On Sunday, Howard Kurtz accidentally exposed how poorly the media report on issues of race, and how they not only use implications of prejudice to "[pump] steroids into an ordinary story," they also either ignore important events or badly misreport them due to their own biases.
In the first segment on the most recent installment of CNN's "Reliable Sources," Kurtz and his panel discussed comments made by various press members last week that opposition to Barack Obama's agenda is being fueled by racism.
Kurtz as he normally does had the last word (video embedded below the fold, relevant section at 8:00):
My two cents is the President told NBC, "The media love to have a conversation about race," and I agree with it. You take any story -- it could be Jeremiah Wright, it could be Henry Louis Gates, it could be the Duke rape case -- and once you inject race into that -- as the media sometimes have no choice but to do, but sometimes love to do -- it's like pumping steroids into an ordinary story. It makes it live on for weeks and weeks and months and months. You know, a white Harvard professor gets arrested in a dustup with a police, or a misunderstanding with a police officer in Cambridge, it's a two-paragraph story. It happens to a black professor, particularly probably one like Gates, and we all jump on it.
Unfortunately, what Kurtz failed to point out was that in two of the examples he gave -- Duke and Gates -- the press's own prejudices and biases caused them to badly get the story wrong.
After all, media members were quick to assume the white Duke lacrosse players were guilty of raping a black woman, and never apologized for their error to the families whose lives were destroyed by their negligence when it was proved she made it all up.
As it pertains to Gates, Obama-loving press outlets never questioned whether the President's background, experiences, and prejudices drove him to capriciously characterize the Cambridge police department as having acted stupidly well before he had all the facts.
What REALLY would have been a teachable moment concerning that incident would have been the news media asking America's first black president whether his own biases led him to act stupidly.
Alas, that didn't happen, and Kurtz didn't mention it Sunday.
As for Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's involvement with that controversial church had been exposed by conservative journalists MANY months before the mainstream media began grudgingly covering it.
Unfortunately, Kurtz on Sunday didn't expose this hypocrisy either thereby exposing one of his own.
But these weren't the only delicious ironies in Kurtz's two cents, for here's another one:
You know, a white Harvard professor gets arrested in a dustup with a police, or a misunderstanding with a police officer in Cambridge, it's a two-paragraph story. It happens to a black professor, particularly probably one like Gates, and we all jump on it.
This is fascinating, for a few minutes earlier, Kurtz said:
Rush Limbaugh the other day took this incident on a bus in St. Louis where a bunch of black kids beat up a white kid and said, "This is what happens in Obama's America." So a lot of people are throwing around this race question.
So, taking Kurtz's previous statement, a white student getting beaten up on a bus by a group of black students should largely be ignored by media deserving at best a two-paragraph story.
However, if this had been white students beating up a black kid on a bus, the press would have pumped steroids into the incident to make it "live on for weeks and weeks and months and months."
Sadly, Kurtz missed this truly obvious hypocrisy, and as this was the third in only seven minutes, appears to have badly struck out on this issue.
In the end, the media are so incompetent when reporting matters pertaining to race that even when one of them tries to analyze the coverage of this controversial subject he can't do it fairly.
Too bad.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Accidents will happen
September 20, 2009 - 10:58 ET by Sergeant ROCKI'm sure an appropriate punishment will be metted out.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
For Immediate Broadcast
September 20, 2009 - 15:55 ET by Wildcatter1980Comrade Kurtz will be on "sabbatical" for the next month. He has been suffering from "mental fatigue" for some time now.
He will be accompanied on his "sabbatical" by Comrade Valerie Jarrett, Comrade Mark Lloyd and Comrade Cass Sunstein who will all be helping Comrade Kurtz "recover" from his "mental fatigue".
Filling in for Comrade Kurtz will be famed documentarian Comrade Michael Moore during Comrade Kurtz's "sabbatical".
--
We need to stop calling them "Progressives" when in reality they are big government "Socialists" who no longer value the individual's rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Matthews Wears the Crown
September 20, 2009 - 10:58 ET by the strugglerIn my opinion,Chris Matthews is leaving Al Sharpton and the likes in the dust when it comes to race-baiting.
