"I don't believe that the Times is pulling for Barack Obama." Jack Shafer, Slate, 9-23-08
There's actually much to agree with in Jack Shafer's column today regarding McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt's criticism of the New York Times. Consider this observation by Shafer, for example:
The press corps does adore Barack Obama. They like his story. They like writing about him. They like the way he gives speeches. They like the way he makes them feel. And they don't mind cutting him slack whenever he acts like a regular politician—which he is.
But Shafer, Slate's resident media critic, also expresses the to-me mind-boggling belief cited at the top of this item, that the Times isn't pulling for Obama. So stunned was I by Shafer's claim that I wrote him, seeking clarification. He was nice enough to reply, and I'm setting forth our exchange here:
Me: Is it your view that unlike the rest of the press, the NYT does not adore Obama, or is it that the Times doesn't pull for him despite adoring him?
Shafer: Everybody adores Obama, just as everybody loved McCain in 2000. But that doesn't mean they're pulling for him.
Me: It's hard to imagine that most journalists are so principled and disciplined that they can adore a candidate without pulling for him.
To be precise: I sent my inquiry to the email address Slate provided for correspondence with Shafer's column, and addressed my message to him by name. The reply was from that account, but unsigned. I'm assuming it came from Shafer.
So what do people think:
- Is the NYT not pulling for Obama?
- Is it possible for MSMers to simultaneously "adore" Obama yet not pull for him?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Yes, and no
September 24, 2008 - 08:26 ET by Indiana JoeI'm sure our super-human, better-than-you-average-Americans, elitist (there's your definition, MSM) press would like to believe they are so disciplined and professional ....
But, c'mon... really....
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Oh, and btw,
September 24, 2008 - 08:30 ET by Indiana JoePeople claim to believe all sorts of things.
Steve Martin believed that robots were stealing his luggage.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Naomi Wolff believes Sarah
September 24, 2008 - 08:37 ET by Mark FinkelsteinNaomi Wolff believes Sarah Palin is stealing her mail. Seriously.
This is right out of the
September 24, 2008 - 09:03 ET by motherbeltThis is right out of the movie "Enemy of the State."
Naomi Wolff needs to get a grip. Seriously.
You're just not that important, honey.
Oh, and of course they can be impartial, Mark.
As Diane Sawyer said during voire dire, (paraphrasing) Of course I can be impartial: I'm a journalist!!
I am constantly amused at
September 24, 2008 - 09:23 ET by sunandsteelI am constantly amused at these loons complaining about police states and supression and all that nonsense. HEY DINGUS, IF YOU WERE SUPRESSED, YOU WOULDNT HAVE THE FREEDOM TO CONSTANTLY WHINE ABOUT IT. I mean really.
What doesn’t kill you, only makes you pissed off. -Children of Bodom
sure -- maybe that's why it
September 24, 2008 - 10:03 ET by Jack Bauersure -- maybe that's why it took the FBI 18 years to find the Unabomber.
If only the authorities didn't waste so much time going through Naomi Wolff's mail
This Is What The MSM's Problem Is
September 24, 2008 - 10:17 ET by Wildcatter1980With so many of them having gone to Ivy League and others of the so-called highly regarded journalism schools, they have deluded themselves into believing that they, indeed, are better than everyone else. In their minds, the rest of us should just shut our mouths and be grateful that they are "here to tell us what we should believe, who we should support and what we should do." Why? Because they have the "elite" school education. That's why!
No and No. That's a
September 24, 2008 - 08:29 ET by lotrNo and No.
That's a good one. I should tell my wife that one -- "Honey, I adore you, but that doesn't mean I'm pulling for you! I'm a neutral party!" Imagine the response, gentlemen.
The mere fact that the NYT "adores him" means they are "pulling for him."
Of course the NYT is pulling for Obama
September 24, 2008 - 08:35 ET by Dee Bunkjust take it from the Obama campaign. In response to McCain's complaint they listed "40 probing stories". Of course they only listed the headlines without links but luckily someone took the time to link all the stories and analyze. Of the 40 stories - only 4 were slightly critical and the rest were pretty much puff pieces.
There is a great analysis at cheatseekingmissiles
I'd say the NYT isn't just pulling - they are pushing and tripping and punching for Obama also.
You know, you really have
September 24, 2008 - 08:37 ET by R D HelmYou know, you really have to question the intelligence of anyone who cannot see that the NYT, as well as most of the rest of the MSM, is so deep in the tank for Obama they can't even begin to see their way out.
As an aside here, I think we are seeing a huge intelligence-gap opening up in this country when it comes to the inexplicable support for Barack Obama. If Barry-O is not an out-right communist, he is about as close to being one as you can get.
Given the polling data released this morning, I think just over half the voting public in this country is made up of government-educated idiots.
Sorry, but I just cannot see this any other way. :-(
-Dave
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them-Rick Roberts
If I had to choose from
September 24, 2008 - 18:37 ET by Cape Conservativean Ivy League graduate or someone who has had to work for a living and therefore knows a WHOLE lot more about LIFE, I'd take the guy/gal who is NOT a product of the Ivy League.
It's time to take back our country from the elite academics! And, parents, if you are paying to have your child in a William Ayers class, then shame on you! The aging hippies are hellbent on ruining all of our efforts to raise children with values. No thank you!
Media is "pro-WAR"
September 24, 2008 - 08:44 ET by BuffNBoneIt is now safe to say the NYT and remainder of the MSM is "pro-WAR" as in they support Wright, Ayers, and Rezko.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
There is much more than just love for Obama...
