WaPo's Capehart: Hard for Media 'Not to Get Swept Up' in Obamamania

Change font size:  A |  A

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. 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.