Redstate

Posted at 9:52pm on May 10, 2008 The McCain Campaign & Media Bias: A Hopeful Sign.

By Martin A. Knight

Mark Salter's double barrel response to Senator Obama's oh-so-subtle shot at John McCain's age (very nicely brought to our attention by Soren here) is interesting for another thing - it brought up the behavior of Barack Obama's most important supporting demographic.

Senator Obama is hopeful that the media will continue to form a protective barrier around him, declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race.

Senator Obama has good reason to think this plan will succeed, as serious journalists have written of the need for 'de-tox' to cure 'swooning' over Senator Obama, and others have admitted to losing their objectivity while with him on the campaign trail ...

Maybe I'm reading too much into this and this would be the last time and therefore insignificant - but if I'm not mistaken, I believe this is the first time any Republican Presidential candidate in recent history has even just made mention of the Press clearly favoring one (the Democrat) candidate and slanting the coverage just so to get him over the finish line.

The media's infatuation with Obama is remarkably blatant - in many cases, e.g. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, it's practically R-rated - and it's just about noticeable by the mushy middle both teams need to win.

If Salter's press release can be taken as indicative of a future course of action, the McCain campaign may just have found a way to solidify his standing with the conservative base and also make it more likely that he will get elected this fall.

If McCain, until recently liberal journalism's favorite Republican, decides to, and then successfully makes the conduct of the media an issue in this election, the potential fallout of it could be very ... interesting. In a good way.

Posted in Archived | McCain | Media Bias | Obama | swooning press — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:51pm on May 4, 2008 Gray Lady strikes out with McCain?

Why does the campaign even bother?

By Soren Dayton

We know the stories. First, the New York Times runs an empty story about a lobbyist. They embarass themselves with no substance. Then one of their reporters attacks him on the plane and invokes his temper. Whiff again. Then they try something with some local project, and it demonstrates the cravenness of the environment lobby.

Well, they are at it again. But, as Ed points out, they are, at least, putting it on the editorial page. They are attacking him for not releasing all of his health records. Check out this pathetic hit job:

Senator John McCain is 71 years old, a survivor of an aggressive form of skin cancer. If elected, he would be the oldest man to become president.

These factors are not disqualifying, but they impose on Mr. McCain a larger duty than usual to provide detailed, timely disclosure about his health. So far, he has failed to meet this obligation to voters, even though he is now the presumed Republican nominee. ...

The McCain campaign says it will make his health documents available and arrange for follow-up questioning of the candidate’s doctors on May 23.

Lemme guess how this played out. NYT wanted to write a (hit) piece on this. They asked for more details on his health. The McCain campaign responded with a solid date, something that the campaign is very accountable for, and then they New York Times attacked anyways.

Why does the campaign even bother with the NYT? Their readership is collapsing. Their reporters like Rutenberg and Bumiller are embarrassing the paper and demonstrably lowering its standards. Why even invite them on the bus and plane anymore. The campaign doesn't invite the DNC, why its surrogate?

Posted in 2008 | John McCain | Media Bias | The New York Times — Comments (4)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:30pm on Apr. 21, 2008 Does WaPo fact-check front page stories?

An update on a non-news front page story

By Soren Dayton

Yesterday, I criticized WaPo's front page story about John McCain's temper.

I have several quick updates. First, Matt Lewis notes that it is odd that "bitter-gate" was A4 and a week-long story that will be a dominant theme of the campaign.

Second, I noted that the stories seemed old. Well, Jake Tapper notes that he first broke the story in the lede in ... 1999.

Third, the Corner reports Salter's criticism of the report.

But the tastiest is that Michael Leahy and his editors didn't actually fact-check the story. Check out what Fox's Carl Cameron found out:

Bogus facts. Clearly biased editorial decisions. Selective quotation. Old stories. Not a story. Michael Leahy and his editors should know better and be ashamed of themselves.

Posted in 2008 | Media Bias | Michael Leahy | Washington Post — Comments (9)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:31pm on Apr. 20, 2008 WaPo: A question of newsiness

Wishing it so; Trying to make it so

By Soren Dayton

The Washington Post's Michael Leahy ran a front-page story about John McCain's temper that they thought was about his temperament. In fact, they called it "A Question of Temperament".

But shouldn't Leahy and his editors asked "A Question of Newsiness?" Is there really a story here, much less a front page story? And if not, what does it tell us about the Washington Post? So let's review the facts in the story.

First, there is an argument with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) from 1992! Wow. That one was racing to get out.

Then there's a story from McCain's high school years. 1954, 1989, "the early 90s", 1982, and a couple more from early on.

Oh, and there were two widely reported stories from 2006 and 2007.

Perhaps tellingly, Leahy says, "According to aides, McCain's frequent comments about his temperament reflect a recognition that the issue persists for some voters and the media." The media wants to tell a story about John McCain... But there's not news to tell.

Read on.

