You are currently browsing the daily archive for November 12, 2008.
After self-indulging itself with manipulating the election by biased coverage, the media has its Alka Seltzer moment. In all fairness, Politico had it a bit before Election Day. But most other confessions came immediately after.
First came the Newsweek confession with the little nugget of truth burried in there that it was an editorial decision rather than fact reporting
“Curiously, though Obama drove his rivals mad by receiving reams of mostly friendly publicity, he was not well liked by reporters, many of whom found him chilly and guarded. He was more popular with editors, who regarded him as a phenomenon.
Later came Washington Post with a “regret in tilt coverage”.
neglected in this regret is the truth:
The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain’s 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama’s battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.
McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4,
“Clinched?” No, WaPo, McCain didn’t “clinch” he won his nomination outright. “Clinching” was a word invented especially for Obama, meaning including super delegates in primary results to cover the fact that no candidate won.
No acknowledgment of bias against Hillary from Wapo.
Politico gives a tiny nod to that reality
As for who got the toughest coverage of all, Scarborough said it was Hillary Clinton. “The long knives were out for Hillary from the very beginning,” he said.
“Hillary was not treated completely fairly by everybody,” said Stahl, before raising the important distinction between beat reporters and cable news pundits.
yeah, they tried to isolate themselves from MSNBC
When you say, the media didn’t treat her fairly,” Stahl said, you’ve got the mainstream, whatever that is now. I think the mainstream did a good job.
“Now the media is Pat Buchanan,” she continued. “Now the media is everybody from way over here to way over there, and they’re all included. And if they start beating up on somebody, they’re part of us now, because they’re on 24 hours a day. And we all get tarred by it.”
Funny they should name Buchanan. In the distant days when I watched that sewer, Pat was shockingly the most sober of all. I wonder if these pundits consider New York Times main stream media. It had not one, but at least two screechingly hateful editorials against Hillary every single day, besides the skewed reporting of the news (Modo, Brank and Bob, you there?)
Still, the larger question is – why all that confessing NOW?
I mean, I know that during the elections they were proud enough of it to have titles such as
“Is the media powerless to elect Obama”? (with the implied “just watch us”)
While I don’t have the answer, I have a strong feeling that none of this would have been out had McCain won. In other words – this is not a reach to the readers for regaining good will, credibility.
This is rather addressed to the king they crowned – as a demand for access: we did our part, where’s our pony?
Because, as the Vanity Fair title demonstrates, voters have nothing to do with elections. Just photo ops for the media and props for stories about democracy. Did I say stories? Oops! I meant, narratives.
Media doesn’t need credibility as we are supposed to buy their narrative.
However, the one thing I did learn where I grew up, one doesn’t usually pay for propaganda. It may be a price to pay that no apologies can avoid.
As usual the blogosphere is a good canary in the coal mine for what will happen.
BTD at Talk Left is raging against “The Cult”
I am not going to go through the TalkLeft archives and dig up where BTD gravely intones that Obama can not win the white vote, can not win the Jewish vote, can not win the Hispanic vote, and on and on.snip
I will not dig up the polling data that he consistently misread and always curiously interpreted as showing a need for Hillary on the ticket.
In the dictatorship I lived in, this was called “having a bad file”. It meant that regardless of you you were or what you were doing, something in the past was canceling anything good in the present. It could have been that your parents were intellectuals rather than working class or someone in your family tree owned property.
BTD has a bad file. As someone who has had my account at Talk Left closed – twice – with no explanation, I am watching this as somewhat karmic, if scary.
And, no, I never got the sense in that “Love Story” tag line either – so maybe the original Politico headline will help
Obama faces less pressure for diverse Cabinet
And it starts with the Clinton quote
In 1992, Bill Clinton famously promised to appoint a Cabinet that “looks like America.” He followed through, tapping women and minorities for high-ranking positions and overseeing an administration more diverse than any that had come before it. President Bush continued this tradition, appointing two African-Americans to his national security/foreign policy team.
Now, when he talked of a cabinet that looks like America, Clinton didn’t just mean color. But this article does:
“He will assemble a Cabinet that I think reflects a modern-day array of talent,” said Rep. Artur Davis, the Alabama Democrat who endorsed Obama early in the primary. “I don’t think he has any special obligation to play the quota game to have so many blacks and so many whites.”
We’re working now on that “post-partisan” era
“If you’re going to do diversity, put some significance on party diversity,” Espy said, noting that the new president could keep Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the Pentagon or tap Colin Powell for a high-ranking post and help himself with those Americans whose votes he didn’t receive.
Transition chief John Podesta said Tuesday that Obama would look hard at making non-Democratic appointments. Obama will make more than “token-level” appointments of Republicans and independents, Podesta said.
I am sure Code Pink and the anti-war supporters will appreciate Robert Gates staying, I know I do.
And there’s fun in this article too:
Asked if Obama needed to pick some high-ranking white figures to reassure the many white voters who opposed him, Slater laughed and offered: “You mean like Joe the Plumber?”
And even a reference to women:
For example, he noted that Obama had shrewdly picked Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to stand at his side at last week’s news conference. Yes, she’s a white woman — but she also represents the country’s hard-hit automaking state.
“That’s him saying that ‘this manufacturing economy is important to me,’” Slater observed.
See? There has to be a “but” after “white woman” – because – why have one of them? And also mind: she was not given any power position. She needs to be explained away for the mere privilege of “standing at his side”
There are cures against being a white woman! Also, when thinking “Roe vs Wade is secure” remember this artcle and the expression “It took Nixon to go to China”