Is The Media Biased Against Hillary Clinton?

By Big Tent Democrat

My response - is the Pope Catholic? Via Taylor Marsh, I see Eugene Robinson has, an, um, more nuanced view:

The theme of press bias, however, is woven through the Clinton campaign's narrative of the story thus far. There are two basic allegations: that journalists look at Obama uncritically while subjecting Hillary Clinton to microscopic scrutiny; and that we react with hair-trigger reflexes when attacks on Obama have the slightest whiff of racism but don't seem to notice, or care, when Clinton is subjected to rank sexism.

The first charge is just bogus, in my view.

Whatever you say Gene. How's that NBC gig working out for you? More . . .

Robinson continues:
The contention about racism vs. sexism is harder to dismiss out of hand. Being unapologetically racist or sexist is no longer acceptable in this country, at least in most settings. The social censure for being publicly racist, though, is well codified; the perpetrator must recant and repent, and may never completely eliminate the taint. There's also a pretty solid consensus on what's racist and what isn't. The views on sexism are less settled.
Yes, "less settled" is one way to put it. But Gene "concedes" that sexism in Media coverage is an issue in this way:
Is sexism in the coverage of the Clinton campaign excusable? No, and we deserve to be called on it. But it wasn't the media that decided she should take for granted all those states that Barack Obama has been winning.

I am sorry Gene, but why do you belittle the problem of sexism in the Media by arguing about Hillary's campaign problems. Clinton could lose this campaign by 20 points and it would be no justification for the Media's sexism and misogyny. This is just another way in which this issue is belittled. Shame on Eugene Robinson, a fine writer and journalist, for proving that, indeed, there are different standards for overt racism and sexism, and seemingly covert, sexism and racism in the Media. He just provided Exhibit A of that.

< Hillary and Obama WI Events Canceled Due to Weather | The American Beacon >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yes the media is biased against Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by jdj on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:44:25 PM EST
    that is one of the bigger reason why i think she will have a hard time beating McCain if she wins the Dem nomination.

    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:45:26 PM EST
    How about that? We agree for the first time ever maybe.

    The Clinton Rules (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by phat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    are starting to turn into the Obama Rules already, just as they turned into the Gore Rules and the Kerry Rules and even the Pelosi Rules.

    I agree that Obama has a better shot of being almost fairly portrayed by the media, but I wouldn't be the farm on it.

    I can write the narrative for you right now if you'd like.



    I don't see (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jdj on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:07:26 PM EST
    it. The media loves his story, and beating Clinton will make them love him even more.

    it is not fair in the least, but Clinton is not liked by MSM. Her recent brush up over the pimping comment, shows she has a hard time winning even when she is in the right.


    The media loves McCain, too. (none / 0) (#29)
    by phat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:31:17 PM EST
    The Mighty Wurlitzer is already warming up.



    Ithink it will be (none / 0) (#32)
    by jdj on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:35:19 PM EST
    a fairly even media field between Obama and McCain. in part because the appeal to independents and are seen as less partisan.

    Not saying that is true, just observing what MSM seems to think.


    Knock on wood. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by phat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:48:02 PM EST
    I suspect that's possible.

    I also suspect that the village are incapable of not picking a side.

    And who's been better at forcing the narrative over the years? The right-wing.

    I'm not saying they won't go for Obama, but given past history and given that they are both media darlings, McCain should win the coin toss, and that might be what it comes down to.



    The Max Cleland rules (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:11:55 PM EST
    The "media" helped the Republicans turn a guy who lost both legs in Vietnam into a friend of Osama bin Laden.

    If Hillary manages to survive the primary with the media helping Obama, then she'll have a wickedly good chance of winning the General.

    Obama on the other hand has had no experience in running without the media's blessing.  He's going to have a tough time when he loses it.  And I believe he will.

    Because at the end of the day, the corporate media wants the Republican.


    I disagree (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by mexboy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:10:17 PM EST
    I think what's going on right now is that because Obama is running, the media gets a pass on the mistreatment of Hillary.

    Being that Obama is AA, the press are tripping over themselves to build him up in order to avoid being hit with the racist card. In this sense they appear fair and therefore Clinton's complaints seem unfounded, because come on, if the press were not being fair, they would have attacked Obama because of his race, therefore they are incapable of being unfair to Clinton because of her gender.

    Once she is paired up against McCain, the game changes and the media bias, or even hatred, in some of them becomes transparent. I think the average voter will revolt against such unfairness.


