Sure, the elite media might overwhelmingly support Barack Obama. But so what? That's apparently Mika Brzezinski's opinion. Check out the exchange between Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe today at 7:50 AM EDT, triggered by Scarborough's insider take on the MSM's adulation of Obama.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: OK, Willie, come on. We've got to call these people out. Because we know people that work in the media, print. I mean seriously, they are, Tucker had it right: they're like ninth-grade girls.
. . .
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I actually, really reject this love affair notion.SCARBOROUGH: Come on.
BRZEZINSKI: What? I do.
SCARBOROUGH: Because you are absolutely drunk on the Kool-Aid.
View video here.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
BRZEZINSKI: No. You know what? Let me tell you something. Every time there is a question to ask or something to analyze, we've done it. On flip-flopping. On everything.
SCARBOROUGH: Have you seen--I'm not talking about us.
BRZEZINSKI: What's wrong with you?
SCARBOROUGH: We are the great leveling wind. I'm talking about, listen, you know if a poll was taken of everybody you know that works in the media, in Washington, D.C. and Manhattan, Barack Obama would get 95% of the vote.
BRZEZINSKI: OK, What's your point?
WILLIE GEIST: The media loves Barack Obama.
SCARBOROUGH: The media loves Barack Obama.
Don't miss Mika's bemused headshake at the end of the video clip.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Mental issues for Mika...
July 28, 2008 - 09:09 ET by c5thenMika: I reject reality and substitute my wants and desires in it's place.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Because Obama is so much better
July 28, 2008 - 09:37 ET by KC MulvilleWhy shouldn’t Obama get better coverage if he’s so much better than McCain? That’s the assumption they just take for granted.
The answer, of course, is that it’s up to the American people to decide who’s better. The media’s job is to report, not decide. The unbalanced coverage, and the media’s pathetic attempts to excuse it, all show that their assumptions are so ingrained that the media can’t see it. Their Obama-colored glasses can’t come off.
The saddest thing is that
July 28, 2008 - 09:14 ET by motherbeltThe saddest thing is that Mika really doesn't see a problem with that.
I'm sure she thinks that, in spite of it, they are all still being completely unbiased.
Obama's theme song
Mika could be Rosie's replacement
July 28, 2008 - 09:14 ET by SouthJersey1953Mika is so dumb, she should have been the one to replace Rosie on The View.
Now Let's Be Fair ...
July 28, 2008 - 09:21 ET by allanfLet's be fair. Mika is not as nasty as Rosie. She is not even a nasty person. She just does not think rationally. I would not call her stupid or ignorant. She just thinks with her heart.
More frightening is the possibility that her Dad could come into a position of power and influence in an Obama administration.
I agree with allan on this
July 28, 2008 - 09:27 ET by Mark FinkelsteinI agree with allan on this one. Obviously Mika is a frequent target of mine, given her liberal viewpoint. But while she is, IMHO, often wrong, there is nothing malicious about Mika. And I have it on good authority that she is in fact one of the kinder people in the MSM when it comes, for example, to advancing the careers of others.
okay, I take it back!
July 28, 2008 - 09:45 ET by SouthJersey1953I was keying in on the stupid part and not the 'radical/malicious' part of Rosie.
Some of the things that come out of Mika's mouth amazes me and the only other person I thought of when I thought about 'stupid things spewing forth' was Rosie.
I agree also...Mika is not
July 28, 2008 - 09:53 ET by motherbeltI agree also...Mika is not vindictive.
However....Mika....last name....cafeteria....
Obama's theme song
Love is One Thing!
July 28, 2008 - 09:15 ET by ChasvsOK, the Media can love BHO all they want.
It's when they start pimping for the SOB that they crosss the line!
Barack, We don't need your stinkin CHANGE!
By the time the media
July 28, 2008 - 09:16 ET by ConservativeRexBy the time the media wakes up (if they ever do) to question this fella, he'll be president, and then it'll be too late. Bad times ahead folks...baaad times.
