Big Media bias that trashed Al Gore in 2000 and praised George W. Bush was damnable. Big Media pro-war bias for the Iraq war was as damnable in 2002 as it was during the days of William Randolph Hearst.
PINOs and Dimocrats who celebrate the fierce pro-Obama Big Media bias enhance Big Media power and will shortly regret this alliance.
In the last week before the election even Big Media correspondents are discussing Big Media pro-Obama bias.
John King, CNN’s chief political correspondent, on Big Media bias in the presidential campaign:
“I think there’s some very legitimate criticism that we did not treat all of the candidates in the Democratic race, but particularly the top two or three equally, because of the Clinton obsession in the national media,” King told host Mark Quinn. “It is a very fair point. We need to learn that lesson.” [snip]
“Once you move on from there – I do think that some of the criticism is justified.
Of course what John King is not being honest about is that the Big Media obsession with Hillary was to attack Hillary. The Big Media obsession with Barack Obama was to promote Obama. Further, the attacks on Hillary and the worship of Obama were not happenstance – they were purposeful and celebrated.
Much more honest was ABC’s Michael Malone:
The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game — with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.
The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. [snip]
Now, of course, there’s always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you 10 different ways to color variations of the word “said” — muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. — to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom.
But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against them.
But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible.
That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can’t achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty — especially in ourselves.
After discussing some of the techniques of Big Media bias, ABC’s Malone discusses the Big Media bias in this presidential election:
But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.
Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass — no, make that shameless support — they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press. [snip]
No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side — or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.
If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.
That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.
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?
Malone addresses the issue that other Big Media correspondents willfully ignore: Big Media is actively assisting Obama and actively tearing down Obama opponents.
Smart progressives understand that what Big Media giveth, Big Media can take away. Many Dimocrats are happy today that the Big Media bias was in their favor in the general election and that Big Media bias fostered attacks on Hillary during the primaries and promoted Obama during the primaries. These Dimocrats will have no one to blame but themselves when Big Media inevitably turns against them.
In Hollywood, some smart progressives are beginning to understand that Big Media bias is dangerous no matter who it temporarily favors. In Hollywood, land of the dream merchants, they understand how bad things are with Dimocrat broadcasters:
In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.
The cable news channel is “completely out of control,” said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.
She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann.
Olbermann was criticized by many who attended Monday’s luncheon sponsored by the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event was dubbed “Hollywood, America and Election ’08.”
Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC — and other media — has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.
“We should stop the demonizing,” she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. “It diminishes us,” she said of her fellow Democrats. She stressed, though, that its Palin’s small-town American roots she wishes to defend and not her politics or policies.
Hillary friend Linda Bloodworth-Thomason is to be commended for bravely saying the obvious in this ugly political climate created by Dimocrats. Bloodworth-Thomason knows that Governor Palin has been savaged in the same way Hillary was savaged and she is speaking out against the unwarranted hate directed at Governor Palin.
Attendee Michael Reagan, the radio talk-show host and son of President Ronald Reagan, said he no longer will appear as a guest on MSNBC because “I actually get death threats.”
Hollywood might be getting sobered up about the dangerous implications of the Big Media bias but at Politico they are still drunk on Obama Kool-aid. In an article written by John Harris and Jim Vandehei, the once worthy journalists defend Big Media bias while attacking readers who object (like John Harris’ mom).
And get a load of this one, from someone in Rochester, N.Y., who did not like our analysis of the final presidential debate. “You guys are awfully tough on McCain. There may be some legitimacy to the claim of press bias. Mom.”
We were all set to dismiss Harris’ mother as a crank. Same for VandeHei’s: a conservative dismayed by what she sees as kid-glove treatment of Barack Obama. Then along came a study — funded by the prestigious Pew Research Center, no less — suggesting at first blush, at least, that they may be on to something.
The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.
What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).[snip]
OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.
Instead of shame, Harris and Vandehei are gleeful that McCain is “getting hosed”. The article is an embarrassment. It is confused and contradictory. The entire defense appears to be that Big Media bias is not ideological although that contention is contradicted by the admission that McCain has moved closer to the right wing and that move has irked reporters.
The Harris/Vandehei argument is that the pro-Obama bias of Big Media is not ideological but to believe that the definition of “ideological” has to be so narrow as to make it meaningless. Harris/Vandehei admit that “Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election“, but they don’t say why nor how in this election Big Media has been “in your face” in support of Obama.
Then there is this startling paragraph:
It is not our impression that many reporters are rooting for Obama personally. To the contrary, most colleagues on the trail we’ve spoken with seem to find him a distant and undefined figure. But he has benefited from the idea that negative attacks that in a normal campaign would be commonplace in this year would carry an out-of-bounds racial subtext. That’s why Obama’s long association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was basically a nonissue in the general election.
Journalists’ hair-trigger racial sensitivity may have been misplaced, but it was not driven by an ideological tilt.
What can a sensible reader make of such nonsense? If one thinks Obama is an opportunistic flim-flam man who only works to benefit himself and who exploits race and charges of racism to advance himself that is somehow out of bounds. Protecting a candidate on the basis of race is not troublesome to Harris and Vandehei – thus racism is redefined as not ideological in the same way that opportunism is not viewed as ideological.
Harris and Vandehei claim most reporters view Obama as “distant and undefined”. Big Media reporters are the ones watching Obama from the nearest proximity. If Obama is “undefined” in the eyes of Big Media reporters, then they have not done their job.
It was always in Barack Obama’s benefit to remain undefined. John McCain and only John McCain has seven days left to define Obama because Big Media won’t do what is supposed to be its job.