Y'all know I'm not a political blogger. Many- maybe most- of my friends are Republicans, and my grandma taught me better than to discuss politics with friends. Still, I used to be quite active in politics. I actually ran for the Statehouse a few years ago (lost in the Democratic primary by about 1% of the vote). I've attended one State Democratic Convention. I went to the inaugeration of former Democrat Governor Jim Hodges. I've been a past vice-chairman of the Jasper County, SC, Democrat Party. But I'm generally content to do my job, raise my kids, and let everyone else bicker over the big stuff. Got to tell you, though, injustice pisses me off.
The Media- traditionally accused of favoring "liberal" causes- is doing such an unbalanced and unfair job of reporting the later stages of this Presidential election that I got to get my two-cents' worth in. I finally tuned in the Democratic National Convention last night. Joe Biden gave a pretty good speech. Bill Clinton gave an outstanding one. The glum expressions of Wolf Blitzer and the rest of the CNN news-team at the conclusion of Clinton's speech would have been comical if they hadn't been so scary. Their anti-Obama bias was palpable. Surely the obvious jubilation of the conventioneers, the story of reconciliation of fierce competitors, the clear, unified message of the Party of the failure of the policies of the last eight years would rate the front page, right? Nope. Yahoo news? There was a sidebar to the effect that Bill "did his part", but the main story was on Democrat's worries about security concerns for Obama's speech tonight. Were the reporters watching the same convention I was? Chase, you ought to be glad you're out of a profession that used to have some relevance, but now appears to be comprised of a bunch of punchless corporate cheerleaders.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Dave, I have to agree with you. I didn't get a chance to watch all of the convention, I got bits and peices but most of the important speeches I saw. I missed most of Bill's though because I was with my Dad. I will fill you in on my blog. Anyhow...
As soon as Hillary's speech ended, they started saying "She didn't say he was ready to lead". Why does the media and the other party have to dictact to the Democrats what they have to say during the speeches?
If you watch MSNBC, Keith Oberman is clearly an Obama supporter. As is Rachel Maddow. I guess the Republicans could say the same thing about MSNBC.
I didn't bother watching CNN, all they did was talk to hear themselves talk. It was like watching the "McCain" Show.
I truly believe the Media and the Republicans can find nothing on Obama so they are to the point of making things up and/or criticizing him or the democrats for the most trivial things. I think they are getting a little nervous...and I like it.
I am having an Obamapalooza party if he wins. And I don't want to think about what I will do if he doesn't. I will be truly depressed and wear black for weeks.
Do you have anything else to back up your assertion other than glum expressions on CNN anchors and the lack of front page news coverage (it was on my paper's front page).
And Tam, how can you call CNN's coverage of the convention "The McCain Show" if you didn't watch it?
And both of you are in the minority in thinking that there is an anti-Obama bias in the media. From a recent Rasmussen poll:
In the latest survey, a plurality of Democrats—37%-- say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the campaign. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe most reporters are trying to help Obama and 21% in Obama’s party think reporters are trying to help the Republican candidate.
Among Republicans, 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama and 10% see most offering unbiased coverage.
As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.
That doesn't necessarily make it true but you'd have to show me some other evidence.
Supporters of one thing will often see a perceived bias in reporting, I have had stories I've written that earned me accusations of bias from both sides. And I always found it funny when I was accused of bias for a story about an issue or event that I really could not have cared any less about ... (A city commission dispute in a city I didn't live in or cover regularly, for example)
As for CNN being biased against Obama, I'd find that hard to believe.
But as for being glad I'm out of the biz, you betcha, there is a big shift going on, and there is going to be more and more intentionally biased coverage, imho, as papers/video outlets/Internet ops strive to differentiate themselves.
In Europe, it's not uncommon in some countries for each political party to have it's own biased paper ... so you read the news you like to read with the bias you want.
Sort of like Fox News ... ooops. sorry :-)
or sort of like MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times...
John in Il:
What I said was CNN anchors were talking just to hear themselves talk. It was like watching the McCain show. In other words John McCain does the same thing. And I did watch some of CNN's coverage especially after the Hillary speech. They were stating that "she did not state he was ready to lead."
I am normally a huge fan of CNN but I don't like their coverage of the convention. Sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying. I might not have been clear about what I meant. Lack of sleep and stress...sorry.
Barack Obama's own running mate stated that Obama wasn't ready to lead. I think that's a fair observation from CNN.
Glad you are with the Obama crowd, Tam. Tonight was pretty good, too.
John, you do take the time to do research, which is nice, but I know you are a solid Republican, and probably no amount of argument I could make would change your mind. I do not know about CNN (my apostrophe button is sticking again) normal bias, but I deal with lots of humans every day, and I know what I saw on CNN last night(they were more even-handed tonight). Maybe they just wanted the Hillary-Obama feud as an angle. I am not sure, but as James Carvelle was beaming, Wolf and Anderson and Company looked crest-fallen. In terms of the perception people have that they are being manipulated, that really depends on how savvy are the people that are being interviewed or polled. Your average Joe or Jane might not have read anything into comments that Hillary was not effusive enough in her praise, but that is a subtle way to turn a victory into the appearance of a defeat, and it is especially dangerous because it is a bias that most polls probably could not ferret out. And, John, you may not remember, but before George H.W. Bush became v.p. for Reagan, in the primaries he called Reagan (apostrophe)s economic program Voodoo Economics. I don't (hurray) think Reagan and Bush the First ever liked each other much, but they found a way to work together after a bitter (for Republicans, who arent the cannibals that Democrats are in primaries) primary.
Chase, I know it is not possible for any medium or any source to be absolutely neutral. Certainly I know not to bother with Fox News because they are so heavy-handed with their bias. I suppose I expected better out of CNN.
