The New York Times is clearly in full meltdown mode concerning the popularity of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, and is having a hard time covering up its obvious state of panic.
In its popular Sunday edition, the Gray Lady published four hit pieces about the Alaska Governor: a 3,100-word article prominently placed on the front page; two scathing columns by Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd, and; an article questioning Palin's husband's role in their state's government.
That's over 6,000 words about the vice presidential nominee, most of them quite hostile as evidenced by the following from Dowd's piece (emphasis added):
I’ve been in Alaska only a week, but I’m already feeling ever so much smarter about Russia. [...]
An Arctic blast of action has swept into the 2008 race, making thinking passé. We don’t really need to hurt our brains studying the world; we just need the world to know we’re capable of bringing a world of hurt to the world if the world continues to be hell-bent on misbehaving.
Two weeks after being thrown onto a national ticket, and moments after being speed-briefed by McCain foreign-policy advisers, our new Napoleon in bunny boots (not the Pamela Anderson kind, but the knock-offs of the U.S. Army Extreme Cold Weather Vapor Barrier Boots) is ready to face down the Russkies and start a land war over Georgia, and, holy cow, what business is it of ours if Israel attacks Iran? [...]
Like W., Sarah has the power of positive unthinking. But now we may want to think about where ignorance and pride and no self-doubt has gotten us. Being quick on the trigger might be good in moose hunting, but in dealing with Putin, a little knowledge might come in handy.
How pleasant. But there was more, for next up was Frank Rich who disgracefully made the case that Palin's experience or lack thereof is vital because John McCain "is too weak to serve as America’s chief executive" (emphasis added):
A week ago the question was: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? The question today: What kind of president would Sarah Palin be?
It’s an urgent matter, because if we’ve learned anything from the G.O.P. convention and its aftermath, it’s that the 2008 edition of John McCain is too weak to serve as America’s chief executive. This unmentionable truth, more than race, is now the real elephant in the room of this election.
No longer able to remember his principles any better than he can distinguish between Sunnis and Shia, McCain stands revealed as a guy who can be easily rolled by anyone who sells him a plan for “victory,” whether in Iraq or in Michigan. A McCain victory on Election Day will usher in a Palin presidency, with McCain serving as a transitional front man, an even weaker Bush to her Cheney.
The ambitious Palin and the ruthless forces she represents know it, too. You can almost see them smacking their lips in anticipation, whether they’re wearing lipstick or not.
Wow. Talk about hateful stuff.
Having nicely attacked Mrs. Palin -- lest we not forget the 3,100-word hit piece on Sarah prominently placed on the front page as previously analyzed by NewsBusters -- the Times set its sights on her husband (emphasis added):
It is not necessarily clear whether Mr. Palin is helping shape his wife’s agenda or simply advocating for it, nor whether he ever put pressure on lawmakers, but his role has not been the customary one of a governor’s spouse in Alaska.
That has made many people in government uncomfortable and often confused over how to react.
“My colleagues told me he was lobbying for the governor’s position on oil taxes,” State Representative Jay Ramras, a Republican who is chairman of the House judiciary committee, said of one instance last year when he saw Mr. Palin outside the legislative chamber before a key vote. “I think that when the spouse of an elected governor steps away from safe issues that are nonpartisan in nature, that it is bad for the legislative and executive branches, and Todd Palin would not be an exception to that.”
Add it up, and the Times devoted over 6,000 words to attacking anything called Palin in Sunday's edition.
By contrast, the name Obama was scarcely visible. I guess his brand of change is something you can believe in only if not discussed too much.
As a result, the good folks at the Times must feel the only way Obama can win is if they tear down his opponent who, at this time anyway, they seem to feel is Palin and not McCain.
How telling.
On the flipside, the utter state of panic at the Times -- and in the media at large -- is so encompassing that it is making journalists go against their own best interests.
After all, every day a press member spends talking about Palin and NOT Obama is a victory for McCain. As such, the Arizona Senator and his campaign staff are loving every minute of this.
Keep it up, folks.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Wait for it.
