More Active Posts
Front Page
Media politics
 |
 54 Comments |
There’s lots of speculation out there today on how well the media is dealing with the two presidential candidates.
First Associated Press television writer David Bauder raises the issue of fairness in the media coverage of the two campaigns, using the major TV news anchors pursuit of Barack Obama on his global tour as a prime example. Bauder even quotes Rush Limbaugh on the subject:
“My prediction is that the coverage of Obama on this trip will be oriented toward countering the notion he has no idea what he is talking about on foreign policy and defense issues and instead will prop him up as a qualified statesman. McCain, on the other hand, is a known quantity on these issues and his position does not excite nor fit the mainstream media’s narrative on Iraq and Afghanistan, so they simply ignore it and him.”
The other controversy revolves around The New York Times‘ refusal of a John McCain op-ed response to a recent Obama editorial on the Iraq War. In an email to the McCain campaign, Times Op-ed Editor David Shipley demanded a rewrite, saying that McCain would “have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory—with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.” McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds replied, “John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of The New York Times.”
 |
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: barack-obama, David Shipley, John-McCain, media, rush-limbaugh, The New York Times |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |  |
Share this: |
Soul searching
Several points:
1. McCain has, up till recently, received a pretty good ride from the media for quite a few years now. And there’s still a residual of good will toward him from the national news media.
2. The Obama campaign is doing a good job of keeping the focus on their man and relegating McCain to responding to it. Kudos to them.
3. The national news media does reflect, to one degree or another, the fascination that people have with Obama. I predict the closer we get to the election and the more the McCain camp attempts to “swift boat” him, the less of a factor that will be. But it will remain all the way to the election simply because Obama is making history.
4. Given that the NY Times is giving McCain free space in their paper, they do have the right to set the parameters. They asked him to write about a specific topic. He chose instead to make it about his opponent. Perhaps that’s the best he can do.
I thought is was funny how all the news reports last night were showing BHO making a three-point shot, over and over and over and over again, the same shot, during the reports on his trip to Afghanistan.
Is it true that the NYT gets to set the parameters for what McCain says there? Is there an “equal space” law like the the “equal time” law for broadcasting? Or has that whole thing gone by the wayside a long time ago? (I really don’t know.)
Janie,
There are no “equal space” requirements for any newspaper, including the editorial page. I think it’s admirable for the NY Times to offer McCain a “guest” spot. Given the wide readership of the NY Times, I’m betting McCain submits a re-write. He’d be dumb not to, as it’s a chance to reach people who might not ordinarily listen to him.
After the New York Times allowed Obama to write an op-ed piece on his position in Iraq, in fairness it ought to have allowed McCain to write a similar piece. Of course, the Times is slanted to Obama and had no problem stiffing McCain.
The networks- except for Fox- that are sending their anchors to cover Obama’s foreign trip are more subtle, though they too are slanted to Obama.
Theses are media realities that McCain has to deal with, just as Bush had to. Anyone who thinks that NBC, CBS, ABC, and the Times are fairly balancing coverage of this election isn’t paying attention.
If Rush said that, then Rush is right. But I’ve never read an easier prediction to make.
Remember “Swift Boating” was telling the truth about Kerry and his “heroics” in VietNam.
With only two candidates in the race now, there is absolutely no excuse for the NY Times to let Obama’s staff write a policy piece on their own terms but refuswe McCain and/or demand McCain’s piece be written on their terms.
They are cravenly leftist.
Anlir wrote; “McCain has, up till recently, received a pretty good ride from the media for quite a few years now…”
That was as long as McCain was obstructing Republicans, aiding Democrats, disparaging President Bush, excoriating Donald Rumsfield, seeking amnesty for illegals, crushing free speech (with his McCain/Feingold bill), preventing the appointment of conservative judges, criticizing the critics of John Kerry, and disaparging abortion protesters and undermining their rights.
But now McCain is talking like a conservative (sometimes, at least) and is running against a messianic socialist. It is predictable that mcCain would thus lose the media’s favor.
Anlir wrote: “The Obama campaign is doing a good job of keeping the focus on their man and relegating McCain to responding to it. Kudos to them.”
