Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Why Is the Media in the Tank for Obama?
Over at ABC News, Michael S. Malone has a long, thoughtful essay (complete with examples, though not as many as I would have liked to have seen) of why the MSM is so in the tank for Barack Obama. Here's his final pitch, more or less:
In other words, you are facing career catastrophe—and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway—all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.
And then the opportunity presents itself—an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.
With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.
And besides, you tell yourself, it's all for the good of the country ...
In case you're wondering who he is, he
covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation's first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times. He was editor of Forbes ASAP, the world's largest-circulation business-tech magazine, at the height of the dot-com boom. Malone is the author or co-author of a dozen books, notably the best-selling "Virtual Corporation." Malone has also hosted three public television interview series, and most recently co-produced the celebrated PBS miniseries on social entrepreneurs, "The New Heroes." He has been the ABCNews.com "Silicon Insider" columnist since 2000.
|10.27.08 @ 9:38AM|#
Why Is the Media in the Tank for Obama?
This is a question?
He's the Democrat, and 98% of the media is Democrat (unaffiliated
reporters are mostly communists, and support Democrats).
DUH
anon|10.27.08 @ 9:47AM|#
stupid question: "In the tank"
WTF does that mean?
Tank like a vat?
Tank like a panzer?
Where does the phrase come from?
Mad Max|10.27.08 @ 9:48AM|#
"why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up,
or rationalized, by the traditional media?"
I wasn't aware of this cover-up. I have certainly heard a great
deal about these gaffes - but then, maybe the media I consume isn't
mainstream.
gmatts|10.27.08 @ 10:01AM|#
I've always found it odd that people constantly bitch about the
bias in the mainstream media in one breath, and yet in the next
constantly state that no one watches/reads these same outlets. So,
if both are true, who the hell cares how biased a group is that no
one pays attention to?
Also, it's 2008. There are many differetn ways to get news
nowadays. We don't all sit around waiting for Walter Kronkite to
give us his take on the events of the day.
|10.27.08 @ 10:08AM|#
Vote for me, I'm inspirational! Jesse Jackson wants to cut my balls off, and Hillary Clinton wants me to get assassinated, so you know I can't be all bad.
|10.27.08 @ 10:10AM|#
Talk to an average Obama supporter and although they will know
who Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright are, they have barely heard of
Tony Rezko.
While Bill Ayers did what he did when Obama was 8 years old, Rezko
is a current and developing story. There are more than twice as
many Google references to Ayers than to Rezko. For that matter
there are more Google "Joe the Plumber" references than there are
Ayers references.
|10.27.08 @ 10:17AM|#
stupid question: "In the tank"
WTF does that mean?
http://www.slate.com/id/1787
Slate Explainer: In The Tank
nerd|10.27.08 @ 10:20AM|#
WTF does that mean?
You need to read slate ;-)
In the good old days, a swimming pool was a "tank".
Going into the tank, was taking a dive.
In boxing, it means to take a bribe to throw a match.
Extened to politics, it means to throw your "blind" support behind
someone.
|10.27.08 @ 10:27AM|#
The Rezko story has no punchline: alghough Obama obviously
accepted a favor from a sleazebag, no one has shown any credible
evidence of anything inappropriate that Obama did in return. That's
why McCain hasn't tried to hit the Rezko issue hard, and why would
the MSM?
McCain always had good relations with reported, and had a chance
for reasonable parity in MSM coverage until he picked Palin and
then basically barricaded her away from the media, save for her
several disastrous performances. She still has not given a press
conference. I don't think you can call the MSM unfair for
distrusting the McCain campaign under these circumstances.
|10.27.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Obama opted out of public campagn money and proceeded to raise
over 600 billion dollars mostly through small donations. Unlike
McCain he will not release the names of his small donors. Further,
the security settings on the Obama website have been disabled to
allow people to give under any name regardless of whether it
matches the credit card name.
Last I looked normally the biggest proponents for public funding of
campaigns and transparency in campaign finance is the major media.
If McCain had pulled such a stunt it would be on the front page
every day. Obama does it and the press just doesn't cover it.
Is the press going to decide to do its job if he gets in power? Why
is there any reason to believe that? If the press doesn't, who is
going to watchdog the government if they don't?
|10.27.08 @ 10:34AM|#
"MSM coverage until he picked Palin and then basically
barricaded her away from the media, save for her several disastrous
performances. She still has not given a press conference."