September 14, 2008 - 11:27 ET by RackieI so hope she wears Prada.
Muwuhahahahahahahaha!
September 14, 2008 - 11:27 ET by NewsbusterbrownMuwuhahahahahahahaha!
“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)
As a result, the good folks
September 14, 2008 - 11:31 ET by NewsbusterbrownAs a result, the good folks at the Times must feel the only way Obama can win is if they tear down his opponent who, at this time anyway, they seem to feel is Palin and not McCain.
They actually have it right, believe it or not. If McCain hadn't picked Palin, where would he be right now? Palin has energized the party like no one Republican has since Reagan.
“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)
NYT and yet another double standard.
September 14, 2008 - 11:32 ET by ironchefofmunchies"“My colleagues told me he was lobbying for the governor’s position on oil taxes,” State Representative Jay Ramras, a Republican who is chairman of the House judiciary committee, said of one instance last year when he saw Mr. Palin outside the legislative chamber before a key vote. “I think that when the spouse of an elected governor steps away from safe issues that are nonpartisan in nature, that it is bad for the legislative and executive branches, and Todd Palin would not be an exception to that.”"
Just what does the NYT consider Hillary (a spouse at the time-not an elected official) being given complete control of the health care "reform" effort in Clinton's first term?
The double standard is so amazing, that you can hardly believe they have the gall to print it. Where are the Republicans to seize on this hypocrasy to further highlight the NYT's bias?
These libs need to start
September 14, 2008 - 11:35 ET by wiwfThese libs need to start taking their vitamins, they're falling to all kinds of diseases: BDS, PDS, FoxNewsDS...
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
wiwf
September 14, 2008 - 12:16 ET by docbwhat part of these articles is untrue!!!!???? A HIT is untrue and these seem to be dealing with facts and have merit behind them.
docb
September 14, 2008 - 12:44 ET by BlondeLet me further your NB education.
When spammers (that would be you) repeatedly post out-and-out lies, then run....never to answer a response, that is trolling.
When trollers (that would be you) post nonsensical questions, the response is never an answer to your idiotic question.
Lady, you don't have the intellectual capacity to either lie your way out of, nor debate your way out of, a wet paper bag.
All you will get, which is all you deserve, is derision.
We need a better class of troll, here.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde: That is about as
September 14, 2008 - 14:34 ET by stratmanBlonde:
That is about as perfect a response to docBS as one could post.
Well said.
Thank you, kind sir
September 14, 2008 - 14:41 ET by BlondeDavid Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Troll Of The Week Award
September 14, 2008 - 15:14 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsThat troll aint no lady!
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
The idea is that they are
September 14, 2008 - 14:43 ET by Dan The Man 2The idea is that they are trying to create scandal where none exists. It is in the way they say things not necessarily what they say, of course sometimes it is what they say. For instance I say gee you smell and a long pause and then say good. Now in that time I paused you wonder why I said that. The MSM hit pieces are doing pretty much the same thing, sometimes leaving off the word good.
So I have done my good deed for the day and helped an old troll across the street.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
DOCB...
September 14, 2008 - 16:09 ET by danybhoyYou want the truth, docb? I have a few thruths for you...
McCain's pick of Palin was theeeee right pick. Just by looking at the total lack control being shown by the NYSlimes & the rest of the Drive By Media. They are in full blown meltdown mode. The absolute number of "investigative" pieces about Palin should clue you in. Not to mention the fact that almost every idiodic story has it's roots from an internet rumor, then the MSM picks them up as "facts". They are doing what Dan Rather & Mary Mapes did with those fake but accurate documents, believing them to be true BECAUSE THEY WANT THEM TO BE TRUE...
Anybody, even those people, who like me, have a public school education, sees that Obama effed up when he picked Biden as his runnin mate. He's a fool & a clown. Hillary should have been the pick, but Obama's idiot wife nixxed that. They will pay for that.
The is the MSM will never recover from this election season. They have or will lose the trust of the public as a news provider. NBC/BSNBC has lost all credability, & papers, lead by the NYSlimes, are losing circulation by the thousands. It is because the people see the bias.
