Why Is It the Media Persists

in treating Sarah Palin like shit? Probably no politician, not even the previous so-called president or former president Clinton, have been treated so horribly by the media.

It is true some of it is her fault, but there is prejudice against her for many other reasons, and I don't think it has a lot to do with "qualifications." After all, President Obama didn't have much in the way of experience either when he ran for president.

One is the most obvious, and that she is female, and female politicians have their own unique problems in getting support and money for their campaigns. Hillary Clinton knows this very well. Another problem, and it isn't trivial, is the fact Sarah Palin is attractive. She has to prove herself to not be a bimbo, and unfortunately, there are things she has said which give many people pause about her intellect. Which leads to another factor, and it may be the most critical of all, and that's the fact Sarah Palin is not an Ivy League graduate; indeed, she bounced around in a few state colleges before getting her degree. There is a mentality in the eastern media centers and which is common among many people in that region but not in other parts of the country which says it is very important what college you attended and graduated. The only schools that really count among the eastern establishment are the Ivy League universities. And even among the Ivies, there is a hierarchy of prestige. Universities such as Cornell, Columbia, Dartmouth, and the University of Pennsylvania aren't highly thought of by the elite media; they are little "better" than the despised state universities which the vast majority of college students attend. Princeton is a little more prestigious. The truly important colleges in the eyes of the media are Harvard and Yale, the former being the most important of all. Never mind the fact once a student can get into one of these colleges, the colleges aren't any more rigorous than the garden variety state university. People don't apply and attend those colleges for the "rigor"; they are buying connections which these colleges have in abundance. Anyway, Sarah Palin didn't bother with attending an Ivy League school, and this on top of being from the West disqualifies her from being taken seriously.

I also believe the fact she had a Down syndrome child is a major factor in the hostility towards her although less by the traditional media than by the blogs. Palin didn't do the politically correct thing and have an abortion while at the same time having a high-profile political career. She has called herself a feminist and has lived that idea for years, but many so-called liberals hate her guts and laugh at her insistence she is a feminist. Where is "choice" in all of this, by the way? "Choice" is as much the right to have a child as it is the right to have an abortion.

A snip from Taibbi's article:

The tone for all this behavior is always set somewhere way up the corporate totem pole, and it always reflects some dreary combination of simple business considerations (i.e. what’s the best story and sells the most ads) and internalized political calculus (i.e. who is a “legitimate” candidate and who is an “insurgent” or a “second-tier” hopeful). It’s not that the reporters are making this judgment themselves, it’s that they have to listen to what the apparatus Up There is saying all day long — not just their bosses but the think-tank talking heads they interview for comments, the party insiders who buy them beers at night, the pollsters and so on.

And when all these people start getting in their ears about this or that guy doesn’t have “winnability,” or doesn’t have enough money to run, or has negatives that are insurmountable, all that thinking inevitably bleeds into the coverage. It’s not that the reporters are “biased.” They just don’t have the stones, for the most part, to ignore all the verbal and non-verbal cues they get from authority figures about who is “legitimate” and who isn’t.

Once the signal comes down that this or that politician doesn’t have the backing of anyone who matters, that’s when the knives really come out. When a politician has powerful allies and powerful friends, you won’t see reporters brazenly kicking him in the crotch the way they did to Dean and they’re doing now to Sarah Palin. The only time they do this is when they know there won’t be consequences, meaning when the politician’s only supporters are non-entities (read: voters), as in the case of Ron Paul or Kucinich. Like America in general, the press corps never attacks any enemy that can fight back...

(H/T to commenter Mary Louise for this good piece.)

Media Follies

David Brock's Media Matters for America and some economists are beginning an anti-CNBC drive.

The site has launched a petition.

Media Bias

Well, isn't that dandy the some of the media punditry admits there was bias in favor of Obama, who received virtually NO scrutiny at all from a media either intimidated over the possibility of being labeled "racist," or they wanted to be a part of "history."

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

...

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.

One could argue Biden had been vetted years before when he ran for president, but still the coverage was outrageously lopsided.

Campaign Aftermath

In this AP interview, Sarah Palin criticized those anonymous jerks who take things out of context for partisan reasons.