That is a steaming pile of horseshit. She talks to the media all
the time. They just don't report what she says. In contrast, Obama
hasn't given a press conference in weeks and is avoiding the
press
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obama-shuns-pre.html
And Biden flat out won't talk to the media.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/sarah-palin-b-3.html
But only Palin gets hit for it.
|10.27.08 @ 10:34AM|#
I can't think of any reason why the Obama campaign would disable
standard security settings for credit card donations, except to
facilitate violations of campaign finance laws by their
donors.
And, of course, they can collect all the money with perfect
deniability - "we didn't know this money came from foreign
nationals/exceeded individual donation limits."
I can hardly wait to see what people with this level of deviousness
and amorality can do once they get their hands on real power.
|10.27.08 @ 10:37AM|#
LOL, Obama is clearly the only logical choice here. McBush is a
proven liar whose word means nothing!
Jif
www.anonymity.cz.tc
|10.27.08 @ 10:45AM|#
The question is RC at what point do the media finally start to get cold feet? Or do they ever? At least among media circles Obama is a cult of personality. It takes some balls to stand up against such a thing when all of your friends and colleges are a part of it. Is there going to be any MSM figure who is willing to be disinvited from all the right parties and dropped from his social circle for going after Obama or will they all step in line and ignore everything that happens?
|10.27.08 @ 10:46AM|#
"Where does the phrase [in the tank] come from?"
A boxing slang. Another way to phrase it would be "the fix is in."
Get it? If not, google it.
|10.27.08 @ 10:48AM|#
"Obama is clearly the only logical choice here"
Jiff Woods -- Please enlighten us to the logic that you used to
choose Sen. Obama as the next Prez. They don't call it "Reason" for
nothing.
|10.27.08 @ 10:49AM|#
John, there's this thing called a press conference. You stand in
a room with a bunch of reporters and take questions, randomly fired
from the room, on whatever topics the reporters feel inclined to
ask about. Please provide the link of the date and time when Palin
ever submitted to this thing called a press conference. She is a
candidate for the second highest office in the land.
Obama has not only done numerous press conferences, he went on
O'Reilly. And no, John, Katie Couric is not the left-wing
equivalent of O'Reilly.
|10.27.08 @ 10:53AM|#
Wow. Project much?
Seriously, there are many reasons why the media would lean towards
Obama. However, the idea that people are supporting Obama because
he would give their lives meaning again is ludicrous. I'm with Mad
Max, I've heard all of Biden's major gaffes since he's been the VP
candidate, so the media is doing a bad job covering it up.
Could the coverage of the McCain campaign be bad because McCain is
running a bad campaign?
|10.27.08 @ 10:57AM|#
jbd,
He hasn't done them in weeks and he is avoiding the media. He is at
the top of the ticket. How can he just stop doing press
conferences. If you don't think that Palin, the VP candidate is
doing enough, fine but call out Obama for the same thing. Is Obama
a candidate or a cult leader? It is getting hard to tell.
Further, the NY Times went trolling facebook to find dirt on
McCain's wife and the media people going through Palin's trash.
Meanwhile, no one has bothered to interview any of the figures in
the Rezko deal or ask Obama one question about it. Obama flat out
lied about Ayers in the debate against Hillary Clinton when he said
"he was just a guy in the neighborhood." Then in the debate against
McCain he backtracked and admitted to working with him. No one ever
called him out on the lie. Didn't it used to be "it is not the
crime it is the cover up?" Not anymore, Obama can bold face lie in
debates and the media won't touch it. Do you really want the media
to have the same attitude towards a sitting President? Do you think
that is healthy for the country for its media to have no interest
in asking questions or holding the President to any
standards?