The truth is, the left in this country sees the wheels coming off of "the sure thing" that was an Obama landslide with the Dems adding a ton of seats in congress. It is now an Obama slide, he will lose, & the Dems will lose seats in congress, & the left in the country know it...
That's the truth, docb. Sometimes the truth sucks, sucks to be you.
"...it's still We The People, Right?" Megadeth
»→ Thanks. But no thanks
September 14, 2008 - 11:34 ET by Cool ArrowI think it's time for McCain to say "Thanks. But no thanks." to that endorsement from the NYT.
"Us white folk will take care of you" - Barbara Walters
Times Editorial Board
September 14, 2008 - 12:25 ET by allanfI hope he does not sit down with the Times Editorial Board. At best it is a waste of time.
MEOW!!
September 14, 2008 - 11:34 ET by northoneAnd we should be surprised by Maureen Dowd because...??? She's always been a self-important, haughty, condescending, liberal bitch, and she's not going to change! The fact that she's clearly jealous of Governor Palin is all-too-sweet.
Very True
September 14, 2008 - 11:42 ET by JoelCTI agree that her jealousy is clearly apparent. I would even go so far as to say she is probably bitterly disappointed in her own self when she looks at Sarah.
She has never married, never had a child, no family, perhaps lives alone, and has really no accomplishments to speak of except she writes a column. I am not saying that *I* am anything special, mind you, but I don't go around saying ugly things and telling lies about people with whom I disagree.
I wish she would spend some time thinking about this.
Will the symmetry never end?
September 14, 2008 - 11:57 ET by Rackie"She has never married, never had a child, no family, perhaps lives alone, and has really no accomplishments to speak of except she writes a column."
Sounds like "Sex in the City."
Dowd
September 14, 2008 - 12:09 ET by imau2fanEven though Dowd's liberalism is no big secret, she is capable of satirizing both sides, and making me laugh equally hard. That is, as long as it's satire, not ridicule.
Her first column about Palin I took more as satire, and made me chuckle in parts. This latest one isn't funny because it's mean.
Perhaps it's because Dowd didn't take her seriously then. Now with McCain ahead in the polls, she doesn't think it's funny anymore. And thus, now neither is she.
Good Coverage, Noel
September 14, 2008 - 11:35 ET by JoelCTNoel, very good write-up.
All NYT is doing is throwing red meat to their base. I think independents are making up their own mind, and these stories are doing very little to make any difference. These stories don't affect conservatives at all, except to ensure we'll be voting against the Times.
The important part is that we conservatives have finally gotten out of our depression about our "choice" for President and we are ALL going to get out and vote for these two, and probably usher in a Republican Senate, and perhaps we'll even out the House a little.
The Same People
September 14, 2008 - 11:36 ET by Secret Conservative“I think that when the spouse of an elected governor steps away from safe issues that are nonpartisan in nature, that it is bad for the legislative and executive branches, and Todd Palin would not be an exception to that.”
Aren't these the same people who in recent memory thought that Hillary Clinton doing the very same thing during her husband's administration made HER qualified to be President?????
Give me a break! But I agree with the analysis that the meaner the MSM coverage, ESPECIALLY the Times and the WaPo, the more afraid they are that it's all over for Obama. I hope McCain's campaign has made that clear to Sarah Palin and her family so they can hold their heads up and wade through the "nonsense" being spewed by the media.
I thought these Squirrels were Anti War ? Yet they start one
September 14, 2008 - 11:37 ET by JayTeeToo bad the News cycle for the Next few days is ALL About another Republican . . . IKE . . .
Too much, Too Late, Too ignored.
I wonder if the Mother with 3 Kids, a job, a husband, and Dinner to cook is Reading the New York Times this weekend ?
But I'll Bet you she has time to take in a Palin Rally recap on TV.
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
Ok, NYT, we give up. We're
September 14, 2008 - 11:39 ET by ThisnThatOk, NYT, we give up. We're not as smart as you think you are. But we're a lot nicer; we have common sense that you don't have; and we can actually do practical things like tie our shoes, pump our own gas, and distinguish between good and evil.
