Will Any Dems Stand Up and Denounce ABC and Mark Halperin?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:09:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

At daily kos yesterday, I wrote a diary highlighting ABC's political director Mark Halperin's promise that ABC will favor the GOP in the two weeks running up to this year's election. To date, no Democrat has denounced ABC or Halperin. And Halperin is not stopping:

HANNITY: So the liberal media does exist? The old media is liberal?
HALPERIN: We say it in the book, and we give examples. . . . I'm proud of where I work, where we understand that we've got to not be liberal, we've got to not be perceived as liberal. But the overall old liberal media covered that story in such an unfair way, and I think anybody who denies that just isn't paying attention.

Is there a Democrat in this country who can denounce this? Hello? Any Democratic LEADERS here? Obama? Reid? Pelosi? Hellooooo?

< Denver Forum Tonight on Pot Legalization | Obama for Lamont >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Will Any Dems Stand Up and Denounce ABC and Mark Halperin? | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Halperin (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by koshembos on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 11:18:21 PM EST

Liberal bias who? Woodward wrote two glowing books about Bush before writing a balanced one. The Washington Post reports Bush statistics that are wrong and position themselves to the right of the Washington Times.

Could Mark have meant Liable bias?

nope (none / 0) (#1)
by roy on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:58:38 PM EST

"Promise that ABC will favor the GOP" is pretty obviously not what Halperin did. He's talking about treating the Right fairly for a change, not treating them unfairly well. Is linking to data that directly contradicts your made-up claims a defense against libel?

You're asking your Democratic leaders to act like spoiled children over losing their favorable media bias. Or, charitably, to denounce a straw man. Might I suggest you hope for leaders smart enough to ignore followers like you?

Ha! (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 09:10:42 PM EST

Only if you do NOT believe Halperin's own book.

He said there is a liberal old Media.

Imagine if he said the Media has rolled over on Bush and would stop and prove to the Dems that it is neutral now.

You would be going crazy right now. You are too funny.


Re: Ha! (none / 0) (#7)
by roy on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 11:33:41 PM EST

OK, I've read that six times and still don't get your point. I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but I am sometimes the smartest guy in the room, so I think maybe it's not my fault it doesn't makes sense. So, huh?

At any rate, ABC seems to be doing a bad job of sucking up the Right. Take this article, for instance.

Fifteen paragraphs detailing nasty behavior by those on the Right, maybe a bit less if you subtract the caveats like "Limbaugh apologized after his listeners clued him in that Fox was not acting", which I don't because they're immediately countered by more criticisms like "but some say the conservative radio host didn't seem sincere.".

(Resist the temptation to say I'm defending the Right's actions, I'm not, they're nasty)

Two paragraphs about nasty behavior by the Left. Well, two sentences, with some white space between them:

Democrats aren't necessarily running clean campaigns, though.

As the races tighten in the next couple of weeks, the left will likely unleash its garbage as well.

"Not necessarily" clean, and "will likely" get nasty. Harsh stuff. Must have cost the Dems at least two seats.

Never mind the Democratic campaign manager accusing a Republican candidate of "Holding happy hour fund raisers with people who cover up the cyber-molestation of children".

Never mind the Democratic Lamont supporter claiming that DINO candidate Lieberman lied about his civil rights work in the '60s. "I am accusing him of prostitution of the civil rights movement".

Never mind the Democratic senator who accusing her Republican challenger of being "the deciding vote that kept the [unwanted Canadian] trash coming" by voting against an unconstitutional bill. OK, this one's a stretch, but it fit so nice with the "the left will likely unleash its garbage" line that I couldn't resist.

...

But, as a peace offering, I give you the most offensive, blatantly racist, just plain dumb Republican ad campaign I read about while putting this post together:

"If you make a little mistake with one of your `hos,' you'll want to dispose of that problem tout suite, no questions asked," one of the men says.

"That's too cold. I don't snuff my own seed," the other replies.

"Maybe you do have a reason to vote Republican," the first man says.


Did you read the two grafs on the Left? (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 11:40:07 PM EST

You do understand that the Left has run NOTHING dirty.

Not because they are pristine. But because the issues win for them.

Iraq.

Minimum wage.

The economy.

It is amazing and a window in to your bias that you think that proves LEft Wing bias.