Oh I know the media will change and magically do its job once he
wins, that is it.
economist|10.27.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Barack Obama!,
While I considered these impressive points of your resume,
especially the Jesse Jackson "castration" comment, I still voted
for Bob Barr. Because I'd rather vote for a lying sack of shit who
won't win (and therefore will not be on my conscience) than one who
will win.
|10.27.08 @ 10:58AM|#
Regardless of their political agenda, the vast majority of media-types are "in the tank" because that's the best place to put a shark.
|10.27.08 @ 11:00AM|#
John,
When was the last time McCain did a press conference? Are you
really saying that Obama's lie about Ayers is the only time during
this election that either candidate has flat-out lied to the
American people? Take a Midol dude.
|10.27.08 @ 11:06AM|#
RE: Media Bias
Various polling agencies and journalistic think tanks have
consistently put the MSM in the 75-80% democratic camp. Media bias
is often in the eye of the beholder. However, when such a lack of
diversity reins in the newsrooms, excuuuse me for noticing a
certain skew in the reportage.
I am, by profession< a CPA. Our demographic skews 60-70%
republican/libertarian. If the two professions were switched, make
no doubt, what got in the nations newspapers and how the exact same
factual events were reported, would change significantly.
|10.27.08 @ 11:12AM|#
John,
When was the last time McCain did a press conference? Are you
really saying that Obama's lie about Ayers is the only time during
this election that either candidate has flat-out lied to the
American people? Take a Midol dude."
Pull your haed out of your ass. When is the last time anyone asked
Obama an uncomfortable question? Why haven't they covered the
camapaign contribution issue? No one has pushed for publicly funded
campaigns than the major media. Obama opts out and can't explain
where his money comes from and they dont' even report the story. Do
you honestly believe that they would do the same if a Republican
had done that? If you do, you need to cram the crowbar up your ass
and try wedge your head out.
strech|10.27.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Wait, I'm supposed to take an article that uses "Why hasn't the
New York Times interviewed Obama's teenaged drug dealer" as an
attack on the media seriously?
And I've heard about Biden's gaffes, and the endless
Wright/Ayers/Rezko/Etc. (ABC did break the "God Damn America"
tape). There may just be nothing new there.
It was pointed out over the summer that coverage of Obama was more
negative than the coverage of McCain at the time, although Obama
did get more coverage (it's been more negative on McCain recently,
however).
|10.27.08 @ 11:26AM|#
RE: Media Bias
What you now have ready to replace the dinosaur media model (notice
how I colored my argument by using a pejorative synonym for "old")
is kind of a flashback to the original yellow sheet journalism. I
don't need to tell this crowd the difference in reporting from
Townhall and Daily Kos. While I applaud the greater diversity of
ideas, I worry about the coming "balkanization" of the first draft
of history.
Gee, wouldn't a great business model be the complete and
dispassionate reporting of objective facts, along with diverse
analysis in a historical, economic, or social context?
Elemenope|10.27.08 @ 11:27AM|#
Weird. I always thought that "in the tank" referred to being in
a literal *tank*, on the front lines of some battlefield somewhere.
It works. too; the person is "in the tank" for someone, fighting
their battles for them, etc..
I find the real etymology of the phrase...boring, and so I'm
stubbornly going to hang on to my own.
|10.27.08 @ 11:29AM|#
No clue why the contributions thing hasn't gotten wider play
than just the NYTimes blog. Of course, I'm also not sure why Cindy
McCain's father's* mob connections hasn't gotten wider play. And
what's with Republicans being pissed off about not taking public
financing? All of the sudden, political contributions, which are
speech, are bad. Or is it just because they're going against an
unappealing candidate? Yeah, some media outlets are biased for
Obama, but it's balanced by other media outlets that are biased
against Obama, like Fox and talk radio.
You are aware that the WSJ has higher circulation numbers than the
NYT and that Fox destroys the ratings for MSNBC and CNN?
* The dude that help launch McCain's campaign.
economist|10.27.08 @ 11:30AM|#
"Is the Media in the Tank for Obama?"
For the purposes of the general election, yes. In the primaries
however, they were trying to get McCain the Republican nomination.
Which seems like the best evidence there is that the MSM is
controlled by a leftwing conspiracy.
vinny gates|10.27.08 @ 11:31AM|#
John, you're right about the MSM and Obama! It must be . . . a conspiracy!
|10.27.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Wait, I'm supposed to take an article that uses "Why hasn't
the New York Times interviewed Obama's teenaged drug dealer" as an
attack on the media seriously?
The funny thing is the NY Times did do a story about his teenaged
drug use and found that he probably exaggerated his drug use in the
book, rather than downplaying it.
