies, whatever their stripe, DO look forward to the day when America trades her birthright for a bowl of porridge.

    rhodeymark (1aaf2a)

  68. Socialism will work. It is just that nobody has gone far enough so far.

    JD (5f0e11)

  69. Newspaper editors/publishers seem to have lost track of how to meet the long term goal to remain profitable and stay in business.

    Some small segment will buy the paper for the crosswords, comics, local sports, etc. no matter what – they are not enough.

    No matter what set of opinions a newspaper espouses, most who do not share those opinions will soon stop buying the paper if those opinions taint the news. And it quickly gets worse for such papers, because their demograhic erodes with each potentially litmus test position.

    OTOH, if a paper openly stayed rigorously with the facts and took pains to remain truly neutral in the news sections, their market would include all who wanted facts, no matter what their opinion preferences were. Indeed, the paper might gain readers others lost.

    One interpretation might be that the editors/publishers have chosen to sacrifice the interests of their shareholders for their own personal political preferences.

    Another might be that the editors/publishers have simply tried to align hard with their largest single demographic, blind to the fact that that group is not large enough to sustain profitability.

    Note that network news seems to be similar.

    The proliferation of media choices provided by cable and the net inevitably leads to opinion-driven folk migrating away from broad opinion-tainted products like newspapers and network news to smaller and smaller ones that more closely match their own precise opinion sets.

    jim2 (6482d8)

  70. Why then, Phil, does the Obama camp keep denying that he’s a socialist?

    Why doesn’t McCain admit he’s a socialist, since he’s proposed to help homeowners get out of paying for their upside-down mortgages?

    That’s the idiocy of this “he’s a socialist” BS. Socialism is everywhere. What you’re really saying is “he’s a mad dictator who’s going to institute a KGB-like organization and start a Gulag for his opponents.” Which, frankly, sounds more like something Republicans might do, given Guantanamo and Homeland Security etc.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  71. I call bullshit on the “most journalists are centrists” claim.

    McCain is as much of a centrist as any Republican we could have nominated. Obama is farther left than anyone ever nominated by a major party.

    If you are such centrists, why are you so obviously biased in favor of far-left Obama over center-right McCain?

    Mike S (d3f5fd)

  72. Ever notice how certain industries are not allowed to fail. Banks make big profits and when they do have a downturn for whatever reason, the government uses your tax dollars to make the bankers whole again.

    Some of us have lost oodles of money in the stock market. Where’s our bailout? We invested money we had already paid taxes on to buy into corporations who pay corporate income tax and will, at times, pay us dividends. Of course we pay tax on those dividends and Obama thinks it fair to increase that tax, even with the knowledge that the taxes collected overall there will be diminished.
    Let’s tax the hell out of those greedy oil companies even though their actual profit margins are not so high. Who will actually pay for those taxes? Was the government bailing out the domestic oil patch back around 1980 when places like Houston’s oil-related industries were really hurting with $10 a barrel oil?
    Did anyone observe how millions of illegal aliens are thronging to get into Norway and Canada or how so many Euroweenies and Canucks eschew their own glorious national health plans’ rationing and waiting lines to get prompt and comprehensive service right here in the dastardly evil USA?
    But bobo, peter, phil and their ilk insist that Obama will make America whole again, wiping away those awful acts wrought on her by Bush. Let’s see just how well class warfare, increased tariffs and taxes work to improve our lives. I actually pay income taxes, but am far away from that evil top 5% bracket. How much free $$$ will the Big Null hand out to me?

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  73. Phil, why don’t you answer my question instead of trying to change the subject? Here it is again, for your convenience: Why then, Phil, does the Obama camp keep denying that he’s a socialist? If the kids know how cool it is, why deny it?

    Pablo (99243e)

  74. Kids today know that Canada and Norway are pretty socialist

    Most kids barely know the back of their arses these days, let alone which century the Civil War was actually fought in. Don’t believe me? Just ask them. BTW, ask them about Canada, and you’ll get a blank stare and a softly mumbled response about hockey and lots of snow.

