Amy Robach this morning asked the most rhetorical question in contemporary media: does the MSM have a thing for Barack Obama?
The weekend Today co-anchor didn't need guests Pat Buchanan or Rachel Maddow for the answer. She could have kept things in-house with NBC's own Lee Cowan, who has acknowledged “it's almost hard to remain objective” about Obama.
But pose the question Robach did, and Pat Buchanan gave her a colorful answer.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
AMY ROBACH: Hillary Clinton supporters and the Hillary Clinton campaign is pointing the finger directly at the media, saying they have been harder on Hillary Clinton than we've been on Barack Obama; that there's a double standard so to speak, and I want to get both of your impressions on that. Is it true, and Pat I'll begin with you.
PAT BUCHANAN: It certainly is true. I think a lot of the media are not closet Obamacans -- they're out of the closet, and they're all for Obama, they're enthusiastic, they're caught up in the movement, as they have been in the past, like Bobby Kennedy's movement, Jack Kennedy's movement and other things. And I do think they've been exceedingly rough on Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I think before New Hampshire they were almost gloating over the defeat and the fall of the House of Clinton. And a backlash against the media frankly is one reason I think why she won New Hampshire, and they are building up for another one. I think it's going to be very tough for her to come back, but if there's one thing that can do it, it's the bias, I think, of the national media.Air America's Rachel Maddow didn't disagree.
ROBACH: Rachel, have we given Barack Obama a pass?Interesting formulation at the end by Maddow. Seemingly on the verge of expressing the opinion herself, at the last moment she chose to put it in the mouths of others.
RACHEL MADDOW: I think the media and a lot of the country more broadly, and people in my personal life certainly feel this way, are really interested in Barack Obama because he's a new guy on the scene, he brings a lot of new dynamics to the race. It's not just that he would be the first African-American president, it's that he's a whole new, he's a whole new bundle of things to talk about in terms of presidential politics and Democratic politics. I absolutely, people think that the media is enthralled with Obama.
In any case, the question of whether the media is in the tank for Obam makes "is the Pope Catholic?" look like a true brain teaser.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Thanks, Mark
February 16, 2008 - 09:43 ET by Cool ArrowJust because it is so delightfully intrigueing, we should not lose sight of the fact media bias is hard at work here.
Hillary deserves this treatment, for sure. And though it may seem refreshing to have the media agree with the right on any issue, that they agree with either side is a real problem.
♣ a seal
Amy?
February 16, 2008 - 09:49 ET by hal50Why doesn't Amy ask Matthews & Olbymann? Oh..I forget ..they were at an Obama rally and were not available.
people think that the
February 16, 2008 - 11:10 ET by motherbeltpeople think that the media is enthralled with Obama. -Rachel Maddow
Um....People THINK, Rachel????
As my daughter would say, "Thank you, Captain Obvious!!"
Blank canvas and empty suits
February 16, 2008 - 09:54 ET by ThisnThatMSM - Idealogues who are looking for a candidate that reflects their image
Obama - A candidate completely devoid of ideas, who is also the most liberal senator in Congress
What a surprise they're made for each other!
BTW, who was the most recent most liberal senator in Congress who ran for President? Answer: John (I was in Vietnam) Kerry.
Hope springs eternal.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Being There
February 16, 2008 - 10:02 ET by allanfIt all seems like something out of the movie "Being There", with Peter Sellers. Obama, like Chauncey Gardener speaks in nice aphorisms. You take away whatever you want to take away from his speeches.
The other thing that Maddow
February 17, 2008 - 07:17 ET by motherbeltThe other thing that Maddow says that is very interesting is that people are enthralled by Obama because he brings "a lot of new dynamics to the race" and he is "whole new bundle of things to talk about."
Not new ideas, not innovative solutions,....a new "dynamic." In other words, he's made the "horse race" more interesting.
Substance? He don't need no stinking substance!
→ Joe Klein's innuendo
February 16, 2008 - 10:03 ET by Cool ArrowIs Joe Klein calling Obama and his followers fascist? "Cult-like", for sure.
Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.
♣ a seal
bleh...
February 16, 2008 - 10:05 ET by dronetekNotice how willing the media is to talk about bias and admit it when its democrats who are complaining. It goes waaaaaay deeper than just anti-Hillary bias.
→ dronetek
February 16, 2008 - 10:09 ET by Cool ArrowIt just seemed Klein was just dying to introduce Hitler into his article.
This reader was certainly led that direction.
♣ a seal
correction
February 16, 2008 - 10:28 ET by Cool Arrow"Cult-like" is not attributed to Joe Klein's article. Sorry
♣ a seal
Cult-like?
February 16, 2008 - 10:26 ET by motherbeltCult-like?
That's what Charles Krauthammer describes in Time for a Rude Awakening. He says that Obama is selling hope as a commodity, and that (emphasis added):
Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity - salvation - for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival with, as writer James Wolcott observed, a "salvational fervor" and "idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria."
He comments that Jake Tapper of ABC News refers to the "Helter-Skelter cultish qualities" of "Obama worshipers," and Joel Stein of the LA Times calls it "the Cult of Obama."
