Posts Tagged ‘media bias’

From the Washington Post:

The fervent courtship [between Obama and Congressional Republicans] is turning the debate on the economic package into a test of whether the Obama White House can put an end to years of distrust between the parties and overcome their recent inability to shape consensus legislation.

Isn’t it funny that when the GOP controlled both the legislative and executive branches the Washington Post and the rest of the “news” media cared neither a jot nor a tittle for consensus?

When Republicans routinely refused to inform Democrats when and where committee meetings were being held or refused to allow (or severely limited) Democrats who made it to those committee meetings a chance to speak, or when Republicans refused to allow Democrats their right to offer amendments to legislation, consensus was not very high on the Post’s — or the rest of the media’s — agenda. For the most part, the so-called liberal media failed to cover the GOP’s disenfranchisement of Congressional Democrats and, by extension, their constituents. Now that the Democratic Party controls the White House and Congress, “consensus” (which is code for giving Republicans whatever the fuck they want) is suddenly all important.


Read Full Post »

…and no one pays attention, does he really make a sound?

…the reality for Biden is that while running mates play second fiddle by definition, the Palin phenomenon has made him something of a fourth or fifth fiddle. It is not like last month, when the news media swarmed Biden’s Delaware home and delegates swooned over him at the Democratic Convention. He is trailed by just a few national reporters and struggling to break through in a race marked by historic firsts, political celebrities and charismatic newcomers — none of them named Joe Biden.

Two things:

A) Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have had this problem as a vice-presidential nominee.

B) For all those who think that out-framing Republicans is the key to progressive success: Frames are useless if the media won’t convey them to the public — as Senator Biden is learning first-hand.

Read Full Post »

1. Glenn Greenwald critiques a ridiculous finger-wagging article by Time Magazine’s Jay Carney. Carney mistakenly thinks that the GOP’s propaganda techniques don’t work for very long; Greenwald shows otherwise.

2. Lindsay Beyerstein covers some of the anti-constitutional police abuses against members of the media, committed during that quadrennial Nuremberg Rally known as the Republican National Convention.

3. Bob Kuttner explains how the Republican Party manipulates the American people with the indirect help of a too-often complacent corporate media. (Via Avedon.)

Read Full Post »

…and the press, courtesy of Eric Boehlert:

CNN polling director Keating Holland (figures, he doesn’t work in the newsroom), who posted a lengthy analysis at CNN.com. Holland’s piece not only put Clinton’s role in Denver into historical perspective (“Overall, between 1972 and 1992, 10 Democratic candidates who lost the nomination in the primaries went on to have their names formally placed in nomination at the convention.”), it also pointed out that Clinton represents the only runner-up to speak at the convention who formally endorsed the party’s nominee months before the convention; i.e., all the others grudgingly held out on endorsing their rivals.

But not Clinton. Yet she’s the one slimed by media venom.

Earlier in his piece, Boehlert notes that Jerry Brown and Jesse Jackson played the roles of potential spoiler particularly well at the conventions, and throughout the piece he shows how absolutely, irredeemably reprehensible the so-called liberal media has behaved towards Clinton.

Obama’s zealots should pay attention: Clinton has not only handled Obama with kid gloves and given him much better treatement than the bastard than he deserved; they would do well to start paying her the respect that she has more than earned.

Read Full Post »

Zuzu: “And yet, here I am, sneezing.”

Zuzu shreds BooMan’s piece about the Obama-Hagel-Reed love fest, the idea that it’s good for Democrats to have Republicans in their cabinets, and the notion that the Republicans in FDR’s and Bill Clinton’s administrations bear any resemblance to the kind of Republicans that Obama would welcome into one of his own if he were to win the White House.

Lambert: “First time as tragedy, second time as farce — we hope.”

Lambert asks some very pointed and insightful questions regarding why we tolerate the Establishment Media (my term, not his.).

Steve Benen’s “NYT to McCain: write a better op-ed.”

