Sunday, September 18, 2011

It's long past time for the media to put down the pom-poms

The evidence of media cheerleading for Obama is extensive.  Here's the WashPost media analyst Howard Kurtz back in July 2007:
HOWARD KURTZ, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Barack Obama had been getting the most glorious press coverage perhaps in the history of the republic. I mean, the press just acted like this guy walked on water. 
Here's Kurtz again in December 2007 quoting Newsweek's Howard Fineman:
Newsweek's Howard Fineman says Obama's coverage is the buzz of the presidential campaign. "While they don't say so publicly because it's risky to complain, a lot of operatives from other campaigns say he's getting a free ride, that people aren't tough enough on Obama," Fineman says. "There may be something to that. He's the new guy, an interesting guy, a pathbreaker and trendsetter perhaps."
A couple weeks before the election, the WashPost reported this shocker: "Study: Coverage of McCain much more negative than that of Obama"
Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says. 
Now, by way of Ace of Spades, here's Rex Murphy of the National Post suggesting that the media take a hard look at the abrogation of duty that elevated Obama: "The media's love affair with a disastrous President"
As the bad economic news continues to emanate from the United States — with a double-dip recession now all but certain — a reckoning is overdue. American journalism will have to look back at the period starting with Barrack Obama’s rise, his assumption of the presidency and his conduct in it to the present, and ask itself how it came to cast aside so many of its vital functions. In the main, the establishment American media abandoned its critical faculties during the Obama campaign — and it hasn’t reclaimed them since.
It's not too late to amend your ways, mainstream media.  Just play fair, for once.


Len Bias said...

Truly disgusting. Remember the media's sycophantic refusal to acknowledge, let alone cover Jeremiah Wright and “terrorist fist jabs” and inexperience and Bill Ayers and the public funding "flip-flop" and Tony Rezko and the childhood madrassa and the missing birth certificate and the other non-stories that accompanied King Obama’s coronation?

Yes, the Obama lovefest was a disgrace (all quotes taken from 2008):

*Salon's Jake Tapper: "Just a cool dude."

*MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "Kind of like a Martin Luther."

*Slate's Jacob Weisberg: "An original, imaginative, and at times inspiring candidate."

*”60 Minutes”’ Mike Wallace: “There’s something authentic about this man.”

*The New York Times' R.W. Apple: "A man of unshakable character, willing to stand up for his convictions."

*Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria: "A man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage."

U.S. News & World Report’s Roger Simon: “[He] conveys a great sense of vigor, a sense that anything can happen on his campaign."

*ABC News' Terry Moran: "Blunt, unyielding, deploying his principles.... What he does do is what he's always done, play it as straight as possible."

*Newsweek's Michael Hirsch: "Worldly-wise and witty, determined to follow the facts to the exclusion of ideology... willing to defy his own party and forge compromise...pragmatic in the service of the national interest... rises to passion when he believes that America's best values are at stake."

*The Boston Globe's David Nyhan: "He rises above the pack."

*The Washington Post's Dana Milbank: "The bravest candidate in the presidential race."

*The Washington Post's David Broder: "In an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties, [he] is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest."

*MSNBC's Mike Brzezinski: "The perfect candidate to deal with what challenges we face as a country."

Oops! My mistake. They were all talking and writing about John McCain. Nevertheless, we still know the truth. Thank goodness there’s Howard “McCain engages in anti-spin” Kurtz to keep a suspicious eye on things.

Len Bias said...

Anyway, we all recall the negative John McCain coverage in 2008 by the so-called "unbiased" liberal media. For instance, the following vicious attack on McCain’s unprincipled “anything for a vote” flipflops:

“There is something refreshing about a man who wins so many votes despite a major political shortcoming: he is abysmal at pandering...
For years, Mr. McCain denounced ethanol subsidies, which exist mostly because every ambitious politician in America wants to win the Iowa caucuses someday. This year he claimed that he liked ethanol after all, but he was so manifestly insincere and incompetent in this pandering that the episode was less contemptible than amusing....
When he does try double-talk, he looks so guilty and uncomfortable that he convinces nobody....
In short, Mr. McCain truly has principles that he bends or breaks out of desperation and with distaste. That’s preferable to politicians who are congenital invertebrates....
Mr. McCain himself would probably acknowledge every one of these flaws, and he is a rare politician with the courage not just to follow the crowd but also to lead it. It is refreshing to see that courage rewarded by voters.”

But then, what else could we expect from the New York Slimes?