That you cite this "As the races tighten in the next couple of weeks, the left will likely unleash its garbage as well." shows how off you are.

Likely to? How in freaking blazes does ABC know? That actually is the bone to to the Right. There is no dirty LEft campaigning so they have to pretend it is LIKELY.

I mean, sheesh.

As for Halperin's book, let me explain. He has a book. It details RIGHT WING bias against GORE. See daily jowler for more.


Nothing? (none / 0) (#9)
by roy on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 12:01:53 AM EST

Are you claiming that the three incidents I linked didn't happen, or that they aren't dirty? And we aren't talking about what has been "run" anyway, but rhetoric in general, otherwise Limbaugh would be off the table.

If those three incidents happened and are dirty -- which is how they look to me -- then they said "likely to" instead of "already did". That would be soft pedaling criticism of the Left.

And, nothing personal, you might find it helpful to proofread more carefully before posting. I know you can write very clearly, but when you don't try, typos like "the bone to to the Right" really make it harder to understand what you're trying to say.


: Sorry for the typos (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 12:16:02 AM EST

But let's be honest here.
I really try to be.
The Dems are wimps and spineless.
They were weak on Iraq for political purposes, really crappy of them. At least Bush had conviction on it.
But right now there is nothing to compare to this GOP. Really historic bad stuff.

Not so (none / 0) (#13)
by Gabriel Malor on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 11:11:18 AM EST

It is, strictly speaking, not true that the Left has not run ANYTHING dirty.

First, official ads:
The DSCC ran an offensive ad and pulled it when Latino groups protested. Link.

Phil Angelides, running an increasingly hysterical campaign against gainst Arnold Schwarzenegger accused him of racism and supporting apartheid. The accusation was completely contradicted by facts.

"Arnold Schwarzenegger was so opposed to the racist apartheid government in South Africa that he asked me not to allow the Mr. Olympia competition to be held there. Arnold asked to join me in South Africa for a meeting with that country's Minister of Sport, Dr. Piet Koornhof, to discuss the event."
Link.

Second, unofficial action by the Left:
Jane Hamsher, Jane Hamsher, Jane Hamsher.

Steve Gillard. Link. Note: Gillard has changed the picture from his photoshop of Steele portraying him as Sambo. This occurred after Tim Kaine pulled his ads from Gillard's blog.

BTD, Democrats play dirty, too. It's just that you run in circles where Republican transgressions get more attention.


I did not think you were serious (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 12:14:06 AM EST

Lamont disavowed IMMEDIATELY that statement.

Haster and Boehner DID cover up for Foley.

And the 3rd one I don't even understand.

You simply can not be serious.

I like your peace offering but let me explain this to you - the GOP is simply a meaner nastier party. Inded, I wish the Dems were tougher.

Are some Dems nasty? Sure. But this cycle they do not need to be.

IRAQ. IRAQ. IRAQ.

You know this.


subject (none / 0) (#3)
by orionATL on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 09:11:01 PM EST

near the end of an important and uncertain campaign season?

are you kidding?

any politician with judgment this defective should be (actually, would be) banned from politics.

get some sleep and write again tomorrow when your brain is clearer.

a blank pages filled

is not necessarily better

than

a blank page.

: Wha? (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 09:12:27 PM EST

Oh I see, you think playing nice with the Media works. Riiiight. The results are convincing.
Due respect, wake up Rip Van Winkle.

Halprin (none / 0) (#5)
by judyo on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 10:33:43 PM EST

Feed him to Bill Maher and Jay Leno.
Mockery is the surest cut of all.

read bob somerby (none / 0) (#12)
by cpinva on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 01:09:31 AM EST

at the daily howler.com, he's doing an entire series of articles deconstructing halperin & harris' book.

Bias, what Bias? (none / 0) (#14)
by Slado on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 11:53:17 AM EST

It amuses me when liberals try to claim that on a whole the media isn't biased. Now it might not be as biased as Big Tent would like or as consistent but on the whole it's obvious that it is.

When 90% of any orginization is liberal vs. conservative how could it not be?

For us conservatives it doesn't really matter anymore because "old media" isn't as dominant as it use to be. Conservative networks (Fox) talk radio and the internet have given us the place to find the story in the way we see it. We now know it's biased so we simply ignor it. The combination of these two facts is why the media is losing it's audience and money.

