Category: Media
The Media Loves Palin
Written by Chad Phillips
Thursday, 02 October 2008 19:17
10 Comments

Does mainstream media suck…or what? I think we all know the answer to that one. Only a neo-liberal or a fool would say, "or what."

In the last couple of days I've had the "privilege" of reading a couple of really poor examples of journalism from the AP I'd like to share with you.

The first one entitled, Palin got zoning aid, gifts,  lamented the "sad" fact that Sarah Palin received a facial, some salmon, and flowers from merchants. The article was written in a way which implied Palin recieved these "lavish" gifts in return for political favors. The writer did everything he could to leave the reader with that impression. Everything, that is, except deliver an outright accusation buttressed with actual proof. Talk about desperation, this is some of the sloppiest "news" reporting I've seen in a long, long time. It reads more like a tabloid than actual news. Then again, perhaps the libs figure that conservatives will think Palin is not fit for office because of her acuity for personal hygien and her love of fresh flowers and sea food. Read the article. I promise, you will laugh.

The second article, entitled, Palin facing voters who doubt her readiness, is just as bad for its bias and pushes the liberal printed media to dizzying new heights of stupidity. The article has Palin entering the next debate with Slo-Joe Biden while many voters doubt her readiness  for the nation's highest office.  It then goes on to cite a poll showing that soon after she was named as McCain's running mate, 41 percent of likely voters thought she had the experience to face the nation's highest office . However, that has now dropped to 25 percent. It never cites the voters' political orientation, which is quite an ommission, since the only voters who are really doubting Palin's readiness are the liberal ones and they won't be voting the GOP ticket anyway. This is just more misleading reporting designed to influence those who are already battle hardened to the media's wily ways. The irony is that evidently, mainstream media is ignorant of this fact, and so, continues to spew this blather thinking it will affect our vote. Imbecillic? I say, "YES!"

The article also points out some of Palin's alleged missteps during interviews while conveniently ignoring both Biden's and Obama's gaffes.

Finally, the article points out that conservatives have been critical over the choice of moderator for the upcoming debate between Biden and Palin. The writer of the article points out three things regarding the moderator: She's black; she's writing a book on how the black political landscape has changed since the civil rights era;(Of course, Obama is going to be the topic of an entire forthcoming chapter in that book.) and she's a journalist. The poor AP writer is confused (not surprisingly) thinking that conservatives have a problem with color and, proportionally, with civil rights. Actually, that isn't our beef at all; it's the fact that the moderator is a journalist. But not to worry my conservative friends, I'm sure her politcal leanings won't taint her ability to be "fair and balanced."

 
Russert’s Passing – Will It mean Dropping Any Pretense Of Objectivity?
Written by Ted West
Monday, 16 June 2008 05:19
No Comments

Was Tim Russert the last of his breed?

I continue to be shocked by Tim Russert's ongoing death, and I didn't even like him either personally or as a journalist. As the latter, he was merely an intermittently objective liberal. As the former, I was dismayed that he didn't speak out when Don Imus was the victim of vile accusations because of a tasteless but insignificant remark. Of course, I don't know what transpired behind the scenes, but Russert and Imus had been friends, and I felt he was one person, perhaps the only one, who could have tempered the rabid herd.

Now that Mr. Russert is gone, most likely forever, I feel compelled to focus on the consequences of his passing, because based on the direction NBC has been going, it seems to me that Tim Russert was the lone remaining impediment. He was the most tactfully biased mainstream media man I knew. He could finesse a liberal perspective better than anyone to the point where his questions sounded absolutely reasonable until you realized that none of them ever came close to being posed from a conservative perspective.

That's what made Russert as great as he was though – he was Baby Bear's porridge, neither too hot or too cold. Conservatives and Republicans could sit down with him and have a reasonable chance of making a point. Can you think of anyone else at NBC, ABC, or CBS, forget about CNN and MSNBC, who could conduct an interview without any blatant bias and where reasonable argument gets a fair hearing? Or even a fair reception?