I agree. They can vote for
July 28, 2008 - 09:41 ET by athoughtor2I agree. They can vote for and want anybody their little hearts desire....However, they have crossed the line so many times.
One of the problems are, is that they are not smart enough to realize the difference....the MSM truly believe they are the "fair and balanced" ones...So their reporting is therefore un-biased...and that when polls point out their biases they think the poll is tainted etc...
Abuse of power
July 28, 2008 - 10:10 ET by iveseenitallThe free press in America has been given great power. With that power comes the responsibility to use it judiciously. What they are doing today is an unconstitutional abuse of power. It is a danger to a free nation. The media lies, slants and distorts the news for their own benefit, or worse for the benefit of one political party. The John Edwards story is a prime example of their cover-ups. Their leaking of classified information during this time of war is an example of their aiding the enemy. Their extrordinary attempts to bring down the President of The United States have borderd on treason.They have blurred the line between fact and opinion to the point where they cannot be trusted anymore. Without trust, there is nothing left for them. A democracy needs an honest press; anything less leads to dictatorship through indoctrination. The actions of the press during this election are a step toward ending the real promise of America---individual freedom of thought and expression.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Excuse me???!!!
July 28, 2008 - 10:15 ET by c5thenHow can the press' actions be 'unconstitutional' as you say. They are protected by the 1st amendment and can publish anything that they desire. The limiting and restraining factor comes from the public, who buys their product, having the choice to buy another product. To that end goes education and realization as to what that product actually is. That is why Newsbusters, The MRC, and other similar organizations are so important.
Remember the Constitution is a restriction on the actions and the ability of the Government, not on individuals.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
C5
July 28, 2008 - 10:56 ET by iveseenitallThe Constitution provides for a free and open press. In other words, an unbiased, objective press. Free thought for All, not just the few, and not for just one point of view. The press should be a safeguard. It needs to tell the truth, not spew constant propaganda. This is the basic principle upon which our nation was founded. I repeat, the press today is misusing the power given to it by the Constitution of the United States. It is corrupt and dishonest. Thus unconstitutional. The free press has lost almost all of its crediblity. The John Edwards cover-up is a prime example of this. The refusal of an op-ed to John McCain by The NYT in another example. The press today is a danger to our democracy and our Constitution.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
The Constitution does NOT
July 28, 2008 - 11:04 ET by motherbeltThe Constitution does NOT regulate the press; that's what the Constitution is all about...free press. Freedom to be biased, if that's what they choose.
For as long as there have been newspapers there have been newspapers taking sides. If that were not true, it would be illegal for papers to endorse candidates, which they all do.
The press is not given power by the Constitution. It inherently has power. The Constitution forbids government to interfere with that power.
Obama's theme song
Your basic premis is flawed
July 28, 2008 - 11:12 ET by c5thenThe press is not bound by, created by or in any way beholden to the Constitution. The Constitution does not "provide for' a free and open press, the only thing there is, is a restriction on Government from limiting or controlling the press in anyway. Whatever power the press have is freely given to them by the general public. There was a press long before there was a United States. The revolution was fomented in large part by owners of newspapers stiring up the population with very partisan publishings. Certain papers were known as sepratist, certain as loyalist, and certain as neutral.
Yes I agree that they should strive to be objective and truthful and unbiased in their news reporting, but nothing says that they HAVE TO BE, as you imply. If the majority of the public dislikes the views and the style of a publication, they are free to purchase another that they like better (or at least don't dislike as much). Perhaps this is a reason why many many major city newspapers have falling circulation, falling revenues and falling stock prices?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
C5/Motherbelt
July 28, 2008 - 13:59 ET by iveseenitallI am not suggesting that the government regulate anything. I said that the press in America today is abusing it's Constitutional powers and responsibilities. Amendment IX of The Constitution, for example, states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". This is exactly what the press in America today is doing. We no longer have a "free press". This is the very danger our founders warned against.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
isia, you said:
July 28, 2008 - 17:41 ET by motherbeltisia, you said:
The Constitution provides for a free and open press. In other words, an unbiased, objective press
I disagree. The Constitution "provides" for a free and open press only in the sense that it forbids government regulation of it. It says nothing of, nor does it imply an "unbiased, objective press." Unbiased and objective press is your definition of free press, not the Constitution's.