    People disagree with me all the time (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    Hey, all of you are wrong . . .

    LOL (none / 0) (#17)
    by mexboy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:17:41 PM EST
    I agree with you most of the time, just not on this one.

    Your points are well taken (none / 0) (#37)
    by hairspray on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:43:09 PM EST
    I agree they are trying to look oh so "cool" on Obama, so as to allow the knife into Hillary's back. If she wins the nomination and goes against McCain, the GOP/media sexism may explode in their faces.  This dialogue that the public has been involved in on these two issues certainly has raised awareness and I do think people are paying attention.

    But doesn't that support the idea (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:51:16 PM EST
    of having a joint ticket?

    The question: (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:54:37 PM EST
    which kind of coverage will rub off on the other.

    Clinton as (none / 0) (#6)
    by jdj on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:56:27 PM EST

    No (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Prabhata on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:06:12 PM EST
    Why would she take vp? She would be more effective as a senator.

    I think it has to be the other way around (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:21:29 PM EST
    Here is what we have. Clinton would need to be on the top of the ticket. This would work out nicely and also give Obama 16 years in the White House with big time experience. She would be gone in 8. I think that is a fair deal. 8 years a piece. If it is O/C, I don't see her waiting around for 8 years.

    I also think that (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:38:33 PM EST
    Clinton/Obama would give Obama the chance to ride out all of the negative junk that will inevitably face him head-on now.  Rezko, Exelon, everything and anything that the Repubs and McCain will sling at him will become moot as Obama sits and gains experience from watching Clinton.  Then he just might be completely Teflon, and not just because of his race.

    What would be fair (none / 0) (#23)
    by jdj on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:25:21 PM EST
    would be the primary winner getting the nom. Right now Obama is leading. I would be quite upset if Obama gave up his lead and handed the nom to Clinton. If she wants it she should earn it right? I want the winner running.

    And if Clinton wins Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by derridog on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:30:02 PM EST
    and retakes the lead, I'm sure that you will maintain this same stance, right?

    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by AF on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:42:33 PM EST
    The primary winner should be the nominee.  You will be hard-pressed to find an Obama supporter who disagrees with this.  

    The problem is people will disagree on the definition of primary winner: popular vote or pledged delegates?  Does FL count?  Does MI count?  If both candidates can make a reasonable argument for being the primary winner, then by default the super-delegates will have to decide.  

    But if one candidate is the winner by all reasonable measures, she or he should be and will be the nominee.


    I won't be hard pressed to (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by phat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:49:06 PM EST
    find an Obama supporter who disagrees with this.




    Depends on what the definition of winner is (none / 0) (#65)
    by badger on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:45:27 PM EST
    If she can win (none / 0) (#76)
    by jdj on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:40:45 PM EST
    the pledged delegate count I would support her nomination fully. But even Hillary's campaign knows that is unlikely now, even if (big if) they can seat FL/MI.

    She might also agree to 4 years (none / 0) (#38)
    by hairspray on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:46:51 PM EST
    and at 60 she might be happy with that.  Obama would get the next 8 years.  There would have to be a deal for Obama to accept this and the 4 year one seems the most logical.  It will give them a unified ticket, and since they are close together on most issues they could move the country pretty well.

    Excuse moi. I'm not far behind her (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:56:49 PM EST
    and I have a heckuva lot more good years left in me than just four.  I'm just getting started!  I'm on my fourth career, it's going great, and I'm a field in which people keep working past 70.  So is she.:-)

    Unlikely Hillary would (none / 0) (#47)
    by brodie on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:00:34 PM EST
    agree to step aside in return for whatever benefits BHO would bring to her ticket.   She's worked too hard and too long -- nearly 2 yrs at least by Nov -- to win the presidency just to turn around and negotiate away half of her expected tenure.

    She'd have BHO on her ticket to keep the AAs on board for the fall, but that's as far as she would need to go.  

    He's young enough to wait 8, like Al.

    HRC is not yet at an age, unlike McCain, where age becomes a major issue.


    How would the type of Dem. (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:37:23 PM EST
    who does not want the Super D's to decide the nominee this cycle take to a closed door session in which HRC is tapped in secret to run this time but Obama is tapped in secret to run next time?  Makes me furious just reading the speculation.

    Hillary should (none / 0) (#77)
    by jdj on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:43:13 PM EST
    have to win it. Just like everyone else. She had immense advantages going into this primary. Obama is ahead because he has been a better politician so far.

    In a battle between the two (none / 0) (#71)
    by Joliphant on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:31:26 PM EST
    The media won't have a greater dislike of McCain ?

    I doubt it (none / 0) (#82)
    by BernieO on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:32:12 PM EST
    The media has had a long time love affair with McCain. And he will have the right wing attack machine behind him which always influenced the MSM.

    Robinson is a shill for Obama (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by doyenne49 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:59:16 PM EST
    Don't expect an objective word from him before November.

    How'd he phrase his own logic if applied to Obama? (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Ellie on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:34:01 PM EST
    Is sexism in the coverage of the Clinton campaign excusable? No, and we deserve to be called on it. But it wasn't the media that decided she should take for granted all those states that Barack Obama has been winning.

    Let's see, if -- perhaps when, since no campaign is perfect -- Team Obama makes a misstep, will Robinson declare it open season for the media to refer to Obama, relentlessly and in letter and spirit, in egregiously racist terms?

    The hell?


    My question is (none / 0) (#54)
    by felizarte on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:09:00 PM EST
    Can a sexist recognize sexism when he does it?  Or, if one is sexist, especially someone in the media, would they really come right out and say, "yes I am sexist." In the same token, someone who is a racist will not publicly admit it in this time and age.

    So when men describe Hillary's laugh as a 'cackle', her voice grating, or she is shrill, etc, etc.  I think those are just 'artificial reaasons because the real reason is "she's a woman," and they cannot come right out and say it.

    It is akin to the issue of "electability" because of "high negatives" No one in the media is honest enough to say, "she may not be electable because she is a woman, and there is still a great discrimination against women in such office."

    If Obama becomes the nominee, I'd hate to see the code words they'll throw at him such as: he's inperienced; a former drug user; his name is baracK HUSSEIN Obama and "how'd you like to have a POTUS named barack HUSSEIN Obama?"  And I'm pretty sure they have a lot of swift-boat type groups standing ready.  And their unspoken message is:  "Don't vote for him because he is black . . ."

    I hate to see all the young people who are participating in the elections for the first time to be so disillusioned by the time the campaign is over and Barack is not the elected president.

    I'm afraid certain things just got swept under the rug because they are too ugly to talk about and yet, how does anyone ever shine the light of truth on them and force those, especially in the media to confront their own monsters?


    Lamest excuse ever to support OB no matter what (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ellie on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:06:40 PM EST
    I hate to see all the young people who are participating in the elections for the first time to be so disillusioned by the time the campaign is over and Barack is not the elected president.

    OMFG, voting is a precious right. Anyone who'd stay away if Obama isn't artificially installed is no loss to the process of democracy.

    I want it to go to the most deserving candidate. I want all the votes to be counted and all the votes to count.


    If you understood my post (none / 0) (#87)
    by felizarte on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:47:15 PM EST
    you would not consider it as an endorsement of Obama.  And who does not want all votes to be counted?
    The fact of the matter is that the democratic party is experiencing incredible voter turn out especially among the young.  Who can say what motivates people to vote for anyone?  

    As for me, it is Hillary or no one at all.  And as ineffective as it might be, it is my own protest against how she has been mistreated in the media and how she has been attacked unfairly by those supporting other candidates.

    Does that made things clearer for you?


    Much of that turnout is new women voters (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:31:41 PM EST
    especially single women, whom both parties have found hard to reach -- and they're turning out for Clinton, not Obama.  The media don't tell you that, but see analyses at pollster.com and elsewhere.

    So either way, someone will be disappointed -- but that's politics.  I watched my young 'uns go through this in 2000, the first time they voted, and I worried that they were turned off for good.  Nope, they never miss an election since, and now they're just sadder but savvier.  (No more Nader votes.:-)


    The media biased against Hillary? (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Prabhata on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:05:13 PM EST
    Is the pope German? I think men hate Hillary because she pushes back, and men hate that.  Any woman who walks the space that men rule and has to push like any of them will be hated.  It's an unconscious reaction, but men will feel like little boys (mother child relationship) with a feeling of helplessness.  Their frustration turns into hatred.  Hillary is easy to hate, but not a mother.  It's a very common reaction to a woman using her authority, like a boss, or a wife that pushes back.  Thatcher was the iron lady.  Any man doing what she did would not have been considered an iron man, just a regular leader. A man like Dick Morris, who uses prostitutes likes to have the upper hand with women, hence he cannot deal with a strong woman like Hillary.

    Couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#48)
    by annabelly on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:01:08 PM EST
    And the media has been setting her up for just this sort of sexist backlash since at least 1992. That's the year Spy magazine put a mashup of her head and a dominatrix' body on the cover. I was so offended, and knew right then that they would try to tear her up any way they could as long as they could, bot the left and the right. And I hoped she could fight back. Apparently, she can. I guess thats why I love her so much. I've had to face unacceptable consequences just for being a strong, non-traditional woman my whole life.

    ordinarily i like mr. robinson. (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by cpinva on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:05:14 PM EST
    however, with this and other recent columns he's proved beyond all doubt that he's drunk the kool-aid.

    it was the media who decided sen. clinton should take for granted all the states sen. obama has been winning. it was the media that put forth the "inevitability" of sen. clinton's being the democratic nominee.

    i would challenge mr. robinson and everyone on this or any other site, to show where sen. clinton has stated or implied anything of the sort. you can't, because she hasn't.

    i is the media that's constantly attacked sen. clinton, not on her policy positions, but because of who and what she is. for mr. robinson to claim otherwise is just simply untrue and pathetic.

    How bout this (none / 0) (#18)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:17:58 PM EST
    She could have meant that either (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by hairspray on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:50:52 PM EST
    she or Obama sealed the deal by February 5th. No?

    As always on issues of racism and (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:10:53 PM EST
    sexism you GET IT.  And thanks for saying this!!!!

    Clinton could lose this campaign by 20 points and it would be no justification for the Media's sexism and misogyny.

    Gene has the justification skills of my teenager.

    Here's an interesting column by (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:40:07 PM EST
    A Woman in the White House:



    A daughter of the Second Wave! (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:42:18 AM EST
    What a beautiful statement she makes there.  I feel exactly like that every single day right now.  The generation before me laid the groundwork, then came the backlash and women still don't make equal money or have equal rights and now I am a daughter of the Second Wave.  I really wanted to be something else in the end but I'll take daughter of the Second Wave so that my daughter and now my granddaughter can have the future that my mother and her crew worked so hard to give to me and them.

    As Somerby noted the other day (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by brodie on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:17:04 PM EST
    back in the 2000 cycle, ER was aiding and abetting the media smear campaign against Gore when he was editor of the WaPo's Style section where a number of snarky and mendacious anti-Gore pieces were published.  

    Last I checked, ER hasn't apologized for the anti-Gore propaganda nor has any media collegue, always careful not to make Gene uncomfortable,  ever called him out for it on tv.

    He gets a break today because the MSM encourages anti-Hillary punditry.  The media use the technical, but misleading, excuse that, unlike Carville or Begala, dumped from CNN, Gene hasn't officially endorsed anyone.

    What a joke.  But typical for our corp media.

    I just clicked his "bio" link, (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    but no bio.  

    Um, yeah they're biased (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by garage mahal on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:26:11 PM EST
    The press corps has indeed decided they won't tolerate a another Clinton Presidency. That was expected, but wasn't expected was all the progressives tag teaming with them to bring her down. Specifically, the ugly narrative similiar to 2000 election when they called it or Bush first, and any results from there on would be deemed "illegitimate". Same with the current mob, the narrative pounded relentlessly is that Hillary can't win legitimately, and only by "breaking the rules", or stealing it against "the will of the people". Instead of the right wing goons in FL storming a campaign headquarters, it's the press corps, the brownshirts at Kos, with a smattering of "prominet liberal bloggers". Ah, right Josh?

    Media narrative about is shifting (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by BigB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:28:07 PM EST
    Robinson has turned into a hack for Obama.

    The media narrative on Obama has begun to shift as usual led by the right wing media. The MSM always takes its lead from them.

    Cult of personality meme has taken hold.

    Stories about women repeatedly fainting in his rallies are being use to suggest he is a phony.

    The press is beginning to go after Obama as a flip flopper on public financing essentially taking McCain's side.

    The press is beginning to make fun on his empty "hope" and "change" themes. They are also beginning to ask more and more what exactly does he intend to do as president other than "change" things.

    Led by the right wing media? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by AF on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:47:30 PM EST
    Give yourselves some credit!  Those themes have been pushed aggressively on this blog as well.

    the all powerful TALK LEFT!!!! (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:53:12 PM EST
    From your keyboard to God's ears . . .

    May be shifting a little bit but (none / 0) (#52)
    by Firefly4625 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:06:42 PM EST
    ever sooooooo sloooowly...I think that's intentional - because Obama's the "frontrunner" now, the media know they're expected to "scrutinize" him more carefully.

    However, I don't think they have any intention of giving up their plan to make Obama the Democratic nominee. So, they're playing a game - "criticizing" him a little bit (but not much), looking at him a bit more closely (but not much).

    That way they're "covered" - "See, we didn't give him a free pass, we brought up this and this..."

    I don't see the media narrative ever changing substantially - I don't even see them changing much from exactly what they're doing now - "scrutinizing" him gently. Unless and until he's the Dem nominee, I mean, and up against Saint McCain.


    Hard to say (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by BernieO on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:42:54 PM EST
    It is starting to shift, but you may be right. I just saw ABC news do a piece on the speech Obama gave that was a lot like one given by Deval Patrick. And they explicitly tied it to potential damage to his image as "authentic".
    In today's WaPost David Ignatius also started questioning Obama, admitting the Clinton campaign's complaint that the media was going easy on Obama was fair. Then he said:

    "now Obama appears to be the front-runner in terms of his delegate count, he deserves a closer look, especially from people like me who have written positively about him.
    The reason to look closely now, quite simply, is to avoid buyer's remorse later."

    How bizarre. He actually thinks it made sense to wait until millions had already cast their votes to bother to even begin to report fully on Obama. I wrote to the ombudsman to complain. Hope you do, too.


    I think there's more to it than that... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Polkan on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:56:24 PM EST
    there was another article yesterday on Politico about Clinton trying to build relationships with Fox and being herself responsible for her media troubles.

    For what it's worth, my opinion is based on Gene's "insight": journalists are people, too. And on the Politico article "insight": it's Clinton's own fault media hates her.

    What I learned from this election so far is this:

    • vast majority of American media is breathtakingly infantile, incapable of objective thinking and analysis. Proximity to primetime means only more mediocrity.

    • most American media, including most of "blogosphere" ARE people like us. Except that they are paid for their opinion and we're not.

    I found it both sad and troubling.

    Sad because I don't think Chris Matthews's or Tim Russert's opinion is any more valuable than my own, yet we're all glued to the TV or Arianna Huffington's worthless pronouncements on the web.

    Troubling because "freedom of the press" implies a higher responsibility for Mr. Russert's opinion than my own. I wish it was so.

    So what we have is the media full of real people broadcasting their worthless opinions to millions of people and influencing this election, all  under constitutional protection and yet without any consequences.

    What does it say, then, about us.

    Add that media get even more p*ssed (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:03:31 PM EST
    when a candidate stops paying their way.  I watched for that a couple of weeks ago, when the Clinton campaign stopped doing so, and sure 'nuff, the media negativity got even worse.  At the same time, of course, there was less coverage because some reporters got called back to the office and had to get off the gravy train.

    Btw, I used to see the Society of Professional Journalists' ethics code -- with the clause about paying their own way in covering events, for example -- posted in newsrooms.  No more.  Somehow, in the last redecoratings, those got lost.


    It says... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:56:17 AM EST
    that is you pay any attention to these pinheads you're entering pinhead territory yourself.

    I cannot understand, and never have been able to understand why any self-respecting adult would allow someone else to influence their thought process.

    The governor of my state, WI, endorsed Obama. I voted for Governor Jim Doyle, twice. Does that mean that I will now run haplessly over to the Obama camp? Fraid not. I think for myself and have all ready voted for Hillary Clinton via absentee ballot.

    I quit watching Hardball, MTP, Countdown,  and stopped listening to Air Obama a long time ago. They all have their opinions and have a perfect right to them. I also have a perfect right not to listen to or watch any of them. Saddest for me was not watching KO any more. I used to have a lot of respect for him.


    Press biased? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jen on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:04:59 PM EST
    Here is a small example of what Obama will be facing when the press finally turns on him -- which they will if he's the nominee...

    It's Time For The Media To Look At Obama's Record, Associates

    It's gonna be way uglier than the well worn lies they'd bring out against Hillary if she's the nominee. I wonder how Obama will address this stuff? Oy.

    Media hypocrisy at its finest.... (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Firefly4625 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:17:12 PM EST
    this morning, Howie Kurtz on CNN's Reliable Sources, asked the question (and seemed oh so concerned, donchknow) about whether the media is being too hard on Hillary.

    To "discuss" the subject he had John Aravosis (Obama guy) and a rightwing townhall.com woman - forget her name. And then there was Howie, a republican who's supposed to be a media critic.

    Anyway, two republicans and an Obama supporter (who doesn't like Hillary a bit) to "discuss" the media's reaction to Hillary.

    Well, surprise surprise - the consensus: she deserves it all! (In the interest of full disclosure I got so mad after the first 5 minutes I turned off the TV, so I don't really know how it ended - the first part was enough for me!)

    I dashed off an angry e-mail to Kurtz, telling him  what a clever little man he is - perfect little set-up to make sure the media's right, Hillary's wrong, all's right with the world...Grrrrr

    I knew (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:01:58 AM EST
    if John Aravosis was on with Kurtz and some Republican they would find an excuse for anything that is done to either one of the Clintons.  

    Aravosis and his Americablog is another deleted blog on my favorites list. Another someone I used to respect. Another person that seems to find supporting their chosen candidate worth the loss of their integrity.

    As a gay man and having been subjected to discrimination himself wouldn't you think he would loathe it more than most?


    Victimology (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by xjt on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:47:10 PM EST
    I didn't think Obama's "monthly cycle" comments were "bizarrely over interpreted" at all. I think there were what they were. It was quite obvious what he was doing to any rational person.

    When we point out sexism in the media we are "whiny victims." This is the perfect perpetrator strategy: You get to do or say whatever you want, and if we complain we are either whiny victims, or shrill, or both.

    Works out well for you.

    Frankly Jay Rosen (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:15:16 PM EST
    this comment seems on target to me.

    I have to wonder about your appreciation here.


    Busted: Obama plagiarizes 2006 speech (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:25:57 PM EST
    Big Head DC Found a video of 2006 speech from Mas governor, now copied word per word by Obama. The Axelrod Shtick.

    Darn that 26 year old head (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:29:27 PM EST

    Did ya see the videos? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:41:41 PM EST
    Love it...recycled rhetoric.

    No. I accept your (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:49:32 PM EST
    critique.  Meanwhile, have you read the Newsweek cover story profiling M. Obama?  

    Could not stomach... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:11:39 PM EST
    Check out how much he spend in Florida...1.3 million the most even from the republicans...I guess the he did not campaign story can be killed now. my post with link

    Kathy will be interested in the (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:17:52 PM EST
    Newsweek profile, as the Michelle/job interview anecdote reads a little different.

    I spotted that...ha..ha (none / 0) (#96)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:24:55 PM EST
    One of the comments to (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:35:26 AM EST
    Tapper's column says Obama reminds her of Jean Bertrand Aristide,  Interesting comment.  

    Thats not all (none / 0) (#100)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:18:17 AM EST
    look closer much is the same there is a Bill Clinton lordy it over, a social liberal surrogate Press like MSNBC doing the nasty, charges of swift boating when his opponents discusses his actual record...... and again recall Obama lost Mass by 15 points with Patrick, Kennedy and Kerry in his corner.

    Robinson's contact link doesn't work (none / 0) (#19)
    by Josey on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:19:13 PM EST
    media bias? Really? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Me414 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:22:07 PM EST
    I watched some of the Sunday talk shows today and the only name I kept hearing pop up was Obama. When they were talking about the national race, they only pitted Obama against him. "Do you think Obama will be able to pull Independents away from McCain?", "Do you think McCain will be able to fight off the large amounts of money Obama will have?", etc. I had to look at my calender to see if I missed something and Obama had the nomination already. I even watched one program where they were talking about what a first class First Lady Michelle Obama would make. Unbelievable. Any time that Hillary's name came up it was negative. Not once were her recent endorsements brought up. Obama is just barely a few delegates ahead of Hillary, in the scheme of things, and yet they keep saying that she won't be able to "catch up".

    It's just ridiculous and this is why I won't vote for Obama even if he wins the nomination. I don't like the press choosing my president, especially when I think he's been given a free ride. In a choice between Obama and McCain, I'll write in Hillary. It may sound like I'm throwing away my vote, but I won't have my vote a part of his victory.

    when Hillary led (none / 0) (#27)
    by jdj on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:29:21 PM EST
    she was mentioned in matchups and they talked about Bill beiing the first gentleman. Obama has the lead so this matchup chatter in normal.

    He is leading by far more than a few delegates, and the states ahead favor him. There is a reason bookies have the odds of Obama winning the nom at around 70% right now.


    So they can make money (none / 0) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    in the short term?  That's why.  Have you ever heard of day-trading?  

    Don't believe that this is a true indicator of how things are going to be.


    Keep in mind (none / 0) (#44)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:53:19 PM EST
    Bookies go by how people bet, and considering most people who bet (like the electorate) are driven by very short term sight it is not surprising. That is why usually pros make money in the market and the amateurs lose money.

    I would love to know where the pros are putting their money right now....


    I think it has a lot to do with (none / 0) (#30)
    by jdj on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:31:27 PM EST
    Bill Clinton as well.

    Yes. On MTP this morning, Novak brought (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:35:47 PM EST
    up the "do we really want BC back in the White House with all of that free time on his hands". They also agreed that Bill has been an embarrassment to her campaign. If he is, it's only because they have made it so.

    Which just puts it back to sexism (none / 0) (#62)
    by badger on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:39:41 PM EST
    because one (not all, but a major one) of Bill's problems was that he had a successful, outspoken, capable wife who openly (and with some authority) participated in Clinton's governorship, his investments, his campaign, and his Presidency.

    And the media love to both point that out and ridicule it, as do the Obama supporters who use the term 'Billary'.


    Interesting how when a result may have (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:08:53 PM EST
    not been successful, it was Hillary's fault, but anything which worked out well, she had nothing to do with that and was having tea.  The hypocrisy in this is amazing.

    Haw! (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:05:13 PM EST

    Miss D (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:06:56 PM EST
    please repost using hyperlinks.

    hate working on weekends.... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Miss Devore on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:12:17 PM EST

    yes we shrill (none / 0) (#56)
    by Miss Devore on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:16:08 PM EST

    oofff (none / 0) (#57)
    by Miss Devore on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:17:06 PM EST
    Hillary and the media (none / 0) (#59)
    by Runasim on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:29:02 PM EST
    The role of the media in painting Hillary (and Bill) as black as possible is shameful. When either Clinton is quoted, there is always speculation about the motives and intent (always evil) behind their words.  This speculation is then reported as 'fact'. What passes for news and analysis is really the commenters' own opinions
     and speculative interpretation.
    If Hillary criticizes Obama's health plan, it is reported as AN ATTACK.  If Obama criticizes Hillary's health plan, it is reported as a DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.  
    If Hillary makes a strtegic change, it's reported as either an act of desperation or as an evil plan to bamboozle the electorate.  If Obama does the same, it's reported as a smart maneuver.

    I like Obama, but before I can make an informed judgement, I need to hear some pramatic talk from him.  Just what will his 'unity' look like when it hits the ground?  Which of his policies will he compromise to gain unity?  Nobody knows.  and that's the problem.


    I believe what Robinson was saying is... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jay Rosen on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:39:49 PM EST
    ... not that Clinton's poor decision-making "excuses" sexism in news coverage.  How did you get there? I cannot believe your reading skills are that poor.

    When Robinson says "it wasn't the media that decided she should take for granted all those states that Barack Obama has been winning," he means that there are alternative explanations for why she is getting negative press, alternatives to sexism among the campaign press corps. He is not saying, "who cares if there's sexism in the media?"

    Also, I thought your post suggesting Obama was talking about her monthly cycle was bizarrely over-interpreted, and very very wrong.  But you closed comments on it by the time I saw it so I couldn't say so in that thread.

    You don't seem to sense any danger of developing a victimology here.  It seems to me that you are pretty far down the road toward that, and it's getting worse.  

    I see it IS that Jay Rosen (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:14:31 PM EST
    And I am frankly shocked about your claims of "developing a victimology" here. you must be joking. You believer that Clinton is NOT a victim of sexism.

    Let me guess Jay, Chris Matthews is merely misunderstood.

    This commentary from you is frankly shocking and makes me second guess every thing you write about THIS isse.


    Pretty amazing, isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:34:12 PM EST
    Funny Jay (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:12:14 PM EST
    You write what Robinson did NOT.

    But beyond that, that is simply not they way Robinson structured his column. He stated there were 2 contentions of the Clinton campaign. First, they get a raw deal from the Media. Robinson says they do not.

