Breaking! Media Was Pro-Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:46:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

From the No Kidding File, though Halperin must have been asleep during the 2000 election:

Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

No one can doubt that Obama was the Media Darling. But for Halperin to pretend that he and his cohorts were not disgustingly bad, indeed they turned in the worst political journalistic performance in history (see Somerby, Bob), during the 2000 election is just shameful of him. The difference is that their 2000 performance had perhaps the most devastating consequences in the history of the nation.

But Mark Halperin was, is and always will be a hack.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Progressivism: The New "Center-Right" | "Concern Trolling" From Some Blog Stars >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Breaking! Media Was Pro-Obama | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

That was your point (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Stellaaa on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:58:32 AM EST

"Media darling". Your eyes are now validated.

This is true (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by Dr Molly on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:42:14 AM EST

but, for some of us, winning an election based on being a media darling (or the opposite - losing an election because the media gins ups hatred towards you), is far from a satisfying or worthwhile win.


It's troubling because (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by lucky leftie on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:57:17 AM EST

most of the time, the media works against our party. So this time they went easy on our candidate but what about the next time, when they start once again lusting for someone like Bush?

Many left wing bloggers seemed pleased that Obama had the media behind him, but in the long run, it would be better to get the media to just report the news and butt out of our democratic process.


: Amen (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Dr Molly on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 02:21:47 PM EST

Those who celebrated the media bias this round because it gave us Obama can't complain about media bias anymore.

Except (none / 0) (#9)
by squeaky on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:10:51 AM EST

That in this case media darling was never in a vacuum. It is married to the idea that Hillary and Obama had not a dimes worth of difference in policy between them. So in that context media darling is a better choice because it adds wind to the back of the candidate.


Don't forget the "not a dimes (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by oculus on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:38:10 AM EST

worth of difference between them [on issues I care about]." I still think that is important as Obama and Clinton held markedly different positions on health care.


Never Bought That (none / 0) (#17)
by squeaky on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:55:04 AM EST

It seemed to me that both had exactly the same end in mind, they differed in how to accomplish it. I loooved Hillary's approach, but I believe Obama's approach is more realistic.


Although it turns out (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by lilburro on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 12:07:53 PM EST

that Obama's approach is less realistic, according to Baucus. Which has been one of the most interesting developments since the election, IMO.


Really? (none / 0) (#26)
by squeaky on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 01:02:41 PM EST

Compared to a single payer plan? Perhaps Obama's plan is going to have big problems, mandate, insurance cos fighting it, but do you really think that the insurance cos, would be more in favor of Hillary's plan?

I don't. They want the status quo plus more legislature to make them richer.


For what it's worth (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by lilburro on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 01:45:20 PM EST

from what I have read insurance companies are behind the mandates now.

I'm not an expert on either plan. I know some people thought Obama's plan would make it easier to eventually get to single-payer. I know some people (including Krugman) thought Hillary's plan would actually attain universal coverage.

The inclusion of a mandate in Hillary's plan made some, including the Obama campaign, attack her plan as unfeasible and unaffordable. The consensus now is the exact opposite. Obama is now in a position where he is more conservative than Congress.


: In 1994 mandates were the (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 02:29:05 PM EST

issue that derailed Hillary's plan---insurance companies were AGAINST mandates then.
Today, they see which way the wind is blowing, and are trying to get the most favorable package which does include mandates.

: Yes (none / 0) (#30)
by squeaky on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 02:27:42 PM EST

The insurance cos love mandate. They will have it no other way. Some suggest that Obama was never against mandates, but thought it was poor political capital to have it in his campaign.
I think that was true, and he obviously used it against Hillary to score points.

Oh Well (none / 0) (#27)
by squeaky on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 01:18:54 PM EST

Did not know that the only difference between H and O was that H had a mandate.

From the comments here during the primary I thought that the plans were miles apart.

Personally I want single payer.


That's true (none / 0) (#10)
by Dr Molly on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:14:20 AM EST

But it still feels unfair, and not a rational basis for making a choice! I'm so picky...


Disagree (none / 0) (#12)
by squeaky on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:21:58 AM EST

It is pure rationale, without the heart getting involved. If two candidates are basically the same regarding their respective voting records and policies, and for whatever reason you like one of them better, the fact that one has an advantage being a media darling is a cold rational choice that should mitigate love as the arbiter of choice between the two.

But, for me, (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Dr Molly on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:37:47 AM EST

it goes against my grain to acquiesce and give the media that much power.


Nice To See (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 12:02:22 PM EST

A scientist act irrationally. The fact is that the media has tremendous power, even though it is reprehensible and repulsive to watch.

I think that the Clinton's denied the media their royal handmaiden status. THat drove them crazy.

We saw a bit of it with the Obama's "waffles" statement. It is ironic that Hillary lovers ate it up, and castigated Obama for it. It is just the sort of thing Bill would have said. But instead of saying something like that once, he said it over and over.


Um, OK (none / 0) (#23)
by Dr Molly on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 12:08:13 PM EST

Nice To See (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 12:02:22 PM EST
A scientist act irrationally.

whatever.


: lol (none / 0) (#25)
by squeaky on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 12:59:40 PM EST

Be Careful, (none / 0) (#36)
by BrassTacks on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 01:43:36 AM EST

What goes around, comes around.


We may as well change the constitition (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:18:28 AM EST

so that we don't vote at all for president, and just let the media vote.

Regardless, I won't vote at the presidential level again. There's no point, when the media chooses the presdient, and so many of the leming voters just go along with whatever they decide.