Assuming you are correct and they are abusing their "constitutional powers and responsibilities" (those are not scare quotes, I'm quoting you), what do you suggest as a penalty, and what can be done without resorting to the regulation that the Constitution forbids?
Obama's theme song
exactly.....but they don't
July 28, 2008 - 10:21 ET by athoughtor2exactly.....but they don't think they have done anything wrong....when they are "taught" journalism in school it is being taught by professors who feel and think the same way they do....
also if you ask another person that says and does the same thing you do if you are doing something wrong, the answer you will get is a resounding NO.
the lions share of these MSM dolts want a seperation of church and state....but they do not want a seperation of press and state. They openly mock FOX news who are by far the most balanced news source out there
*shakes head*
July 28, 2008 - 09:46 ET by candanceDoes Mika even know that journalists are paid to be neutral and objective?
Cut her some slack...she's
July 28, 2008 - 09:58 ET by dodecahedronCut her some slack...she's in love.
The future of our country is in jeopardy because our irresponsible media can't see past their juvenile infatuation to realize that Senator Obama isn't even remotely qualified to be the President of the United States of America.
It's all just entertainment to them.
Oh really? BRZEZINSKI:
July 28, 2008 - 09:55 ET by Hunter12Oh really?
BRZEZINSKI: No. You know what? Let me tell you something. Every time there is a question to ask or something to analyze, we've done it. On flip-flopping. On everything.
Q: Senator Obama, Why would someone you hardly know (Tony Rezko) go into a land deal with you, raise over $250K for your various campaigns, and steer many other developer/donors your way?
Q. Why are said developers/donors making a killing off the backs of your constituients in Chicago in the Grove Parc area, and stand to signifigantly benefit if legislation you are backing goes through?
Q. Does it appear to you that Iran has ignored your calls to reduce their nuclear expansion efforts with their recent announcements and that talking to a crackpot is a waste of time?
Q. 57 states?
Q. Czechoslovakia?
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
good questions Hunter
July 28, 2008 - 10:19 ET by candanceHere are a few more:
-You said in Illinois that you really wanted to pass the Born Alive Act but it had too many technical flaws. Why did you use your position on committee to prevent it from being better worded and why did you vote "present" when it made it to the floor? Furthermore, if the bill was so flawed why did it pass within a year of you leaving for DC?
-You said your Palestinian "colleague" from University of Chicago was not one of your advisors and was no more than a passing friend. Then why is there a photo of you and Michelle having dinner with him at a Palestine fundraiser and why did he raise money for your campaign? Is Ali Abunimah lying?
-If you asked God to protect you from pride in Jerusalem why do you encourage the media to call you a rock star?
-You talk a lot about strong values and close families, yet you've repeated called your grandmother a racist and implied that most white people are just like her. How is it good for your daughters to hear this?
Mika - just a typical radio side kick
July 28, 2008 - 09:59 ET by robertjacobAlmost every radio station talk show has a "Mika" - the sidekick who sits by the host and makes little silly off hand comments about nothing while the host carries the show. FILLER.
That is who Mika is - she is the sidekick - the straight "man" for Joe.
Her job is to act as FILLER - nothing more.
Fortunately Mika's lack of intellect makes her a natural at this role.
Brzezinski represents the
July 28, 2008 - 10:05 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasBrzezinski represents the eventuality of the demise of objectivity in the Axis Media. She's the poisonous fruit that is borne from the toxic mix of societal and personal immaturity and one given a position of influence and trust. At one time, even the lesser personalities on television observed professional boundaries and deportment that reflected someone who could be trusted as a source of information. Their aim was to reproduce what they saw in their superiors, namely honest reporting that kept personal bias at a minimum. That doesn't exist any more, for the most part, in those at the top.