Halprin's point is only for the media to remain commercially viable they just can't keep being baised either way. They need to offer a product that makes me, roy, Big Tent and all spectrums happy by telling the whole story, giving perspective and not allowing their natural opinion to influence the way they report. Sometimes these stories make Big Tent mad but mostly it makes conservatives mad. Hence the liberal bias.

She Devil (none / 0) (#15)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 12:31:18 PM EST

"Well, we have the media"

AC 2005

You post at Kos also? (none / 0) (#16)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 03:59:30 PM EST

What kind of job do you hold?

: retired?? (1.00 / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 10:43:29 AM EST

Hey wile.... maybe he is retired... I know one old retired dude.
;-)

rightwing media (none / 0) (#17)
by Sailor on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:51:18 PM EST

Slado can't offer any links for his spurious accusations ... what a surprise.

The actual point is that the media should just report the facts, not try to gain te trust of cons or libs, just report the facts.

We're in iraq right now because the media were cheerleaders for an illegal invasion and couldn't wait to be 'embedded' instaed of just reporting the facts.

slado, stop drinking the koolaid (none / 0) (#18)
by cpinva on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:58:12 PM EST

there is no liberal media, it died back in 1994, and gave us the republican party. it went truly hysterical, just totally making up lies about al gore, during the 2000 election. reporters for this "liberal" media even went so far as to contradict their own earlier reporting, in their efforts to villify candidate gore.

it continues to this day, averting its gaze, as the rightwing, and their republican cohorts, just make stuff up, with no response by the media.

so please, spare me the republican "liberal media" cant, it's gotten old and tired.

: My point is well made (1.00 / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 11:14:24 AM EST

I agree that there is no liberal media... But it didn't die in 1994, it died years and years earlier, when the Left took over the Demo party and the media. Here's some examples:
A photo of a terrorist in Iraq trying to kill US soldiers. Why would you publish this unless to glorify the terrorist? We thank the NYT. BTW Times people. This is not a debating contest. That is real US soldiers that this terrrorist is trying to kill.
And here is a small sample of the many sins of Left wing reporters and media outlets.
And ever wonder who funds some of these groups the media follows?? Enjoy your ketchup.
And then we have the pictures of the battles of the war betweem Hezabollah and Israel. Photoshopping and staging at its best.
And we have the totally false reporting from New Orleans.
And one of my favorites, showing how the media takes photos, crops them, changes context and prints them, ignoring where they come from. Hint: this one is from Nancy P's home town... Yes, she shares America's view..NOT
I could do more, but I think my point is well made.

Examples? (none / 0) (#22)
by Slado on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 08:31:19 PM EST

Sailor,

Seriously, my links are cnn.com msnbc.com abcnews.com cbsnews.com

Check those out and report back to me about bias.

Riddle me this...are most news rooms republican or democratic?

Is Couric a democrat or republican?

How about Matt Lauer, Dan Rather, Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Peter Jennings (GRHS), Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams on and on an on.

You know and I know that they are all democrats and maybe they are trying to be un-biased but I know I couldn't keep my natuarl outlook on the world effect the way I presented a story so why does the liberal media pretend that they can?

It may not be liberal enough for you but it's definately liberal and biased.

: Two bleeding hearts walk into a newsroom (none / 0) (#23)
by Dadler on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 09:01:33 PM EST

Explain your working definition of liberal bias in the MSM.
Not links to stories you don't like, but a thoughtful elaboration on just what a liberal does in reporting a story that renders that reporting hopelessly biased. Are they inventing facts, leaving out key details, being overly critical? What are they doing?
Personally, the only consistent bias I see in the MSmedia is the same bias the American people have by and large -- that is, a bias against the complicated and patient intellectualism necessary to adequately address major issues facing the nation. There were plenty of people speaking out against Iraq before it happened, warning about the chaos to ensue, marching in the streets, presenting intellectually sound and challenging rebukes to the state line...and they were treated like pieces of terrorist loving traitorous sh*t by the same MSM you claim is biased in a genuinely political manner. No small point there, gigantic actually: that when push came to shove after 9/11, when it really MATTERED, the MSM toed the state/company line to the disgraceful extent that they were complicit. They were conservatively biased to an immense degree.
Reality is much murkier than a simple "liberal bias".