Posted in Archived | John McCain | Media Bias | Michael Leahy | Washington Post — Comments (9)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:43pm on Apr. 18, 2008 Hard Truths

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

John Harris and Jim VandeHei are relatively well-known for their book, in which they claim--as I wrote in my review--that politics has devolved into a "Freak Show" that "makes political coverage seem like a constant scandal-watch." This phenomenon is largely blamed on websites like the Drudge Report and the Blogosphere. To be sure, this made Harris and VandeHei somewhat biased in favor of the Old Media, but one would expect that their condemnation of the "Freak Show" would have led them to criticize--as many other had--the tone and tenor of the most recent debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton since so many of the questions focused on the political and the personal rather than on policy.

But they do not. Quite the contrary, they argue that the debate was quite balanced and that to the extent the Obama faction is complaining, it is largely because the Senator did badly and--for perhaps the first time--was directly and seriously challenged by questions that were the consequence of his front-runner status:

My, oh my, but weren't those fellows from ABC News rude to Barack Obama at this week's presidential debate.

Nothing but petty, process-oriented questions, asked in a prosecutorial tone, about the Democratic front-runner's personal associations and his electablity. Where was the substance? Where was the balance?

Where indeed. Hillary Clinton and her aides have been complaining for months about imbalance in news coverage. For the most part, the reaction to her from the political-media commentariat has been: Stop whining.

That's still a good response now that it is Obama partisans--some of whom are showing up in distressingly inappropriate places--who are doing the whining.

[. . .]

This is not to say that ABC's performance was flawless. There were some weird questions ("Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?"). There were some questionable production decisions (the camera cutaways to Chelsea Clinton, the stacking of so many process questions in the first 45 minutes.)

But there was nothing to justify Tom Shales's hyperbolic review ("shoddy, despicable performances" by Gibson and Stephanopoulos) in the Washington Post or Greg Mitchell's in Editor & Publisher ("perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years.") Others, like Time's Michael Grunwald, likewise weighed in against ABC.

In fact, the balance of political questions (15) to policy questions (13) was more substantive than other debates this year that prompted no deluge of protests. The difference is that this time there were more hard questions for Obama than for Clinton.

Read on . . .

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Media Bias — Comments (7)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:18pm on Apr. 14, 2008 Barack's problem isn't 'bitter'

By Soren Dayton

Recall that Barack Obama said that Americans in "small towns" are "bitter" and therefore "cling to guns and religion." The Obama campaign has tried to focus on the "bitter" part, with the assist of the media, instead of the "cling to guns and religion" part. ABC's Jake Tapper gets it:

As Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and his allies have locked into damage control mode and attempted to explain his controversial remarks about small-town Pennsylvanians, they've attempted to focus their pushback away from the most controversial part of his remarks to an elite crowd at a San Francisco fundraiser. ...

While the description of small town Pennsylvanians as "bitter" is certainly impolitic, many political analysts say it's what follows that adjective that is potentially so alienating -- the notion that small town folks "get bitter" after which "they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

You know who else gets it? Hillary Clinton. Her new ad doesn't even have the word "bitter". It is all about "cling[ing] to ... religion." Read on to watch the ad.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Elitism | Media Bias | rich liberal elitists — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:44pm on Apr. 11, 2008 More fair coverage from the New York Times

By Soren Dayton

Today, the New York Times wrote a whole story about Colin Powell not saying bad things about Barack Obama. The same day, they run another hit piece on John McCain about housing. No wonder, the lefty nutjobs are going to spend $40m because the press has "fallen down on the job." What are they looking for? After all, the New York Times already runs fact-free stories attacking McCain.

Read on for a review of this morning's coverage.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | John McCain | Media Bias | The New York Times — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:34am on Apr. 10, 2008 NYT's Bumiller writes unsourced hit piece on McCain

By Soren Dayton

Remember Elisabeth Bumiller? She's that New York Times reporter who tried to attack John McCain on the plane a couple of months ago. Our Dan McLaughlin characterized the interaction as "a 'gotcha' question about an old story on which there are no new facts and the reporter is just trying to pick a fight."

Well... Bumiller is at it again, doing yeoman's work for Barack Obama. This time it is an unsourced hit piece lacking in facts ... or quotes. What are we talking about?

Read on.

Posted in Elisabeth Bumiller | John McCain | Media Bias | National Security | The New York Times — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:52am on Apr. 7, 2008 CNN amplifies Ed Schultz

By Soren Dayton

Over the weekend, there was a mini-scandal with lefty talk radio host Ed Schultz calling John McCain a "warmonger" in Barack Obama's opening act. We covered it here. Well, ... Schultz is at it again, and this time CNN is giving the assist by inviting Schultz onto their morning show.

USA Today reports:

"I'm sorry, John, the label sticks. John McCain is a warmonger," liberal radio host Ed Schultz said a few minutes ago on CNN's American Morning. ...