There was a day and age when one could not easily detect the ideological persuasion of a news journalist. And it came after a long period of yellow journalism (the newspaper age) in which professionals eventually recognized the destructive nature of biased reporting and the lack of ethics involved. And so the television age began with an established sense of ethics, fariness and boundaries in reporting news.
Today, it appears, we are going backwards. Brzezinski no doubt thinks she is clever in defending the gross bias and obvious infatuation the Axis Media has demonstrated for the Obamanation. But she is insulated, as most members of the Axis Media are, from the necessity of personal and professional self-examination. Why? Because this historic demise is due in part to the practice by Axis Media of listening only to voices and opinions that reflect their own. Immature people cannot accept, never mind even endure, criticism. Hence, the Axis Media, now reflects this wayward course in their journalistic endeavors with a compass that points only ONE way.
Are there a few exceptions in the Axis Media that strive toward a healthy degree of self-correction, analysis and objectivity? Yes, but their numbers are far and few and they are treated with contempt by the 98% of journalistic adolescents running the show.
As long as outrageous and obvious bias not only exists but is deliberate in design and is accompanied by shameless denial from the top, (Axis Media personalities and organizations such as Couric, Kos, Klein, NYT and NBC) minions such as Brzezinski will just imitate what they understand to be the "right way".
They are like cult members who mimic the actions and doctrines of their leader. The addiction to being accepted and acclaimed for being a solider in the war against conservatism and the GOP is too much to resist for the middle man and bottom rung in the Axis Media to rise above and refuse to compromise their integrity the way their leaders now do in mass.
Next Please! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal.
Well Stated
July 28, 2008 - 10:17 ET by stratmanI completely agree. Nice analysis.
RRAM Tough!
Right on GAT!
July 28, 2008 - 10:32 ET by iveseenitall"Cult", as in Socialists/Communists --the propaganda machine on steroids. One of the "failures" of public education and the press has been their "success" in changing or ignoring history, both ancient and recent in the minds of the people. America is in the throws of a movement toward socialism/communism. Obama is a symptem of the disease spread by the "free" press and the public schools in America today. And he's 9 pts. ahead in a recent Gallup poll. Conservatism is dying out, thanks in large part to the biased, socialist/communist, corrupt, anti-American press and indoctrination in the schools. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
You've touched on a causal issue
July 28, 2008 - 10:45 ET by c5then"Public education" is not in the Constitution and therefore should be up to each individual State. At the most, 'public education' should be only 1 choice out of all the others and not be supported by forced contributions via taxes. The reason is because whatever Government controls, is always at least suspect.
If 'public education' was tuition based as all the other choices and there were no taxes that subsidised it, everyone would have unfettered access to the best educational choices around them. By forcefully removing the tuition to public schools from people via taxes, it forces them to have no other choice, except for the very well off who are forced to pay double tuition, one through taxes and one voluntarily to the better school.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Guy, I loved your analysis.
July 28, 2008 - 12:59 ET by marpelGuy, I loved your analysis. Do you think Joe Scarborough is a good enough balance for this ding bat? I think sometimes he just doesn't fight hard enough to give balance to the "argument".
What do you think?
In the end Scarborough does wear an MSNBC badge
July 28, 2008 - 17:05 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasIn the end Scarborough does wear an MSNBC badge so his opposition is both ideologically and personally tempered no doubt. Also Scarborough doesn't brand himself a right wing conservative but more of a moderate with unapologetic sympathies to the left from time to time. And being a morning show they are probably trying to avoid preaching and hard core partisanship that is reserved for evening shows.
Next Please! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal.
Where has critical analysis gone?
July 28, 2008 - 10:16 ET by ThalpyWhere has critical analysis gone. What is being taught in journalism schools today? For the most part, the "newspeople" seem to be ignorant of times gone by, rabidly partisan, and proud of it. Mika is stunningly attractive, and as an objective reporter she is stunningly attractive.
