Just how bad has the presidential campaign coverage been this year?
So bad that popular online columnist Michael S. Malone, aka ABC.com's "Silicon Insider," wrote Friday, "I’m deeply ashamed right now to be called a 'journalist.'”
So strong were his words that they should be required reading for all the Obama-loving media members that have disgraced themselves as well as their industry this year, especially if Malone's assertion that they're doing this to protect their own careers via a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine that will "crush the alternative media" is correct (h/t LGF via NBer Paul Wright, picture courtesy Santa Clara University):
The traditional media is playing a very, very dangerous game. With its readers, with the Constitution, and with its own fate.
The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.
But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer”, because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist. [...]
But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current Presidential campaign. Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass - no, make that shameless support - they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press. [...]
No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side - or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for Senators Obama and Biden. If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as President of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography. That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: his job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.
Why, for example to quote McCain’s lawyer, haven’t we seen an interview with Sen. Obama’s grad school drug dealer - when we know all about Mrs. McCain’s addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Senator Biden’s endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?
The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber. Middle America, even when they didn’t agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a Presidential candidate. So much for the Standing Up for the Little Man, so much for Speaking Truth to Power, so much for Comforting the Afflicted and Afflicting the Comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.
Yet, potentially most fascinating was Malone's explanation for this shameful behavior. In his view, the drive-by media is "a dying industry":
The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn’t have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you’ll lose your job before you cross that finish line, ten years hence, of retirement and a pension.
What's the solution?
[A]n attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career. With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived Fairness Doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe, be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.
Fascinating. Do yourself a favor...read the whole thing.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
My eyes roll
October 25, 2008 - 11:41 ET by Josh SNI am still outraged that when George Washington nominated John Rutledge to be Chief Justice the anti-Federalist press called Rutledge "insane." He was not insane, he had only spoken against Jay's Treaty.
To make matters worse, it was that BACK-STABBER Alexander Hamilton (a publisher of a notoriously biased newspaper) who was out in front trying to convince everyone Rutledge, Washington's choice, was insane. Hamilton and Washington were in the same party!
Why didn't George Washington just fire Hamilton, right then and there? We don't need to think about this hard, undoubtedly he was prisoner of the liberal media.
You can read about it here, from the 1942 book Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina.
All these "writers" are risking the Constitution, says outraged tech journalist, Mike Malone.
Whaaat?!
October 25, 2008 - 11:55 ET by ahusserWhaaat?! I guess you are trying to be facetious. Of course if you are a troll ( and I can't figure out what point you are trying to make except extreme sarcasm) the one sidedness in the press is a wonderful righteous thing to silence the evil conservatives.
All we have to do is look at the plumber.
October 25, 2008 - 12:23 ET by pbthinkerIf we really want to look at the state of journalism today, all we have to do is look at Joe the Plumber. With the exception of Fox News, the remainder of the media threw the rocks at Joe. They looked into his background and came up with interesting facts. They have never looked into Obama's background.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/24/joe.html?sid=101
This story is about illegal attempts to view Joe's DMV file in Ohio. How can the press report on this story when, from some of their stories, it's possible they colluded with the individuals that did this. I'm still waiting to see this story reported in the MSM. Any bets on how long I'll have to wait?
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
And your point is?
October 25, 2008 - 14:07 ET by Anchor89As far as I can tell, Josh SN's point is that since media bias existed when Washington was President, we shouldn't complain about it now. I accept his assertion that there has always been some degree of bias in the news, however to use that assetion to justify its continuation is absurd. You could use the same logic to justiy the continuation of slavery - "well, they had it when Washington was President, so what's the big deal?"
What has changed in the last ten years is the ability of the ordinary person to question the bias of the MSM. In the same way that the printing press allowed ordinary people to question the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church, the internet has allowed ordinary people to do their own research and question what is being fed to them by the MSM. As in the days of Martin Luther, what ordinary people are discovering is that they have been duped by the establishment and they are growing increasingly upset about it.