Huh? The Obama campaign is just doing what any campaign does, no better or worse than usual. It is the mainstream media that is doing the job of keeping the focus on their man (Obama) and ignoring McCain, where McCain is on defense or offense.
Re: #5
The NY Times was perfectly willing to let McCain write a similar piece. Only, he didn’t. So they’ve asked him for a re-write to comply with the same parameters they gave Obama.
And let’s not forget, this is a newspaper, which has every right to control it’s editorial page comment. McCain should be grateful for the opportunity. I doubt conservative newspapers would give Obama a chance to write an editorial in their paper?
It’s a typical conservative response to demand that a newspaper with a liberal editorial page turn over editorial control to the right-wing.
From the link;
For each of the weeks between June 9 and July 13, Obama had a much more significant media presence. The Project for Excellence in Journalism evaluates more than 300 political stories each week in newspapers, magazines and television to measure whether each candidate is talked about in more than 25 percent of the stories.
Every week, Obama played an important role in more than two-thirds of the stories. For July 7-13, for example, Obama was a significant presence in 77 percent of the stories, while McCain was in 48 percent, the PEJ said.
Sure, there are some weeks Obama’s going to make more news, said Tom Rosenstiel, the project’s director.
But every week?
“No matter how understandable it is given the newness of the candidate and the historical nature of Obama’s candidacy, in the end it’s probably not fair to McCain,” he said.
Even the media know it, but like Anlir, they think they can justify their bias.
Well I suspect that if Iraq maintains its goal of a nominal 2010 witrhdrawal AND McCain maintains consistency with his 2004 interview, then this issue is basically behind us:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD922CNLG0
http://www.cfr.org/publication/6973/
And the campaign can now turn to other business. Economy anyone?
When, A.J., has the media ever been “fair”?
All media is biased because it’s run by human beings, not robots. One might as well complain about the changing of the seasons.
The media savviness of the Obama campaign must also be taken into account. Like it or not, they’ve done a good job of keeping him in front of the news. And they’ve done a good job of exploiting the historic nature of his candidacy. I understand the bitterness and anger that engenders in Republicans. I’ll try not to laugh at y’all.
Media coverage is a matter of perspective and timing. About a month ago, the media debated if they were too biased toward McCain. AS for the NYT, even Ben Stein was willing to admit on CNN that its not unusual for the paper to demand a rewrite.
A quick Google search at democratic underground reveal complaints on the lack of coverage of McCain’s flip flops and his rape joke.
For a lengthy explanation of media bias toward McCain check;
http://mediamattersaction.org/freeride/myths/
Finally, you can’t complain just because Obama is better on tv and his campaign is more media savvy. Its not the media but McCain and his campaign that need to shake up if they wish to compete. Its not primary school where everyone takes turns to be fair, its the real world where competition is a real game. Ironically for all the stereotypes on this site, the left is out competing the right.
As the bumper stickers we sold in college read: CBS: RATHER Biased.
Anlir, all the alleged savvyness in the world would not help any presidential campaign if mainstream media bias was not already aimed in their direction. Keeping Obama “in front of the news” is something for which the media herself (Obama’s blushing bride) can take a bow.
American Thinker has a good piece on this topic. Wanna prove media bias? Follow the money.
http://tinyurl.com/5hmqme
The left-wing media smear machine, headed (at least nominally) by the ‘flagship’ NY Times, the Gray Prostitute of the Left, has attempted to influence and pervert the electoral process from day one.
The little stooges on the far-left who so earnestly pant for the global plantation (see the usual tripe by the usual suspects in their entries on this thread), snuffle contentedly along in the wake of the Soros-oiled Lie and Slander Machine.
The sophomoric smear campaign in the NY Times against McCain several months ago (Feb. I believe) was the opening volley.
Now you have the NY Times editorial staff (former Clinton-Democrat operatives and hatchet-men) censoring news and refusing to allow the views of a major party presidential candidate to be printed.
And of course the good little soldiers of the radical left (read posts by the usual suspects above) like that VERY much - their ideal environment would be the Soviet Union, the Left-wing ideal, where all news was manufactured and controlled and opposition is silenced - if necessary by a bullet in the back of the head.