So what ? Mika...we (Americans) see it everyday
July 28, 2008 - 10:20 ET by JayTeeThe Media love isn't kept Privtate...It comes across the MSM TV screens.
I support McCain...no one else knows that...YOU love the Obama Candidate...EVERYONE within the sound of your Broadcast knows it....every day, every week, ad nauseum...that's the Difference...that's the "So What ?"
It's a BIG UnFair advantage on MSM TV....It's a Free Country....CLICK (end of advantage)
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
"Mika, help me out here!"
July 28, 2008 - 10:49 ET by Tom1969ca"Mika, help me out here!"
Someone needs to get a tape of that to the McCain campaign. Anytime someone scoffs at future accusations that the MSM is in the tank for Obama, just roll the tape of his communications director saying, "Mika, help me out here!"
(The next paragraph is written from the POV of someone who holds a university degree in journalism:)
When a politician (or their surrogate) is asked a tough question by a journalist, and the politician/surrogate turns to another journalist for help in answering the question, if said journalist provides the requested aid then said journalist has forfeited his/her objectivity. Viewers would be well-advised to be mindful of this forfeiture when said journalist is covering that politician in the future...
==
Conservation doesn't get us more energy. It's as if we were running out of food and the Democrats were telling us: "Just eat a little less every day!"
--Anne Coulter
Gibbs exclaimed: "Mika, help me out here!"
July 28, 2008 - 10:54 ET by Gat New YorkI saw that and was shocked!
Gibbs was twisting and turning because he knows there is no good answer to Obama deciding to kiss off the injured soldiers because of no PR value and instead playing with his workout buddy Reggie Love (former Duke b-ball player).
Scarborough was clearly not buying the Obama B.S. about that event.
Mika
July 28, 2008 - 10:59 ET by Poker PlayerShe has to be either fibbing or dumb.
You pick'em.
I agree
July 28, 2008 - 10:59 ET by cvgbuckeyeI agree with most everything posted on this subject. ALTHOUGH there may be a slight shred of saving grace. IF this election somehow becomes based upon The Press versus McCain and the American public becomes justifiably cognizant; McCain will win.
Way off
July 28, 2008 - 12:44 ET by ThisnThat"if a poll was taken of everybody you know that works in the media, in Washington, D.C. and Manhattan, Barack Obama would get 95% of the vote"
I'm way off -- I would have said 90%. Who knew?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
We have to remember that
July 28, 2008 - 12:54 ET by marpelWe have to remember that most of the mainstream media "elites" have no clue what self awareness is. They don't think they're being blatent regarding their adoration of Obama. And what's even more stunning is that they think that Americans, mostly the "po-dunks" in fly-over country don't notice...
Talk about a clueless lot of people. And Mika's dumber than any woman I know. I've been told I am a clueless woman before, but that was by a brain surgeon, so it doesn't count. LOL
But that is one dumb woman. I would be ashamed if I were her.
Check Her Chair
July 28, 2008 - 13:21 ET by SAM-OHMika may not be malicious, but the most striking thing is her condescesion.
Somebody has already noted that she sees absolutely nothing wrong in her cheerleader-like conduct. And I love how she hates that Obama gets tripped up by the patriotism issues.
All Scarborough needs to do is get one of camera operators to fill some tape of Mika's chair after a segment about Obama. We all know what we'll see. The only scene more gushing than Mika talking about Obama is Meg Ryan's diner scene in "When Harry Met Sally."
So what???
July 28, 2008 - 13:32 ET by fonzie2178So what about the media being objective? Oh yeah, we here at NB threw that out long ago, but at least now they're starting to admit it.
"Green, the new Red."
Blonde joke...
July 28, 2008 - 20:01 ET by BigBShe's too stupid to be malicious...I guess her rationale for the 'So what's yer point' thing would be..'We're the media, we know what's best'.....
I guess what's best for her would be if Obama gives her tired, senile, Carter leftover old man a job thus ensuring her continued employment....no matter how much of a blithering idiot she is...
Now, this might sting just a little bit.....