There may be attempts to silence the blasphemers through tactics such as the Fairness Doctrine or character assassination like we have seen against Joe the Plumber, but the decline of the MSM has shown that these efforts will continue to fail. So, the MSM has two choices: Either start providing balanced reporting or continue to gleefully plummet to their distruction like Slim Pickens riding the bomb out of a B-52 at the end of Dr. Strangelove.
press in washington's time
October 25, 2008 - 14:27 ET by porpoiseboyi think the biggest difference between the media of those times to today's is not their bias....but it is the supposed "fair and balanced" mantra of all of todays media which is a complete fallicy. in washington's times papers were actually very much supported by one party or another and bore names like "the whig opinion" or the "republican times" ( i made those up..but you get the idea ). the problem today is there is a supposed uninvolved, unbiased approach that does not exist. and i believe it never has. but journalists have been taught they they are held to a higher standard than the rest of humanity which is ridiculous. if the media would just shed their "unbiased reporting" mantra which has never existed anyway and be honest, everyone would be better off.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
I think my main point
October 25, 2008 - 16:15 ET by Josh SNI think my main point was simply that outrage about people being using the media is sure sign of thin-skins. It happens, Fox News does it. MSNBC does it. I try not to do it, but when I am confronted with such a one-sided perspective, I have no choice to present just one other side, rather that buttress your arguments when they make sense.
Back then people were a lot more sophisticated with their politics. One of the people who replied compared it to slavery, and that it happened then was no excuse for it to happen now. I don't think it does happen now. No one tried to paint John Roberts as "insane" to stop him. Sure, they called B-1 Bob "crazy," but I know Bob has a sense of humor about it (see his response to his friend Al Franken's comment). Can you imagine if one of Bush's cabinet had started a campaign to get Chief Justice Roberts labelled insane? How long do you think he would have lasted?
Does Obama get all in a huff over the repeated insinuations he is an anti-American terrorist?
By the way, Joe the Plumber probably shouldn't be buying a business, since he doesn't know the difference between sales and profit.
By the way, Joe the
October 25, 2008 - 21:18 ET by HermanoThat may be true, but 0bama told Joe he was going to tax revenues over $250K. The expected tax will be 39% (let's make it an even 40). This means that Joe will pay the US $100K and have $150K for his expenses and to pay his workers. If he has two workers at $30K a year each, this leaves $90K before he coughs up the payroll taxes at 7% ($4200) - likely to go up to help out social security - leaving $85800 to cover business expenses - trucks, phones, tools, advertising, etc. leaving Joe making about $60K. He then pays himself a salary of $30K, gets taxed again, decides it doesn't make sense to own a business, lays off his employees and takes a job as a federal employee.
Did 0bama mean profits? If so, he has no business being POTUS. If he meant revenue, then you, too, should be very afraid of 0bama.
http://theobamafile.com/
You must be kidding!
October 26, 2008 - 16:33 ET by Anchor89"Does Obama get all in a huff over the repeated insinuations he is an anti-American terrorist?"
First of all, I haven't heard any insinuations by anyone that Obama is a terrorist. Anti-American, yes. Terrorist, no. Have I heard any insinuations that he has had a close working relationship with Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist? Insinuations, no. Evidence, yes.
The reason why Obama does not get in a huff about this is that he doesn't have to. The MSM does it for him. To the extent that they cover this story it all, the copy sounds like it is repeated verbatim from the Obama campaign. Americans currently know more about the personal life and history of Joe the Plumber than they do about Bill Ayers. Yet another example of the daily MSM liberal bias. If you don't see it, you are delusional.
By the way, nice personal dig on Joe the Plumber at the end of your post. You may try not to be biased, but you need to try a little harder, or you may find yourself unemployed along with the rest of the liberal media.
History of Bias
October 25, 2008 - 16:23 ET by kdoliverI don't think the issue is which side the bias is one. We are pissed off because it is against the what we hold dear. It could be the other way around and I would be as equally upset.