Since you mentioned it I
September 20, 2009 - 11:34 ET by ricklailSince you mentioned it I haven't seen or heard Jesse Jackson put in 2 cents worth. He is a) letting Maxine Waters be the dumbass for a while or b) trying his best to help Jesse Jr. cover his ass over Obama's Senate seat. Really don't matter to me either way. He is not out running his mouth.
Semper suprene nitens
OBAMACARE: If it ain't good enough for my Congressman then it ain't good enough for me.
Speaking of Jessie Jackson,
September 20, 2009 - 11:44 ET by nicksmith112Speaking of Jessie Jackson, did we ever hear the rest of the tape where Jackson wanted to castrate Obama?? How is it possible the rest of that recording hasn't leaked out?
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
Since when...
September 20, 2009 - 11:07 ET by Apodictic... did the state-run media ever care about getting a story right? Along with public education, political correctness and Hollywood, they are the fourth leg of the socialist/marxist takeover stool (It's been their strategy since the '50's.)
Rush Limbaugh
September 20, 2009 - 11:12 ET by TrickletownIt was late 1989/early1990. Lately, I had been listening to this new interesting voice on talk radio, a fellow named Rush Limbaugh. I was to finally put a face to the voice, as C-Span was about to do a live feed from his radio studio. As far as I know, this was the first national exposure to this guy that many had been listening to, but few had actually seen. Finally, the broadcast happened, and two things struck me;
1. Limbaugh was a younger, more heavy-set fellow than I had imagined.
2. He had decided his first appearence on a national television broadcast would be of him at his desk , with an elderly black man in the process of shining his shoes.
Draw your own conclusions.
What?
September 20, 2009 - 11:19 ET by JWFSource that.
How about
September 20, 2009 - 11:22 ET by TrickletownYou source it. I actually saw it.
TROLLtown..
September 20, 2009 - 11:31 ET by Sergeant ROCKI'm an independant thinker who has problems with the wingnuts from both sides of the isle.
In other words, yella.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Hey sarge
September 20, 2009 - 11:38 ET by ricklailI vote to have you become head of the Troll Patrol at NB. Here lately you have done a good, no an excellent job thrashing out trolls. I think that RD would also support this move.
Semper suprene nitens
OBAMACARE: If it ain't good enough for my Congressman then it ain't good enough for me.
Hell no!
September 20, 2009 - 11:42 ET by Sergeant ROCKTrolls give me the heebie-jeebies. You do it.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Suddenly, I'm Troll
September 20, 2009 - 11:39 ET by TrickletownAfter years of being an anti-left participant on these many sites, I am now a troll because Limbaugh was getting his shoes shined by a black man on television. I hate to rain on your We vs Them parade.
The incident I spoke of really did occur.
If you just can't believe it, that's your right.
"I once saw Trickletown levitate while frying onions"
September 20, 2009 - 11:44 ET by SickofLibsOf course, I have no evidence of this or links to back it up, but I don't care if no one believes me.
he took a shine to my shoes.
September 20, 2009 - 12:06 ET by Jack BauerHuh?
I got my shoes shined by a black guy at Grand Central Station, NYC a few years back, this millennium I hasten to add.
He shined. I paid. The economic transaction was purely voluntary on both parties, and seemed to go quite well for the two of us. I didn't call him boy, and he didn't call me cracker.
I was on vacation, it was February and my black shoes were scuffed.
In fact, race didn't come in to it as I recall. Though I'm sure he voted for Obama last year.
I fail to see your point, true or not. If true, I imagine it was a bit of Rush satire about something in the news.
ADDENDUM
Thinking about it, I have a scenario that will illustrate how the liberal is so obsessed by race and in finding "racism" in everything that this is probably true.
There are two shoe shine guys competing next to each other. One is black, the other is white. You the customer know nothing of their respective talents.
Now choosing which one makes you racist. Easy. To the liberal. BOTH!
If you choose the black guy, you are clearly a racist because you long for a past in which blacks were forced to be the servants of whites.
If you choose the white guy, you are racist because you made a decision based on race to discriminate agaInst the black guy.
You see how this game works?
My point was simply
September 20, 2009 - 12:07 ET by TrickletownDraw your own conclusions. Satire? Sure, that's the way I saw it at the time.
