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.