I have discussions with women who want a woman in power, but can't stand the idea of Gov. Palin. When asked why, they claim in it is her views--which is legitimate, but they are lying about wanting a woman. The same is true with the media. They are lying to themselves and worst of all they are lying to the public.
http://thelazytriath...
Humm, where to start
October 25, 2008 - 21:27 ET by Dexter the Beagle1st, John Rutledge may not have been insane, but he did however have some mental issues, his depression being so serious since the death of his wife in 1792, that he had two failed suicide attempts, the first before and the second soon after the Senate rejected his nomination
2nd As for the book’s assertion that Hamilton wrote under an anonymous name, I’m shocked, shocked, I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t Hamilton write in the U.S Gazette(published by John Fenno who was loyal to Hamilton)and several papers, under such pseudonyms as, Metellus, Amicus, and Catullus attacking many of his advisories? In defending Thomas Jefferson against Hamilton’s attacks on such views as the constitution and Jefferson’s support of the National Gazette run by Philip Freneau, didn’t Edmund Randolph, James Monroe, James Madison(also a Federalist) write under such pseudonym’s as Vindicator and Aristides? The book doesn’t even take into account William Lougton Smith, who was a Hamilton partisan from South Carolina, who funny enough had the same writing style as Hamilton and wrote, “The Politicks and views of a Certain Party Displayed”, calling Madison “General” and Thomas Jefferson “Generalissimo”. And it’s not like John Adams’ son didn’t write in defense of his father under the name Publicola.
3rd Hamilton did found the New York Post , 1801, 6 years after Washington unsuccessfully appointment of Rutledge via recess appointment. So at that point at least, Hamilton, a Federalist (Along with James Madison and John Jay, who wrote The Federalist papers) was not a “publisher” of a paper, which would be later on.
4th It was the Federalist dominated Senate that rejected the nomination of Rutledge, not the “anti-federal” press that was his undoing.
5th Why didn’t Washington fire Hamilton? Washington new the dangers that the government and the Union faced from their real enemies, and the need to avoid internal dissension until both of them were firmly established. Therefore, as he had done many times during his administration, with the ever bickering Jefferson and Hamilton, he rose above it for the good of the country.
As for your assertion that there are conservative newspapers and Fox news, true, but living in Washington, I have yet to hear on local T.V. or national for that matter, “according to the Washington Times”. Fox news is far more balanced in their coverage from the right is than Msnbc is from the left, at least Fox puts on real liberals to argue with its conservatives, i.e. Bob Beckel, Alan Comes, Lanny Davis etc, all Msnbc or Cnn can seem to put on is luke warm conservatives.(there may be a few exceptions)
The point is that we conservatives are not thin skinned, crybabies or whatever you would like to label us. I’m sure most people here are fine with liberal newspapers, liberal T.V. news programs, et al, what we would like is that they would admit that their bias, as Fenno and Freneau did in their coverage of Hamilton and Jefferson. The problem is that the historical incident you bring up has little or nothing to do with the subject we are talking about, the problem is that objectivity is dead in the media, and where there is any decent , talk radio, Fox, and a handful of newspapers, you would like to destroy it, no more Vindicator, no more Aristides. And notice that, Madison, a federalist wrote in defense of Jefferson, wow, where would you see that today, pretty much the only people I have seen do that are Ed Kock, Lieberman, and Zel Miller, and the left crucified them for it.
Precious!
October 26, 2008 - 20:07 ET by avenarOne of the perks of being a Newsbusters reader: Free history lesson.
Thank you Dexter! Much appreciated!
Illegal Use of Government Computers to Get Joe the Plumber
October 25, 2008 - 10:45 ET by allanfThe Columbus Dispatch reports an investigation is underway to see if BMV computers were illegally used to gather information on Joe the Plumber
Yellow journalism lives
October 25, 2008 - 11:03 ET by pocomocoHaving slipped the bonds of civility, the MSM are now engaged in what can best be described as written and verbal pollution with a kind of viciousness toward the Republican candidates that would make yellow journalists, Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, proud.
