View topic - Media in the Tank?

[thesteelhammer Profile]

Watch it for yourself and decide.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/matthews_obama_MSNBC/2008/11/06/148615.html

MSNBC host Chris Matthews is making preliminary inquiries into running to unseat Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, while openly declaring himself an active supporter of the Obama administration.

Matthews described it as his “job” to help Obama on Thursday during Joe Scarborough’s “Morning Joe” program.

Matthews’ remarks, and his other political activities, appear to flirt with parent-company NBC’s policy prohibiting any staff member from taking an active role in any political campaign.

Scarborough’s exchange with Matthews Thursday morning:

Matthews: “I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work.”

Scarborough: “Is that your job? You just talked about your being a journalist.”

Matthews: “Yeah, that’s my job. My job is to help this country.”

Scarborough: “So your job as a journalist is to make this presidency work?”

Matthews: “To make this work successfully, because this country needs a successful presidency, more than anything right now.”

Moments later, Time magazine editor Richard Stengel took exception to Matthews’ description of his role as a journalist.

“Walter Cronkite once famously said that journalists are skeptical so the public doesn’t become cynical,” Stengel said. “As Americans, we want of course Barack Obama to succeed and we want the country to thrive.

“As journalists, we have to hold his feet to the fire. That is our responsibility. Frankly, I think that’s our constitutional responsibility. That is why the press is protected in the Constitution.”

Matthews’ comments were but the latest in a series of actions that blur the line between journalism and politics:


?In reference to speculation that Specter might not run for re-election, Matthews told host Stephen Colbert in April on the “Colbert Report”: “When you grow up, some kids want to be a fireman. I want to be a senator.”


In October, The New York Times reported that Matthews attended a private dinner meeting hosted by Robert Wolf, a major Obama fundraiser and the president of UBS’s investment bank. The meeting was attended by a dozen top Democratic movers and shakers, including Jeff Kindler, CEO of Pfizer; Jim Torrey, co-founder of the Torrey Associates hedge fund; and Ned Lamont, who lost a Senate bid to independent Democrat Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Wolf told the Times that the Pennsylvania Senate race was “on the periphery of the meeting.”


Former Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Hoeffel, a Democrat who ran against Specter in 2004, told Roll Call recently that Matthews consulted him about a possible Senate run. “He was thinking about it enough to chat with me a little about it when we bumped into each other socially,” Hoeffel told Roll Call. Hoeffel advised Matthews to embark on a statewide listening tour, similar to the exploratory moves Hillary Clinton made before her first Senate run, in order to measure reaction to his candidacy.


The Southwest Caucus Party chairman of the Democratic Party, Jack Hanna, said Matthews has been phoning Democratic leaders and “laying the groundwork” for a possible run. By discussing his interest with party leaders, Matthews could be warning off potential rivals who might otherwise toss their hats in the ring.

Earlier in the election cycle, Matthews remarked that hearing Obama speak sent “a chill down my leg.” In September, MSNBC announced that it would remove Matthews and fellow firebrand host Keith Olbermann from covering the elections as anchors, but would continue to use them as analysts. The Times reported that NBC anchors Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw had found it increasingly difficult to defend MSNBC’s political tilt.

On Election Day, Matthews at times appeared to blend the roles of co-anchor and analyst.

Matthews told New York Times reporter Bill Carter in October: “Right now, I have a professional responsibility to cover this campaign and politics generally with objectivity. I can’t be involved in anything like that. It has to be off the table,” he said in an apparent reference to his political interests.

He also maintained, “I’ve never told anyone that I’m running.”

Matthews’ program has enjoyed stronger ratings lately, and executives at NSNBC and NBC News have said they do not want to discuss Matthews’ politics.

“This is a nonissue for us,” MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines told the Times reporter. “ ‘Hardball’ is doing better than ever.”

[thesteelhammer Profile]

The Washington Post has admitted their pro-Obama bias.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/post_obama_bias_media/2008/11/09/149343.html

[Rafterman Profile]

Media in the tank for Obama?

Try country in the tank for Obama!

[thesteelhammer Profile]

Here is the article from the Washington Post admitting their bias and breaking it down by the numbers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

[Steelhope Profile]

The Washington Post has admitted their pro-Obama bias.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/post_obama_bias_media/2008/11/09/149343.html

What newspapers have leanings toward certain political views?????
wow revolutionary...that probably has not happened since ....THE BEGINNING OF NEWSPAPERS NUMNUTTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[thesteelhammer Profile]

The Washinton Post, MSNBC, and now Time Magazine.

http://newsmax.com/insidecover/media_bias_halperin/2008/11/23/154417.html

The mainstream media's support for Barack Obama's presidential campaign was so biased that even major insiders are now admitting they were shocked by its depth and depravity.


Last week, Time magazine's Mark Halperin called the media's performance during the campaign simply "disgusting."


Halperin told a panel of media analysts at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election, "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war."


He added, "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."


According to the Web site Politico, Halperin, who edits Time's political site "The Page," zeroed in on two New York Times articles near the end of the campaign that profiled both Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama.


"The story about Cindy McCain was vicious," Halperin said. "It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it cast her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."


But the Times gave Michelle Obama red carpet treatment, "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is."


Halperin, a former ABC News political director, allowed that some of the press coverage simply reflected the extreme efficiency of Obama's presidential campaign.


"You do have to take into account the fact that this was a remarkable candidacy," Halperin said. "There were a lot of good stories. He was new."


Obama also had a lot of money and outspent Republican John McCain by more than 2 to 1.


The press never bothered to hold Obama accountable for reneging on his promise to use public financing. McCain kept his promise to do so.


