it was the media who decided sen. clinton should take for granted all the states sen. obama has been winning. it was the media that put forth the "inevitability" of sen. clinton's being the democratic nominee.

i would challenge mr. robinson and everyone on this or any other site, to show where sen. clinton has stated or implied anything of the sort. you can't, because she hasn't.

Clinton could lose this campaign by 20 points and it would be no justification for the Media's sexism and misogyny.

Last I checked, ER hasn't apologized for the anti-Gore propaganda nor has any media collegue, always careful not to make Gene uncomfortable,  ever called him out for it on tv.

He gets a break today because the MSM encourages anti-Hillary punditry.  The media use the technical, but misleading, excuse that, unlike Carville or Begala, dumped from CNN, Gene hasn't officially endorsed anyone.

The media narrative on Obama has begun to shift as usual led by the right wing media. The MSM always takes its lead from them.

Cult of personality meme has taken hold.

Stories about women repeatedly fainting in his rallies are being use to suggest he is a phony.

The press is beginning to go after Obama as a flip flopper on public financing essentially taking McCain's side.

For what it's worth, my opinion is based on Gene's "insight": journalists are people, too. And on the Politico article "insight": it's Clinton's own fault media hates her.

What I learned from this election so far is this:

• vast majority of American media is breathtakingly infantile, incapable of objective thinking and analysis. Proximity to primetime means only more mediocrity.

• most American media, including most of "blogosphere" ARE people like us. Except that they are paid for their opinion and we're not.

Sad because I don't think Chris Matthews's or Tim Russert's opinion is any more valuable than my own, yet we're all glued to the TV or Arianna Huffington's worthless pronouncements on the web.

Troubling because "freedom of the press" implies a higher responsibility for Mr. Russert's opinion than my own. I wish it was so.

So what we have is the media full of real people broadcasting their worthless opinions to millions of people and influencing this election, all  under constitutional protection and yet without any consequences.

It's Time For The Media To Look At Obama's Record, Associates

To "discuss" the subject he had John Aravosis (Obama guy) and a rightwing townhall.com woman - forget her name. And then there was Howie, a republican who's supposed to be a media critic.

Anyway, two republicans and an Obama supporter (who doesn't like Hillary a bit) to "discuss" the media's reaction to Hillary.

Well, surprise surprise - the consensus: she deserves it all! (In the interest of full disclosure I got so mad after the first 5 minutes I turned off the TV, so I don't really know how it ended - the first part was enough for me!)

When we point out sexism in the media we are "whiny victims." This is the perfect perpetrator strategy: You get to do or say whatever you want, and if we complain we are either whiny victims, or shrill, or both.

I like Obama, but before I can make an informed judgement, I need to hear some pramatic talk from him.  Just what will his 'unity' look like when it hits the ground?  Which of his policies will he compromise to gain unity?  Nobody knows.  and that's the problem.

When Robinson says "it wasn't the media that decided she should take for granted all those states that Barack Obama has been winning," he means that there are alternative explanations for why she is getting negative press, alternatives to sexism among the campaign press corps. He is not saying, "who cares if there's sexism in the media?"

Also, I thought your post suggesting Obama was talking about her monthly cycle was bizarrely over-interpreted, and very very wrong.  But you closed comments on it by the time I saw it so I couldn't say so in that thread.

And yes, you are in drifting toward a victimology here.

If, looking at the negative press McCain got last summer, a blogger blamed it on ageism, that would be drifting toward a victimology, as well.  

Robinson was not saying "the media is sexist toward Clinton, but so what...?"  He was saying, "that can happen and I expect us to be slammed when it does, but that is not the reason she is getting such negative press."

By the logic as it is presently set up, the media have to be something-ist. If they don't support the black guy, regardless of policies, programs, personality, or presentation, they're racist. If they don't support the woman regardless of, etc., they're sexist. And since Cynthia McKinney isn't running, they're in a cleft stick.

This is neither more nor less than ranking the "-ist"s. Sexism is, apparently, less evil than racism, so the one to support is the black. "Issues" don't get a look-in, since anything noted as an "issue" is simply an excuse for -ism.

Enjoy. Yeah, I know, "trolling". Got your [DEL] key handy?

Election Study Finds Media Hit Hillary Hardest

Obama, Huckabee Fare Best;
FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo)

TV election news has been hardest on Hillary Clinton this fall, while Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have been the biggest media favorites, according to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University. The study also found that Fox NewsChannel's evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks.

For a PDF file of the complete press release, please click here

Contact Information

CMPA
2100 L Street, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20037

Phone: 202-223-2942

Fax: 202-872-4014

Email: mail@cmpa.com