Proof? With a little searching I found it, however it'll cost ya $30.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/12584-1
What exactly is your
September 20, 2009 - 12:38 ET by Jack BauerWhat exactly is your point? I don't get what you are getting at?
You remember when Dan Ackroyd put on black face in Trading Places? Might as well go off on a riff on that. And that DVD is available for about a buck, ninety isn't it?
You made the charge.
September 20, 2009 - 11:45 ET by BigSky1970You made the charge.
Rush Limbaugh
September 20, 2009 - 11:49 ET by Sergeant ROCKWell, there's no video on YouTube of the supposed incident. I find that hard to believe.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
c-span ARCHIVES
September 20, 2009 - 12:03 ET by TrickletownYou mouth-breathers are getting too worked up. I actually saw it. Instead of knee-jerking and getting mad at my anecdotal memory, pay the 30 bucks for the video from JUNE 6 1990. It's the only way you're going to see it. Me? I don't need to buy it, I saw it origianlly for free.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/12584-1
P.S. I know a meager $30 is not an issue for anyone of value.
I don't know what you think you saw
September 20, 2009 - 14:31 ET by CobraManbut the incident you describe is NOT in the link you provided. I know because I just scanned through the entire broadcast. I DID see a black man walk in and give Rush a photo at about the 60 min mark., could that be what you were referring to?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
CobraMan...I noticed that, too.
September 20, 2009 - 14:50 ET by JerHowever, what you mistook for a photo was actually a check. And the black man was Clarence Thomas. ;-)
Jer
BTW...I thought the young Limbaugh depicted in his publicity shot bore a striking resemblance to the present-day Alec Baldwin.
It's not a reference if
September 20, 2009 - 23:41 ET by NL207It's not a reference if nobody can see it, now is it?
I have this problem all the time when i debate pseudo-scientific leftist morons because I have acess to a vast array of published literature that is not free. As a direct result, it cannot be used as a reference in a blog debate because the vast majority of its browsers cannot read the article. That limits me to the abstract, which is usually free. You don't even get that luxury with this. Too bad for you, but you lose.
~~JWF
September 20, 2009 - 11:59 ET by BKeyserA search at CSpan's archives produces this video. I can't say this is the first ever exposure of Rush Limbaugh on CSpan, but it is the oldest video of Rush on CSpan, and the intro by the CSpan narrator doesn't seem to indicate that this is a return visit. The video is almost two hours in length, and I obviously haven't watched it all, but I did scan through it, and there is NO evidence of the assertion by trickledown.
Thank you, Sherlock
September 20, 2009 - 12:17 ET by TrickletownYour iron-clad investigation must certainly be the bottom line on the issue. Fortunately, you are not a radiologist.
~~Trickletown
September 20, 2009 - 12:33 ET by BKeyserOkay, get nasty with me. That's fine. But the video is viewable through a flash player online- you don't need to spend the $30 for the DVD. So, given that you brought this up, and you've seen it, please disregard my ineptitude and point out the section of the video that shows Rush having his shoes shined by an elderly black man. From what I saw, it didn't happen, but I clearly stated that the video is two hours in length and I didn't watch the whole thing. Save us all the time and prove you're claim.
Dementia/Trickeltown
September 20, 2009 - 11:55 ET by Jerry MackThere are medications that can slow the effects of dementia. But in your case it is too late.
Is there a burning sensation
September 20, 2009 - 12:04 ET by delmarassociated with the trickle? If so, I think I've identified the cause of the dementia.
c-span ARCHIVES
September 20, 2009 - 12:01 ET by TrickletownYou mouth-breathers are getting to worked up. I actually saw it. Instead of knee-jerking and getting mad at my anecdotal memory, pay the 30 bucks for the video from JUNE 6 1990. It's the only way you're going to see it. Me? I don't need to buy it, I saw it origianlly for free.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/12584-1
P.S. I know a meager $30 is not an issue for anyone of value.
trickle~~
September 20, 2009 - 12:07 ET by BKeyserThat's the video I referenced as well. I scanned through it but didn't see any evidence of what you're talking about. Can you point to the time the segment you're alleging took place?