The mental disease of liberalism has infected journalism causing it to be light years away from a once respected, but now reviled, profession.
Today, the MSM no longer speak to and for the people but, instead, speak to and for themselves as they seem to be in an agenda-driven competition to see which one can be more disgusting during this years presidential campaign.
Their goal, of course, is to ‘fix’ the election for Barack Obama, probably the most unqualified presidential candidate in U.S. history with his cadre of questionable associates – but they don’t care, because their ‘white guilt’ supersedes the reality of a man who genuinely hates America – as they do.
This year, the media are volunteers for Obama...
October 25, 2008 - 11:19 ET by wnaegele...next year, they'll find they're field hands on his plantation...
Actually...
October 25, 2008 - 12:16 ET by Tom1969caActually, what I foresee in the weeks following the election is a series of exposees in the MSM, as they try to rebuild their credibility as 'impartial' providers of news: "Tonight on 20/20, startling new revelations about President-elect Barack Obama's ties to Weathermen founder Bill Ayers!"
At which point the American public will say, "Obama was campaigning for two entire years! Where in the blue hell was this information two months ago?!?"
The good news is that the truth will eventually come out about Obama and the MSM will die an irrelevant death from the public outrage that the truth was kept from them. The bad news is that the truth may not get to enough people in time to prevent Obama's election...
=====
Daily Sarah Palin fact:
Sarah Palin and Chuck Norris walk into a bar. The bar instantly explodes because no man-made structure can contain that much awesomeness.
I doubt it
October 25, 2008 - 17:33 ET by GrannyGrump42They'll all go Kent Brockman. "I for one welcome our new overlords."
Follow the money!
October 25, 2008 - 11:24 ET by Rev4lawThanks Noel for the lead to a great story.
Anyone who does not see a "titanic slant" to the MSM coverage is an idiot. What this story explains, is why. And once again, we can just "follow the money."
It makes a great deal of sense that the MSM, a "dying industry," is looking to reinvigorate their union with Obama's support for killing off secret ballots and a destruction of the competition with the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.
The Titanic of the MSM tilts as it sinks beneath the waves.
At least someone sees it
October 25, 2008 - 11:42 ET by KC MulvilleThe funny part is that now that this guy has addressed the overwhelming bias in the media ... I'm much more willing to read his next story. Malone may not be perfectly objective (no human is), but at least he tried to be honest. That's good enough.
But that's only one part of the story. Now, if the media wants to redeem itself ... start investigating and reporting what you find about Obama.
What do we think we're going to find? Videotape of a drug deal? Audio of a terrorist conference call? No. We think that the media will discover a politician who's steeped and formed by radical leftist academia. This guy is a smooth, polished version of every nutcase professor in the community college who assured students that the USA was trying to blow up Australia. If you were to run a science experiment to create the Stealth Leftist, here he is. He's the Yuri of the political science department.
Well Done
October 25, 2008 - 12:07 ET by JoelCTThis is why I consider Noel to be The Best Of The Best Of The Best... Sir!
Exellent coverage. There is no way we would have ever known about this without the wonderful NewsBusters.
This should be sent to every school in America. Every classroom should be required to discuss the pros and cons of the story, along with the very real angle that this damages our very election process, which is the envy of the entire world.
Thank you, Noel.
Better Coming From Within
October 25, 2008 - 12:14 ET by rammingspeedMalone's insider perspective gives his article infinitely more weight. He eviscerates the MSM, exposes them for the purely evil totalitarians they are, and correctly points out their need for the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, so that the shutting up of those who disagree with them can begin.
The Fairness Doctrine push will crash and burn, once all Americans realize exactly what it means. It will be among the first things to go by the wayside once Obama starts pushing his programs.