The so-called ‘major’ media (TV, print, networks, cable) with the possible exception of Fox News and a few courageous independents, are completely co-opted as propaganda wings of the left-wing and the Democrat party - they have completely dropped all pretense to objectivity - even proudly proclaiming that they don’t even know what objectivity is.
The only hope for the Republic (and it may be a temporary fix only) is that enough people who still have some intelligence and love for this country can effectively counter the fifth column which is operating in and out of this country - whose goal is the destruction of America.
The Left is now desperate to silence and muzzle the voices in the ‘new media’, which is a thin line standing in their way of complete monopoly and control of all information, critical to their plans for seizing control of the country.
It will be interesting to see the implementation of Soviet-style repression (already planned and ready to be put into place) of free speech by the Democrats - and their Marxist-Leninist handlers - if they manage to seize complete power in this country.
It is their historical heritage and their dream.
It is the ‘change’ they ‘hope’ for.
And YOU are their target.
Look, WorldMag is biased. It presents news and views from a reformed Christian perspective. I don’t see y’all complaining about it’s bias. Why not?
Anlir: You are right - WorldMag presents news and views from a reformed Christian perspective. It is quite open and honest about that.
And if the NY Times simply presented news and views from a left-wing Socialist anti-American perspective, and admitted it, that would be fine.
Heck, even if they did not ADMIT it, that would be okay.
Instead they don’t just BIAS the news - that would be understandable - instead they lie, distort, slander and fabricate.
So, you see it isn’t really BIAS that is the problem.
It is journalistic fraud and corruption and manipulation of the news - of the lowest possible order - THAT is the REAL problem.
But that is the wonder of free enterprise - anyone who wants to plunk down money for tabloid trash, which is all the NY Times is, is welcome to do so.
I understand that fewer and fewer people are doing so.
Now THAT is good news.
Claims of bias spout forth from both camps each trying to embarrass the media into better and more coverage. The following youtube video has been cited by the left of ABC’s pro-MCain coverage;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46eAQHSfEgo
These complaints are both preceived as reality for both sides but are also used tactically to ensure better coverage later.
However, media coverage is part of the competitive environment created by an election campaign — if your lack the coverage don’t cry, out compete your opponent. Right now McCain just can’t compete.
I supposed the NY Times does present news and views from a left-wing Socialist anti-American perspective if one is looking at it from a far-right, fascist point of view.
The simple fact is, WORLD is honest about coming from a reformed Christian perspective, while the NY Times claims to be nonbiased. It’s a huge difference, but thanks for picking up on that, Anlir!
“far-right, fascist point of view.”
A characterization common to the unwitting followers of Stalin’s misleading nomenclature. Fascism is, by virtue of its big government footprint and economic organization that supports nationalization and control of industry, a phenomenon of the left. The chief distinction between fascism and communism is that between national and international socialism.
Once one escapes the antihistorical hysteria of the left, it becomes clear that American conservatives are at the farthest remove from Fascism.
McCains campaign has just released this video. It accurately reflects the media bias for Obama.
http://tinyurl.com/5h5fma
A very good summary, in the medias own words. Watch it, and then come back and tell me, with a straight face, that they’re not in Obamas pocket.
left-wing Socialist anti-American
A characterization common to the unwitting followers of fascism.
The conservative Christian nationalism that one sees regularly displayed on here is reminiscent of what we saw in Germany in the run-up to WWII. It’s dangerous stuff and it bears watching closely.
Even Terry McCauliffe when asked what percentage of media is in the tank for BO says “about 90%”.
Great video.
It is journalistic fraud and corruption and manipulation of the news - of the lowest possible order - THAT is the REAL problem.
And did you know that McCain was a POW?
there is absolutely no excuse for the NY Times to let Obama’s staff write a policy piece on their own terms but refuswe McCain and/or demand McCain’s piece be written on their terms.
JOEL, you’re confusing the opinion page of the NYTimes with a blog. If McCain wants to post his opinion (or his staff writers’) on his own terms, he can do so on Worldmagblog as often and as freely as he wants — just so long as he controls his foul mouth.