It was 2 decades ago
September 20, 2009 - 12:26 ET by TrickletownThank you for ascertaining that, at least, there was such a broadcast. . What I saw occured just as I tuned in. Very early in that segment. I appeared to be satire to me at the time. I went on to become a steady listener/fan of Rush for many years. I saw him in person on his "Rush to Excellency" tour in late '91( He wore a cheesy ill-fitting tuxedo, today I regard him as quite a snappy dresser!).
I guess my question is; Why the venom? It really happened.
Draw your own conclusions.
Ditto.
Trickletown~~
September 20, 2009 - 12:33 ET by BKeyserI'm not supplying the venom. You asserted that Rush Limbaugh, if not actually a racist, did parody racism on his show and then noted the specific CSpan simulcast. You were asked to source your claim. I took it upon myself to try to find the video, and did; linking the same CSpan video that you did. I watched the first ten minutes or so of the video, and there was no such example. After that, I scanned through the video at about 5 minute increments, and again, saw no evidence of your claim. Maybe your memory is not accurate. Maybe this is not the episode. But so far, it hasn't been proved that your assertion is correct.
My last word on the subject
September 20, 2009 - 12:41 ET by TrickletownBKeyser, sorry about the earlier remark to you. You, at least seem to be willing to do something other than jerk you knee. Thank you.
My memory of the shoe-shine incident: It was in those final minutes and seconds before his radio show started, a last minute touch-up before his broadcast. The c-span camera was rolling, however. I hope it's included in the archival record.
~~Trickletown
September 20, 2009 - 12:52 ET by BKeyserNo problem.
I just rewatched the opening of this video. It does not show what you're referencing. The first two minutes or so is comprised by a biographical expose on WABC and Rush Limbaugh. The video of Rush opens with he and a woman as she begins by reading local news.
It may have happened before the show started, but that is not evidenced by this video.
BKeyser
September 20, 2009 - 13:00 ET by Free StinkerTrickle has been here 47 weeks and this is the 1st I recall seeing him post.
Methinks another sockpuppet account has been activated.
"President Obama is learning on the job and it shows." --Boris Epshteyn
~~Free
September 20, 2009 - 13:03 ET by BKeyserCould be. I was giving Trickle the benefit of the doubt though, because like you said, and I indicated in my reply to Mr. Shy (below) I hadn't seen his comments here before. Unproveable assertions aren't the way to gain respect though, huh?
Indeed. I started looking
September 20, 2009 - 13:05 ET by Free StinkerIndeed.
I started looking through that C-Span video, but all I learned was that we can ignore Trickle without missing any information or truth.
"President Obama is learning on the job and it shows." --Boris Epshteyn
BKeyser
September 20, 2009 - 12:41 ET by MrShyHere's what we know:
1) That Rush might have had this black guy shining his shoes in this show/performance he did.
2) That this claim by Trickle can not be corroborated with evidence by anyone, so it might NOT have happened.
3) That whether it happened or didn't happen, a guy (black, reportedly) shining Rush's shoes means, well, nothing. There are millions of shoe-shiners in the world (one of many professions) both black and white, and the shoe-shine thing (IF it happened) was tied into his snappy-dress schtick, it would seem.
So, to conclude, Trickle attempted to flame us with what was apparently some "is he a racist?" jab.... AND... Trickle, in reality, wasted our time.
Shy~~
September 20, 2009 - 12:56 ET by BKeyserI don't know trickletown- I haven't seen his comments before but it was pretty incendiary so I thought I'd see if I could find it. A Google search for "black man shines Rush Limbaugh's shoes" turned up nothing. Same for a search on Bing. Then I went to CSpan- and I've watch a good bit of the video to this point. I don't know if he's trolling or not, so I won't make the acusation, but it does seem this is an unprovable claim.
That is why I wanted it sourced.
September 20, 2009 - 13:10 ET by JWFRush Limbaugh has always been about entertainment. He uses ample amounts of sarcasm and humour in his show. If it did happen as the troll says, he may have been doing some kind of spoof, who knows. We need to know the full context.
Media Matters and other websites have built any entire cottage industry around taking Mr. Limbaughs sarcastic humour and making it into something that looks like serious opinion.