It is precisely journalists
October 25, 2008 - 12:20 ET by dark_dsIt is precisely journalists such as this guy who still hold on to what they learned of being objective non biased reporters of facts that will eventualy give us hope in the future .... the MSM will eventually see that they bought into a lie, that they walked away from the principle of fairness and unbiased reporting .. not all of MSM will wake up but those who still have burried within themselves the reason that they became journalists will .. they will either fight the battle from within the structure of the existing MSM or they will venture out into the new media ....
The MSM didn't buy into a
October 25, 2008 - 12:34 ET by DarkCurrentThe MSM didn't buy into a lie - the MSM is knowingly selling lies. They won't wake up and mend their ways. They'll have to be destroyed and completely replaced by new media.
Boycott Now!!!
October 25, 2008 - 12:37 ET by flyingmonkeyThis is the first of many conservative sites where I will be calling for a boycott of the Main Stream Media starting with the print media. The print media has lost much of it's readership and is on the "economic ropes." It is my contention that a majority of it's remaining readership is made up of conservatives. Let's give the print media a gentle push into extinction by refusing to purchase newspapers. Not for the "Sports" section, the "Crossword," the "Metro Section," or any other lame reason. "DO NOT BUY NEWSPAPERS!!!"
They are bringing this country to the brink of socialism with their one-sided coverage of the '08 elections. Let's show them what we think of that.
Years ago
October 25, 2008 - 12:48 ET by iveseenitallI started that years ago. Newspapers are not worth reading any longer. They have been biased for decades, but now their bias is over the top. They lie outright.We no longer have a free press in America and it is only going to get worse if, God forbid, Barry H. O. gets elected. Hard times are coming, worse than anyone in America has experienced or can imagine. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
What about the right wing newspapers?
October 25, 2008 - 16:34 ET by Josh SNRupert Murdoch owns lots of newspapers. The Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle and Mancester Union-Leader are very reliably right wing newspapers.
This year two of the three endorsed Obama, but that's not because they are liberal papers. They never have been. I think both cited the choice of Sarah Palin as one of the deciding factors.
Chicago Tribune fact check?
October 27, 2008 - 03:22 ET by OneLoyalAmericanFacts are boring. Just keep drinking the Obamaniac flavors of kool-aid.
In 2007, Sam Zell bought the tattered remains of the once conservative Chicago Tribune. And, for what it's worth, Rupert Murdoch used to own the Chicago Sun-Times.
Sunday?
October 25, 2008 - 12:46 ET by JoelCTI only buy the Sunday Paper for the Coupons, and that's it. Can you forgive me for that?
It's still a free country
October 25, 2008 - 13:03 ET by DarkCurrentIt's still a free country until January, so carry on. After February you'll get the government paper for free, but without coupons.
I don't know if this is a
October 25, 2008 - 13:56 ET by BuxomAnnieMcGreggorI don't know if this is a coincidence or evidence of superior planning....( and I'm just asking) but I find this entire state of current events interestingly dovetailing with the fact we have to have digital reception for television come this February or we get nothing at all. I've heard some fascinating thoughts on this.... but sorry, no links at this moment.
"We retort..... you decide."
That was planned for a long time
October 25, 2008 - 16:35 ET by Josh SNThe idea behind it, at least, is to open up the spectrum. Broadcast TV (they say) uses more of the spectrum. By switching to digital, there will be more "prime" spectrum available for other uses.
Monkey...The papers are already dead!!!
October 25, 2008 - 14:10 ET by TheSterThe newspapers do not need any help from us!!!
What happened...did your Parrot die???
I need newspapers to make PIRATE HATS!!!!
The one sided news accounts are....one sided already!!!!
Ster.
The PRINT Media?
October 26, 2008 - 00:07 ET by Scout FinchNetwork TV news bias is profoundly worse than print media. Also, more folks get their 'news' from the talking heads on TV rather than read it from a newspaper.
there is hope
October 25, 2008 - 12:49 ET by porpoiseboyeven if the fairness doctrine were reinstitued, it might be hard to implement it in a destructive way. although the supreme court has found that the fairness doctrine was not in itself necessarily unconstitutional, they did say that if it was found to be inpinging on the 1st amendment rights of a broadcaster that they were open to reconsidering that decision. believe me, i am totally against it, but in light of today's circumstances i think it MIGHT hard to implement it in a way that would harm the radio broadcasters we have come to know & like. and if it did happen as the worst case scenarios have laid it out.....here i come satellite radio!!!!!