Anybody who writes for the The Times, however, does so on The Times’ terms. BTW, the Times submits its decisions and policies for review, on its own pages, by a public editor.
They are cravenly leftist.
I agree that the NYTimes is often craven, but not that it’s very leftist, proudly or otherwise.
As a lefty, here’s how I would describe the NY Times: cautious, even cowardly at times. The main NY Times editorial page (not their contributors or Op-Ed) is mostly moderate to moderate-left.
Anlir: You want to watch me (and other people who do not agree with your Socialist/Marxist-Leninist/Fascist ideology) closely?
How Orwellian. Dream on.
By the way - regarding Fascism:
You seem to be pretty close to that, actually, since Fascism and your worldview are both centered about the desirability of a repressive all-powerful controlling government, and the consequent elimination of liberty and self-determination. The ideal for you, based on the things you support and the things (and people) you appear to powerfully hate, I think being somewhere between a Forth Reich and Huxley’s Brave New World.
Pardon me for striving for something else entirely.
Scroop Moth: Please explain. Of course I know that McCain was a POW. What does that have to do with the NY Times discussion here?
Are is the NY Times now claiming that McCain was not a POW? That would not surprise me. Maybe they are using the same sources for their previous smears.
Last night even liberal CNN acknowledged that Obama gets twice the air time as McCain.
But what no one reports is an even more subtle bias which tends to cast liberals in a good light. For example, covering mostly liberal topics will naturally make liberals look better.
Pick any subject and the candidate which promises government handouts will always outshine one who wants to actually solve the problem.
Obama gets twice the air time
But he’s twice as interesting, and doesn’t always go around wearing a NAVY baseball cap.
McCain gets enough air time to scream at Obama to admit that McCain was right about The Surge and stuff like that. What more does he need?
You seem to be pretty close to that, actually, since Fascism and your worldview are both centered about the desirability of a repressive all-powerful controlling government, and the consequent elimination of liberty and self-determination.
Another statement that’s a flat out lie. What is it about conservatives and their addiction to lying?
It’s the conservatives who want the government monitoring the reproductive freedom of women.
It’s the conservatives who want the government monitoring what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.
It’s the conservatives who support the right of the President to snatch American citizens off the street, lock them up, hold them indefinitely, and deny them access to an attorney.
It’s the conservatives who support the listening to our phone calls, reading our mail, and rifling through our computers without a warrant.
It’s the conservatives who support the government collecting private data on the American people.
So it’s actually the conservatives who are developing a love affair with fascism in this country.
Ken
Fascism has many facets but it is agreed on its anti-communism and anti-socialism. Socially, it tends to be far more authoritarian than the left and demands that the individual be subservient to the state which is based upon national-cultural foundations. The focus is often on ridding the nation of degenerate behavior which is lower the strength of the state. Thus the pressure to conform is harsh and often a matter of life and death.
Economically it generally opposes nationalization (except key industries of war and culture) and instead demands that various corporate groups work together to be benefit the economy of the nation. Hence, trade unions are generally repressed while businessman are feted. Private initiative was encouraged. Economically this resembles the close integration of government and multinational corporations we see today rather than the state owned directed and centrally planned communist economies or even the collaborative planning of many European countries.
Fascism has many facets but it is agreed on its anti-communism and anti-socialism.
HRW, you need to read Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism, which cogently argues that starting with the French Revolution through Wilson, FDR, and Hillary Clinton and the usurping Supreme Court, the liberals have basically tried to get away with imposing their political nostrums forcefully on the public. National Socialism’s name in Germany was hardly an accident. Modern political correctness is in fact an egregious form of fascism, particularly in your gulag of Canada.
Fortunately conservative folk are onto the fascism of leftist outfits like the New York Times that presume to speak official truth.
Ken is right, HRW is wrong some. Anlir is out to lunch, as usual.
There is very little daylight between fascism and socialism - fascism is called NATIONAL socialism for a very good reason.