    Most. Hilarious. Post. Evah.

    Dmac (e30284)

  75. Mike S –

    Clearly you do not understand. Let me quote:

    “What conservatists call “left” IS the center. Thus, anything conservatives admit is to the right at all is, by definition, far right.”

    (Source: _Journalism 101_, page 1, NYTimes Publishing, NY, NY)

    jim2 (a9ab88)

  76. Why doesn’t McCain admit he’s a socialist, since he’s proposed to help homeowners get out of paying for their upside-down mortgages?

    I think we will need more evidence of this. So far, all you have shown is that McCain is the kind of Republican that thinks problems are best solved by government, which illustrates the problems that many Conservatives had/have with him. That is orders of magnitude different than socialism.

    JD (5b4781)

  77. I call bullshit on the “most journalists are centrists” claim.

    They are centrists compared to what? That is the problem. They are likely the same ones that think MSNBC is a center-left station.

    JD (5b4781)

  78. The media’s bias, or rather, the manner in which that bias infests coverage of events, has degraded its competence and ruined its work product. Put it simply, the press are simply not very good at their jobs. They make up stories (Rathergate) or ignore them (Obama’s associations), injecting pre-conceived “analyses” rather than following stories to their logical conclusions. They regurgitate talking points and conventional wisdom rather than probing or challenging either.

    If MSM provided a readable/viewable work product — rather than in-kind contributions to one presidential campaign — news consumers would pay for it. For whatever reason MSM have chosen to provide advocacy and camouflage, instead, and it shows in their declining readership/viewership, dwindling earnings, and shrinking newsroom staffs.

    furious (56af6d)

  79. RE: comment by Eric Blair
    Why, there is an effigy of Sarah Palin hanging from a noose in North Hollywood…and it’s a laugh, and not taken seriously in the media—let alone roundly condemned by the Democratic nominee (in fact, I know of only one candidate who has openly criticized excesses of their own party). Imagine something similar done to an effigy of the other candidate?
    Actually, there was an effigy of Obama put up in Oregon(see Article on Obama effigy ) and even the Christian University where it happened is condemning the act – since it MUST have been racially motivated. It is unfortunate that when all other arguments fail, Obama critics are called racists. See cartoon Political Cartoon
    BTW, if a black person were running for president on a conservative platform, yes, I would vote for him.

    robin (612317)

  80. Because Obama’s no more of a socialist than the other guy is?

    Because, people like you pretend it means something else?

    Here’s a similar question, Pablo: I accuse you and Sean Hannity of being jerk-offs for your constant use of gotcha questions. Since everyone knows Hannity is a neolithic moronic jerk-off, why don’t you just admit you are one too?

    If the answer is because you don’t want to described as being like Sean Hannity, then you’ve had an epiphany about why Obama or McCain (or anyone who knows you) would not let YOU dictate what name they call themselves (because you are, as mentioned earlier, a jerk-off).

    If the answer is, you’re not a jerk-off, then it’s time for you to engage in some serious “Pablo-time,” because you need a little more self-awareness. Maybe you could talk to the counselor at your group home about it?

    timb (a83d56)

  81. Seems like stalkers have anger issues.

    JD (5b4781)

  82. Something to consider from Ramesh Ponnuru,

    Harris and VandeHei [of Politico] should consider the possibility that journalists’ “sensitivity,” which is liberalism’s sensitivity, is not “driven by an ideological tilt” so much as it is an ideological tilt.

    Dana (0a7903)

  83. Good news.

    Time Magazine lays off 600.

    The bias is killing them and they don’t even know it. They have pneumonia and are pretending “it is just a cold, it will pass”.

    M. Simon (aa0cde)

  84. #83
    It is likely that many of these 600 are not journalists – likely just working joes and janes who do the day to day stuff.
    Regardless of the cause it is kind of petty to be happy when a person is laid off don’t you think?

    voiceofreason2 (10af7e)

  85. Clearly you do not understand. Let me quote:

    “What conservatists call “left” IS the center. Thus, anything conservatives admit is to the right at all is, by definition, far right.”