My thought has long been of a quasi-religious, "cultish" phenomenon...but the figure that jumped into my mind was Jim Jones.
I feel better, knowing that my thinking wasn't all that far-fetched, and that others have the same feeling.
The last paragraph:
Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude.
I pray that the Democrats are right, and Krauthammer is wrong.
Jim Jones is a good name to
February 16, 2008 - 11:55 ET by maggieqpublicJim Jones is a good name to bring to the discussion. Most are familiar with the end of the story at Guyana… but in his earlier days, Jim Jones was befriended and adored by local politicians, members of the media and society mavens.
maggie and others.....
February 16, 2008 - 12:59 ET by motherbeltmaggie and others....just to be clear:
I am in no way implying that Obama is a wacked-out psycho that will lead people to their deaths. I'm just comparing the adoration that many had for Jones when he first appeared on the scene.
Fickle Human Nature
February 16, 2008 - 15:30 ET by stratmanYesterday I commented on the similarities of Obamamaniacs to another (historical) populace:
MB… not to worry… only
February 16, 2008 - 20:33 ET by maggieqpublicMB… not to worry… only an MSNBC commentator would use your comments to argue that you are calling out Obama as a psycho-killer. (But I’m not so sure the Pied Piper knows where he is leading the good citizens of this country. I do worry about that.)
Hey mb.... Now I see what
February 16, 2008 - 20:51 ET by bigtimerHey mb....
Now I see what you were talking to me about on the other thread where I too mentioned Jim Jones too...LOL...like you say...GMTA.
Btw...Points well taken and true too.
It would seem that Clinton
February 16, 2008 - 11:08 ET by dscottIt would seem that Clinton is out and Obama is in? Not with the MSM as a whole. The Clinton MSM Operatives will put out all the spin they can while the rest of the MSM feigns impartiality by NOT being for Clinton subtly giving Obama a pass. Of course any Repub candidate is going to get the usual treatment of a critical eye and gotcha questions. By the very fact the MSM doesn't see any problem with being partisan means they will never acknowledge their bias. If Obama wins, the Clinton MSM Operatives will be either put out to pasture or relegated to a minor posting, but in any event first to be let go when downsizing occurs as with NBC. If Clinton wins, all this unpleasantness will be forgotten with a few exceptions depending on how magnaminous Clinton feels. If McCain wins, well then business as usual with the carping and whining. No, the MSM is going to biased until the day the last person turns out the lights and they shut the doors on the last newsroom of the last network or paper standing. There is only one solution to MSM bias, put them out of business with new entities filling the void, this is why they hate FNC. Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Others
February 16, 2008 - 11:29 ET by okiehawk44Other so-called fellow Republicans like Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol are preaching that John McCain represents the new Republican paradigm and that we must just grow up and realize it. I have a hard time accepting that the 72+-year old McCain represents anything close to "new" and these types are the same folks who pooh pooh us for believing that the founding fathers of this country produced an exceedingly amazing and TIMELESS document -- the Constitution. No to them, and others, it is a living document that changes with the times. NO! McCain does not represent me or my principles and it is not ME who needs to change. NO SIR! It is you guys who are wrong and who should get a mirror. If what we hold true as a party is based strictly on who our adversary is at any given moment in history, be it Obama or Clinton redux, we will and should perish. Basic truths are basic, hence the name.
Recent blogs at NB has been
February 16, 2008 - 12:31 ET by ahusserRecent blogs at NB has been the delight in watching the Dems eat their own. I suggest that the same thing is going on in the GOP. WHOMEVER gets the nomination for the GOP needs to be supported. So if the GOP candidate happens to be McCain and all the "true" conservatives sit home in a "principled" snit the unthinkable will happen: the Obamacrats will win. So make your decision.
The Obamacrats will win
February 16, 2008 - 12:49 ET by Clear thinkerThe Obamacrats will win anyway. And since when has voting for principles been part of the definition of a 'snit'?
I for one have had it with RINO's, so if people want to vote that way, that's fine with me. But don't go getting some high and mighty attitude because others won't get in line like lemmings.
Set the GOP back on the right course. http://gopteaparty.com/
I agree with your
February 16, 2008 - 13:03 ET by motherbeltI agree with your assessment. If he wrests the nomination from HRC, it is a done deal. He will be bullet-proof; not Teflon, but Kevlar. No one will dare to criticize him, because all opposition will be labeled as "racism." So we must elect the black guy (no matter how unqualified) to prove we are not racist.
Isn't this how affirmative action got such a foothold?
The only hope is if HRC manages to derail his "Glory Train" without coming across as a Klanswoman.
Which would be the best of
February 16, 2008 - 17:37 ET by dscottWhich would be the best of both worlds, Her Majesty, the Grand Imperial Wizard. If Hillary wins the nomination it will be two or three election cycles before the Dems recover from that disaster. Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
"Obamacans'" def. 2008
February 16, 2008 - 18:05 ET by CT"Obamacans'" def. 2008 Democratic Lemmings