Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz takes up the left-wing brouhaha over ABC’s "trivial" questions to Barack Obama on Wednesday night. Here’s the weird part:
It is hardly unusual for debate moderators to draw partisan criticism, as NBC's Tim Russert did in October, when liberal commentators accused him of harassing Clinton over driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and other issues. But it is rare for ostensibly neutral media writers and television columnists to pile on with such fervor.
But Kurtz never quoted anyone "ostensibly neutral" -- they all came from the left. He began with Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post, Will Bunch of the "Attytood" blog, and Post TV critic Tom Shales. Later on he added Greg Mitchell, the socialist editor at Editor & Publisher, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, and Steve Benen of the Carpetbagger Report. He wrapped up with Keith Olbermann. Not an "ostensibly neutral" voice in the bunch.
Would it be fair to guess that inside the "ostensibly neutral" Washington Post there is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth?
Kurtz did pass some of the internal reaction and defense from ABC:
"I think the questions were certainly pointed -- tough at times, as they should be in a presidential debate -- but not inappropriate or irrelevant at all," Stephanopoulos said yesterday. "The questions have been part of this campaign and in the news. We did our job. You're not going to satisfy everyone."
...But Stephanopoulos said he had been following the issue since the Politico reported it in February. "What finally tipped the balance on whether to ask it or not was that as far as we could tell, Obama had never answered the question," he said.
...ABC correspondent Jake Tapper defended his colleagues in an interview, saying: "They were tougher on Obama, yes. He's the front-runner. By any empirical standard, many members of the media don't seem to want to ask Senator Obama tough questions, and Senator Obama doesn't seem to want to answer them. This is the 21st debate. It is the only one where people have complained that the moderators were tougher on Barack Obama than on Hillary Clinton or any other candidate. How on Earth is that possible?"
Kurtz did not address what conservatives across the country asked: why does political bias or unfairness become THE campaign story -- only when left-wing bloggers and MoveOn.org are outraged?
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So he includes a writer from
April 18, 2008 - 12:22 ET by BlazerSo he includes a writer from Huffpo and Kieth Olbernutt as being "obstensibly neutral". Somebody need's to check what this guy's puttin' in his pipe.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Does anyone here know . . .
April 19, 2008 - 16:58 ET by mitchfloridawhat the word "ostensibly" means?
mitch
April 19, 2008 - 17:10 ET byhere yas goes <//sarc off>
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Reference website
April 19, 2008 - 21:58 ET by nkviking75Mitch, you may find Yahoo's reference section useful. It includes an online dictionary.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Kurtz is part of the
April 18, 2008 - 12:49 ET by marpelKurtz is part of the problem.
As I said yesterday, during an election year, the MSM behaves very badly.
Even though Fox News has been fair and balanced in the past, I can't bring myself to watch O'Reilly or that "dead behind the eyes" Greta Van S anymore. I feel the one network I could rely on has also now slipped away.
neutral?
April 18, 2008 - 13:06 ET by iveseenitallMore than ever, there's no such thing as "neutral" in the media. Even O'Reilly can't bring himself to admit why Barry joined Rev. Wrong's "church". In discussing it recently, he made every excuse for the guy. B.O. joined Wrong, is friends with the bomber Ayers, etc., because he agrees with them. But no one in the press will say it.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Ives...You're absolutely
April 18, 2008 - 13:25 ET by marpelIves...You're absolutely right. O'Reilly is afraid just like the rest of them. It's because Obama's black, and everyone is scared to hurt his little feelings. That's the problem with this election. Anyone who even questions Obama is labeled a rascist. That's the destructivness of this election. It's what I call the Rascist Sheild of Protection.
What I meant to write was that in the past Fox has been pretty fair and balanced. But, not anymore. Obama and his blackness changed the entire climate of politics.
If you say Obama has an ugly tie on, you're then labeled a rascist...