Sean Scallon|10.27.08 @ 11:37AM|#
I think we found out what angle Mr. Malone is coming when he
included this bit in his piece:
"I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually
shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported
the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no
corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on
northern Israel."
I would ask Mr. Malone if he was the first to complain that the
media's focus on Al Gore'sighs eight years ago was a sign of
blatant bias against someone many reporters blatantly despised but
I have a feeling I doubt if he was at all was bothered by it.
For every right winger bitching about media bias I can go get Glenn
Greenwald and we can all have an interesting discussion about the
media's coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq War and how people like
Phil Donahue were run off MSNBC because of their views. But it's
still amazing that conservatives and or libertarians complain about
press bias and yet conviently forget that other than NPR are
businesses owned by private companies or private individuals and
are absolutly under no obligation to be fair or unfair to your
point of view? Why then do ideolouges so rile themselves up into a
frenzy or something they can't control? Do they wish to mimic their
liberal brethern and establish a fairness doctrine for internet or
the printed page?
Mr. Malone's argument was relevent 20 years ago when we only had
one cable new network and three major networks, no internet and
talk radio syndication in its infancy. Today we have a media
universe of different website and news outlets. If Mr. Malone wants
to see bash-Obama 24/7 he can go to Fox News, he can go to Newsmax
or the Druge Report or Townhall.com or Red State and indulge
himself. And voters have those options as well with a simple click
of the mouse or the remote on the TV.
Long ago, many newspapers in this country used to be run by local
political parties. Long ago, editors had no problems putting
opinion pieces in with the news (read an old Chicago Tribune during
the 1930s). Long ago, you knew where papers stood politically.
There's nothing wrong with that so long as everyone's agenda is on
the table and is transparent and people have alternatives to choose
from. The problem in the recent past is that wasn't true and the
media tried to fool people into thinking they were "objective" when
everyone knew that was impossible on a human level and impossible
from a business model.
So what is ultimately Mr. Malone's argument? If mainstream press is
dying and no longer a relevent institution, what the hell does he
care what they write or say? Does he honestly believe McCain would
be ahead if they did a hatchet job on Obama?
You can't have it both ways Mr. Malone. If the industry is dying,
then let it die in peace. Don't try to resurrect it by giving it
powers it doesn't have. I'm sorry McCain is losing badly or that
not enough Lebanese Shiites got killed by Israeli bombs to suit
your tastes but it's not the media's fault such things
happened.
Either they're relevent and have power or they don't so please
makeup your mind.
Jersey!|10.27.08 @ 11:43AM|#
I agree with Nick Gillespie that this essay is "thoughtful;"
more so then Gillespie's comparison of the drug war with Dachau, at
least.
But I think the following graph is the real meat of the story
-
Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican
presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an
interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know
all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko
that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that
hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost
always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional
media?
So, Malone wants the media to 1. Find the person who sold Obama
drugs when he was a teenager (I think Obama admitted to said habit
in high school and Columbia, and not "grad school".) 2. Interview
Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko and 3. Cover Biden Gaffes.
To which I'd reply, covering 1. would be extremely dumb, although
the Times did interview someone who claimed that Obama overstated
his drug use; 2. really is "that hard" as Ayers is keeping his trap
shut and Rezko is in jail as far as I know and 3. Good point - the
Hezbollah gaffe was pretty bad; but I'm sure I can find many McCain
gaffes that were ignored.
As for Joe the Plumber, I'd argue that digging into his private
life was wrong, but generally a media habit and not meant to help
Obama. In fact, dig deep enough and you'd find this -
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_3.html.
The union thing is bad, the drug war is bad, ignoring Biden's
gaffes is bad, but the case for bias is unpersuasive, to say the
least.
Sean Scallon|10.27.08 @ 11:45AM|#
I think we found out what angle Mr. Malone is coming when he
included this bit in his piece:
"I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually
shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported
the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no
corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on
northern Israel."
I would ask Mr. Malone if he was the first to complain that the
media's focus on Al Gore'sighs eight years ago was a sign of
blatant bias against someone many reporters blatantly despised but
I have a feeling I doubt if he was at all bothered by it.