Benen explains in terms even right-wing whackjobs should be able to understand (but still won’t) why the New York Times rejected McCain’s screed disguised as an op-ed but invited him to write another, more substantive piece. As Benen points out:

Go ahead and read McCain’s submitted piece. It has 12 paragraphs — 11 of which attack Obama directly. Obama’s piece focused on Obama’s vision for a sensible U.S. policy towards Iraq. McCain’s submission was a hit-job, focused exclusively on attacking Obama. While Obama’s op-ed mentioned McCain three times, McCain’s op-ed mentioned Obama 10 times by name, and 17 times through pronouns…

Obama’s op-ed talked about his Iraq policy. And McCain’s op-ed talked about Obama’s Iraq policy. That may pass for “balance” on Fox News, but some outlets are looking for a little more.

Read Full Post »

So many links, so little etc…

1. More and more people have been seeing Barack Obama for what he is: The Democratic Party’s answer to Richard Nixon. But don’t take my word for it: “Newsweek Poll: Obama’s Lead Drops” and “Shut the fuck up and send Obama more money!” have some delightfully gory details about the slide in Obama’s popularity.

2. Phil Gramm has been an asshole for a long, long time.

3. Too bad more reporters weren’t concerned enough about the FISA issue to, y’know, report on how dangerous and unconstitutional a power-grab it was. Mick Arran found at least one who has some problems with it, which is somewhat comforting.

4. Speaking of reporters that suck: ABC World News, NBC Nightly News, and the CBS Evening News still leave a little something to be desired… like, non-biased reporting about McCain’s disgraceful remark about Social Security.

5. “Travesty” gets used so often the word has almost lost its meaning, but other than “negligent homicide” I can’t think of a better term for the death of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth at the hands of Kellogg Brown & Root.

6. Moving from the death of a good soldier to the arrest of some bad ones, the increase in “moral conduct” waivers from the U.S. Army has been a disaster. What a “surprise.” (Via Avedon.)

Read Full Post »

A lot of tongues have been wagging at this AP story:

John Kerry says Republican John McCain doesn’t have the judgment to be president.

If that’s the case, then it’s probably a good thing McCain rejected overtures from Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, to form a bipartisan ticket and run with Kerry as his candidate for vice president.

Unsurprisingly (and unfortunately) the Ass Press got the story wrong. It was McCain who approached Kerry. And the Ass Press completely missed McCain’s flip-flop on the subject.

From “McCain: I’d ‘entertain’ Democratic VP slot,” 03/10/2004:

McCain said in a television interview that he would consider the unorthodox step of running for vice president on the Democratic ticket — in the unlikely event he received such an offer from the presidential candidate.

“John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years,” McCain said Wednesday when pressed to squelch speculation about a Kerry-McCain ticket. “Obviously I would entertain it.”

Within hours, the Arizona senator’s chief of staff, Mark Salter, closed the door on that idea. “Senator McCain will not be a candidate for vice president in 2004,” Salter told The Associated Press, saying he spoke for the senator.

From “McCain Asked About Kerry’s V.P. Offer,” 03/07/2008:

Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee… said he had never considered sharing the ticket in 2004 with Mr. Kerry, a friend of his…

Later, aboard his campaign plane, when Mr. McCain was asked about the conversation – and why he said in an interview with The New York Times in May 2004 that he had not even had a casual conversation with Mr. Kerry on the topic – Mr. McCain displayed some of the temper that he has largely kept under control in this campaign.

And then there’s this, from the Washington Post, on 06/12/2004:

Although Kerry has made no formal offer to McCain to join the Democratic ticket, according to these sources, the purpose of the discussions appears to have been to gauge McCain’s interest…

Mark Salter, McCain’s chief of staff, said McCain “has never been offered the vice presidency by anyone.”

Sorry to burst any bubbles, but as much as I like seeing Kerry with egg on his face, it’s a richer experience for me when it’s actually deserved. And exposing the Ass Press’ incompetence and bias is more important than trashing Kerry. For now.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »