The Los Angeles Times's love affair with Barack Obama continues to writhe hot and heavy. We've reported on it in the past here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
The paper continued its string of flattering, adulatory profiles of Obama yesterday (Sat. 9/8/07) with a generous, front-page, 2100+-word piece. With the article are two photos, including a nice full-color pic of Barack and his wife Michelle enjoying a smooch (see images of the article here and here). As with other pieces the paper has run on Obama, any unflattering episodes about the candidate are downplayed or excused.
Then today (Sun. 9/9/07), the Times published "Obama finds lots of green in Oprah's meadow," about Oprah Winfrey hosting a posh fundraiser for Barack. The paper touts "Barack Obama's turn to enjoy billionaire chat diva Oprah Winfrey's favor." In the most fawning of terms, the paper described that "there was a sense of history being played out" as the "enthusiastic" and "stunning cross section of the country's entertainment and sports elite" gathered to raise big bucks for Barack's campaign.
How is it that it seems when rich Democrats gather for fundraising, everything is presented as so wonderful and happy? Yet wealthy Republicans are often described along the lines of "Big Money" and "military-industrial complex" folks who represent the "upper-10th-of-1% folks who benefit from Bush's tax cuts"? (That's how a Times reader described GOP supporters in a letter to the editor today.) Double standard, anyone?
By the way, over the course of the two articles this weekend, the word "liberal" is nowhere to be found. Now if this had been about a Republican fundraiser ...?
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This liberal love-fest will
September 9, 2007 - 16:55 ET by rbosqueThis liberal love-fest will continue as long as the Hollywierd crowd is in bed with him. Both have rocks for brains. American libs love socialists.
I am shocked, truly
September 9, 2007 - 17:47 ET by nofateI am shocked, truly shocked! to find out that not once has the LAT seen fit to identify Osama Obama as a liberal, or a democrat, or a leftist, or a socialist, or... Well, maybe not. What is also amazing is the way these millionaire elites throw their money around and still claim in the "objective" press to be "for the little people". The joke continues. As pointed out in "A Guide to the Political Left" at FrontpageMag in the listing of the LEFTWING MILLIONAIRES' CLUB:
A few notable eye openers, for me at least: Fidel Castro, Louis Farrakhan, Yasser Arafat, and last, but certainly not least, Pol Pot. The list is long and the circus continues.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
Iraq reporting you won't see in the MSM:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com
Dave. There is no end to this, is there?
September 9, 2007 - 18:10 ET by Gary HallDave, Dave.. where ya been? I think the LA Times just needed more to attempt to overshadow Fred Thompson's entry into the race. I thought for sure that you'd post on their front page presentation of Fred Thompson. The Headline read:
They really poured it on. Got her pg. got married. Didn't work out. Got divorced. It was her family that got him going.
Somewhere along the way they found a spot to pass along a bit of the presidential material, "One semester, Thompson reduced his course load to save money and worked four jobs," and, "Thompson's grades were so good that the law schools of Tulane and Vanderbilt universities offered him scholarships."
I guess somehow the headline being, "Thompson - A legimate Candidate with the Drive it Takes to Succeed," just never popped into the realm of possiblity.