And yes, I'm talking about 2000, 2004 and 2008. And I'm sure the same will occur win 2012.


Validated? (2.00 / 1) (#24)
by ghost2 on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 12:22:54 PM EST

The more I think about it, the more I find that it's plenty rich of BTD to call Halperin a hack. After all, BTD was happily touting Obama's media darling status, and the consequence to democracy, the role of press, and informing the public be damned.

What makes BTD so da-ned superior to Halperin??


Funny how.. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by TheRealFrank on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:23:15 AM EST

..those rare moments of self reflection in the media only seem to come in the form of "oh, we weren't nice enough to the Republicans".

Yes (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Spamlet on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:26:33 AM EST

I remember Halperin on TV the night of the Iowa caucuses, saying that Obama was "most likely the next President of the United States."

Of course, it is true that the winner of the Iowa caucuses invariably goes on to win the presidency, right?

Oh wait . . .

Negative versus positive (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:33:51 AM EST

In quasi-defense of Halperin's comment, it seems to me that the bias in 2000 was overwhelmingly in the ugly, negative treatment of one candidate, and this time we had over-the-top admiration and "tingle up the leg" treatment of one candidate.

They don't want to even face their treatment of Gore, and I'm sure most of them still feel it was justified. Bush in 2000, to my memory, was most notably treated with kid gloves and averted eyes, not promoted as the Second Coming.

This time -- the largely irrelevant Palin aside -- the less favored guy in the race, McCain, didn't get much worse than a slight lip curl of distaste, while Obama got-- well, we remember the starry-eyed reportage and analysis he got and is still getting.

I don't ever remember in my lifetime, certainly including Jack Kennedy, any presidential candidate ever getting the kind of unrestrainedly adoring coverage that Obama got from around mid-primary season on.

Negative, sneering coverage is only a slightly exaggerated version of the general overall cynicism and negativity with which these people view all politics and politicians, so it doesn't loom terribly large to them as a sin.

What's a sin in journalistic culture -- trust me on this, I worked for some years deep inside it -- is any measure of enthusiasm or positive regard. So while the 2000 campaign wasn't particularly out of character, 2008 was a striking departure from it, and that's what Halperin is remarking on from inside that culture.

Faint praise (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:35:56 AM EST

: Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:45:33 AM EST

Not meant as praise, just an explanation of how anybody with an IQ over 10 could with perfect earnestness say such a seemingly preposterous thing.

Media similarities and difference: '00 & '08 (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:51:44 PM EST

In 2000, the press may not have pimped Bush as the "second coming".

However, they did, most assuredly, define him as the cool, laid-back guy who was allegedly "comfortable in his own skin"; versus Al Gore the disingenuous, uptight wonk. Those characterizations are pretty much parallel to what the the media made of Obama and Hillary in the '08 Democratic primaries.

Of course, in '08, Hillary also got more of the same abuse heaped on Gore in 2000, namely:

overwhelmingly...ugly, negative treatment.

I agree that in '08, the media gave Obama historically unprecedented:

unrestrainedly adoring coverage.

Jack Kennedy (none / 0) (#33)
by caseyOR on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:57:20 PM EST

I love it when people refer to JFK as Jack Kennedy. It is almost always someone who is old enough to actually remember the 1960 campaign and Jack Kennedy's administration. And I am part of that particular demographic.


: Nice (none / 0) (#34)
by NYShooter on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 05:43:36 PM EST

"Jack" was what his personal, long-time, inner circle friends called him. "Those of us" have a reverential, probably irrational, but who cares, feeling towards "Jack." Then, of course, "those of us" who will go to our graves loving President Kennedy just because of how proud he made us feel to be Americans, also referred to him as "Johnnie."
He just had a way of making each one of (financial, political, societal differences notwithstanding) feel a familial attachment that allowed us using nicknames, and not feeling we were being disrespectful.

Our press is useless (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by nellre on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:04:18 AM EST

Instead of reporting the news they are the news.
Until this is fixed, our democracy is at extreme risk.

Edward R Murrow is dead! (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by BarnBabe on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:30:56 AM EST

Walter Cronkite is retired. Even our original TV newscasters are gone. You remember them, the ones who reported the news. The original CNN Headline News was like that too. No opinions. Just reporting. Then they added 'personalities'. During the Clinton Impeachment news cycle, there were only two out there defending Bill. Geraldo and Keith. Yes, Keith. Gibbons was merciless and one night while Brian Williams was anchor, before his nightly gig, he actually said with discuss after a report, "How does this guy stay in office!"

They were not HRC warm but after the complaint of David Schulster, they turned on her and ramped up the CDS. Considering, she came pretty close to making it even with the Press against her. I no longer watch the personalities anymore. I saw the clout of manipulation that they could wheel. The NYT, which I once trusted, is questionable to me after the Judith Miller and Iraq support. And we thought William Randolph Hearst was dead.

: I feel the same way. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by lucky leftie on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 12:05:06 PM EST

I recently asked myself which journalists I trust to tell the truth. Christiane Amanpour and Bill Moyers were the only ones I could think of and obviously they aren't mainstream journalists.

The WaPo Ombudsman (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by smott on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:35:45 AM EST

Just last week posted an article to this very effect only last week. Yes the WaPo discovered an "Obama tilt" to their coverage!

And I quote the Incomparable Somerby - "Just in time for it not to make any difference!"

A little decorum, please (none / 0) (#35)
by NYShooter on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 05:48:27 PM EST

That would be sh*tty campaign, picked a sh*ttier VP, and attached himself to the shi*tiest president in a generation.