media bias helps republicans
- Posted by Chris on August 25th, 2008 filed in Barack Obama, Candidates, General, Politics
To set the stage, let’s do a quick case study on the media bias and standards: Rudy vs. Edwards. Rudy Giuliani was preparing for super Tuesday when the New York Times laid out a devastating article on how he used city funds to cart his mistress around the city and to make her happy. They had “unnamed” sources and they couldn’t tell us what proof they had. Then, after ruining Giuliani’s campaign, they came out and basically said “Oops. Sorry, the proof didn’t pan out like we thought.” Giuliani had a chance to be the nominee. If he had won big on super Tuesday, who knows what would have happened. Instead, the NYT wrote a fake article and destroyed him before he could score those wins. No real proof. No sources. Just a rumor was all it took to wreck a candidate.
**Update: Ok, a little sloppy with the dissertation. Rudy’s story came out in December, well before super Tuesday. Sorry. And yes, he was a flawed candidate, but he still had the outside chance. However, the point still remains. The NYT set out to wreck him. They were successful. Then they admitted their lie after the damage was done.
***
Compare that to John Edwards. His affair was rumored over a year ago and no paper or media outlet would touch it. The Enquirer had sources, pictures and everything that the NYT did not have on Rudy and still not one major paper would touch it. The LA Times told their bloggers “we’re not talking about it”. Only when Edwards confessed did they talk about it. The Enquirer says the baby’s father is John Edwards. He denies it and the MSM has dropped it without even asking. They are still taking up the slack for him. Now, think about what could have happened. Maybe Obama chooses Edwards as VP and then this affair comes out. Or Obama stumbles and Edwards gets the nomination and the affair comes out. The Democrats dodged a major bullet when they didn’t have to. If this comes out last year when it was researched by the Enquirer, Edwards is an afterthought.
This week, Barack Obama will be the official democrat nominee. He has never been vetted by the media. They have rushed to his side every time someone questions him, shouting the offender down with charges of racism, usually started by the Obama campaign. Still with all that, the alternative media still found Odinga. They found Ayers. They found Obama’s brother. Rodger on Curmudgeonly and Skeptical has been all over the alleged fake birth certificate of Obama. I don’t think the birth certificat is going anywhere, but the point is that all this was found without the efforts of the mainstream media. They have totally failed on their responsibilities to honestly cover the political arena and critically examine the candidates. This is not going to help Obama. It is going to hurt the democrats.
Over the last few weeks, the nation has started looking at this messiah the media keeps presenting. As they hear about the things that the US mainstream media won’t cover, he drops lower and lower in the polls. A first salvo has been fired by the UK Telegraph. They document the influence of Frank Marshall Davis, who is the Frank Obama talks about in his book as one of the early influences in Obama’s life and beliefs. He was a communist and a child/teen rapist. Has the mainstream media asked Obama about his association yet? The bloggers will. The 527’s will. What else is coming that we haven’t found yet? Is there a video tape of him in that church? Is there some essay written in college that denounces America? You can bet the blogs will be in full force over the next few months scouring everywhere for things. What will they find that the media ignored?
That is the downside for the democrats when it comes to the media bias. Had the media vetted Obama like they should have, he would never have won over Hillary. The surprises that are coming on Obama would never happen with Hillary. She’s been vetted and examined more than any candidate around except maybe McCain. When the really ugly parts of Obama come up, the Obama bus will lose wheel after wheel and McCain will win the presidency. When that happens, the democrats will have only their friends in the media who failed to do their job to blame. Maybe someday we’ll get a press that actually tells the news and doesn’t make it up on the fly. Until then, we in the blogosphere will be around to take care of that.
Lord Bitememan says:
A quick correction. The Giuliani story, while a travesty, was run in December, not before Super Tuesday. By that point Giuliani had already abandoned Iowa and to a large extent New Hampshire as well, both of which at the time were led by Romney in the polling. Then when he tried to re-establish himself he was devoid of footing. He flopped in New Hampshire, didn’t bother with Michigan or South Carolina, and made his stand in Florida where it was already framed as a McCain-Romney matchup. He was out well before Super Tuesday.
So, the media definately did a hack job on him, but he has his own highly flawed strategies to blame for his defeat.
Talmadge East says:
Allow me to correct a few things. Rudy didn’t have a chance, he was out of it from the beginning. The only real shot Rudy had was to win New Hampshire, being close to the state of New York, but that wasn’t much of one. His decision to go to Florida wasn’t a fatal one, it was the only one. He knew that he couldn’t compete in Iowa and found out he couldn’t compete in New Hampshire, so it is better to not compete than to compete and lose. You can make whatever alliterations you like about the timing of the releases about the various candidates, but this is based on a faulty premise. No, maybe Obama would not have chosen Edwards as a VP choice. He was never looked into as a choice and would not have been one. It doesn’t appear that he would have helped in North Carolina and there is no other reason to have selected him. Edwards also did not have a chance at the nomination. Everyone knows he would have had to win Iowa, which was a long shot, and he didn’t and couldn’t have.