So, I say again to trickletown, source it. We already caught you in a $30 lie.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Wasted time;
September 20, 2009 - 14:55 ET by boomerconOk, I've read the "Trickle" threads down to this point and conclude that it has been a total waste of my time. I tuned that troll out when he blew his cover with his second or third reply. Unable to continue his argument based upon facts, he fell into the liberal standard of name calling, with his blanket characterization of NB'ers as "mouth breathers".
Having had my nose rearranged a couple of times in the boxing ring as a youth, I must confess to sometimes being a real "mouth breather". coincidentally, I am also a conservative, so I do resent the name calling.
A response to Trickletown
September 20, 2009 - 16:04 ET by Ted ClarkeHello Trickletown,
First of all, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I always appreciate the opportunity for a good discussion or debate.
Secondly, I hate the word "troll". Of course, it's useful to have a term to describe folks who have nothing better to do than ruffle feathers and create chaos. But in my opinion, the best response to them is no response at all. They'll get bored and go away when all their venom and insults hit nothing but air.
Okay, now to your comment about Rush Limbaugh: If you think he is a racist, then say it. If you have proof, then share it. But your anecdote about him getting his shoes shined by a black man says nothing and proves nothing.
What was the context? What point was he trying to make? What did he say exactly? And how does any of that measure up to the years and years of documented evidence that supports the claim that Rush Limbaugh is the polar opposite of a racist? You can't take one isolated blip of an incident and reach any conclusion or support any accusation.
Furthermore, Limbaugh's provocative words and deeds are condemned by people who have empowered themselves to judge what is and what isn't racist. Rush rejects the whole premise of this. He knows who he is. His audience knows who he is. So why should he give these false arbitors legitimacy by operating within the false parameters that they set? To illustrate....
Remember how Trent Lott's innocent compliment of an old man on his birthday was packaged as a call for segregation? What was up with that nonsense? The Republicans should have stood behind him and wiped their butts with such a ridiculous slander. But what did they do? They accepted the premise set by their enemies and cut the legs out from under their majority leader. Meanwhile, countless folks on the Left (ex: Senators Biden, Bird and Clinton) made outlandishly racist comments without a lick of consequence. Why? Because the Left -- for some unfathomable reason -- gets to decide who the racists are and aren't.
Or how about a more recent example: Wilson's, "You lie!" is racist but Sotomayor's, "Wise Latina..." isn't? What gives with that!? Are we supposed to accept these rules?
And have you checked out this at the Daily Kos?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/17/11225/5488?detail=f
Under the headline, "Does The Republican Party Support Segregation?" the Kos Kids try their best to paint Rush Limbaugh as someone who would actually advocate the segregation of black Americans. And to illustrate their point, they include a graphic of bikini-clad sex slave, Princess Leia chained to disgusting, fat slob, Jabba the Hutt. (But in this version, Leia is Michael Steele and the Hutt is, I suppose, Rush.) Below this is another graphic -- a chain of them, actually -- for a product called "Ultra BrainBleach". This, I think, is directed at Michael Steele. Now, can there be anything more racist than that? Michael Steele has a black brain? Aren't they physiologically segregating him from people with white brains? So he has to use "Ultra BrainBleach" in order to be a Republican? I expected people to respond to this disgusting display of hate and bigotry by voicing their righteous outrage. The only complaints I saw were about breaking the graphics-overkill rule. The sentiment of the "joke", however, seemed to go over pretty well. So, to these people, black people must have black brains and white people must have white brains, and that idea is okay to promote. But if Rush Limbaugh responds to Newsweek's claim that we are born racist, then that is bigotry on parade. Maybe if I got myself a bottle of "Ultra BrainBlack", I would be able to unravel the Gordian knot of the Kos Kids' argument.
But seriously, who are the true racists here? I think any brain, regardless of the color, can figure that one out.
Ted Clarke
September 20, 2009 - 19:12 ET by TrickletownI am appreciative of the civil response to my post. I was simply reporting what I saw occur on a televised appearance of Rush Limbaugh in his early, early days.
Here's another stab at the point I was trying to make;
It would be impossible to do that same thing today, in the current atmosphere. The satire would'nt fly. It would be incendiary.
Is Limbaugh a racist? I don't think so. Nor do I believe Joe Wilson is. Limbaugh, Wilson, myself, we are roughly the same age, from the same era. All I know for sure is that what passes for "racism" today bears little resemblance to the racism of the recent past.