    Second, he says that sexism is more accepted in the Media and therefore Clinton get more of a hard time than Obama. He says THAT may be true. Buut, so what, no one told Clinton to run a lousy campaign.

    If this is Press Think's Jay Rosen, I am shocked at YOUR LACK of reading skills. I assume it is not that Jay Rosen.


    I don't think it works that way (none / 0) (#73)
    by jdj on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:36:00 PM EST
    Hillary winning the nom by superdelegates or seating FL/MI is not going to endear anyone to her. Not the media and not the general public. Sadly that route appears to be the only way for her to win now.

    Yes, it's me, and I think Chris Matthews... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jay Rosen on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:37:06 PM EST
    ... is a clown and a jerk and probably a sexist jerk, too.  He sees himself as someone sort of righteous avenger toward the Clintons.  He's a ridiculous figure, an ass on nightly TV.

    And yes, you are in drifting toward a victimology here.

    If, looking at the negative press McCain got last summer, a blogger blamed it on ageism, that would be drifting toward a victimology, as well.  

    Robinson was not saying "the media is sexist toward Clinton, but so what...?"  He was saying, "that can happen and I expect us to be slammed when it does, but that is not the reason she is getting such negative press."

    You can criticize him for not emphasizing sexism in the news media because that is something he did do: he declined to emphasize it.  Knocking him for "sexism? so what?" is unfair and a misreading of his column.

    The negative press McCain got? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:53:52 PM EST
    Oh please Jay.

    First and foremost, I am not the Clinton campaign.

    The people who are drifting towards a victimology, aided by you here, is the MEDIA itself.

    As for Obama's remarks. they were sexist in my estimation. you are entitled to your view,a sam I, bnut I will not cowed into NOT expressing  it by hordes claiming "victimology" and screeching "PC."


    Who said you were the Clinton campaign? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jay Rosen on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:15:56 PM EST
    I didn't.  

    Cowed into not expressing it?  Good grief.  Am I contacting your ISP in an attempt to shut you down?  Telling you are drifting toward a victimology, which you are, is not an attempt to silence you but to wake you up.  Since you evidently disagree with me, and feel you need no alerting to such dangers, you are quite clearly uncowed.


    Not OT but pretty funny (none / 0) (#75)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:37:59 PM EST
    A former producer's take on Chris Mathews ...


    You should be celebrating (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ric Locke on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:40:11 PM EST
    ...after all, this is the condition you've been working toward for years. It is the absolute triumph of identity politics.

    By the logic as it is presently set up, the media have to be something-ist. If they don't support the black guy, regardless of policies, programs, personality, or presentation, they're racist. If they don't support the woman regardless of, etc., they're sexist. And since Cynthia McKinney isn't running, they're in a cleft stick.

    This is neither more nor less than ranking the "-ist"s. Sexism is, apparently, less evil than racism, so the one to support is the black. "Issues" don't get a look-in, since anything noted as an "issue" is simply an excuse for -ism.

    Enjoy. Yeah, I know, "trolling". Got your [DEL] key handy?


    Don;t think this is that different from '00 or '04 (none / 0) (#86)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:00:34 PM EST
    There's just another -ism available.  It's the same old issue-less personality driven horse race coverage we've seen for a long time.  This year it seems to have reached a new level of vitriol though.

    My goodness (none / 0) (#104)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:12:26 AM EST
    You spun that well enough to be a pundit yourself. And to expect an unabashed Obama supporter like Robinson to do a fair critique of any problem Hillary Clinton has with the press is like expecting me, an unabashed Hillary Clinton supporter to find anything at all uplifting in any defense of Obama.

    Election Study Finds Media Hit Hillary Hardest (none / 0) (#106)
    by truthonly on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:58:58 AM EST
    Press Release:

    Election Study Finds Media Hit Hillary Hardest

    Obama, Huckabee Fare Best;
    FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo)

    TV election news has been hardest on Hillary Clinton this fall, while Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have been the biggest media favorites, according to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University. The study also found that Fox NewsChannel's evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks.

    For a PDF file of the complete press release, please click here

    Contact Information

    2100 L Street, NW
    Suite 300
    Washington, DC 20037

    Phone: 202-223-2942

    Fax: 202-872-4014

    Email: mail@cmpa.com

    CMPA, 2100 L Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037 | Phone: 202-223-2942 | Fax: 202-872-4014 | mail@cmpa.com