Campaign Notes

Republicans are trying to prevent a Democratic tsunami in the congressional races.

It will be a pyrrhic victory for the Democrats if they get all three legislative branches; for the GOP will almost certainly return to power in 2012. That's what worries me most about an Obama win tonight, which is being predicted by all of the news outlets and polls.

Second most is the likelihood Obama will not act like a Democrat at all.

Third most is he will go down in scandal.
______

Obama thanks the media for making it all possible for him, especially by refusing to seriously vet him. Without them, he shouldn't have and wouldn't have made it past Iowa.
_____

Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, always the first town in the country to cast votes in the general election, voted for Obama by a vote of 15-6.
_____

Media Bias

Well, no kidding the coverage has been overwhelming pro-Obama and anti-McCain. Which means people are aware of it and many are voting for McCain because of it.

Which, if you were a conspiracy theorist, was the intent all the time.

This is the CMPA press release:

Obamamania: Since the party conventions kicked off the final phase of the presidential campaign, comments about Senator Barack Obama on the network evening news shows have been 65% positive, compared to only 36% positive comments about Senator John McCain.

Souring on Sarah: Despite a brief flurry of good press during the GOP convention, comments about Governor Sarah Palin have been only 42% positive. (There have been too few evaluations of Senator Joe Biden for meaningful analysis.)

Back to the Future: This represents a return to Obama's favorable media image during the primary season, when his coverage was 62% positive on the broadcast networks. By contrast, McCain's coverage during the primaries was only 34% positive, almost the same as his general election coverage.

The Fox Difference: On Fox News Channel, by contrast, Obama's press has been only 28% positive during the general election, even worse than the 38% positive evaluations of McCain. Palin's coverage has been 49% positive on Fox, slightly higher on than on the three networks.

Television remains the dominant source for news. The internet is catching up, but it will never have the immediacy of television. People still have to spend more time on the web seeking out the information than channel surfing.

The obvious bias has been noticed across the Atlantic:

The young and affluent liberals have been captivated by Obama's charisma, the unstated notion that electing a black man will be absolution for the years of discrimination and prejudice, and the expectation that Obama's undoubted appeal to the outside world will repair America's image. All understandable, but these emotions have been allowed to swamp the commonplace imperatives of journalism: curiosity and scepticism.

All the mainstream national outlets were extraordinarily slow to check Obama's background. And until it became inescapable because of a video rant, they wouldn't investigate the Reverend Jeremiah Wright connection for fear of being accused of racism. They wouldn't explore Obama's dealing with the corrupt, now convicted, Chicago businessman Tony Rezko. They haven't investigated Obama's pledge to get rid of the secret ballot in trade union affairs. After years of inveighing against "money in politics", they've tolerated his breach of the pledge to restrict himself to public financing as McCain has done (to his cost). Now the LA Times refuses to release a possibly compromising video, which shows Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet, saying its promises to its source prevent it from doing so.

The British press is notorious for political distortions, which more or less balance out. But the American press likes to think of itself as more superior and detached than it actually is. In 2000, the mainstream media did a great deal to elect George Bush by portraying Al Gore as a boastful liar.

Let's hope the consequences of electing "the one" will be as wondrous as the press has led the voters to believe.

Media Bias

This piece by so-called reporters has been all over the internet, for they admit there is bias in the campaign coverage--no shit, Sherlock--but it's all John McCain's fault for running a shitty campaign.

The problem with that explanation, of course, is the slanted coverage in favor of Obama has happened since the day he announced close to two years ago. It was slanted in favor of him and Hillary Clinton, while far more electable candidates such as Edwards (before the successful blackmailing him out of political life--how convenient) were shoved aside in favor of the identity politics narrative. And THEN, when it became a two-person contest in the primaries, it was open season on both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Not a word of protest by the mainstream media for the 24/7 shitting upon them because they were not run out of the Beltway in the 1990s for refusing to kiss the Beltway Slut's ass. Hell, no, they were right in there with the Obama campaign with the "racist" filth, the RFK filth, the NAFTA filth, the caucus filth and so forth, but never, ever seriously vetting Obama despite his numerous problems. Criticisms were brushed aside or tagged as racist, and believe me, the race card is about all Obama had to get as far as he did. Nobody DARED to criticize him then, and nobody dares to do it now for fear of being tagged racist.