September 24, 2008 - 09:03 ET by geoksterOK, let's assume the absurd that it is possible for the media to love Obama and still be objective in this race. However, that would also have to assume that they were totally neutral and unbiased about pretty much everything else in the world.
Possibly a bit unlikely, don't you think?
In addition to loving the big O, they love his wife, they love his socialistic policies, they have contempt for McCain, they despise Bush (to the point of pathology), they hate republicans in general, and their policies and beliefs, and they think religion is voodoo. Ditto for small town, middle class values.
And they love Obama's "story", but for some odd reason, have gone ballistic against what should be an equally compelling story - Sarah Palin. Instead they are going all out to smear a good person trying to do the right thing as she sees it.
Given all this, it is a bit of stretch to believe that the media can keep their opinions out of their reporting, non? And their reporting proves it too.
And a lot is made of
September 24, 2008 - 10:17 ET by motherbeltAnd a lot is made of Palin's supposed "hubris" that she said she didn't have doubts about accepting the nomination for VP. Yet when Obama was asked if he ever had any doubts about what he was doing (and we are talking about after he had been running for a while, not just starting up), he replied "Never."
They don't seem to have a problem with that.
mb - that's because he has
September 24, 2008 - 18:38 ET by Cape Conservativebeen planning to be president since he was 10! And before that, he has lost all memory ;-)
Intelligentsia?
September 24, 2008 - 09:09 ET by AndyRAfter years of watching what Communists do to the elite, I sort of get a kick knowing that when the big purge comes, all these elitists will be the first ones taken to the "reeducation" camps.
No, no, AndyR,
September 24, 2008 - 11:11 ET by Indiana JoeSee, that's their big improvement over "Classic Commie." Real believers feel that "true" communism has never been tried.
When the elite (themselves, donchaknow) are in charge, then communism will work just fine.
The "re-education camps" will be for all of us.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
I've pretty much given up
September 24, 2008 - 19:35 ET by CortillaenI've pretty much given up on trying to figure out how anyone can believe communism is a viable system. It is literally predicated upon the government holding total or near-total control of all production and distribution of goods, services, and even ideas. Absolute power, people! Communism, by definition, must be a totalitarian regime, and yet morons try to claim that "the right people" won't be corrupted at at it's head? The only person I know who could resist abusing that power was put to death a couple millennia ago.
www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
I heard a wonderful little
September 24, 2008 - 19:44 ET by Clear thinkerI heard a wonderful little saying the other day that seems appropiate...
Socialism almost always leads to Communism, and Communism almost always leads to genocide!
No Debate Drives Libs Nuts
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Fox News Media Critic
September 24, 2008 - 09:33 ET by usinkoreaHow about the former host of Fox News' Sunday media watchdog show --- writing in the Huffington Post this week -- that he finally figured out why Olbermann and MSNBC have seemed so horribly bias in recent months:
His conclusion - they came to it honestly - because they are basically correct!!
Olbermann can't help it - not because he's a far-left ideologial bigot --- no ---- he can't help it - because McCain is really so evil.
Yes. McCain. That was the immediate figure of Olbermann's rants that this "media watchdog" expert pointed to as justification for MSNBC's coverage....
Unbelievable...
Eric Burns said that? I'm
September 24, 2008 - 10:06 ET by NewsbusterbrownEric Burns said that? I'm really shocked. He was terrific on Fox News Watch.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Yes.
September 24, 2008 - 11:06 ET by usinkoreahttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-burns/is-bias-emalwaysem-biased_b_128355.html
Emphasis his...
His example showing why the likes of Olbermann are just being objective in their hatred? One example of McCain calling Obama a Washington insider:
Gee. If McCain's recent displays of being evil are what justifiably get him demonized....
....I can't wait to see what Mr. Burns will be willing to justify when somebody really bad comes along...
Gone
September 24, 2008 - 10:04 ET by Wildcatter1980Gone are the days when journalists would not even register to vote so as to maintain a high level of integrity and objectivity. Could David Brinkley have been the last of the breed?
Interesting Questions
September 24, 2008 - 10:11 ET by MeanderingSo, is the NYT not pulling for Obama? Let's clarify the question, is the NYT in bed with Obama? Answer: YES!!!
Second question, is it possible for MSMers to "adore" Obama and not pull for him? Answer: Not in a million years.
To adore someone is to pull for them. You give them the benefit of the doubt, you ask easy questions and avoid printing stories that will make the candidate you adore look bad. Hey this sounds a lot like the NYT to me. I will let America decide, wait they already have. The MSM are pulling for Obama. That was easy.
NYT - Doing the dirty work that Americans won't do....
September 24, 2008 - 12:10 ET by bpjamThe NYT just does the dirt dishing so that Obama doesn't have to.
I think they should send Obama a really bill invoice when the campaign is over to cover the costs of their front page attack ads on his opponents (including Hillary) and their feigning coverage of his every telepromptered speech.
But hey, I could be as wrong as the hundreds of thousands of people who are also no longer NYT subscribers. But it ain't likely.
It's simple
September 25, 2008 - 00:42 ET by LindamaeIt's really simple to determine if the NYT is biased or balanced. Just count up the number of pro-Obama articles and editorials and then count up the number of pro-McCain articles and ....oops. Never mind. Question answered. I hope the Obama campaign is paying the Times enough for buying it for the duration of the campaign. I know I have stopped buying the paper.