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
new media
October 25, 2008 - 12:54 ET by right of wayjournalist, and i use the term loosly, today are lazier, and more blatant. back in the day, the big three networks at least tried to hide their bais. today they could give a rat's rear! journalism has turned into a social movement. and now a days, jounalist are lazy and they don't want to follow up and fact check a story like they used to. to say that standards have sunk to a new low level is an understatement. i totally believe that this election has brought us the death of responsible journalism. andrea mitchell, wolf, gregory, and the big three anchors are some of the worst when it comes to this. to me matthews and olberdunce are not journalist, but just talk show hosts. i wish we could have a media who would give us the dirt and the good on both sides and let us decide who we want as our leader, and not tell us who the media wants as president.
How Will the NY Times Behave If Obama Is Elected ?
October 25, 2008 - 14:17 ET by New Jersey ConservativeIf Obama is Elected POTUS will the NY Times continue to divulge national security secrets? Will they expose when a couple of National Guard soldiers embarrass a prisoner and make us believe it was really Obama fault? Will they do thorough investigative pieces on ACORN, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Democrats finger prints on blowing up the economy? How about voter fraud, massive illegal contributions to Obama, Dems allowing their union thugs to do away with secret ballots, Obama taxing anyone who makes over $30,000 a year, showing how raising taxes will kill jobs, showing how raising taxes will mean less money coming into the Treasury?
How will they cover the news when we get out of the Middle East and than have to go back to fight an even bigger war because we left before things got settled down? After two years and the Messiah hasn’t found Osama Bin Laden will they call him an idiot?
We should not hold our breath waiting to find out because we already know the answers.
The media has lost whatever tiny credibility they ever had.
TTFN
October 25, 2008 - 15:25 ET by pocomocoNot to worry!
The DNC/NYT will not be in existence. Being that they were just rated as a Junk Bond company their demise is not far behind.
They have sewn the seeds of their own destruction and are now reaping the whirlwind of their own downfall.
AND WHEN THEY TRY BALANCE...DEMOS REACT!
October 25, 2008 - 20:31 ET by reelman46DEMOCRATS: STILL THE CRYBABIES!
Obama campaign cuts off WFTV after interview with Joe Biden
posted by halboedeker on Oct 24, 2008
WFTV-Channel 9’s Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen.
Joe Biden on Thursday. A friend says it’s some of the best
entertainment he’s seen recently. What do you think?
West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama’s comment, to Joe the Plumber,
about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama
isn’t being a Marxist with the “spreading the wealth” comment.
“Are you joking?” said Biden, who is Obama’s running mate. “No,” West said.
West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested
early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying
America’s days as the world’s leading power were over.
“I don’t know who’s writing your questions,” Biden shot back.
Biden so disliked West’s line of questioning that the Obama campaign
canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate’s wife.
“This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for
your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for
the duration of the remaining days until the election,” wrote Laura K.
McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama
campaign.
McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was “a result of her husband’s
experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West.”
CRAWFISH NOTE: As usual, the socialists want to be
treated with cupcake questions while any Repub is hammered into the
ground. How does it feel now, you big sissies? Cat got your tongue?
Just answer the questions…is that just too hard for you?
Their media diaper-changers can dish to Repubs with a sneer and sarcasm
but when anyone dares (like Joe the plumber) to ask a question that
reveals your lying socialism…run away and cry. You see Palin running
like a big baby after being slapped around time-after-time by the
lib-media? Democrats are such great cowards and bullies…decades of
practice.
(What does this tantrum tell you about the confidence democrats have in defending their words-actions-principles?)
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Who has less respect?