Second response to Trickletown
September 20, 2009 - 21:34 ET by Ted ClarkeHi there, Trickletown!
Thanks so much for your civil response. I appreciate it, as well. Your comments make a lot of sense to me....especially this one:
"...what passes for 'racism' today bears little resemblance to the racism of the recent past."
I agree completely.
However, your original post seemed to be saying something completely different. I thought you were accusing Rush Limbaugh of racism, presumably as a way of dismissing him and all his arguments. "The Race Card" is, afterall, quite popular these days.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks for clearing things up and setting me straight.
Cheers!
Just FYI, they get paid extra for drawing this level of response
September 20, 2009 - 16:19 ET by SickofLibsJust FYI, they get paid extra for drawing this level of response
Rush Limbaugh the other day
September 20, 2009 - 11:15 ET by BigSky1970Rush Limbaugh the other day took this incident on a bus in St. Louis
where a bunch of black kids beat up a white kid and said, "This is what
happens in Obama's America." So a lot of people are throwing around
this race question.
Even if it were to happen in a truly color blind society, which is the want of the left, it's still two black kids beating up one white kid on a school bus. That quote by Rush happens to be a reference to Newsweek's inauguration issue (it's front cover story) back on January 17, 2009. (http://www.newsweek....)
I'm sure Kurtz can't read his issue since it's framed and hanging on his wall.
hate crime
September 20, 2009 - 11:50 ET by Jerry MackThe bus beating was first reported by the police as a hate crime. It was very quickly dropped. This was what was reported by Rush. You can look it up on his web site.
White Babies Born Racist
September 20, 2009 - 14:10 ET by GothampcRush was actually tying in this week's Newsweek that has an article about how white babies are born racist.
"...and once you inject
September 20, 2009 - 11:28 ET by G. MayReally? The media has no choice? His choice of the word "inject" here is also telling. I'd love for him to cite an example of this.
Until President Obama
September 20, 2009 - 11:47 ET by motherbeltUntil President Obama says
No, I don't think race is why my critics oppose my plans, and I would prefer that the media encourage a discussion on the issues rather than giving time to those who want to stoke the racial issue..
I'm not interested in another single word that he has to say on the subject of race.
Race
September 20, 2009 - 12:12 ET by 2SloRace Bating to Bama is what Monica Lewinsky was to Clinton. Go figure.
Qestion for Kurtz
September 20, 2009 - 12:28 ET by acumenHow about if a black politician - let's call him Jesse - fathers a baby out of wedlock and a white politician - let's call him Johnny - fathers a baby out of wedlock and to be fair let's say both politicians are liberal Dems. Which story will the establishment media pump more steroids into?
A follow up - Jesse reluctantly but fairly quickly admits to his misdeed. Johnny claims he is not the culprit and insists the father is one of Johnny's black aides - let's call him Andy. A year or so later it turns out that the white politician Johnny was just using the black aide Andy as a pawn to further Johnny's political ambitions. Does that change the amount of establishment media steroids Johnny or Jesse receives or does the establishment media still ignore both stories equally?
And last - if the establishment media pumps more steroids into either the black or white politician's story what impact does that have on the credibility of some politician claiming there are two Americas? Or does that claim just apply to rich versus poor?
Media uses race - only when it wants to. Clinton's hate blacks.
September 20, 2009 - 12:43 ET by Gary HallNoel - no doubt.
On the other shoe, the media won't use the race card - when it would risk causing damage to the Democratic side of the isle - their side.
Last year, they had this opportunity:
Rev. Wright attacked the Clinton's - both of them - on the basis of how President Clinton had, and how Hillary Clinton would treat the black community as president.
This is obviously, the last thing that the Hillary camp needed in the public discussion, and guess what? Our national press would never not only played the race card against the Democrats here, they would simply censor the clip and any discussion of the claims made by Obama's pastor of twenty yeras, the Rev. Wright. America simply would not see it. (OK. Fox showed it a time or two.)
How in the world, this demonstration of the Reverend Wright's visceral hatred of the Clinton's, apparently because he considers them racists, was not the most talked about clip in the midst of a race between Obama and Hillary Clinton, when the subject of race seems to come up almost every day, is beyond me.