    (Source: _Journalism 101_, page 1, NYTimes Publishing, NY, NY)

    Pew – not known for its rightward bias came to a different conclusion. They say Oh Bummer! is far left.

    But you know I like your idea better. The Ds will continue running unelectable candidates and driving the electable ones out of the party.

    M. Simon (aa0cde)

  86. voiceofreason2,

    Regardless of the cause it is kind of petty to be happy when a person is laid off don’t you think?

    Tell it to the former minions of Enron.

    M. Simon (aa0cde)

  87. Seems like stalkers have anger issues.

    And an obsession with masturbation.

    Apparently Timmah! thinks that all the kids know that jerk off is cool. Of course, we’ve long known that he’s a few french fries and a sandwich short of a Happy Meal. Maybe he’ll just finish rubbing one out and take a nap.

    Pablo (99243e)

  88. M. Simon,

    Guess that says it all. When the redistribution rules come out I’m sure that will make you feel better….

    voiceofreason2 (10af7e)

  89. If the media was not biased, or if McCain had done it, we would have seen endless stories about how Baracky’s campaign deliberately chose to turn off all of the electronic safeguards that would have prevented contributions from Doodad Pro and from pre-paid credit cards untraceable to a person. We would have seen them hammer Baracky about responding to the housing crisis by writing a letter, which did not even address the nature of the crisis. We would have seen the tape from the Khalidi dinner in an endless feedback loop. We would have seen an interview with Ayers. We would have seen a detailed review of his record, or lack thereof. We would have seen countless issues actually reported on. Did we? Sadly, No.

    JD (5b4781)

  90. Ramirez nails it.

    Pablo (99243e)

  91. This is another “You should have learned this in kindergarten” moment; be fair and honest.
    What I look for is someone who is honest about their perspective, can tell you why they look at things that way, and demonstrate intellectual honesty when confronted with facts and issues that don’t go along with their perspective.

    The first time I heard Hewitt have someone from Politico on my radar was engaged at the description of a “non-biased” political commentary group. It was not long before the language they used sounded like typical “embedded criticism” of conservatives.
    That said, they often do make clear points that are harmful to the Obama cause. I haven’t looked closely to see if various individuals consistently take the same position.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  92. I think the main factor in the media bias is that VERY few reporters are conservative Christians. If they are right-leaning, they are on the economic right, not the social right.

    As the Republicans have moved away from economic conservatism and towards the social right’s agenda (see Bush, G.W.), it has alienated those reporters who were sympathetic (along with substantial numbers of libertarian or business-oriented Republicans).

    As much as Palin has galvanized the social conservatives in the Party, it has furthered the alienation of the others (and the center).

    Hence the extreme press bias, which is far worse than previous years. Yes, the press should do a better job of maintaining their objectivity, but we have a part in it, too.

    As I said to start this thread, we Republicans have to decide what we are, and we haven’t done that yet. We will get a chance soon.

    Kevin (0b2493)

  93. Since everyone knows Hannity is a neolithic moronic jerk-off, why don’t you just admit you are one too?

    Someone need a paper bag, and begin commencing deep breaths into it, immediately.

    Dmac (e30284)

  94. I can solve media bias with two words: Brit Hume. If the jackasses at CBS had hired him instead of Couric the media wouldn’t get enveloped in rightie laughter when they tell us how fair and centrist they are. It would still be two liberals to one conservative on the major news but the message would be clear: we get it, we’re working on it.

    I don’t weep for the media job losses. A new media model needs to be built and the quicker the old media goes down for the 10 count the quicker media 2.0 comes out. Everyone gets laid off sometime. At least these layoffs are for a higher purpose vs the layoffs due to $120 barrel oil where the individuals and organizations did little wrong (companies might have missed oil future opportunities).