"Labeling a candidate is not being disrespectful," Schultz told CNN host John Roberts. McCain's policies, Schultz said, "fit the description, there's no question about that. ... John McCain has no end game in Iraq. ... (He) is saber rattling with Iran. ... The man is a warmonger."

John Roberts noted that, "Obama didn’t quite condemn the remarks," even if the Obama campaign has denied the substance of the remarks. My sources tell me that CNN is inviting Schultz onto the show several more times today.

Why is John Roberts, a credible journalist, allowing this guy on his show? Why is CNN making the editorial decision to give this guy a platform to launch his attacks? And why won't Barack "New Politics" Obama call for his supporters to act with respect and honesty?

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | CNN | John McCain | Media Bias — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:53am on Apr. 7, 2008 Another day, another Obama lie

By Soren Dayton

Barack Obama is running on a new kind of politics: dishonesty and half-truths. That politics appears to consist of inflating his resume, McCain's 100-years statement, "lobbyists don't give me money," and even lying to the press about smoking.

It increasingly appears that these lies are central to his message. Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford reports from Pennsylvania:

In a five-hour session of watching one network I counted 14 ads sponsored by Barack Obama, compared to a total of three ads for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And guess what I woke up to on my hotel clock radio? Yep, that’s right, the audio version of Obama’s ad.

That’s all well and good except for the fact that every one of Obama’s ads presents him personally telling what can only be charitably described as a half-truth -- that he takes no money from lobbyists.

What's going on? Obama lies and gets a free pass from the media. Even Crawford gets the joke, "Lucky for Obama, most of the news media seem not to care about such contradictions." As The Economist noted, "Very little has been made of two instances, reported last month by the Washington Post, where Mr Obama exaggerated his role in legislative accomplishments. ... Unlike Mrs Clinton, he has gotten off easy for his fibs."

Posted in Archived | Barack Obama | Media Bias — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:00pm on Apr. 3, 2008 How the media helps Obama: The health care version

By Soren Dayton

This morning, the Boston Globe ran a story about John McCain's health care plan. It starts by summarizing a question from a reporter asking whether McCain is "sympathetic":

When Senator John McCain unveiled his health care proposal last fall, a journalist asked whether the Arizona senator's battle against skin cancer would make him sympathetic to the idea of requiring that insurance companies provide coverage to people with preexisting conditions.

The answer that we are supposed to understand is "no, John McCain is not sympathetic." It seems that the goal of the story is to attack McCain's health care plan. This is a news story, not an opinion piece. But the reporter, Michael Kranish, doesn't seem to understand the distinction. (for a more balanced review, try Fortune Magazine's, "Why McCain has the best health-care plan") Read on.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Health care | John McCain | Media Bias — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:27am on Mar. 4, 2008 A Press Corps Covers Candidates on its Stomachs

By Mark I

An interesting nugget in this campaign diary from Sean Higgins over at the American Spectator Online.

I watch all of this from the luxury booth high above the event while eating a chicken breast stuffed with cranberry dressing. It's part of the dinner spread the campaign put out for reporters. The Obama campaign keeps the press shut off from the candidate, mostly. He travels separately from the reporters. We watch his speeches and wait for the occasional press availability. There is virtually no chance to talk to the candidate otherwise. I never hear any reporter complain about this, maybe because the food is good.

As goes the catering, so goes the election?

Posted at 8:59am on Feb. 23, 2008 The "Jamil Hussein" Maneuver Rearing It's Ugly Head

By Martin A. Knight

Here's how it works;

Liberal reporter or politician makes a multi-part claim of some atrocity or some other happening that can be be laid at the feet of the nearest Republican e.g. a soldier who is a Private by the name of John reports that his platoon regularly wore children's skulls as headgear, used armored cars to saw dogs in half all the while being forced to go out on missions/patrols without ammunition thanks to profits for Halliburton!

Conservatives and Republicans question the story because it sounds (and is) incredible. Liberal reporter/politician produce a Private whose first name is John and who once came across a grave yard where he saw some bones. They then declare themselves "vindicated" and then attempt to blow past the fact that no other person in the Private's unit or command line can verify a single one of his claims.

Ace puts it in his own distinct style here.

More below ...

Posted in Archived | Beauchamp | jamil hussein | lies | Media Bias | Obama — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:45pm on Feb. 10, 2008 In Shocking News . . .

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

The Los Angeles Times has been found making things up. Yes, I know that Dick Cheney is not very popular in Tim Rutten's world, but surely, if Cheney is as bad as Rutten makes him out to be, there is no need whatsoever to manufacture a quote from the Vice President, is there?

We dare not call Rutten's behavior an example of media bias, do we? Nor do we deny him membership into the "reality-based community"; the alternate reality that Rutten appears to inhabit is good enough to qualify as "reality-based," it would appear.

Posted in Dick Cheney | Los Angeles Times | Media Bias | Miscellanea — Comments (6)/ Email this page » / Read More »