The 2008 campaign will be noted as the year that journalism died.
The print and electronic media talking-heads have been fawning over Sen. Barack Obama who, if it wasn't for being black, would never be considered a qualified candidate for President of the United States. It may be "politically incorrect" to say so, but the truth is the truth.
When Obama scored a victory in the Iowa caucuses, the media's legs got all "tingly" (an actual quote from one talking-head). Hillary Clinton saw first hand at how a biased media can determine whether or not she would become the Democrat Party's nominee. Bill Clinton, a former media favorite, complained about the treatment his wife was getting. He was right. Now the media has set its sights on destroying Governor Sarah Palin and getting Obama elected.
Obama has been campaigning for about 19 months, but there has been no media scrutiny over his associations with convicted felon Tony Rezko, Weather Underground terrorist William Ayres, Rev. Jeremiah Wright (well, there was some there as Wright was so outrageous that they couldn't ignore him that much) and others comparable to what Palin has been receiving in five days. In the five days since her selection as John McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin received more "proctoscopic" examinations than Obama has received in 19 months.
There were also reports of journalists clapping and cheering at Obama's acceptance speech. Does that look like actions of an objective journalist?
A recent example are the covers of Us Weekly magazine (pictured). The first is a nice cover of Barack and Michelle Obama.
Then, you have a new issue featuring Gov. Palin. Note the headline? What lies? What scandal? Looks like Us Weekly has cast its vote in the election.
The Democrats are practicioners of the "politics of personal destruction." It only became obvious since Gov. Palin's selection that the press are now partners.
Talk show host Hugh Hewitt wrote in today's Townhall.com:
The outrageous and frequently sexist attacks and sneers directed at Sarah Palin by many in the MSM have opened a second front in Campaign 2008. Although the Beltway-Manhattan media elite have long been pulling for Obama, the naked partisanship and transparent attacks on Governor Palin have fueled a pro-Palin surge that will continue for some weeks.
I hope he's right. It has certainly fired up the Republican Party. The party is in a rage over this.
Hewitt also writes:
Millions of Americans are deeply ticked off at the assault on Sarah Palin launched by people who have never done anything but talked for a living and who wouldn't know how to turn on a snowmobile, a jet ski or an RV to save their lives, much less how to negotiate an oil lease. Millions of Americans who have never received a government check are shocked at the dismissiveness of Palin's background especially in contrast to the worship of the government-backed lifetime careers of Obama and Biden. And millions of American women are especially outraged that the feminist elite in the broadcast booths and newsrooms have joined the blogger mob in peddling smears about a wonderful mother and wife who also happens to have been an extremely successful professional in a variety of settings. Why, they wonder, has Obama gotten a year-long pass on his entire life including Ayers, the Annenberg Challenge, Rezko and Wright while Palin is put on the big media rack on made-up charges? Because she's a woman?
No, Hugh. It is not just because she's a woman, it is because she's a conservative Republican woman who has accomplishments. Obama has accomplished nothing.
Unless the media stops and takes a hard look at what their actions are doing, this year will mark the end of objective journalism. I'm not holding my breath.
4 comments:
I must disagree with my friend, Aramnd.
The 'media' come in many sizes, many guises, many disguises. US Magazine is simply US Magazine. The example underscores your point,but it is not representative of the vast majority of hard-working, unbiased and relentless reporters who work every day to try to get somewhere close to the truth of things.
The bottom line is that a candidate for vice president, be it man or woman, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, revealing that a daughter is five months pregnant is just a heck of a human story. It just is.
Have parts of the media been insensitive? Yes, but most have been quite respectful and have NOT gone beyond what the family has revealed. Are some parts of the media biased? Yes, a few (on both sides).
But the vast majority of reporters view this story for what it is -- a great opportunity to open a window on the human condition in America today. A few decades ago this would have been a non-starter, a candidacy-stopper. Now, for all the attention, McCain greets the unwed father at the airport today.
It's a sign of progress, not regression, that this is being reported, discussed and covered so openly.
And similar cases for bias or favoritism could be made for or against almost any candidate in recent years. Hillary, Reagan, Bush, McCain, Obama have all been pilloried during these unfortunate cycles -- the preacher coverage was certainly no lovefest -- and everyone emerges either whole or wounded, depending on the judgment of the real arbiters -- the voters.
This is not to say there are not excesses. But the 'media' is a vast and free crazyquilt of different outlets and platforms. The cable gabfests are one thing. The actual reporters who seek out the facts are something else.
To lump an entire profession into some biased stereotype is simply more shouting.
A vice presidential candidate's daughter is unwed and five months pregnant. It is just plain fascinating, unusual. It is news, plain and simple.
If partisans want to argue hypocrisy or such, well, that is their right, too.
But the 'media' is too big and expansive to be in bed with any viewpoint. And those that are, whether those US covers or Fox News, should rightfully be taken with a grain of salt.
As for the rest of us out there, please. Journalism is changing, but we are hardly dead. And we are needed more than ever.
If you were really my "friend," you'd know how to spell my name right. Bit I'll assume it is just a typo.
I don't disagree with your comments on US Weekly, but it is a glaring example at the bias the media as a whole have shown.
What's so unusual about a 17 year old unwed girl being pregnant? Traditionally, minor children of candidates are off-limits to media scrutiny. Even Obama rebuked the press over this.
The media reported false charges that originated from left wing blogs (Daily KOS, for example).
I am sure most reporters are responsible people, but quite a number went out of bounds in their reporting and they were about as subtle as a circus poster. - A.
Again, you say 'the media' reported the Koz charges.
What media? Who?
Major networks? The news magazines? Newspapers? TMZ? The New York Post? Some blogs?
Be specific if you are going to attack a media outlet. To say 'the media' is to invoke some conspiracy and I assure you, 'the media' is too hard-working, too independent, too crazy and conflicted, to ever conspire to do anything.
NO ONE should report crap -- Koz, Huffington, O'Reilly or CBS. No one. But neither should everyone be consigned to some 'media' label. Be specific in what or who you're talking about.
Dan Rather messed up badly with that Bush memo thing. Did 'the media' screw that up, or did Dan Rather? I'd say it was Rather, not 'the media.'
That's all I'm saying.
Bill O'Reilly said it was the Spears family's fault when Britney's sister got pregnant. Now he says Sarah Palin should not be blamed for his daughter's bad choice. Is it Bill O'Reilly being a hypocrite? Or is it 'the media.'
Just because you see or hear something on TV doesn't mean 'the media' is in lockstep. Name the newspaper, cite the commentator, put blame where it is due. But don't just blame 'the media.'
Those folks on CNN, MSNBC and FOX are not 'the media.' They are just commentators and don't represent what actually is being reported and written. So accuse CNN, or soemone on MSNBC, or a talking head on Fox. But don't lump everyone together because that's just not the case.
And yes, Armand is the spelling. Sorry.
There is a mutual friend we have on the Internet, it is called Google. You may want to try it and find the answers to your questions. They're there!
CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and many others were all a part of the attacks and smears (even just repeating unfounded charges makes a news outlet an accomplice in spreading smears) on Gov. Palin.
I am guessing that you work in either the electronic or print media. If so, no wonder you are defensive. But a recent poll showed 51% of Americans agree that there's been media bias in this campaign. People aren't dumb and can't be fooled for very long.
You said that "CNN, MSNBC and FOX are not 'the media.' They are just commentators and don't represent what actually is being reported and written." Puh-lease!
I stand by what I wrote.
Post a Comment