What are the current contributers to the NYT accomplishing? Driving down their readership and stock price to record lows. Congragulations -- you are finally doing something we can't top! Keep it up.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Four pieces, one day?
September 14, 2008 - 11:40 ET by Defector011. That's a new record
2. Those lefties must be ridiculously afraid of her, even more now then they were initially.
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it - Voltaire
Yup, they're scared
September 14, 2008 - 11:41 ET by attorneygirlNew York Times is scared stiff. Good.
Mo Do
September 14, 2008 - 11:52 ET by BlondeOhhh muuuh gahhhd!
Mo sounds like a quintessential vindictive valley girl from Romie & Michelle's Excellent Adventure. Bunny boots?
Dennis Miller had a great line on BOR the other night...."Palin's really gotten into his [Obama's] melon" (the vid is up at Fox, it's a hoot).
I guess Palin's gotten into more "melon's" than that.
This isn't just panic, it's end-of-the-world terror. They're thrashing so badly even a life-preserver (just STOP) won't save them now. The rest of the dems are upset, worried, and backing off the attacks on McCain, and better yet, backing away from the One.
Their catch phrase is "be afraid, be very afraid". It may be playing to their constituency, but it is symphony music to the rest of us.
We're going to need a whole lot more than popcorn, folks. A full-tilt PETA (people enjoying tasty animals) tail-gaiting party-thon is in order.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde,
September 14, 2008 - 14:05 ET by DEVILDOCMOMWhen my husband was in the Army in the early '60's he was sent to Ft. Wainright (Fairbanks) and spent many a day and night out in the field. In the winter the soldiers wore "bunny boots", large white boots to protect their feet in the cold. This is her reference I think.
It is, of course, mostly another attempt to slam Sarah Palin and try to marginalize her. You are right, peta (the screwy one) must be very frustrated at that photo.
DDM
September 14, 2008 - 14:17 ET by BlondeThere's nothing better in the world than Army arctic gear.
My ex-inlaws were in Northern Minnesota (great fun for a Florida girl...trust me, I never got out of the house)...they'd all go ice fishing, and my ex-BIL had those bunny boots.
How do I love Sarah Palin for frustrating the dems and demedia? Let me count the ways!
This is too much fun.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
We had
September 14, 2008 - 14:29 ET by DEVILDOCMOMmy husband's boots for years...not much use for them in Arizona tho'. lol
The serious news consumers
September 14, 2008 - 12:05 ET by celatorThe serious news consumers in my extended family took the NYT off their "must read" list years ago. No one says "Boy, you have to read this morning's New York Times!" anymore, and hasn't for years. It is a completely untrustworthy and irrelevant rag.
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
Congratulations New York
September 14, 2008 - 12:11 ET by dboCongratulations New York Times. You have the same opinions as Pravda.
http://english.pravd...
Be careful
September 14, 2008 - 13:56 ET by IamTinmanThere are some nasty things that can happen when you reference links at that website! Luckily I had spybot working.
Sarah Palin Meet John Doe
September 14, 2008 - 12:33 ET by Redrowan2000I remember watching as a youngster the Frank Capra production of "Meet John Doe" with Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck. The movie was about politics in America. Edward Arnold played the political powerbroker who controlled the press and all other media. He shut down anything that Cooper had to say and had him portrayed as daft or criminal. This all accomplished by his control of the media. I have never in my life seen a closer analogy as to what is going on today with Sarah Palin. Whoever gives these journalists like Gibson etc their orders has them well in hand. I only hope the people realize it before it's too late. Did Barack Obama get even 1/4 the scrutiny that Governor Palin is getting. The amazing thing is the contempt that Gibson feels for her showed through the whole interview. This meanspiritedness that dominates the democrat party is now in full swing in the mainstream media. I bet if you pulled Gibsons lapel back he'd have an Obama campaign button. But don't wear it on the front no, that wouldn't be professional.