The writers do mention this:

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. But he has benefited from the idea that negative attacks that in a normal campaign would be commonplace in this year would carry an out-of-bounds racial subtext. That’s why Obama’s long association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was basically a nonissue in the general election.

Well, it is YOUR goddamned job as journalists to face that aspect head-on and REPORT on Obama's numerous problems with associations and policies. It is YOUR job as journalists to not make this guy a cypher. The American people need to be informed of just what kind of people these candidates are.

In the end, this bias has NOTHING to do with McCain, who was once the darling of the media. Jesus Christ could run against Obama, and the real Messiah would be cast aside in favor of the fake Messiah. The fix was in from Day One this mediocrity would be the nominee, and now they are trying to ram him through.

Political Commentary

Don't expect the most fanatical Obama supporters to EVER admit error or realize they believe in hoaxes.

I am still not convinced Obama will win this election. The fact he has spent hundreds of millions of dollars just to stay more or less even with McCain tells the entire story. There are still around ten percent of voters who are undecided, and they will swing this contest.
_____

While I don't agree with a lot this writer says, especially about Dan Rather, he does make a few good points about the media's slanted coverage of Obama, who remains almost TOTALLY unvetted by them.

Malone:

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.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

I contend there are two reasons for this. One is the media are afraid any criticism or critical reporting of Obama, no matter how truthful or how mild, will be construed as "racist." The other reason is because Obama is supposedly a "historical" candidate, the media want to be part of "history." Of course if Hillary Clinton had been the Democratic nominee, it still would have been "historic," but who in the media would give a shit about that? They would go after her as payback for her not kissing the Beltway Slut's ass. She certainly wouldn't have received the near-unanimous print media endorsements. Neither would Biden, if the ticket had been reversed.
_____

(HT to Cannonfire for pointing out this article.)

Alexander Cockburn, who I have as much use for as tits on a boar and was one of the biggest liars who ever lived when it came to the Clintons, does tell the truth about "Democrat" Obama, and actually has the nerve to mention if it weren't for Obama's skin color, he would be thought of as just another second-tier mediocrity.

But to mention the obvious is "racist."
_____

Selected Editorials

I agree with this editorial from the conservative Augusta Chronicle about the media's treatment of Sarah Palin and their absolute refusal to vet Obama because it is so true:

The media are making politics unlivable. Plain and simple.
What does it say that the most popular governor in America was nominated to be vice president -- and by the time the national media were done with her, her negatives were higher than her positives?

We think that says more about the media than Sarah Palin.

Indeed, they're not done with her. Now they're making a fuss over the fact that the Republican National Committee bought her family clothes for the campaign. Good grief.
It's become legendary this year that the media are in the tank for Barack Obama. One commentator, Chris Matthews, even famously said he got a thrill running up his leg listening to Obama.

But it's not just anecdotally observable: A new Project for Excellence in Journalism study finds that 57 percent of the stories about Sen. John McCain have been negative since the two conventions, only 14 percent positive. Obama's coverage has been 36 percent positive, 29 percent negative.

It's okay to be filthy sexists, but dare criticize Obama over the least bit of whatever? The media would be tagged as racists, despite Obama's numerous problems.
_____

Political Commentary

Pat Buchanan is correct there is a media double standard when it comes to Joseph Biden and Sarah Palin.

Palin

Not only did Governor Sarah Palin survive last night's interview, she is now starting to get fawning coverage by the media.

It was always going to happen because McCain is their darling.

Media Follies

Does anybody want to refute my claim Barack Obama is nothing but a punching bag for the GOP and the result of endless manipulation of the primaries and caucuses? Now we are seeing a major change in attitude, once Obama was made the nominee. The shit-slinging will now begin in EARNEST.

Olbermann is an alleged shill for Obama. Matthews blathered on and on about Obama, although he is truly in the tank for John McCain.

The network certainly didn't care about the "partisan" tone of the coverage during the primaries. It was shit on the other candidates, especially Hillary Clinton, in order to pump up a truly weak candidate for the Democrats.

