posted
Wow! Thank you OSC for the succinct and honest look at the state of journalism today. It is so good to hear a voice of sanity and integrity in a sea of biased agendas. I've been a fan since my son handed me Ender's Game and said "You've gotta read this!". He took great pleasure in introducing me to an author for the first time. How nice to learn that a beloved author is also a man willing to stand up and say something unpopular because it is the truth. Well done, OSC
Posts: 1 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
At some point, though, you have to say, "Well, there wouldn't be nearly as much bad press if Mccain/Palin didn't keep giving them fuel..."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think people have really short memories and biased views of bias in this election cycle (like all others?). Coverage of Obama was mixed when he first got into the race, and most of it was all about the inevitability of Hillary. When he did well in Iowa, the whole thing turned on its head and it was if he'd already won the whole thing, then her "dramatic" come back in New Hampshire changed it into a real horse race. Give me a break. That's extreme sensationalism, and for that matter, some damned lazy journalism.
But when Clinton got desparate and launched attacks about Ayers, about Wright and Rezko, the media covered it to death. Personally I don't think any of those issues are relevent, but the media gave them wall to wall coverage, and Clinton got a bump in the elections as a result. The media gave McCain great coverage too, all through the Spring and Summer right up to the Convention, and even after the Convention initially as well. Palin got great coverage initially too. They gave her the benefit of the doubt and then she shot herself in the foot six ways from Sunday and the coverage turned bad. And then McCain's campaign took on a schizo persona and was all over the place.
I think the press have been reacting to changes from the campaigns and from events rather than building things on their own from scratch. I will be perfectly honest in saying that I think Obama has gotten a pass on some things. His biggest gaffes, like that thing about clinging to guns and religion got a LOT of play in the press, and that hurt him, but his TV attack ads have been just as misleading (the policy oriented ones) as McCain's in many instances. I think though that Obama gets a pass because McCain doesn't just match Obama there, he goes way, way over the top, and Obama gets lost in the mix.
If McCain toned it down, and if his campaign weren't so damned erratic (and for that matter, inflammatory), then I suspect the coverage would at least seem more even handed. I think Obama has gotten a small pass this time around, but I think this has been less about positive Obama coverage than the mountain of negative McCain coverage, but the guy brings it on himself. His campaign since mid-September has been abysmal.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have always been a big fan of OSC's books, and always thought he had an even keel on politics in the US. I often quote his end statement from EMPIRE about how partisan politics have gotten out of control. After reading this article I think he must have either drank the koolaide or not done a single lick of research. As several of his facts are straight up wrong.
Besides the fact that the actual regulation that allowed for the high risk loans was written by Phil Graham who is a McCain economic advisor (and the one that a few months ago said that Americans are in a mental recession and a bunch of whiners). There is also the fact that McCain employes several Fannie May lobbyists on his team! The Republicans will tell you themselves that they are advocates of free markets and have done as much as they can to deregulate the system.
OSC goes onto say that McCain wrote a letter trying to warn this may happen (ref: housing crisis) months ago, so what is his point there? That McCain is ineffectual as a leader and can't get things done?
The real lie that got me though was when he said "There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
Um...wtf are you talking about OSC? Check out this quote: "This [Saddam Hussein] is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda." Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/28/2002).
or this one:
"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003) - Whitehouse.gov
I beg you to go to bushoniraq.com to check your sources.
Also, OSC goes on to call it thehe borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
Um...John Edward's is not running this year. Sorry. Also, the reason they attacked her is because she supports and has driven funds to "faith based education" which supports celibicy programs. Even when confronted with proof they do not work (HER OWN UNDERAGE DAUGHTER) she still advocates them.
It may come as a surprise that I am not an Obama supporter. The only reason I wrote this is because OSC just got so many things wrong...blatantly wrong. While I don't believe that celebrity endorsements make a difference (ie MAtt Damon) this piece tried to come off as fact, when it is really just opinion.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, John Edwards was running until February, and he's still a somewhat prominant figure in the party, if evidenced only by the horserace between Obama and Clinton to secure his endorsement after he dropped out. To be honest, I don't think a scandal involving him was really that big of a deal, but in the interests of fairness it probably should have been looked into. If we're going to look into one, we should look into them all. Then again, considering the major source of information on the scandal was I think the National Enquirer, or a similar gossip mongering magazine, I really can't blame the "reputable" news sources like CNN or TIME for not picking it up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fully engaged apologist for today's press who actually believes they aren't in the tank for Obama are people who if they were to rush into the room soaking wet and shout that it was raining outside, I would still run to the window and look outside.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phillip J Hubbell: The fully engaged apologist for today's press who actually believes they aren't in the tank for Obama are people who if they were to rush into the room soaking wet and shout that it was raining outside, I would still run to the window and look outside.