I wasn't going to vote for McCain but with the utter contempt the mainstream media shows in this country for journalistic standards and fairplay is really making me consider him again. Thanks Charlie Gibson
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."
Red
Excellent! I love that
September 14, 2008 - 12:41 ET by celatorExcellent! I love that movie.
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
Very good Red, we will need
September 14, 2008 - 16:28 ET by general companyVery good Red, we will need your vote.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
NYT
September 14, 2008 - 12:40 ET by doug1950should be used like the miner's canary. Anything they are for, conservatives should be against. Anything they are against, conservatives should probably be for in spades. They are almost always on the absolute wrong side of any issue and can be relied on to consistently back the wrong horse in any race. When you disagree with NYT, you are on firm footing.
After all, every day a
September 14, 2008 - 12:44 ET by MidAmericaAfter all, every day a press member spends talking about Palin and NOT Obama is a victory for McCain.
I agree. The press, for now, has decided to make this election a referendom on Palin and not about obama. But without constant stoking of the public's imagination, obama's image will become weak considering his message is muddled and constantly 'evolving and refining'.
But what really is going on is that the press, so completely in the tank for a democrat win, has gotten so frustrated with the obama camps campaign results that they have just decided they will step in and run against the Republicans themselves. You know, like when a parent gets so frustated with a child's efforts that they end up just doing the task themselves.
Isn't it interesting that
September 14, 2008 - 18:27 ET by ThisnThatIsn't it interesting that the NYT today is seamlessly spanning the same story across the entire newspaper, effectively blending its FRONT PAGE to its OPINION COLUMNS? Same story; same slant; same intent -- that is to influence its readers rather than inform its readers. The NYT believes that all they have left is sheep subscribers who will blindly follow anything and everything they print these days.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
McCain/Palin are doing something right
September 14, 2008 - 12:46 ET by MearlineIf she's garnering this much hate from the media. Good going Girl!! I think the problem is actually that the media is watching America turn to the McCain team with the naming of Gov. Palin and they can't grasp a strategy to turn the tide. Indeed, everything they seem to do makes it worse. and i can't say i'm not enjoying it. I don't want my candidate playing nice with the enemy. I want to know that we are focused on who the enemy is and focused on the goal of destroying them. ..politically of course.
The "writers" and editors
September 14, 2008 - 13:59 ET by Andrew H.The "writers" and editors at the New York Times is a not so special class of liars. We should read them--why? I don't bother.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
NYT
September 14, 2008 - 15:03 ET by lhbarnesThe NYT is anything but a "lady" of ANY kind. What a rag!!!!
Some refer to the New York
September 15, 2008 - 14:00 ET by Tim the EnchanterSome refer to the New York Times as the "Gray Lady". More appropriate, I think, would be the "Grizzled Old Bitch".
No longer able to remember
September 14, 2008 - 15:32 ET by general companyNo longer able to remember his principles any better than he can distinguish between Sunnis and Shia., McCain stands revealed as a guy who can be easily rolled by anyone who sells him a plan for “victory,”
What BS, hell I am still wondering is Obama is Sunnis or Shia.
The ambitious Palin and the ruthless forces she represents know it, too.
Yea she is so ambitious that she took your dumb a$$ completely by surprise.
For this idiot to claim that McCain is weak in mind and spirit is a travesty, weather you like him or not, he certainly has one of the strongest convictions of anyone you would ever hope to know.
These folks at the slimes have lost all sense of perspective. Obama has yet to be vetted by anyone other then the 40 min he gave BOR, but yet a very successful woman is having lie after accusation thrown at her for simply being a popular and effective elected official. That is more then anyone could say about Obama or Biden
Great job Noel
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Speaking of boots...Palin
September 14, 2008 - 15:38 ET by bigtimerSpeaking of boots...Palin says this to Dowd...plus this to Rich, the NYTs and all other wittle worry warts who know things are slippin'...
Keep up the good work, you nattering nabobs of negativity.
Palin Power!
..."America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Only 16-days to completely reverse standings...