Olbermann's JOB was to shit all over Hillary Clinton to benefit the network's, the GOP's, and corporate America's ringer, Obama. There was no real principle there on his part. He was PAID to ruin Clinton's chances.

His job is over now, so he doesn't have to analyze anything anymore. Now we will get 24/7 trashing of the Democratic Party ticket by all of the networks and the rest of the traditional media.

It isn't just the regular newscasts, either, which have shifted focus. As this person wrote, the Sunday talk shows are displaying a distinct shift in attitude. It's as if this shift were right on cue. Of course it was and is.

I saw it coming. I wasn't afraid to write about it here.

Media Follies

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell states the obvious about the media bias in favor of Obama.

Of course the bias wasn't because the media were enamored with the junior senator from Illinois but instead it was to con voters to pick the weakest candidate to go up against their choice, John McCain.

Rendell, an ardent Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter during the primaries, now backs Obama in the general election. Brokaw and Rendell began debating campaign coverage, including the on-air comments by Lee Cowan, and when MSNBC came up, Rendell went after the cable network.

“MSNBC was the official network of the Obama campaign," Rendell said, who called their coverage "absolutely embarrassing."

To say nothing of Keith Olbermann, perhaps the worst offender of all.

Breaking Up is Hard to Do

Now that Obama is poised to win the nomination, the media are now falling out of love with him.

Like a cheating spouse, they flirted with Obama, but now they are about to return to their true love McCain.

Pot Meet Kettle

The McCain campaign is very upset and impatient because they believe the media isn't as slanted towards him as they hoped--so far:




It's a funny ad, but the media really are in the tank for McCain. It will be obvious once Obama is the official Democratic nominee.

Media Follies II

Drudge is claiming the New York Times has rejected a John McCain editorial. The reason is alleged to be McCain's editorial needs to "mirror" the Audacity of Hype's.

Media Follies

Of course the media's coverage of the campaign is twisted and biased. Where the hell was this article back in December or January?

They picked the nominees of both political parties, but they are not in the tank for Obama; they are in the tank for John McCain. This will become very clear once the party conventions are over with.

Miscellanous News.

A 7.2 earthquake in Japan has left at least six dead.
_____

Thanks to some questionable recent high court decisions, the NRA is running out of ammunition.
_____

More than 30 dogs have been seized in a possible dogfighting operation.
_____

The WSWS has part two of its commentary about the recent media reform conference in Minneapolis, and naturally it is critical of anything it sees as support for the Democratic Party.
_____

It seems the only way hack blogger Michelle Marshall ("Taylor Marsh") can draw attention to herself is to draw attention to Larry Sinclair.

The hits have been way down on her site, judging from how relatively few comments she attracts as opposed to a month or two ago.
_____

Years after Di's death, her butler claims he had sex with her, a claim that isn't very believable.

More Media Mess.

The media deserves every bit of criticism they get in their direction with their horrendous coverage of not only Hillary Clinton's run, but of the primary campaign in general.

Need I remind both of my readers how the media shoved John Edwards, who along with Joe Biden, was the most electable and best of all of our original candidates this year, aside and either talked him down or ignored him. Of course the big donors and the DNC ultimately forced him out so the party could "make history." The other legitimate candidates, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson, were simply ignored or regarded as running for VP or for a cabinet position.

That left Clinton and Obama. But was it really sexism that drove the media's hatred for Hillary? If you look at people like Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann, sexism was certainly there for all the world to see. But as I always said it was a huge mistake for Hillary Clinton to have run in the first place, given the obvious questions of conflict of interest, I don't think sexism is ultimately what drove the media hatred. It was REVENGE for all things Clinton, just as it was with their hatred for and smear of Al Gore.

If you don't kowtow to the Beltway Slut and her dinner party circuit, forget having the national media in your pocket. Besides, the media are spoken for by the McCain campaign.

Oh, Bullshit.

AP needs an enema to remove all of the bullshit lodged in its corporate gut.

Note the fuzzy math it employs to claim Obama has the nomination. He doesn't; the superdelegates don't count.

Bill and Hillary Clinton must really be appalled at the media shilling of this loser.