Now, to the the litany of supposed groundbreaking stories about Obama that the MSM has overlooked. I don’t think many of them are of any consequence. If one looks at the remarks made by Obama, as quoted by the (non to left leaning) Economistquoted by the (non to left leaning) Economist, it is clear that, regardless of any paternal relationship, Obama was and is not supporting Odinga or the policies in which he advocates. As far as the Ayers “connection” goes there really isn’t much of one. He worked with Ayers in a professional capacity and was cordial with him in that capacity. Any other connection is merely incidental, but it helps provide the narrative the GOP needs. Continuing, who cares about his brother? His brother was fostered by a father who left him when he was two years old. It is not his fault if his brother is bin Laden (considering the facts), it is superficial and should not effect his capacity to be President. The birth certificate controversy should already be over, as it has been certified as authentic. Most of the crap emanating about this is worse than anything else mentioned because it is so clearly a falsehood and not grounded in anything resembling reality. Further, I think Obama’s inference about Frank Marshall Davis is referring to him simply as a voice of inspiration in Hawaii. That doesn’t mean that Obama is a communist because Frank Marshall Davis had “supposed” Communist ties.
I just wish the right would make up their mind, is Obama a radical Muslim, a radical terrorist American, or a Communist? The fact is they fringe of the GOP is hitting him with all of this because there is one thing that is essential to their victory in November: Obama MUST be a radical. It is clear that the country generically favors a Democrat right now, so the only way for the GOP to prevail is to frame the choice around a “safe” Republican or a Muslim Communist radical. John McCain doesn’t believe this crap. Karl Rove doesn’t believe this crap. I don’t believe most informed Republicans believe this crap, but it keeps with a narrative that is essential to their livelihood in November.
Talmadge East says:
Just wanted to say that Lord Bitememan’s comment was made while I was typing, so I did not mean to repeat him, but thanks for helping me make my point.
Chris says:
LB and TE:
You are correct that the hack job happened in December. And I agree, Rudy was a flawed candidate, but he still had that outside shot and the level of proof that the NYT had to run it’s hit job was almost as thin as Barack’s resume. That being said, I stand corrected and will add an update addendem to the article.
TE: Edwards was considered a definite possiblility as a VP selection. Various pundits were thinking that with the more motivated black population picking Edwards may have helped pick off NC. I didn’t buy it either, there’s no southern state that Obama will win. But he was considered a to have a chance. As for Edwards winning the nomination, no, he didn’t have a chance. But in the world of what-if’s I was using the “what if” to show the damage that the MSM could have done had Edwards been the nominee.
That being said, it’s not relevant to the overall point that with pictures and everything that the Enquirer had, the NYT would not directly address it. The LA Times told their bloggers not to discuss it. A clear double standard to the glee which they pounded Rudy.
This is not going to help Obama. Now to your list of stories:
1. Odinga received support from Obama. Plain and simple. He went to him in the election and spoke for him. That is not a straw man. It isn’t saying Obama is a muslim, but it is saying that Obama supported the opposition party to the US friendly government of Kenya even though that party was saying sharia law would be ok.
2. Ayers was a bombing terrorist. Period. Anyone who would take money from him or associate with him lacks judgement. Period.
3. I agree about his brother. it is irrelevant. However, it is another thing that if Obama had been a republican, the MSM would have been all over.
4. The birth certificate issue (As I said above) is a non starter to me. It will be over with the lawsuit this week which will be thrown out. HOWEVER, compare that to the fake, forged documents the MSM ran with.
5. Davis “supposed” ties? Actually, Davis was a proud communist. He took Obama under his wing and I don’t think “America the great” was the subject they discussed.
“In his memoir, Mr Obama recounts how he visited Mr Davis on several occasions, apparently at junctures when he was grappling with racial issues, to seek his counsel. At one point in 1979 Mr Davis described university as “an advanced degree in compromise” that was designed to keep blacks in their place. ”
We could banter on all day about this, but the fact is that if a republican had this, it would be non stop by the MSM. You and I both know that. There will be more to come. The blogs will pull it out and when it does, it will be very damaging.
Obama is not a muslim or a terrorist. However he is a radical lefty in a business man’s suit with a goofy smile that disarms. And yes, we have to wipe that smile off of him and paint him as radical as can be. However, with his associations and his own speeches, that isn’t turning out to be too hard.
Talmadge East says:
I just promise you that the movers and shakers in your party don’t believe that he is so radical. It is just good politics for him to be seen as one.
No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » The Morning Scramble, Part 2 - 8/27/2008 says:
[...] The Conspiratorial Chris has a contrarian view on presstitute bias; it helps Republicans. Can’t say I agree; they’ll do their best to keep Barack Obama’s flaws buried until after November. [...]