It is simply a variant on socialism, which is the over-riding left-wing goal (actually, only a waypoint in the greater/ultimate goal of creating a totalitarian Soviet-style (or Red Chinese - Mao variety) supreme State in which there is no individual liberty and all freedom and enterprise is eliminated.) A key feature of Fascism (as is true with Socialism in general) is the nationalization of major industries and the elimination of free enterprise in economics (i.e. state control of the economy).
HRW is correct to state that Fascism has aracial/national/cultural spin (the only real discernable differentiater between it and other forms of Socialism) - but other than that it is simply yet another depressing and brutal variantfrom the perverted offspring of the Left.
Note that every single policy that Anlir and company supports is essentially fascist or socialist in nature - large centralized all-powerful state, elimination of liberty and self-determination, State control of the individual and the economy, etc.
This also includes persecution and outlawing of religion, in particular Christianity, which is specifically antithetical to tyranny (which is itself rooted in hedonism and amorality). Hence we have the threats against Christians and Christianity in general which constantly emanate from Anlir and like-minded leftists.
a gulag in Canada?
The US has the most persons per capita held in some form of custody. I’d suggest the term gulag best fits the US prison system.
Yes I’ve parsed through Goldberg’s book at the bookstore — enough to say he is wrong. Fascism grew as a reaction to the French Enlightenment and the growth of classical liberal economics and socialism as its competing theory. Southern European theorists, aristocrats and the Catholic church sought to turn back the clock and suggested fascism as a response to the Enlightenment — its a reactionary doctrine.
Beyond that, I think Fascism as a term is not very useful in Anglo-American politics. As the originators of classical liberalism, the Anglo-American world has a fairly narrow political spectrum. It tends to stick with “liberal” thought while dithering on where they apply the free market — only in the economy or socially or both.
For what its worth, the Economist once mentioned Canada as being the only country with liberal economics and liberal social policies. That is liberal in the classical sense.
Drill, there is a key difference between socialism and fascism in the way they treat the economy and private enterprise. Although the fascist like to plan and are state oriented, they respected private property and private initiative. Businessmen did quite well in Italy, Germany and Spain in the 1930s. Germany did not centralize its economy until 1943 — long after the Allied powers did.
An other key difference is religion. Most socialist tend to view religion as an opiate or symbol of oppression. At the very least they see it as a diversion from more important goals in the here and now. The fascists will view religion as a central facet of the country’s culture, hence the strong support of fascism by the orthodox and catholic churches. Any non-cultural religious outlooks — atheism, agnostism, foreign religion or strange cults — will be persecuted such as Jews and Jehovah Witnesses.
Of course we could go on and on hurling insults back and forth on here. Drill and other conservative Christians constantly hurl insults at liberals (all the while claiming the love of Christ abides in them!). We liberals aren’t going to let them get away with that without a response. It’s too bad that’s what it’s come to again, but the vast majority of the blame goes to the conservative Christians, who make up 95% of the bloggers on here.
Anlir, of course 95% of the bloggers here are Christian in that WorldMag blog is Christian, orthodox and evangelical Christian at that. Fortunately we have a few anti-Christian skeptics of an apparently masochist tendency like you to have some fun with. Perhaps you could find some atheistic or agnostic blog where you could rail against those dastardly Christians to your heart’s content. You might even establish one of your moralistic contests to crown the most scathing of your anti-Christian confreres.
HRW, I happened to be referring to the Canadian Gulag that has hauled Mark Steyn before some human rights court on charges of anti-Islamic behavior on account of one of his tough-minded articles about the jihadi menace. I understand if one slights jihadi or homosexual behavior, one is regarded as an anti-social zealot. Oh the pleasures of life in a liberal fascist state. The next step will be to go after those evil capitalists.
I wouldn’t be any place else but here Peter. I know how much it enrages conservative Christians to have to put up with folks who don’t believe exactly like they do. We see their anger and hatred on full display every day on here through their personal attacks, incivility, lies, innuendo, slander and rumors.
They really should rename this site to “Conservative Christians Behaving Badly”.
HRW: Not sure I agree with you there. Even under Socialism, ‘business’ (under tight state control) is allowed, and those with the government-sanctioned blessings, indeed thrive.
Also, you seem (to me) to be mixing the idea of capitalism with free-enterprise. Socialism (and national Socialism) has no problem with large corporate state-sanctioned entities, essentially arms of the State, that is absolutely true.