September 14, 2008 - 15:42 ET by RonCNoel, they've (rabid NYT scribblers) had their little world turned upside down - very quickly - and very decisively.
In only 16 days (from Palin as VP announced) Obama's 3-4 point lead has evaporated and today Obama is a 4-5 point loser - and worse, just 10 days ago, Obama was up by 5-6 points. (Obama's convention bounce lasted at best 3 days.)
So they're desperate... and lashing out... and losing what little credibility they had faster and faster.
They know that at this rate (6 point gain in two weeks) McCain could be leading by 9-10 points by the end of the month... so expect them to ramp-up their daily berserk 6000-word attacks.
We can rejoice... all their demented efforts will do is inexorably push McCain - Palin ever faster toward a landslide victory on Election Day.
Pray that a McCain-Palin
September 14, 2008 - 16:13 ET by NL207Pray that a McCain-Palin landslide spills over into the House.
Hi NL.. I have been, and
September 14, 2008 - 16:31 ET by bigtimerHi NL..
I have been, and this is the first time I have had actual hope for this...we need this more than anything...as I know you know.
People like rep. Tom Davis would help if they would stop with their constant talk of us being losers...again.
I am glad for once to see people on our side of the aisle come out and fight for once on television, and they have been all over the place...did anybody happen to catch Rudy today...I think it was MTP, gawd he was absolutely great once again!
You can also tell that the internet has made a difference for once on persuasion for our side of the aisle and the pols are listening, and for once doing something about it... I actually think we are going to win bigger than I thought, I do want to say I never thought Obama would win in the first place, now we have it where the dems can't ever use the excuse of all the cheatin' they have got away with forever...not this time.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Me to, we are going to try
September 14, 2008 - 16:42 ET by general companyMe to, we are going to try and help out the Senate here in La as well
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
NYT has a Circulation Problem and remnants of IKE
September 14, 2008 - 15:45 ET by lareeThis is too bad for the Jayson Blair Times, in the old days more people would be reading all this effort on their part. But they ruined their own brand so the people who do still read, how many of those are buying what the times is selling?
There is also a natural disaster that is occupying many. I wonder why they wasted all this effort today? Power Planning or Poor Planning?
"Staring down Putin"
September 14, 2008 - 16:16 ET by KStorm"Staring down Putin" (referring to Dowd's column) is a convenient catch-phrase the left has come up with lately.
Strange, seeing how their way to deal with such a situation is to put one's head between their legs and kiss their heinie goodbye.
Bias according to the MRC guidelines
September 14, 2008 - 16:42 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Noel,
Quick question: according to the MRC guidelines on identifying and combating bias (and what doesn't count as bias, found here: http://www.mediarese...), a news piece does not count as bias if they are "Stories or statements that make the conservative side look bad, but are accurate."
Now, I've already mentioned something on Mark Finkelstein's recent post about the op-eds (which according to the MRC guidelines are not really fair game for bias since op-eds are definitionally biased), so I'll turn to your other evidence here.
You say that the NY Times has produced a hit job in its article on Palin, but you don't offer any evidence to support your assertion that their article is inaccurate. Did they leave something out or add something that makes Gov. Palin look bad? Is there some evidence you could point us to show us the flip-side--to show that this article was inaccurate? If not, then according to the MRC guidelines, this wouldn't seem to be an instance of liberal bias.
Hey Nick
September 14, 2008 - 17:00 ET by general companyYou say that the NY Times has produced a hit job in its article on
Palin, but you don't offer any evidence to support your assertion that
their article is inaccurate.
No support or evidence, do you read any of these blog and threads, or do you just shoot off you mouth before loading your brain?
OK,ok, How about you look at the "flip side" and point out any truths involved here. And yes we all know the The Time is in New York.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
----
September 14, 2008 - 17:12 ET by dahliatraversI have a question for you, Nicholas Nickleby.
Stipulating the definition of "hit" as "negative", now that we're into the general election, when will the NYTimes have one, never mind four, hit pieces about Barack Obama in one issue?