October 25, 2008 - 14:40 ET by Anchor89Someone should do a poll asking which group has less respect from the public:
A) Journalists
B) Members of Congress
C) Child Molesters
I think the results would be close.
less respect
October 25, 2008 - 14:44 ET by porpoiseboyin order B, A, C.......did i pass?
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
I have nothing but absolute seething hatred for the MSM
October 25, 2008 - 15:03 ET by JaykeNot only will I not watch any of the alphabet soup channels for my news anymore but I have nothing but absolute seething hatred for them. I believe I am of sound mind and body except for when I pass by a CNN flat screen at my Mickey D's. It takes all the strength I can muster to keep from yelling at the screen like a lunatic.
Jayke...you aren't alone by
October 25, 2008 - 15:13 ET by bigtimerJayke...you aren't alone by any means....
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
I wonder how much longer
October 25, 2008 - 15:24 ET by nofateI wonder how much longer Mr. Malone has at ABC? We all know they read NewsBusters now. The whole time spent reading Mr. Malone's article, especially the finger pointed at the editorial side, I couldn't help thinking of the Marxist influence apparent in the media these days. And again, of the long march through the institutions, especially the academic side that teaches these so called "journalists", and sends them out to continue the march and suborn the freedom of the press by using it against the country that gives that freedom.
I'm sure journalism school profs scorn that philosophy. Why else would Obama's Marxist ties be so blatantly ignored when even occasional history/news buffs like myself can find more information about that subject than I could possibly assimilate?
Bill Ayers, the Marxist Revolutionary in the 1960s from today's American Thinker.
Search screen from American Thinker and a search on "obama marxism" -it goes on for over 10 pages. Most of them are well researched and documented.
Same search at IBD Editorials.
Because our lazybones friends at the MSM might accuse me of bias by only searching "right wing" sites, here are 709,000 hits on "obama marxism" at Google. Just for clarity, I have systematically removed all traces of any Google product from my computer, so it really hurts to do that.
Or 979 hits at Google News search.
Yahoo gives 3,080,000 hits for a search on "obama marxism".
Yahoo News, 91 hits.
If Obama is elected, there is going to be a huge battle over the fairness doctrine issue. Hopefully, the alternative media have reached a critical mass that will not allow the left to subdue a news source that a very large portion of the public is obviously wanting. In the words of Sarah Palin, according to the Tuscon Citizen, from the Yahoo News search, the election is "In God's Hands".
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Manufactured Opinion Outlets, nofate.
October 25, 2008 - 18:13 ET by HillbillyKingMeanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation’s leading newspapers,
many of whom I’d written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces
creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page.
Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in
1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were
now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S. (e.m.)
Tell the people what their opinion should be, hmmmm sounds like the constant plebiscite of public opinion to me.
In a struggle to shape a countries ideological perspective, shouldn't the ideology of those whom gatekeep the news be important?
Our failure to stop the infiltration of the media by those with anti-American ideologies has come back to harm us. We are now reaping what we sowed.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Liberal Fascism Again
October 25, 2008 - 23:12 ET by nofateIt is not really surprising that Castro was a student of Hitler, Mussolini, and other famous communist/fascist murderering leaders. His early violent tendencies remind me of what I have read of the early life of Stalin. The long march continues. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Michael S.
October 25, 2008 - 15:26 ET by bigtimerMichael S. Malone...
THANK YOU
I did read the whole article...he has said it all.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
I just read his whole
October 25, 2008 - 15:52 ET by GregEI just read his whole article. Amazing what the newsrooms have become, and getting an article like that from a journalist is very telling.
The traditional media is
October 25, 2008 - 21:09 ET by TN MomThe traditional media is playing a very, very dangerous game. With its readers, with the Constitution, and with its own fate.
This is a good day! I suspect there are more journalist like Michael Malone out there and I hope they too, will come forward. I saw the news interview with Biden (NB: Joe Biden Angered by Tough Questions), I was astounded (& thrilled) that a reporter finally asked tough questions.