December 26, 2008
TIME's Mark Halperin's words at the Nov 21st Politico forum on the 2008 election.
HALPERIN: It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war. Both in the nomination fight against Sen Clinton and in the general election - for all sorts of reasons, I think it was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage. The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I've covered, by far.
And the response? He's whining. They are still debating whether proobama media bias exists and they are still denying it. I would laugh but it's gone beyond reprehensible to pure idiocy. Are journalists always this self serving? Do they really not see it or are they defending their previous columns?
What is it going to take?
I ran across a collection of folks' quotes at Politico's "The Arena". The website alone should be a tipoff. Evidently a question is asked and folks comment.
FRED BARBASH, the moderator asked:
Did press bias in favor of Obama constitute, as one prominent journalist says, a major media failure? Do you think it made much difference in the election's outcome?
I don't know who these folks are and I'm not going to waste time finding out. Here are a glimpse at their words. Follow the link to read the rest.
PETER FENN, Democratic media consultant:
Bias. Baloney. Bad reporting, sure, so what else is new? Bad calls on what stories should run or not run? Absolutely. Anyone can call the press out for that. But after two years of Barack Obama being under a microscope where the power was turned up month after month I can not imagine anyone believing he was given a "pass."
He cannot imagine because the heat was turned up? By whom? The proobamedia? He can't imagine but he can't prove it. The brain washing is complete. I have some interesting old articles before the obamerism took over that I have to post. It shows that some of them were actual reporters/journalists once.
WILL DURST, Official Arena Comedian:
You know why the media is biased? Because they're educated. That's not bias. It's known as rational thought.
RICK BEYER, author/filmaker
...dirt simply wouldn’t stick to Obama....supposedly shady dealing with Tony Rezko...But they didn't resonate with the public. People looked at Obama and saw an intelligent, thoughtful, sincere candidate who was poised to make history. So they decided to discount those negative stories.
He goes on and in typical fashion compares barry with a president: Ronald Reagan. barry has done absolutely nothing but be named in a supposedly shady house dealing with Rezko, be named in the indictment and have to give back dirty money from a supposedly shady dealing with Rezko (Rezko raised him $250K) and be questioned by the Feds just a week ago about a case involving more supposedly shady dealings Rezko had with Blagojevich. How is he in any way compared to someone the American People and media had seen on film and in person?
So how does a $750Million campaign of presidential recreations compare to that? The Germans had to be the ones to stop him. And barry's supposedly shady dealings can't resonate with or be discounted by the people if the people never hear about them.
MARTIN FROST Attorney/former Dem Rep
The two novelties in this race we're Obama and Palin. Obama stood up well under media focus and Palin did not. It's really not too much more complicated than that. He could have wilted under the media spotlight but he didn't
This is the most ignorant one of all. Can't wilt if the only light you're under is a photographer's. How can he possibly compare an attack on a woman's children? KOS allowing that horrible ArcXIX to say such things uncensored. jonjon Alter referring to her baby as a DISABLED INFANT? Al Franken's incest sketch? He is an older pink-faced man if you couldn't guess by his words.
DAN SCHNUR, Jesse M. Unruh Institute
Toward Halperin's point, there was no shortage of media preference toward Obama over the course of this election cycle. But Torey's argument is equally valid: that real-world events that favor one candidate need to be reported as well.
He plugs USC and then totally bypasses the issue of the MSM's censorship of the events that did NOT favor barry and the blowing out of proportion things that were unfavorable to his opponents. There is no such thing as Teflon until it is sprayed on. During the worst press about Rev Wright, Sen Clinton got more negative coverage. Cold hard facts. That is what is at issue. The fact that barry was never vetted or given the scrutiny of other candidates. Yes, he did deserve more attention because he was new. Fine. But there has to be coverage and uncovering of the negative - which has never happened - even now when barry is being interviewed by the feds.
Therein is the proobama media bias.
PROFESSOR ROSABETH MOSS KANTOR, Harvard Business School
It's ridiculous to say Obama got a free ride, what with all those ambitious journalists and Republican attack machines out seeking dirt. The absence of a major scandal is not evidence of media bias; it's a sign that maybe this is a pretty clean candidate. Nearly every angle was tried to find flaws: damning by association (Rev. Wright and William Ayres [sic]), pouncing on a position change (Arctic drilling), criticizing for lack of specifics, reporting on other reporters reporting on Republican accusations that he was a secret terrorist, socialist, or unpatriotic.
One position change? Damning by association a spiritual mentor barry had known for 20 years and taken his children to hear? But what of this man of Superior Judgment? Now he's just guilty by association because his top adivsors need to be investigated? Why didn't Rahm Emanuel want the job at first?
Ok. That's enough documentation of self-denial.
