I already know who lost the Presidential election

October 7th, 2008

I have no idea who is going to win this November and in some ways, cialis sale remedy I really don’t care.

But I can already tell you who the loser is: it’s the mainstream media.

Whatever credibility the press once had has been completely shredded by the way it has coddled Barak Obama and pilloried Sarah Palin.

Yes, viagra usa there have been some negative stories about Barack Obama, but they all came out during the primaries when some of those in the press were still hoping for a Hillary Clinton victory.

But now that there is only one Democrat in the race, the mainstream media has become Barack Obama’s press agent.

If Barack Obama wins next month, the mainstream media will have accomplished two things:

1.) Getting their man elected.
2.) Completing their transformation from impartial free press to implacably partisan propagandists.

Entry Filed under: Media,Politics

13 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Tim  |  October 7th, 2008 at 8:56 am

    Sour grapes.

  • 2. elliot  |  October 7th, 2008 at 9:09 am

    It’s what the polls say, my friend. (Although, I’m not a great believer in polls.)

    Even NPR’s On the Media this weekend was discussing the complete lack of trust the media is experiencing at the moment.

  • 3. grumps  |  October 7th, 2008 at 9:43 am

    There are those who say the market plunge of the last two weeks is a mere correction, a bagatelle, if you will.

    I think that the media’s treatment of Grampy McSame is a direct result of his betrayal of them. McCain once bragged that the media was his base. He’s finding out now that you can’t treat lapdogs like vermin and hope to be loved.

    I’ll refer you to Hosea 8:7, my friend.

  • 4. grumps  |  October 7th, 2008 at 9:44 am

    There are those who say the market plunge of the last two weeks is a mere correction, a bagatelle, if you will.

    I think that the media’s treatment of Grampy McSame is a direct result of his betrayal of them. Call it a correction. McCain once bragged that the media was his base. He’s finding out now that you can’t treat lapdogs like vermin and hope to be loved.

    I’ll refer you to Hosea 8:7, my friend.

  • 5. John  |  October 7th, 2008 at 10:39 am

    Tha “mainstream media” lost asll relevance during the run-up to the war. They were sucked right in – – no one had the nerve to speak truth to power.

    As for Palin, she is fair game.

    I, too, sense sour grapes.

  • 6. John  |  October 7th, 2008 at 10:39 am

    Pardon my all-thumbs typing.

  • 7. elliot  |  October 7th, 2008 at 10:56 am

    Not sour grapes. As I’ve said before, I still have not decided who to vote for. I could very well vote for Obama. But if I do, it will be despite the mainstream media’s efforts on his behalf.

    You can’t deny the media’s lean towards Obama.

    You may believe that the uneven coverage is justified by the facts, but you can’t dismiss the fact that it is uneven.

    I go to news.google.com and news.yahoo.com a couple of dozen times a day and they are overwhelmingly filled with defenses of Barack Obama and attacks on Sarah Palin and John McCain. Media bias used to be harder to see, but news aggregators make it pretty easy to pick out.

    (It’s also easy to see by playing the “count the article” game in Newsweek or Time. Give it a try sometime. Count the number of times an article says something positive about each of the candidates and then count the number of times an article says something negative about each of the candidates. Compare the totals. My guess is you already know how that game will come out before even playing it.)

  • 8. Debunked  |  October 7th, 2008 at 11:18 am

    Overall, the ratio of Obama vs McCain attacks has been studied and they’re about even. Obama has had more coverage over the course of the election, but that means there’s been more articles that are both negative and positive about him since the ratios have been shown to hold.

    I’ll grant Palin has been attacked a bit. But it’s not exactly undeserving.

    First, the McCain campaign kept her locked away in a glass room with sound insulating foam.

    Then when they did let her out, you know as well as anybody that her responses to Couric were pretty damned shameful. After which she went on Fox News (Faux News?) and pretty much attacked every other credible media source out there.

    I’d have to say she brought it on herself.

    And now she’s crying foul.

  • 9. John  |  October 7th, 2008 at 11:45 am

    I look at media bias in a whole different way. The whole conceit of “showing both sides” has led to ridiculous viewpoints and fringe ideas being presented alongside solid science and facts in the name of “balance.”

    Also, when you see bias exhibited by a group of people who closely follow, carefully study, and minutely dissect a given subject matter or field, don’t you think they just might be on to something that the guy going on a hunch might NOT be keyed into? I certainly don’t mean that anyone should follow blindly, but certainly weigh that insight.

    I remember talking to a financial journalist quite a while back and he described this whole current state of affairs as imminent. “We all see it coming,” he said. “But it’s not sexy enough to catch on.”

  • 10. elliot  |  October 7th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

    I worked as a journalist, John.

    1.) They’re not experts in anything, but journalism.
    2.) Since they’re not experts, on what basis are they vetting the experts they choose to interview?
    3.) Since they’re not experts, how can THEY decide which “side” of a story deserves more credence?
    4.) If you don’t believe me, I have a couple of for instances:

    The press was wrong about global cooling in the 70s.

    In the 70s, the press was wrong about the number of people the planet could support.

    In the 90s they were wrong about the dangers of silicone breast implants.

    Remember when you should eat no fat?
    Wait, it’s eat no carbs.
    Wait, it’s eat good fat, but not bad fat.

    I’m cynical about nearly everything. And I’ve studied enough science and history to know that nearly nothing that’s “true” for one generation remains true for the next. And that’s in fields that are basically verifiable like physics and biology. Imagine how much less I trust the press and their “experts” when it comes to “softer” subjects like economics and politics.

  • 11. John  |  October 7th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    I never confuse “expert” and “journalist.” (In fact, the two words even LOOK silly next to one another!)

    My point is: Don’t reject out of hand the insight of people immersed in the subject matter. (Conversely, remember as well that sometimes it’s hard to “see” from so deep inside).

    As you might have already perceived, I am also a member of Club Cynical.

  • 12. Tim  |  October 7th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    The press merely reports, it doesn’t make value statements whether something is right or wrong. Those sort of things are read into the things the press reports. Depending on your bias, elliot, or mine — we both read things the way we want — and differently if history is accurate.

    I guarantee we could read the same article and reach different conclusions on whether it is biased or not.

    btw: I too have a background in journalism with a degree received from — gasp — the school McBride now labors at. Fortunately, I was done before.

  • 13. elliot  |  October 7th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    I don’t know when you studied journalism, Tim, but it’s been a long time since the press didn’t make value statements.

    When I was a reporter, we were taught to never use words like “snarled,” “snapped,” “quipped,” etc., because all those words are value judgments. We were supposed to always write “say” or “said.”

    My professors rigorously tried to purge any language that implied conclusion or opinion from our writing.

    But, nowadays, reporters are expected to pepper their writing with adverbs, adjectives, and their own subjective perspective.

    This sort of writing/thinking makes it much more likely that unconscious biases will creep into the reporting.

    I do agree that bias is in the eye of the beholder.

    But I disagree with the implication that you can’t detect the bias in any particular story or publication.

    It’s clear to me, for example, that NewsWeek has a leftwards lean and U.S. News tilts right.

    MSNBC supports the Democrats and Fox is on the side of the Republicans.

    There have always been publications and venues that were friendly to one side or the other.

    My main complaint is that there are so many fewer organizations that truly even attempt to be fair and evenhanded. And most of the ones that still claim to be impartial are lying either to themselves or to us.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.