For every right winger bitching about media bias I can go get Glenn
Greenwald and we can all have an interesting discussion about the
media's coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq War and how people like
Phil Donahue were run off MSNBC because of their views. But it's
still amazing that conservatives and or libertarians complain about
press bias and yet conviently forget that other than NPR,
newspapers and other media are businesses owned by private
companies or private individuals and are absolutly under no
obligation to be fair or unfair to your point of view. Why then do
ideolouges so rile themselves up into a frenzy or something they
can't control? Do they wish to mimic their liberal brethern and
establish a fairness doctrine for internet or the printed
page?
Mr. Malone's argument was relevent 20 years ago when we only had
one cable new network and three major networks, no internet and
talk radio syndication in its infancy. Today we have a media
universe of different websites and news outlets. If Mr. Malone
wants to see bash-Obama 24/7 he can go to Fox News, he can go to
Newsmax or the Druge Report or Townhall.com or Red State and
indulge himself. And voters have those options as well with a
simple click of the mouse or the remote on the TV.
Long ago, many newspapers in this country used to be run by local
political parties. Long ago, editors had no problems putting
opinion pieces in with the news (read an old Chicago Tribune during
the 1930s or Manchester, N.H. Union-Leader). Long ago, you knew
where papers stood politically. There's nothing wrong with that so
long as everyone's agenda is on the table and is transparent and
people have alternatives to choose from. The problem in the recent
past is that wasn't true and the media tried to fool people into
thinking they were "objective" when everyone knew that was
impossible on a human level and impossible from a business
model.
So what is ultimately Mr. Malone's argument? If mainstream press is
dying and no longer a relevent institution, what the hell does he
care what they write or say? Does he honestly believe McCain would
be ahead if they all of a sudden did a hatchet job on Obama?
You can't have it both ways Mr. Malone. If the industry is dying,
then let it die in peace. Don't try to resurrect it by giving it
powers it doesn't have. I'm sorry McCain is losing badly or that
not enough Lebanese Shiites got killed by Israeli bombs to suit
your tastes but it's not the media's fault such things
happened.
Either they're relevent and have power or they don't so please make
up your mind.
Geoff Nathan|10.27.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Being the resident linguist I investigated the issue of 'in the
tank', and discovered there are two expressions:
'in the tank', meaning roughly 'hit rock bottom', 'a complete
failure', and
'in the tank for NOUN', which means to be a supporter of.
I'd never heard the latter before reading this article, but found
it online in various places.
|10.27.08 @ 11:57AM|#
"I'm sorry McCain is losing badly or that not enough Lebanese
Shiites got killed by Israeli bombs to suit your tastes but it's
not the media's fault such things happened."
I think the problem is not enough Jews were killed by shiites for
the media's taste.
If the media bias isn't making any difference and everyone knows
they are biased anyway, why are you so pissed off about someone
pointing out the obvious?
Further, if you are such a believer in free speech, I assume you
object to the fairness doctrine and the broad application of
campaign finance laws to restrict speech? I expect you will be
really riled up about those things come the next administration.
Right?
|10.27.08 @ 12:06PM|#
gmatts,
The MSM is consumed only by other people.
I have a television but I never turn it on except to watch PBS
osccasionally.
Sean Scallon|10.27.08 @ 12:16PM|#
How do you know I'm pissed off John? Right now as I write the
sun is shining and I having a nice cup of coffee. What's there to
be pissed off about?
I just want to shake my head to see another "liberal media is
steering election to Democrats," bitch and moan piece by some
neocon. As I said, the media bias argument had its day, now it is a
dinosaur. So drop it. There's plenty of crticism of Obama in the
media universe and Mr. Malone doesn't have to do much to find it.
Instead, he and you and others are still obsessed over what goes in
the New York Times.
Is this instutition dead or does it have relevance? Answer the
question please and what does it matter anyway given that the New
York Times is free to be as liberal as it wishes to be given that
it is a private company, just as Fox News is free to be as
conservative as it wishes to be?
Yes I am against the Fairness Doctrine and do not wish to see it
reinstated.
|10.27.08 @ 12:18PM|#
John | October 27, 2008, 10:28am | #
Unlike McCain he will not release the names of his small
donors.
Neither of them are required to.
Further, the security settings on the Obama website have been
disabled to allow people to give under any name regardless of
whether it matches the credit card name.
These systems don't match names, so Obama's doing exactly as much
matching as McCain in that regard.