What negative things, exactly, do you think that the press should be saying about Sen. Obama or not saying about Sen. McCain? What positive things are they making up about Sen. Obama or ignoring about Sen. McCain?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read newspapers and magazines every single day, and while I support Obama's bid for the presidency I must confess that articles dealing with Obama have been typically more positive than McCain.
Periodicals I read daily: New York Times Washington Post International Herald Tribune
Periodicals I read weekly: The New Yorker Time Magazine Newsweek
I considered adding The National Review to my weekly reading, but after they dismissed Christopher Buckley for pointing out that Sarah Palin is inexperienced I lost interest.
The following are my general feelings after having read these periodicals over a period of 2 years.
When Obama was vying for the Democratic nomination he was consistently cast as the hard working underdog with a message of hope, while Hillary Clinton was uncharacteristically hammered in the press. Since obtaining the nomination he has gotten greater and greater positive press from the publications I have read while McCain has gotten worse and worse. While I do believe one candidate has run a better campaign than the other I don't think it accounts for the disparity.
The New York Times and The New Yorker have been especially poisonous towards McCain while positively flirtatious with Obama. Newsweek and Time have been more towards the middle but still slightly slanted in that direction.
But to be honest, any chance McCain had of salvaging my vote were scuttled when I got to know Sarah Palin and when the financial crisis emerged thus letting us all witness McCain's reaction to it.
While I don't think Mr. Card is factually right in all the details of that essay, I do think his core concepts are fundamentally true. I have not noticed any significant discussion of Obama's ties to Freddie Mac beyond a hiccup that has disappeared, or the general lack of any economic plan on Obama's part until two weeks ago.
I also feel he has not been sufficiently grilled regarding his positions on Iraq. But having heard what I have, I think it's obvious that Obama is very interested in listening to our military personell rather than simply grabbing the reins and hitting the kill switch.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* May I just say I wouldn't rush to crow that Rush Limbaugh, that fine and principled source of accurate news, had featured my editorial on his show?...
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's probable that you are just trying to convey the ideas of others, but these arguments in particular didn't seem to follow logically.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I have not noticed any significant discussion of Obama's ties to Freddie Mac beyond a hiccup that has disappeared, or the general lack of any economic plan on Obama's part until two weeks ago.
I think that the fact that Sen. Obama is the recipient of a lot of political contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - more than almost anyone else in congress - has been reported. It, I think, gets at least as much press as the fact that Sen. McCain's campaign is run by former Freddie and Fannie lobbyists.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I have not noticed any significant discussion of Obama's ties to Freddie Mac beyond a hiccup that has disappeared, or the general lack of any economic plan on Obama's part until two weeks ago.
I think that the fact that Sen. Obama is the recipient of a lot of political contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - more than almost anyone else in congress - has been reported. It, I think, gets at least as much press as the fact that Sen. McCain's campaign is run by former Freddie and Fannie lobbyists.
I think that link undermines your point more than supports it. So, a few papers report a claim made by McCain. How about a journalist actually investigating it? Why not mention it until McCain starts to make it an issue? Conservative sources had been talking about it for a while, but it didn't appear to get significant press until McCain finally started talking about it.
Does anyone really think if McCain had the exact same history (the connections) with Freddie and Franny that Obama has, and Obama had the history that McCain has that the media wouldn't go out of their way to research and report McCain's ties without relying on Obama to bring it up?
I know this sounds conspiratorial, and I hate to sound that way, but sometimes the truth is really that absurd.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
And, remember, the whole Rev. Wright thing was put before us by an ABC reporter weeding through years of sermons to get the really juicy stuff. How much play did that get compared to Gov. Palin and the wacky minister who wants "Christians" to infiltrate the government?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I caught them on a bad week, but there was a Newsweek at the Dr.'s office that had a story on McCain's advisor being tied to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and it went on and on with specifics and so forth. Then only in the final paragraph did it say anything about Obama, just that McCain shouldn't have opened that can of worms. But that is the nature of this campaign. Obama only has to be superior to the VP, or the campaign manager, of McCain and he wins.
The only place I've heard about Obama having an astronomical rate of contributions from the FMs was on Sean Hannity. Of course, I am pretty sheltered, and Sean just happens to be on at lunchtime in my area.
But it seems to me that if you are conservative, you are a commentator, while the title reporter is reserved for people who at least pretend to be neutral. The thing is, it is still a pretense.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phillip J Hubbell: The fully engaged apologist for today's press who actually believes they aren't in the tank for Obama are people who if they were to rush into the room soaking wet and shout that it was raining outside, I would still run to the window and look outside.