And now, it's not even whether Russert may have been one of a kind, it's about who would be willing, much less able, to find a replacement even close to Russert's caliber? Chris Wallace is similar in his approach, and he conceals his liberalism well enough, but he'd be miserably weak if past performance is an indication of future results. And from my admittedly limited perspective, there's no one else besides Wallace who can assume the mantle of liberally slanted impartiality.

Admit it, you wouldn't be surprised one bit if another Chris – Matthews were to become the new head of Meet The Press. And you wouldn't be even too surprised if the position were offered to Keith Olberman. It wouldn't be the first time that a smaller company took over a bigger one, but it would be the first time that, by implication, NBC management had tacitly, finally, declared that standards were now completely out the window – who needs standards anyway when you have control?

If you're wondering what I mean by that since seemingly nothing has really changed in MSMland, it's that Tim Russert may have been the one man standing between any semblance of objectivity and full-blown bias, and even if he wasn't, no one else has either his capabilities or discipline. Of course, it could be a good thing in the long run if the pretense of objectivity is eliminated from the network mix, but even if it is, the short run could be far more disgusting than things have been up to now, and I think that's really saying something.

Apart from that, Tim Russert's untimely death is a reminder that you don't have to be old to die suddenly, and that neither wealth nor standing can substitute for bad luck. I really don't know why I feel so badly about Tim Russert other than from the perspective that he died while Kennedy lives on, and I simply can't get over the idea that Russert's passing may be an omen for November and beyond…

 
Obama Gump defends his national security credentials…with a little help from the media
Written by Chad Phillips
Saturday, 17 May 2008 05:53
8 Comments

He's not a smawt man, but
he knows what a terrorist is

The top story today from the AP has Barack Obama saying that the president’s comments on the appeasement of terrorists is "exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world.”

Uh…no, Barack. It’s exactly the kind of rhetoric that alienates us further from the terrorists. And you’d have to be a complete imbecile to not know that. Clearly, Obama has confused terrorists with the rest of the world. That would explain his stupid remarks. It also explains yet another reason why he isn’t qualified to be president.

Beyond that, there’s the issue of the media which is trying overly hard to help the American public come to the same conclusion they have—that Barack Obama was targeted by Bush Jr. The prez gave a speech in which he uttered something to the effect of, “some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals.” This was in reference to those who would sit down and attempt to bargain with bloodthirsty murderous thugs. Since Obama has said he would be willing to do just that, he took offense at Bush’s comments, claiming they were aimed at him. Unfortunately, the media is only to happy to jettison neutrality and objectivity in favor of helping Obama get his message out.

From the AP:

“Barack Obama rebuked Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for 'dishonest, divisive' attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists, staunchly defending his national security credentials for the general election campaign.”

Did you see it? No??? That’s because it wasn’t there. The paragraph was missing one little adverb: “allegedly.”

“…Barack Obama rebuked Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for "dishonest, divisive" attacks in [allegedly] hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists…”

And we all know why that little neutral word wasn’t used don’t we? It’s because the AP took a side when they did this story (surprise!). As a former newspaper editor and journalist it amazes even me what passes for news these days. As far as I’m concerned, these publications will never be anything more than substandard birdcage liner as long as they continue taking sides and inserting their opinions into “news” stories.

Then there’s the matter of Obama’s “national security credentials,” which the article I referenced for this piece said he had to “staunchly defend.” Another article (also from the AP) said that Obama’s “national security credentials have been challenged.” To which I ask, since when did he ever have any? In order to have national security credentials you must first marshal the experience of handling national security matters. What national security experience does Barack Hussein Obama have? To date…he has exactly zero experience in the national security arena. Therefore, he has nothing to defend and nothing has been challenged, except maybe his elitist, overinflated, Ivy League ego.

Editor's Note: The image of Obama Gump courtesy of MTW contributor, T.R. Oglodad.