The Washintong Post covered this yesterday. Much like ACORN it's
really only a big deal if you ignore all credible examinations of
what's going on and just repeat BS talking points of desperate
nutbag conspiracy theory bloggers.
|10.27.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Type Palin press conference in Google and see what you get. Not
much.
The headline is a generalization fallacy. The media is not in the
tank for Obama. The left leaning outlets may be but the right
leaning outlets are not. I love the way the right leaning media has
made "media" a dirty word and exclude themselves when the term is
thrown around.
|10.27.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Further, if you are such a believer in free speech, I assume
you object to the fairness doctrine and the broad application of
campaign finance laws to restrict speech? I expect you will be
really riled up about those things come the next administration.
Right?
I cringe as I type this.
Good point John.
Yes, different media outlets display different biases. Some are
very transparent about it, others are more subtle, but the bias is
still detectable to an intelligent reader/viewer.
This is as it has always been in a society with guarantees of free
expression. Campaign finance laws beyond full and immediate
disclosure and the odious fairness doctrine are like throwing the
baby out with the bathwater.
|10.27.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Obama is not running against Palin. If you want to honest about comparing press conferences. Compare Obama to McCain.
Jim Henley|10.27.08 @ 12:35PM|#
I've been hearing about "liberal media bias" since the 1970s. And yet, during that time, Republicans have won the Presidency many times. Logic suggests that on those occasions when Republicans lose the Presidency, they need a different excuse than LMB.
shecky|10.27.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Could the coverage of the McCain campaign be bad because McCain is
running a bad campaign?
Indeed. The most obvious observation I've noticed is that Obama's
strength so far has been to keep his mouth shut and let McCain dig
his own grave. A very wise move. And not only does he allow McCain
to show the world what a nasty temperament he has, the nature of
the Palin pick very much allows Obama to run against her, too. She
has rightfully drawn much attention, going from virtual unknown to
extreme notoriety in the span of only a couple months. And it
simply hasn't made McCain look good.
McCain has gotten lots of negative scrutiny. And it's been all well
deserved.
|10.27.08 @ 1:06PM|#
The simple fact that the media treated the selection of Sarah Palin as anything more serious than McCain telling the USA to go fuck itself demonstrates that, if anything, the media has a conservative bias.
|10.27.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Further, if you are such a believer in free speech, I assume
you object to the fairness doctrine and the broad application of
campaign finance laws to restrict speech? I expect you will be
really riled up about those things come the next administration.
Right?
Right. I have no desire to see a return of the fairness doctrine. I
have no desire to see an expansion of campaign finance laws. Heck,
I would prefer to see a roll-back of the current campaign finance
laws.
By the way, if you dislike campaign finance laws, McCain (of
McCain-Feingold) is not your man. He also has been quoted as saying
he wants to strengthen campaign finance laws because of Obama's
huge take. Apparently, millions of small donors (I'm talking about
the legit ones, rather than the fraudulent ones) are a threat to
democracy. Instead, campaigns should be financed by large donors,
political parties, all taxpayers and your heiress wife.
|10.27.08 @ 1:11PM|#
The simple fact that the media treated the selection of
Sarah Palin as anything more serious than McCain telling the USA to
go fuck itself demonstrates that, if anything, the media has a
conservative bias.
When did that happen? Link please.
zoltan|10.27.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Instead, campaigns should be financed by large donors,
political parties, all taxpayers and your heiress
wife.
Yowch!
|10.27.08 @ 2:05PM|#
October 17, 2008, 5:34 PM
Palin Press Conference
Posted by Scott Conroy| 18
From CBS News' Scott Conroy:
(NOBLESVILLE, IND.) - For the first time since becoming a candidate
for the vice presidency in late August, Sarah Palin held an
on-camera press conference with her full travelling press corps on
the short flight from Ohio to Indiana this afternoon.
Though the media availability lasted only about seven minutes,
Palin touched on a range of subjects from Obama's relationship with
Rev. Jeremiah Wright ("He sat in the pews for 20 years and heard
Reverend Wright say some things that most people would find a bit
concerning.") to whether she's going to vote in Alaska on Election
Day ("We don't know what the plan will be yet.")
Read the full transcript below:
Q: So how come you've dropped the attacks on Obama and Ayers
lately?