    Bel Aire (2fd7f7)

  95. As much as Palin has galvanized the social conservatives in the Party, it has furthered the alienation of the others (and the center).

    I don’t know, Kevin. I hear the argument that social conservatives are running people out of the GOP pretty often, but I remain unconvinced. Are economic conservatives/social liberals really that set on keeping partial-birth abortion legal? Do they really think it is so important that Internet pornography be available to children in public libraries? Do they secretly support courts bypassing the will of legislators and voters to impose same-sex marriage? I just find it hard to believe that the social positions that conservatives have focused on during the Bush years are any farther from the supposed “center” than the Obama/Democrat alternative.

    JVW (499159)

  96. Comment by Kevin — 10/29/2008 @ 9:11 am

    The percentage of journos who vote D has not changed since the days of Watergate.
    Just because GWB proclaims his “born again” religiosity has not had any effect on the political opinions of the MSM.
    James Earl Carter proclaimed himself as a “Born Again Christian”, and no-one saw any increase in GOP representation among the press corp.

    Another Drew (d394a6)

  97. and another thing…

    You, Kevin, seem to have a serious hang-up with Christians having fundamental, “born-again”, beliefs.

    In polite society, we call such persons Bigots!

    Another Drew (d394a6)

  98. AD – It is a Moby. You can tell by the tone.

    JD (5b4781)

  99. I really don’t understand what the big deal is. If you want to see media that’s biased for Republicans, turn on Fox News, or talk radio, or look up any of the hundreds of blogs and web sites from Drudge to Malkin to this one.
    – – –

    Skipping over the Fox argument except to say, 1 verses 7, the talk radio and blogs examples are meaningless.

    Bias in our news delivery means nothing to those people who make an effort to become informed. When we decry an obviously unbalanced storyline, we’re not thinking that we’re personally going to be fooled by the story. Nor are we concenred that the people who are calling us Rethug jerks and pigs in the blog comments are going to be misled. We, and they, are knowledgable enough to recognize the bias, and the obvious inaccuracies.

    No, if we’re worried about someone believing a Dan Rather lie, it’s those hosers who couldn’t tell you what an Electoral College is, who wouldn’t know what Joe Biden did before his current gig, who really don’t know how new Obama is to the political scene, who are at risk of being misled. They see “Obama called her a pig!”, OR “Palin’s kids are aliens!” in their local paper, or in between programs on NBC, and that becomes their baseline knowledge about Obama or Palin.

    Problem is, each one of those oblivious fools gets a vote that counts just as heavily as my vote. And so, all of the blather – the hysterical name-calling, the made-up controversies that happen to fit one provable but irrelevant fact, the gotcha crap when someone uses a word too far, the “omigawd that reporter just LIED!” – and all of the simplistic, fluffy-haired “vote for Joe, his opponent kills puppies for sexual satisfaction” campaigning that says nothing to anyone about anything pertinent – it’s all aimed at the fools.

    And all of us know that, and so we’re always fearful that the fools will fall for the crap.

    So, places that people purposefully go to find information or discussion – blogs, talk radio, etc. – aren’t a problem. The people that are choosing to go to those places aren’t going to be taken in by such trash.

    It’s the general-purpose mass-media forums – the big TV networks – that truly screw the pooch with their bias. It’s the places where people go who have chosen to seek the intellectual stimulation of Britney Spears’ thoughts, or the thrills of Professional Wrestling, or the voyuerist’s glee of sticking several neurotic narcissists on an island surrounded by eight hundred cameras – the people who only accidently (and unwillingly) get their entire body of political thought from the interspersed commercials and commentaries that surround the Main Product – that bias will affect.

    The first thing we do, let’s kill all the fools.

    bobby b (361921)

  100. AD–

    You know, AD, I was going to post a long response to your insult, but why bother, it isn’t worth it.

    You don’t know me, I don’t know you, but it does seem to me that calling people names isn’t the best response when people suggest your camp is repelling people.

    Kevin (805c5b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1077 secs.