CNN Panel Denies There’s Sympathy for Obama in MSM

Photo of Matthew Balan.
By Matthew Balan | February 27, 2008 - 13:11 ET

NewsBusters.org - Media Research CenterThree CNN talking heads - "The Situation Room’s" Jack Cafferty, senior political analyst Gloria Borger, and chief national correspondent John King - all denied that the mainstream media has a "double standard for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton," as "The Situation Room" host Wolf Blitzer put it. Cafferty was the most adamant denier of the charge. "No, it's a vast left-wing conspiracy, Wolf. We all got together in the media and said okay, let's all decide collectively to beat up on Hillary and be nice to Barack Obama. That's nonsense."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The three, along with Blitzer, had a discussion on Tuesday’s "The Situation Room" at the bottom of the 6 pm Eastern hour in response to a report by Howard Kurtz which was played immediately before the segment. Kurtz, commenting on the Clinton campaign’s charge that "media are giving her [Clinton] a hard time and Barack Obama a free pass," proposed that it was "hard to deny that Senator Obama has gotten largely upbeat coverage from the time he first flirted with running for president." After playing various clips such as the now-famous "Saturday Night Live" sketch which portrayed the media as being "totally in the tank for Obama" and Chris Matthews’ "thrill going up my leg" comment, Kurtz concluded that "[t]here are signs that Obama is starting to draw a bit more critical scrutiny now that he's the Democratic front-runner. But it will take a lot more of that to change the ‘Saturday Night Live’ image of a pro-Obama press corps."

The first to respond to Kurtz’s hypothesis was Cafferty, who went into one of his extended populist-tinged rants, all the while denying that the media has it in for Hillary Clinton.

WOLF BLITZER: Jack, what do you think? Is there a double standard? Is Hillary Clinton sort of getting tough coverage and he's getting a free ride?

CAFFERTY: That would be the meaning of double standard. I got it. No, it's a vast left-wing conspiracy, Wolf. We all got together in the media and said okay, let's all decide collectively to beat up on Hillary and be nice to Barack Obama. That's nonsense. This is a tailor-made story for the U.S. news media from a couple of perspectives. One, the arrogance and the incumbent presumed nominee way with which this thing was launched -- I don't need the voters, I'm going to be the next president. Katie Couric says what if you -- what if you're not the nominee? Oh, I'll be the nominee -- this arrogance, almost. The lack of planning, figuring it's all going to be over February 5th. No money, no people on the ground in the states that came after that. And this young guy, who recognized the deep dissatisfaction among the people in this country -- not the politicians, the people -- at their government, at their foreign policy, at the economic policies, at the military-industrial complex's choke-hold on the country. And it began to resonate. And all of a sudden, it's the media's fault? Get out of here.

Blitzer then asked Borger for her take, who placed the blame squarely on Hillary Clinton herself for her apparent media problem.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Sure, blame the media. Don't blame the candidate. Don't blame the campaign. Blame the media. And Hillary Clinton herself said look, I've been vetted. Well, she's continuing to get vetted in the way she performs as a candidate. Is Barack Obama new on the scene? Of course. Has Hillary Clinton been around for a couple of decades? Do voters think they know her? Does the press think that it knows her? Of course. But is she getting [un]favorable treatment because of some mystical quality that Barack Obama exudes? No. It's her campaign and it's the candidate.

After Blitzer played a clip of a Hillary Clinton interview where she claimed she was "misunderstood," it was King’s turn for a take on the issue. King brought up Clinton’s "more public" record, her connection to her husband Bill Clinton, and concluded by agreeing with Kurtz, that Obama will now receive more scrutiny, particularly because of the upcoming Tony Rezko trial.

JOHN KING: Well, look, her record is much more public than Barack Obama's record because Hillary Clinton has been in Washington throughout her husband's presidency -- eight years of that, plus her time in the Senate. So it is easier to go back and look at the Hillary health care controversy, to look at her sparring with what she calls the vast right-wing conspiracy over the years. And, yes, she does get the baggage of Bill Clinton's presidency attached to her. Is that fair? It's not my call to make, but it is a reality and a political reality. She benefits from Bill Clinton's, well, likeability in Democratic politics and she is criticized sometimes from it. I think, in the long run, this all balances out. The Rezko trial begins next week in Chicago. Senator Obama will get some scrutiny because of that. But it has been a constant complaint from her campaign, Wolf. Without a doubt, they believe there has been a double standard and they complain about it on a daily basis.

Even with the evidence squarely placed in front of them by Kurtz, these three journalists pretty much brushed aside the theory of a pro-Obama mainstream media.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What Cannard from Cafferty

Cafferty throws out the old "collusion" cannard to throw everyone off.

David Brock and his ilk always argue that there isn't a liberal media bias because it's ridiculous to think that they get together and talk about it, as if that is what is needed. (Of course that doesn't stop these same people from criticizing conservatives for using "Gop talking-points memos".

It is clearly a case of group-think.  The all love his policies and desire to see an african-american succeed.  Even a totally biased guy on Imus this morning admitted as much.

exLib

From hince forth I shall drop Clinton News Network and begin using Cannard News Network.

McNabb & Obama

I hope I don't get thrown off for this ;)

What Rush Limbaugh (not a fan btw) said about Donavan McNabb and the sports reporters is true about Senator Obama and the political reporters.

If they said it, it must be true!

If they said it, it must be true! Right?

"We all got together..."No,

"We all got together..."

No, you all just have a pack mentality to begin with...

Someone once told me...

Someone once told me that I was judgmental. But, I told them that I wasn't and that proved them wrong. 

Thanks for assuring us that you and your establishment are not biased, CNN. Gee whiz, guys, it's so good to finally know the truth...

The only thing worse than

The only thing worse than the bias is the LYING about the bias. These people are so dishonest with their audiences and themselves. I think the fact that they know what liars they are is what makes them such miserable people.

Saddam Hussein and terrorism. The rest of the story...

http://www.regimeoft...

 

No Sympathy

CNN Panel Denies There’s Sympathy for Obama in MSM

Yea, as long as you don't mention Obama's name, race, religion, affiliations, policies, ideals, and/or beliefs. Oh, and make sure you don’t call him clean and articulate.

WE ARE OBJECTIVE !!!

If this same panel was asked "Does the media favor the Democrat over the Republican?" they would have given the same lame answers. These are people who live in a bubble. talk to each other, and have nothing important to say. 

Howard Kurtz asks good questions, but he rarely points out the hypocrisy he gets back in answers.