John, you do take the time to do research, which is nice, but I know you are a solid Republican, and probably no amount of argument I could make would change your mind.
No, I want more evidence beyond the eye rolling of CNN anchors. That's what I asked for.
Not this:
Wolf and Anderson and Company looked crest-fallen.
and this
Your average Joe or Jane might not have read anything into comments that Hillary was not effusive enough in her praise, but that is a subtle way to turn a victory into the appearance of a defeat
What victory? Is it the job of CNN to declare it a victory? That's what the partisans are for.
And this little nugget just pissed me off:
John, you may not remember, but before George H.W. Bush became v.p. for Reagan, in the primaries he called Reagan's economic program Voodoo Economics.
How could I forget? Every media outlet in the nation pointed out that fact. Were they being biased?
A side note. Something I've noticed with many democrats. You don't have much faith in your average Joe and Jane making the right decision.
John, my college major many years ago was political science. I have been to Party meetings where issues were framed. I have worked for politicians as a County Attorney and watched some of them lie, lie, lie, and I have run for office. I know when Im being had; Sadly, not every Joe or Jane does know when they are being had. Populism is about diverting masses of folks toward your position by using hot-button issues that have little to do with solving real problems: for Republicans that might be flag lapel pins, for Democrats in the South in the forties and fifties it was about segregation. Democrats won the Solid South for years by appealing to the baser instincts of TC Mits (the common man in the streets); the Republicans took over that practice years ago. Joe or Jane have a chance to overcome this, but they need decent information to do it.
Statistics(question mark) can help or hinder the search for truth. If you can know the bias of the poll-taker, then you can know their value. I could probably find statistics for almost any opinion I want. When you found your statistics, where you seeking truth, or assuming a truth and seeking support for your assumption(question mark. Damn keyboard).
Chase, John. I made a mistake. The front page of Charleston paper Thursday morning did have a nice story about Wednesday nights convention. Right in the middle of the top. Oops.
Whoa, see, politics, bad idea.
But don't listen to Chase, I read a piece he once did on the Hardees Big Ass Burger, and he is clearly a commie.
John, yeah, love yourself! You can't do that as a Republican, it's just not possible to love yourself and support a party that treats you as a second class citizen. And to you as a working person and not a really rich guy. If you aren't really rich, not just kind of rich, the Repubs don't like you. And if you are a minority they most likely hate you. Sorry, that's the way it is.
However, the Republicans are winners so if winning is what's important, to you, hate yourself, at least you are a winner.
Dave,
As I said in my first comment, that poll I cited doesn't prove anything. I'll say it again: I simply want more evidence for this supposed anti-Obama bias.
Here is an interesting roundup of media attention to Obama's speech last night. A little snippet from David Gergen on CNN:
as a speech, I was deeply impressed. In many ways it was less a speech than a symphony
Andy,
There is nothing wrong with discussing politics. In fact, this was a polite conversation until you showed up.
For the record, my self worth isn't dependent on any government official or political party. I love me!
John, the treatment on CNN last night was much better. I hadn't noticed a huge bias GENERALLY against Obama in the news (except Fox), but I thought the jubilation of partisan James Carvelle was striking compared to what appeared to be a negative reaction by the pundits (not just their expressions, but what appeared to be inaccurate recaps of the speeches that I had watched).
If you watched the horribly biased Anti-Bush flick Farenheit 911 (Of course, I can't blame you if you didn't watch it; Its heavy-handed bias made it hard for even me to watch), you did catch one little gem: Bush at a white-tie fete calling the richest people in America "my base". I don't think Andy's wrong about the National Party elite: It's all about the Benjamins, baby.
And don't think Andy meant you any disrespect. He calls them like he sees them and generally is very considerate of the feelings of others (unless you really piss him off. Or bug him when he's running a really long way. Or if you were a 'Bama fan twenty years ago. Or if you were Fannie Mae Vickerstaff). Right, Andy?
And, yeah, Andy, I know better than to discuss politics. I just couldn't help it this time.
And don't think Andy meant you any disrespect.
He's your brother so you probably give him more slack than I did. Do you agree with this assertion of his?
John, yeah, love yourself! You can't do that as a Republican, it's just not possible to love yourself and support a party that treats you as a second class citizen.
That's part of the whole populist thing, John. Populism doesn't play to issues; it plays to fears. When the national Democratic party began to champion Civil Rights back in the 1960's, racist Southern Democrats began to leave the Party. The "solid South" was no longer solidly Democrat. Republicans seized on this. Bush the First had SC attack dog Lee Atwater as a campaign strategist, and we got the infamous Willie Horton ads implying that a vote for Democrats meant blacks would rape your wife or daughter.
Racism isn't as popular as it once was, but Populism remains a way for politicians to keep people voting with their emotions instead of their brains. For at least the last eight years, the populist "it" group has been fundamentalist Christians. As long as Republicans pander to evangelical Christians they will never be able to support Gay Rights because fundamentalist Christians believe homosexuality is a moral failing. I'm pretty sure that this is where my brother was coming from. Andy is a lot of things, but a homophobe he is not.
Nice lawyerly answer but it had nothing to do with my question. I already know that both political parties pander and I know Andy isn't a homophobe (I hate that word, btw. Taken literally it means fear of sameness). He hates Republicans, not gays.
To rephrase his assertion: I hate myself because I vote Republican. Do you agree with him, Dave?
I don't think you hate yourself, John. I think you're generally as okay with yourself as anyone is. I do think you're not doing yourself any favors by voting Republican.
Looky here. So proud! Am I rubbing off on you????
I wish!
Fair answer. Thanks, Dave. I appreciate your honesty.
You're welcome, my friend.
Post a Comment