Basically they are nationalized, to greater or lesser degrees. But competition is NOT allowed (or is regulated by the State) to any meaningful degree, i.e. free enterprise is essentially eliminated. That is the over-riding economic characteristic of Socialism, whether ‘classic’ or National.
Regards religion; I don’t agree there quite either. The roots of Socialism are in the French revolutionary era, when religion was first destroyed utterly, then ‘reshaped’ and neutured as a useful tool of the all-encompassing State. That is NOT real religion - however the historical Fascist states (actually Socialist - National variety) of Nazi Germany and Italy very carefully attempted to reshape and control religion (and as you note were very intolerant of non-Statist religion).
They (like Socialists in general) simply attempt to bring EVERYTHING under State control and to depress or eliminate all things individual. Nothing escapes the tentacles of the State. That is Socialism in general, and National Socialism (Fascism) is quite simply a variant of it, both historically and practically.
Peter
As I mentioned to Bob on an other thread, I along with most leftist including the left leaning Toronto Star support Mark Steyn. Jonathan Kay in the National Post wrote a column today which sums up my view along with most Canadians. In the end the groups dragging him to the HRC are shooting themselves in the foot. Finally get your terms straight HRC is a kangaroo court, a gulag is a prison system so large its virtually its own state.
Drill — lets move this away from Germany since it tends to confuse the issue. Chile in the 1970s started with a Socialist regime under Allende — he nationalized industries especially resource base and began the usual welfare programs. He was not very socially authoritarian — in fact he sought to give more opportunities to women in what was a male dominated society. Pinochet took over in a coup d’etat support by the US and install a near fascist regime — he denationalized the resource industries and open Chile to foreign investment. To make Chile to attractive to investment he took away worker rights and installed socially authoritarian rules. Chile’s economy became corporate that is a semi-planned economy which featured intertwined gov’t and corporate planning and control. In Chile, you have a socialist followed by a fascist and there you have the economic differences. Both featured heavy state control but the latter support private business far more than the socialist gov’t.
Drill — you need to understand the southern European roots of fascism as opposed to the Enlightenment and Revolution to understand the differing positions on religion. Once you accept the southern European origins of fascism, it becomes fairly evident that fascism has a soft spot for religion especially one that is part of the national culture. To better illustrate this, check into the Croatian Ustache regime and the Slovak clerical fascist state during WWII.
I think everyone on both sides should remember that the MSM has been in favor of the Dem candidate for a long time. They certainly were 8, then 4 years ago. It was presented as a given that Gore, then Kerry would win. Nevertheless, with all that help, with all the money that was spent, neither candidate won.
For those who assume that this is Obama’s election to lose, don’t think he can’t. And don’t think McCain can’t win. For those who feel the MSM is once again unfair, this may be so, but there are people who will actually take a look at Obama’s record and realize there is none. Not everyone is so easily led along as some here.
Anlir, you don’t get it. Far from enraging us your posts are usually absurd enough to be amusing. Every decent court is delightfully leavened by its fool.
NJLawyer post 49,
I find it interesting that in general allsides believe that the MSM is favoring the opposition.
It sounds like they are being relatively unbiased indeed!
In actuality there is no one MSM, there are many mainstream medias. And they are augmented by the internet.
Is the media fair? Nah, probably not.
Is the meia reasonably even handed? Possibly.
Does complaining about it make any difference? No.
Despite the rush to dergulation the media is still under a modestly wide spread ownership. If there is any consolidation it is arguably consolidation in conservative hands.
And at the end of the day, complaining doesn’t matter, but may perhaps act like raw meat in fornt of lions!
Des complaining about it make any difference?
I donno, musing, if McCain can get the NYTimes to demand revisions to his op-eds every time he gets shut out of the news by Obama’s antics, I think he just might pull off this election. Whining about the press is the food of Republican politics — sing on, McCain!
Peter,
See Dick Cheney for my response to your personal insult.
I’m with Scroop Moth — whining for attention usually works and at the very least forces the journalists to be self conscious
Anlir - i’m amused but not in the same manner as Peter.