There's a great moment in the video clip here in which WaPo editorial writer Jonathan Capehart dithers, then palpably decides to bite the bullet and tell the truth: yeah, the media's in the tank for Obama. His admission against interest came in response to a question from Pat Buchanan on today's Morning Joe.
PAT BUCHANAN: That brings up the question of the substance of what Clinton said when he talked about the media coming down on Hillary and they're working for Obama, and all the rest of it. Obviously there's real bitterness on the part of Clinton. But is there not, as there was, and the reporters admitted it after 1960, hasn't there been sort of a melding between a lot of journalists and this enthusiastic Obama campaign?
The first African-American president, he's young and he's fresh. And all the journalists admitted later: yeah, we were for Jack Kennedy. We loved the guy. We didn't like Nixon. Isn't there some truth, in other words, behind his bitterness?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, you know, Pat, I think, um, that, eh, yeah. I think there is some truth to his bitterness. Um, you know, it's hard to, let's remember: reporters are human. And reporters are covering both these campaigns. And it's hard not to get swept up, I would think, into the enthusiasm and the drama and the excitement behind one of those huge Obama rallies.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓When you see people who you haven't seen before out at campaign events. Young people, old people --
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
CAPEHART: Folks, African-Americans, all coming out behind this one person. It's fantastic, I think, for a lot of people.
Credit Capehart for telling the truth: albeit an obvious and undeniable one. His admission echoes that by NBC's Lee Cowan [video], who, speaking of MSM support for Obama, famously admitted "from the reporter's point of view it's almost hard to remain objective."
BONUS COVERAGE: NY Times Airbrushes Clinton Obscenity
As reported in the Fox News article linked above in the first para of Buchanan's question, Clinton used the word "s---bag" to describe Vanity Fair reporter. But in the NY Times coverage of the matter, the word has magically disappeared, with Clinton only being reported as having called Purdum "slimy" and "sleazy."
It's understandable for the Times not to have spelled out the word, or perhaps not even any part of it. The paper could have reported something along the lines "the president also used a vulgarity to describe Purdum." But for the NYT to have airbrushed the comment entirely is to mislead readers as to just how vituperative Clinton was.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
When were they ever objective?
June 3, 2008 - 07:38 ET by NortoOf late, that is.
Like the expression, "It's hard to be humble, when your as great as I am!"
And there's another
June 3, 2008 - 07:50 ET by motherbeltAnd there's another saying:
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you!
Bill Clinton has a point. Not that I feel sorry for him, or for her.
Karma's a bitch.
Quote
June 3, 2008 - 09:49 ET by BelnumCreeLove that quote. I've been trying to find who said it originally, but google only turns up Nirvana's usage of it.
...thats funny...
June 3, 2008 - 08:18 ET by aeroveloSomehow I managed to keep from being swept up in all the Obamamania. Is it really that hard to constrain yourself?
---
Ask yourself: Do I want a good paying job, or do I want a government hand out. Its that simple!
it's hard not to get swept
June 3, 2008 - 08:47 ET by motherbeltit's hard not to get swept up, I would think, into the enthusiasm and the drama and the excitement -Capehart
and
"from the reporter's point of view it's almost hard to remain objective." -Cowan
No one cares how "hard" it is to remain objective or not get swept up. You're supposed to be professionals.
Do your damn job!!!
For instance, how about asking the Obama if, after Ahmadinejad has said discussing his nuclear program is off the table, he is still determined to sit down and talk to him. And if so, about what?
Or is that just too "hard"??????
MF
June 3, 2008 - 07:44 ET by NortoGee, where is everyone? That earliest of US suns is up and a cup of ginger tea with a half of a banana and I am swingin.'
Oil prices are treading water, but our Maine reps are a do nothing bunch. Actually, in doing nothing(removing restrictions on drilling and refineries) that is the same as doing something. Why they do not get it, I don't know, but many of us here in the NE are really upset, but there is little we can do. McCain-Feingold has taken care of their seats and we have three Senators left in the race, none of them Presidential.
My banana may not stay down!
When you see people who
June 3, 2008 - 07:58 ET by Jack BauerThis is meme that's out there, generally unchallenged.
That the Obama campaign is the best ever for Democrats. That is has brought out more Democrat people in greater numbers than has EVER been seen in a primary campaign.
Except it's not true.
It's apparently second behind the Democrats's first grass roots primary campaign. That of George McGovern.
How did that end up in the general again?