During the campaign, conservatives criticized the pro-Obama coverage, but it had little effect.


Columnist David Limbaugh noted: "Never has that been clearer than in the 2008 presidential election, during which they are covering up rather than covering Barack Obama's shady past and alliances, his knee-deep involvement in corrupt practices threatening the very core of our democratic system, and his many policy misrepresentations."


Limbaugh noted that the press went into a tizzy over Sarah Palin's wardrobe, but ignored extravagances like Obama's "obscenely idolatrous million-dollar Greek coliseum mirage."


Now that the election is over, Halperin is not alone in admitting the bias. The Washington Post's ombudsman recently conceded that the paper’s coverage was skewed strongly in favor of Obama and against the McCain-Palin ticket.

[raleigh-steelman Profile]

Good God Hammer quit your crying already. McCain lost, the media will always have it's bias and it differs between stations. It just happens this time around they didn't like your guy. It's not his fault Bush fucked things up so bad that they favored they guy who seemed to be the least like him.

[GodfatherofSoul Profile]

Understand what false equivalence is. McCain was criticized because he ran a BAD campaign. Obama ran a GREAT campaign. He came out of nowhere and took down the Clinton Machine that had built up for this run for SIX YEARS OR MORE. No one is saying that Obama didn't make mistakes, but no one is going to spend equal time on his smaller mistakes when McCain was out there self-destructing. Republicans are pissed off that the media didn't spend an hour a day rehashing Rev. Wright and "bitter"-gate for 6 months.

Forget about ideology, look at all the boneheaded moves he made:

• Screwed himself royally by abandoning his "mavericky" label and deciding to run to the right in an election when people are pissed off at Republicans. This includes:
  
  • Backtracking on criticisms of terrorism
  • Backtracking on his immigration stands, even saying he wouldn't vote for his OWN BILL!
  • Going uber-hawkish on the Iraq war when even Bush was backing down.
  • Opting for a Karl Rovian-style campaign. That crap only works when people aren't paying attention to your bullshit (like the Swiftboaters).
• Pissed off his insiders by trying to pick Joe Lieberman as a running mate. This caused a lot of internal rifts in the party.
• Didn't do any vetting of backup options.
• Picked Sarah Palin on a whim after one friggin' 15 minute interview.
• His TERRIBLE management of the economic crisis:
  
  • Stated that "the fundamentals of the economy are sound" on the morning before the economy tanked. Has also made the same statement 22 times before in the previous few years.
  • Said he would fire the SEC chairman, when the President doesn't have that authority. Made him look clueless.
  • Didn't come out with a cohesive response, kept throwing out contradictory solutions.
• Selected "deregulate everything" Friedmannite Phil Grahamm to develop his economic policy. When the evidence started to roll in that we were in for a collapse, Grahamm called us a "nation of whiners." Hey, what does he care, he's rich.
• His bullshit "campaign suspension" gimmick:
  
  • He never really suspended his campaign
  • Made himself look like he couldn't multitask
  • Others involved reported that he didn't really contribute anything to the debate anyway
  • Everyone knew it was a weak attempt to get one debate suspended so the Biden-Palin would have to be cancelled
• Getting busted lying to David Letterman about an interview, then getting busted doing another interview in the same friggin' building!
• Pushing the idea that Obama was a lightweight who could only read a teleprompter, then getting his ass kicked in all 3 debates plus the VP debate. Now, you probably disagree, but the general public gave Obama landslide wins in each debate.

That's what I can recall off the top of my head. McCain looked like a joke by the time the election rolled around. I'm shocked that he got as many votes as he did. Scary to me that 46% of voters thought that McCain would be a good executive based on the piss-poor way he ran his campaign.

[thesteelhammer Profile]

I would have a problem with media bias regardless of the candidate they were bias for or against.
Everyone should.

[raleigh-steelman Profile]

I would have a problem with media bias regardless of the candidate they were bias for or against.
Everyone should.

Bullshit!

[thesteelhammer Profile]

No bullshit. The media's role is suppose to be to keep everyone honest. That means they can't be biased, but they are.

There are legit things to go after R's on, and I have a problem with them not being called on those things too.

[steelerette Profile]

What do you care about the media, Hammer? Hmmmmm? According to you, it's the cause of all evil, but only when it doesn't suit your purpose, right?

It's obvious the media knew a winner when they saw him. I did like the media's coverage of Sarah Palin, though. Priceless and spot on!

[thesteelhammer Profile]

What do you care about the media, Hammer? Hmmmmm? According to you, it's the cause of all evil, but only when it doesn't suit your purpose, right?

It's obvious the media knew a winner when they saw him. I did like the media's coverage of Sarah Palin, though. Priceless and spot on!

Typical. Trying to put words in my mouth.
I NEVER SAID THE MEDIA WAS "the cause of all evil."

What is have said in the very first post in this thread is "Watch it for yourself and decide",

and that certain media outlets have admitted their bias,

and "The media's role is suppose to be to keep everyone honest. That means they can't be biased, but they are."

and "I would have a problem with media bias regardless of the candidate they were bias for or against. Everyone should."

Where is the controversy in any of those statements?

Our forefathers could have set themselves up as kings, instead they set up a governement that protects those that are not in the majority, their rights, their voices; however, those protections require the media to sound the alarm when minority views are being repressed or cooruption runs amok by those in power.
So when the media has a bias, or refuses to report certain points of view, all citizens should be concerned because political winds change in this country, this decades majority view may be next decades minority view. So those in the majority one day can stand by and allow the media to be corrupted by bias today, but in the long run it could well be their undoing when the political climate changes.

An unbiased media who will report all points of view and has the ability to do so, is critical for our country.