Had the national media acted like they usually do when the other party has voices spewing visceral hatred, and put Wright's comments on the table for the Democratic party to chew on, during the primary race between Sen's Obama & Hillary and put this, all hell would have broken out.
(;~/ gary
Media & Race
September 20, 2009 - 14:13 ET by GothampcThe list is long regarding media and race. I would also like to contribute the stories about the Jenna 6 as being incorrectly reported or having key information being withheld by the media.
For some people only color matters
September 20, 2009 - 14:37 ET by zachlindI think it’s wrong for Trickletown to suggest that black guys can’t shine shoes as good as white guys. I never thought you had to be anything but a shoe shiner to shine shoes. Goodness, what’s this country coming too?
Noel, as much as I agree
September 20, 2009 - 17:59 ET by RMRNoel, as much as I agree with you that most members of the liberal press are prejudice and bias, I disagree that they got it wrong. From their liberal point of view, they got it right. Liberal scribblers and teleprompter jockeys are conditioned to exploit the race card whenever possible. The Duke incident and the Gates fiasco offered them that possibility. So as far they were concerned, damn the facts, full speed ahead!
About Howard Kurtz. Howard, like most white liberals truly believe that to achieve success ambitious black men like Obama have no choice but to align themselves with characters like Rev Wright. Howard and his ilk are certain that the venom spewed by the despicable Rev. Wright, Van Jones and Henry Louis Gates are justified because the inherent evil that is racist white America will not, and does allow for anything else. To them these men are true representatives of the so-called black struggle, and therefore natural partners to Obama or any other "sincere" black “progressive”.
Can't help but feel sorry for Howie though. Because even while attempting to put forth his most valiant critique (for a liberal) of his buddies in the liberal media he still couldn’t bring himself to expose them to the facts. Pity.
Kurtz...liberal?
September 20, 2009 - 18:01 ET by JerIf Kurtz is a liberal partisan, then he is a liberal partisan who has vigorously defended Rush Limbaugh and has made some very positive comments about him.
And if you happened to catch the final few minutes of the program today, Kurtz and the panelists were ripping John Edwards to shreds.
Jer
→ That's great, Jer
September 20, 2009 - 18:06 ET by Cool ArrowBut where was the Liberal Press while John Edwards had a viable chance to be appointed Atty General?
Up until a newspaper of higher stature than the NYT came up with film, your side was still stroking Silky Pony.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool...
September 20, 2009 - 18:18 ET by JerYour Pulitzer deserving paragons of journalistic excellence at the Natioal Enquirer scooped the big boys in this case. But I seriously doubt Edwards had a snowball's chance in hell for AG. He was already up to his A$$ in scandal by that time.
Jer
→ Maybe, Jer
September 20, 2009 - 18:23 ET by Cool ArrowBut the SubPrime Media made sure anything negative about Silky Pony was ignored.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
And, had the National
September 20, 2009 - 18:57 ET by BKeyserAnd, had the National Enquirer not ran with the story, there likely would not have been a story- so Jer suggesting that he was already deep into a scandal by the time JE would've been in the running, is not necessarily a given.
→ Gosh, yes Keyser
September 20, 2009 - 19:01 ET by Cool ArrowBut in Alaska, the governor tried to influence The State Trooper Chief into firing a child-beating, gun-threatening, drunk-on-the-job Trooper.
How the Governor do such a scandalous thing?
Better investigate this, huh?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
She did ? I'm going to
September 20, 2009 - 19:05 ET by Free StinkerShe did ?
I'm going to have to re-think my support of Sarah Palin.
What next? She's going to be wearing a winter coat with a brand logo on ?
"President Obama is learning on the job and it shows." --Boris Epshteyn
→ Scandalous
September 20, 2009 - 19:09 ET by Cool ArrowNo wonder they didn't have time to go after John Edwards.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
~~Cool and Free
September 20, 2009 - 19:58 ET by BKeyserLook guys, the important thing here is that they learned from their mistakes and are doing a much better job with the resources they have. And, isn't it better to report the news after it's all said and done? That way they can't be wrong! And they save paper which is good for the planet...