A: "Well, I think that American voters are understanding that
association-that it's OK to talk about fact. Of course, Barack
Obama had been bringing it up, even in challenging John McCain on
that, saying if you want to talk about it, talk about it, too, so
McCain did that, and the association is out there. It's up now to
the people of America to decide whether that association is
important enough to them to research and find out more about a
person's judgment and truthfulness."
Q: Just to follow up on that, you said that, you know, 'Obama
doesn't see America the way you and I see America.' Do you think
Obama loves America as much as you do?
A: "I know Obama loves America. I'm sure that is why he's running
for president. It's because he wants to do what he believes is in
the best interest of this great nation. I believe that our ticket
can do a better job for America as we reduce taxes and reign in
government and allow our private sector and our families to
prosper, to grow, and to keep more of what they earn and produce so
that they can reinvest according to our own priorities. I think
that that is best to get the economy back on track. It's a better
agenda for America. But I don't question at all Barack Obama's love
for this great country."
Q: It's unusual for a Republican campaign to be campaigning in
North Carolina and Indiana halfway through October in an election
year, are you concerned you are spending resources in states and
places you shouldn't be.
A: "I think it's wise not to take anything for granted and assume
that any state is a lock for either ticket, so if there were more
hours in the day and more availabilities I would hope that we can
be in even more states even those that maybe were down in maybe
those that we assume are a lock. I don't want to take anything for
granted, and my input has been let us get out there to as many
states as we have time for."
Q: Governor, the Washington Post and Peggy Noonan both said
independently today that you are unqualified to be commander in
chief. How do you respond to that?
A: "Well, we talked a lot already about my executive experience
that will be put to good use as vice president and if heaven
forbid, anything happened to John McCain, if we're so blessed to be
elected president and vice president, that executive experience
will be put to good use, as coming from a mayor and a manager,
small business owner and a governor and a regulator of oil and gas.
That's important, but as important is the world view that I share
with John McCain and the intentions that we have there to put in
place policies that will put government back on the side of the
American people and we'll win these wars and help secure our
nation. Those things all put together will be put to good use and
if I felt I was not ready I would never have said yes, I wanna take
on this responsibility, this challenge, this opportunity to run for
vice president as his partner."
Q: You talk a lot about voter fraud. How concerned are you guys
about that and what can you do at this point when we're just 18
days out to kind of put any safeguards in place?
A: "I think voters are very concerned about voter fraud and as more
and more revelation comes in these 13 states that are now under
investigation for potential voter fraud, I think that more American
voters are becoming very very concerned. There are safeguards
already that are in place but evidently they're not being adhered
to or implemented certainly in Ohio if the secretary there not
seeming to desire to reassure voters that all securities are being
taken care of to make sure that there is no, there's no fraudulent
activity at all, that those who are registered to vote are eligible
to vote. And obviously there's proof that that is not happening
right now. So American voters are concerned about this, I'm
concerned about it."
Q: Did you ask John McCain to bring up Reverend Wright more and if
so what did he say?
A: "No I have not asked him to bring it up."
Q:: Do you think he should?
A: "It's up to him you know and what he chooses to discuss. I think
that calling someone--an opponent on their record and even on their
associations isn't--it's not mean spirited. It's not negative
campaigning. It is fair to the electorate to have the discussion -
the debate about someone's record and associations, but I haven't
advised Senator McCain on who he should bring up and what his
topics of discussion should be."
Q: How often during the day do you talk to Sen. McCain?
A: "Uh, a couple of times of day. And e really enjoy being able to
campaign together and I wish we could do more of that together
because we have I think some great synergy and really great
chemistry and we get along so well that not only is it very
productive but its also fun to be able to campaign with him he's
got so much energy and its always a good time for all of our camps
and our families to be together but we speak on the phone on the
phone when we're snot physically there together campaigning
together on the trail."
Q: What do you talk about?
A: "We talk about the news of the day, about what the issues are
that seem to be resonating that, certainly, that you all are
reporting on. And just a lot of reinforcement and encouragement of
each other that again we are on the right track and explaining to
all Americans our plans to reduce taxes and to get our economy back
on track. They're great conversations, and very productive, very
helpful for both of us."
Q: "Are you excited for tomorrow night? Can you give us a
preview?"