Great point Jack
June 3, 2008 - 08:16 ET by Dee BunkI feel like Obama is inevitable, but you have a great point that gives me a little bit of hope.
That comment stuck out for
June 3, 2008 - 09:08 ET by HypocriteHaterThat comment stuck out for me too. Talk about hyperbole!
So this guy supposedly knows everyone who ever came out to campaign events in the history of our elections, and is therefore qualified to know that he's seen people at Obama events who he hasn't seen before EVER!
I think not!
Comrade Obama
June 3, 2008 - 08:24 ET by 10ksnookerIs the best hope for communism the drive-by media has ever had. They have been lamenting the loss ever since the Soviet Union went belly up under the weight of it's top down command and control economy -- And now want to show that just given enough of your money, they can make communism work here.
I can understand how the leftists, the socialists, the Marxists, the Communist swoon in anticipation ... Karl Marx would look down upon them through fawning eyes.
Collectivism is just Harvard speak for communism.
First up energy rationing ... err sorry, that would be climate change, forgot the camouflage for a second there. I bet you thought the lefties were just paying social calls on Hugo Chavez ...
Does anybody ask? Why the global warming taxes just get spent as if it were any other tax. AGW == Tax and Spend with a green tint.
Yes, they are swept up by
June 3, 2008 - 08:28 ET by zhombreYes, they are swept up by Obama the same way they are "swept up" by McClellan's book and ignore Douglas Feith's book. Journalism has become an insular, agenda-driven, affluent insider profession and its practioners are conformists in believe, attitude and political affiliation.
What is it?
June 3, 2008 - 08:37 ET by JWFWhat is it with reporters and their mancrushes for Democratic candidates?
They need to have their own teenbeat type magazine and shut the frell up.
Speaking of shutting up, I am getting sick to death of every little news item and how it relates to carbon. (creating less of it)
We as a race have been using and spewing out carbon since the first mantype beings have learned to create fire, I think it was all the way back in 1983 during that Quest For Fire movie. The earth has seemed to deal with all that carbon just fine.
Meanwhile, over at Fox and Friends...
June 3, 2008 - 09:04 ET by Prester John....Bob Beckel says he has information on a "bombshell" that is to be dropped by the GOP tomorrow regarding Ms. Happy aka Michelle Obama. He wouldn't give any details of course but he appeared to be sure about the content not to mention appearing not at all happy about it.
I wonder if he is talking about the "whitey/why'd he" tape people are talking about? Scroll down the link a bit for details.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/
Balance
June 3, 2008 - 10:18 ET by KC MulvilleObama’s policies may be far-left, but he has grasped something that’s been missing for a long time: it’s about the people, stupid. You can’t lead by TV.
When a candidate is standing in person, talking to you and your neighbors, that’s a far different thing than a 30-second sound byte. Of course, you can’t speak in person to 300 million American citizens. Live, in-person rallies are great, but they’re impractical. You can reach more people through television. The problem is that TV has a washout effect. You see so many people on TV that they all fade into a haze. You may be reaching more people through TV, but you’re getting far less bang for your buck. Eventually, the volume you’re getting through TV is mitigated by the increasingly smaller return.
It’s comparable to playing offense in football. TV is like the passing game, where you can cover a lot of yardage more quickly. But teams that rely exclusively on passing always wind up being passive, pardon the pun. They try to throw over the defense, rather than go through them. Those teams always stall and settle for field goals, because the closer you get to the goal line, the less room you have. Instead, the proven, long term method for a solid offense is to have balance. It doesn’t have to be 50-50, but you can’t do either one exclusively.
The same is true for trying to do politics by TV. Thirty-second sound bytes cost a lot of money, but they have increasingly less impact, because the public has seen so many of them. There has to be a balance between mass media and in-person events. You have to talk to real live people. You can’t do politics by remote. Obama has had great balance in his campaign, and it makes him a stronger candidate.
It also shows how bland and how boring the campaigns have been for the last few elections. At least the Obama team hustles, instead of trying to maneuver onto the network evening news.
Swooning
June 3, 2008 - 10:38 ET by iveseenitallA black guy from the WaPo swooning over Barry. Now that's NEWS! His hands are shaking and his knees are weak. He can't seem to stand on his own two feet. Um,Um,yeh, yeh, yeh, yeh, yeh-- he's all shook up!
Who is Barry Sotero?
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
I imagine it is hard for a
June 3, 2008 - 11:31 ET by Chris NormanI imagine it is hard for a bunch of politically correct liberals not to get caught up in a liberal African American's campaign - it's everything they'd ever hoped for....