A Free Pass To Media Bias

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:33:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Like Booman (who responds to me here without actually addressing my points), many in the Left blogosphere seem oblivious to the Media bias against Democratic candidates. Bob Somerby demonstrates:

. . . According to Matt and Kevin, Russert performs a stale, stupid version of gotcha journalism. But land o’ goshen, people! He does it to everyone! Matt implies that Russert goes after both parties. Following up, Kevin seems to comes right out and say it—though we’ll admit that his language is framed in such a way that he hasn’t actually said this.
. . . At this point, it’s astounding when liberals go out of their way to say that Russert treats Republicans the same way he treats Democrats. If you want to know how Dems lose elections, just gaze on the way these two fine fellows refuse to fight; refuse to observe; refuse to stand up for your side.
Does Russert treat Republicans the way he treats Dems? By now, that case would be exceptionally hard to make. [More]

In Russert’s last public outing, for example, he went after Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for two solid hours, often with factually bogus assertions. But uh-oh! We showed you how Russert behaved in January 2000, when George Bush was cast in a similar role; there is simply no comparison in the way the tough-talker acted toward Bush (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/2/07). But then, we once compared the way Russert behaved towards Candidates Bush and Gore on Meet the Press during Campaign 2000. And uh-oh! As it turned out, Russert lobbed silly softballs at Bush—then behaved in a stunningly egregious fashion when he got his hour with Gore (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/1/03). His hectoring, badgering interview of Howard Dean in 2003 was another remarkable low point (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/30/03). And by the way: Before Russert’s two-hour whipping of Clinton, what was the one other time he drew criticism for his work in a debate? Of course! It was back in October 2000, when he was widely and harshly criticized for his hectoring conduct toward Hillary Clinton! (Russert has never done a general election debate.) Does Russert treat the two parties the same? It’s hard to prove a claim of this type—but it’s astounding to see liberal leaders act as though they don’t even know that such a question exists. But Matt and Kevin join Paul Waldman in this see-no-evil posture. All three have criticized Russert in recent weeks—without even seeming to know that a question of partisan animus exists. These fine, well-mannered, well-raised young men seem to have their noses buried deep in those Village suburbs.

What Bob said.

< Political Rhetoric and Policy | Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Redux >

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.

A Free Pass To Media Bias | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I hope they're getting paid to whine (5.00 / 0) (#2)
by seabos84 on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 01:11:35 PM EST

and snivel and ignore media bias.

I had the privelage of living among my betters in the 80's when I was a 5 or 10 buck an hour cook, whether the job was in fine dining or hash houses.

see, I lived in Boston, and whenever I'd do anything political I'd marvel at the soundbites that the lying fascists used

(even as high school grad in 1980 when I was 20 I considered fallwell and raygun fascists ... the curse of little education!!)

and I'd get condescending lectures from people with big degrees from big colleges and big universities, and in these lectures I'd be told how the world is big and complex and solutions are big and complex and

simple answers are for stupid people.

ya-butt, I'd say ... people are busy - can't we the smart, noble and selfless make it easy for people to listen to THE TRUTH and make it easy for people to igore the fascist's lies?

then the smarter than me would turn away discuss vacation plans to the vineyard or colorado with their enlightened smarter than me friends and fellow travelers.

so, let base me explain the world as my simple little brain sees it

the dems in charge for the last 3+ decades have been about the same people - today's newbies cut their teeth on the knees of the losers of '84, '88, ...
they've ALL made way more money in ANY year than I've ever made,
every 2 years, they've always got reasons for ignoring the media
every 2 years, they always burn through millions of volunteer hours and hundreds of millions in dollars to lose
they always have the same excuses for losing and keeping their jobs

did I say that already?

it is great to see people lining up the same old same old excuses for losing, again.

contempt and disdain for the reality of the media - a bunch of fascist synchophant liars - could be called a 'strategy'

I've yet to see it work, and I'll NEVER support people running for office who won't get real about the media.

rmm.

: If you are going to be (1.00 / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 06:12:00 PM EST

jealous over the money, have you considered why you aren't making more??

I remember (1.00 / 0) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 06:06:19 PM EST

that something like 85% of the MSM self-identified as Demos....

Guess they all lied.

Guess their editors didn't agree (5.00 / 0) (#6)
by Lora on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 06:38:46 PM EST

Jim (none / 0) (#7)
by TomStewart on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 09:47:31 PM EST

Does that include the editors annd the owners of the microphones?

No?

Gee.


For a start... (1.00 / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 09:51:01 PM EST

Can you spell New York Times???


Uh... (5.00 / 0) (#9)
by TomStewart on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:25:04 PM EST

You mean the people who pay and publish David Brooks, Tom Friedman and Maureen Down? That NYT?

Oh. Well, that told me.


If you believe the NYT is conservative.. (1.00 / 0) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 06:27:16 AM EST

Then there is no way we can have a rational conversation.

Of course my point was that around 85% of the MSM has self identified as Democrats...


: If you believe that the NYT Is Liberal... (5.00 / 0) (#12)
by TomStewart on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:12:10 PM EST

Then there is no way we can have a rational conversation.
Of course my point was that around 95% of the MSM owners have self identified as Republicans...

Clinton Bashing (none / 0) (#1)
by squeaky on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 12:54:29 PM EST

By the corporate media suggests that they are afraid of her becoming president. Since they give those to the right of her a free pass, must be that she is far more left than she is projecting to the public.

Why else would they have such double standards?

Goliath Candidate (none / 0) (#3)
by Jgarza on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 01:32:48 PM EST

I don't think Russert is fair and balanced, but i don't think it was partisan politics that made him put the heat on Clinton. Her campaign made a decision to go for this inevitability theme. She peaked really high and made herself into this Goliath candidate.
A campaign knows there will be consequences to everything it does. She should have been expecting it and she should have been prepared.
In fact if you look at her last appearance on MTP, she had never really even been tested. She had this satellite linked interview, she controlled the entire process. NO other presidential candidate has done that. In the debate she couldn't control everything and faltered. It was only fair she got a pass on appearing on the show, so she got it twice as hard at the debate.

: Clinton (none / 0) (#11)
by Slado on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 08:36:21 AM EST

Gulliani is in the same pickle. The media doesn't want a story to be over before it starts. They are looking for cracks in the armour on both sides and Clinton supporters can't stand the heat. The problem with Clinton is she isn't her husband. No charm, no spin moves no smile. She is only 1/3 the canidate her husband was and is and if he can't fill the void as the first husband she will loose.
The Clinton camp knows this so they're resorting to the same playbook they used whenever they were caught in the Clinton years (Whitewater, Monica etc...) except this time the canidate can't charm there way out of hard questions so the tactic doesn't work as well.