A: Oh man. I'm excited for tomorrow night. I have no idea what to
expect because I haven't seen any scripts or anything else yet, but
it will be fun. The opportunity to show American television
watchers anyway that you get to have a sense of humor through all
of this or even just this really would be wearin', tearin' on you
so an opportunity to show that sense of humor and that side of all
of this I look forward to it.
Q: Isn't Reverend Wright a lot more relevant than Bill Ayers? I
mean he sat in his pews for 20 years.
A: "That's up to John McCain to decide. (Crosstalk) That's true. He
sat in the pews for 20 years and heard Reverend Wright say some
things that most people would find a bit concerning. But again that
is John McCain's call."
Q: Last night at the fund raiser you made a comment about the area
being a pro-America area of the country. I was wondering if you
could explain that a little bit more, what you meant by
pro-America?
A: "Every area, every area across this great country where we're
stopping and where also the other ticket is stopping and getting to
speak at these rallies and speak with the good Americans, it's all
pro-America. I was just reinforcing the fact that there, where I
was, there's good patriotic people there in these rallies, so
excited about positive change and reform of government that's
coming that they are so appreciative of hearing our message,
hearing our plan. Not, not any one area of America is more
pro-America patriotically than others."
Q: Are you going back to Alaska to vote?
A: "We don't know what the plan will be yet on there if--if I'm not
there physically we will be applying for that absentee ballot and
we'll do the early voting there. Yeah. And we'll do it fairly."
|10.27.08 @ 2:13PM|#
ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (CNN) -- With 10 days until Election
Day, long-brewing tensions between GOP vice presidential candidate
Gov. Sarah Palin and key aides to Sen. John McCain have become so
intense, they are spilling out in public, sources say.
Several McCain advisers have suggested to CNN that they have become
increasingly frustrated with what one aide described as Palin
"going rogue."
A Palin associate, however, said the candidate is simply trying to
"bust free" of what she believes was a damaging and mismanaged
roll-out.
McCain sources say Palin has gone off-message several times, and
they privately wonder whether the incidents were deliberate. They
cited an instance in which she labeled robocalls -- recorded
messages often used to attack a candidate's opponent --
"irritating" even as the campaign defended their use. Also, they
pointed to her telling reporters she disagreed with the campaign's
decision to pull out of Michigan. Watch why the campaign is
fighting »
A second McCain source says she appears to be looking out for
herself more than the McCain campaign.
"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain
adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of
us, her family or anyone else.
"Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the
next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto
themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all
wisdom."
A Palin associate defended her, saying that she is "not good at
process questions" and that her comments on Michigan and the
robocalls were answers to process questions.
But this Palin source acknowledged that Palin is trying to take
more control of her message, pointing to last week's
impromptu news conference on a Colorado tarmac.
Tracey Schmitt, Palin's press secretary, was urgently called over
after Palin wandered over to the press and started
talking. Schmitt tried several times to end the
unscheduled session.
Pete Guither|10.27.08 @ 2:33PM|#
I think the article is a bit too simplistic in its view. It used
to be that the conventional wisdom was that the media was in love
with John McCain. They went on endlessly about his Straight Talk
Express and palling around with him at his Barbecues.
Now different people can have different opinions on how straight
the candidates have been recently, or exactly what qualifies as
experience, or how many press conferences of what type are
appropriate, but it's no secret that the recent appearance
at least, independent of the coverage, is that the Obama campaign
has their act together and the McCain campaign does not.
It seems more likely that this is what the media is picking up
on.
Just like when the appearance was that, since Kerry wasn't
able to respond effectively to smears, his campaign didn't have it
together, and the media sometimes picked up on that.
gmatts|10.27.08 @ 3:54PM|#
"I love the way the right leaning media has made "media" a dirty
word and exclude themselves when the term is thrown around."
It's because a lot of people on the right find pleasure from
believing that they are under attack from all sides - whether it's
the War on Christmas/Christianity, the Culture War, the big, bad
liberal media, etc. Just look at the titles of the books that
people like Tom DeLay, Sean Hannity, O'Reilly, Gingrich, etc write.
They all have, for such a large group of non-combatants, in their
titles words like "War", "Fight", "No Surrender" and the like. They
live in a fantasy world where they think they are still children
playing w/ their GI Joe's and M-80's.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245