And yet your opinion would probably not matter to them in the least because of that. I am sure that if, while you were looking for yourself, something bad happened, you would blame them for "forcing" you to ignore the evidence and delay your reaction.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some fairness in "reporting" here: Michael Malone, writing that editorial, is a pundit pretending to still be a reporter. He hung out his shingle for the Republican Party a long time ago.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is what he says true?
Does that matter? I thought that "truth" wasn't the issue. I thought the issue was how much of what kind of story does each candidate get. Is the press making up positive stories about Sen. Obama? Are they making up negative stuff about Sen. McCain?
And I am frankly tired of hearing about the martyrdom of Joe the Plumber. This is a guy who lied about his circumstances in order to (unsuccessfully) shame a candidate. Sen. McCain made him famous. (BTW, how did Sen. McCain even knew about Joe? Did he get Joe's permission before making him an icon?) Joe then proceeded to give interviews. If you don't want want the press to show that you are a liar, don't lie on camera.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is a guy who lied about his circumstances in order to (unsuccessfully) shame a candidate. Sen. McCain made him famous. (BTW, how did Sen. McCain even knew about Joe? Did he get Joe's permission before making him an icon?) Joe then proceeded to give interviews. If you don't want want the press to show that you are a liar, don't lie on camera.
I haven't been following the Joe the Plumber thing, but the wiki on it didn't mention lying.
As for how Mccain knew about Joe, I think there's enough of a grapevine in the political world to not default to conspiracy theories.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all the complaining about the media bias toward Sen. Obama, (not just here) the arguments are that there are more positive stories about Sen. Obama and more negative stories about Sen. Obama. It doesn't seem to matter if the stories are accurate or factual, just the amount of them.
Running against the media is a great tactic for the Republicans this year. It plays into a general distrust and, instead of having to answer negative charges, they can just garner sympathy for how unfairly they are being treated.
Hmm...maybe misrepresenting would have been a better word than lying.
Joe Wurzelbacher was registered Republican (not an independent as represented himself), he may someday aspire to buy the business where he is employed, but he isn't "about to buy it" as he represented. He doesn't have a plumbing license. His income is about $40K and he would do better under the Obama tax plan. Additionally, he owes more than $1100 in unpaid income taxes.
The McCain campaign is representing him as this hard working guy who would have their money stolen by Obama and given away. That whole fabrication is fake. The real Joe would be better off with the Obama tax plan. I don't blame Joe (ultimately) for how he is being used, but Sen. McCain is the one using him, not the nasty media.
I didn't suggest a conspiracy theory; I asked two questions. If the McCain campaign knew about Joe's liabilities (no license, unpaid taxes) would they still have used him? Couldn't they find someone less problematic to make their point? Did they ask Joe if he wanted to be used by the McCain campaign?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The McCain campaign is representing him as this hard working guy who would have their money stolen by Obama and given away.
...and yet, despite all that, from what I understand, Joe the Plumber is a sympathetic meme because the criticisms are true-- the small business described in the fictional situation would suffer more under Obama's tax plan. Presumably, comparative small business owners would be taxed similarly.
Wiki decided to address the meme rather than the man. Maybe the Dems should do the same-- the criticisms are valid.
I actually support higher taxes. We've got a huge deficit that needs to be paid off.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The McCain campaign is representing him as this hard working guy who would have their money stolen by Obama and given away.
...and yet, despite all that, from what I understand, Joe the Plumber is a sympathetic meme because the criticisms are true-- the small business described in the fictional situation would suffer more under Obama's tax plan. Presumably, comparative small business owners would be taxed similarly.
According to an article in the Super-Liberal WSJ
"To reach a level that would be affected by Sen. Obama’s proposed tax increase, Mr. Smither said, a mom-and-pop plumbing company like Newell would have to clear $5 million in annual sales. [Joe’s company actually reports only $100,000 in sales.]
Even if Mr. Wurzelbacher reaped taxable income from his business of $280,000 a year, he'd pay only about $900 more a year in taxes under Sen. Obama's plan".
Does anyone have different figures?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That $900 can mean a lot to a small business, swbarnes. Revenues can be deceiving-- what's pulled in is not necessarily what makes it to the bank.
But thanks for the figures.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just reading an article in Scientific American about a researcher (Lichter at the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason) that went through and classified statements about Obama and McCain as positive or negative. Obama actually had a higher percentage of negative statements (72% vs 57%). This was done earlier in summer, around the time that people started claiming that the media was being overly soft on Obama. What he didn't mention that would have been interesting was how many statements he counted for each candidate- if there are 5 times as many stories about Obama, even if more are negative, then more positive statements are out there still. The researcher was annoyed at the end because O'Reilly had a negative response to his research- he felt like if they were willing to use his data and methods in the past when they showed what the conservatives wanted, how can they complain now.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