When you answer that, you will have discovered your "instance of liberal bias". If the same news outlet repeatedly kisses the derriere of one candidate but kicks that of his/her opponent, that can fairly be described as an absence of objectivity, also known as "bias". This become acutely noticeable when the two candidates share some of the same weaknesses (oo, except executive experience).
where is our hit piece on Obama?
September 14, 2008 - 18:59 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi dahliatravers,
I take your point, and I agree with you, and with the MRC policy standards that say that bias may be one of commission or omission. That said, I've seen a few posts here by regular contributors (Noel Sheppard, Mark Finkelstein) that seem to ignore the MRC policy standards in regards to editorials. (That is, of course, editorials are biased, so what's the point in analyzing them for liberal bias when they come from liberal authors writing for liberal sources?)
Now, to answer your question, first--and I know we're going to disagree on this, but I hope you'll hear me out--Noel has not proven that this was a hit piece. Was it negative? Yes, but "negative" does not equal "hit" (although "hit" does equal "negative"--it's like rectangles and square: hits are always negatives, negatives aren't always hits).
That is, according to the MRC guidelines, just because something is negative about a conservative candidate/position, does not mean that it is an instance of bias. This may very well be an instance of bias--I'm not arguing that it isn't.
I'm only arguing that Noel has not proven that it was, because he has not proven that any of the negative statements made about Palin are untrue and he has not proven that they were ignoring any positive statements.
Or, just for comparison, we could talk about the campaign's truth in advertising/speaking. Politifact.com has a file about each candidate, measuring their truth statements. (Now, I was just fwd'ed this, so I haven't scoped it out and checked its credentials--which is my bit of truth in advertising.) McCain scored 25 true, 20 mostly true, 19 half true, 21 barely true, 22 false, and 6 pants on fire statements (http://www.politifac...). Obama scored 39 true, 24 mostly true, 21 half true, 12 barely true, 18 false, and 0 pants on fire (http://www.politifac...). Unless my math is wrong, that 113 for McCain, 114 for Obama, with Obama being more true in most cases (he only beats McCain for half true by 2)
Now, if NB had this story, they might argue that McCain is being unfairly attacked for his untrue statements--when, in fact, the truth is that McCain is making more untrue statements.
So, yes, the article on Palin has some negative things to say--but no one here has yet really provided evidence that these negative statement about Palin are untrue. So, is this a case of liberal bias in the media--a hit job, as Noel claims--or is this a case of the facts about Palin being negative?
NYSlimes
September 14, 2008 - 18:18 ET by ScrapironIf I had a subscription to the NYSlimes it would be cancelled tomorrow. Already cancelled all but the local 'county' paper. How many more of their slimey employees will they fire before they fold? Maybe a replacement 'news' organization will pop up and take over, the NYSlime can not call themselves a 'news' organization in any form...
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Shenanigans
September 14, 2008 - 21:26 ET by the53rdcalypsoGovernor Palin is harder to pin down than a greased Berkshire on a Slip 'n' Slide during a olive oil squirt gun fight. http://www.236.com/b...
Nice.
Gotta love it.
September 14, 2008 - 21:46 ET by pbthinkerDoes that mean McCains poll numbers go up another 2 points this week? It's funny that the press has no confidence their candidate can win, on his own, so they've chosen sides and are willing to sacrifice the small amount of credibility they have, hoping they can get him a victory. It's pretty sad.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
Two for One!!!?????
September 14, 2008 - 22:25 ET by gailannrI was wondering like when we had a Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton and then a Mr. Obama and Mrs. Obama and then a Mr. Palin and Mrs. Palin..... will we be getting another "Two for the Price of One again?" How cool is that!!
New York Times
September 15, 2008 - 01:30 ET by VinncyGThe day of the New York Times is past. This is a paper worthy of public reprisal.
I said a long time ago regarding the New York Times, they are a public company, management under their slime owner has cost public investors plenty and has created animosity and NO SHARE HOLDER VALUE.
They should change their slogan from "All the news that's fit to print" to "All the news we chose to print". Circulation is down, advertising is down, liberalism 100% of the time is a loosing proposition.