Minor blips (they have to at least try to create the impression they’re going after both sides) in an overall media coronation of Obama as President-In-Waiting.
I offer for example the media’s fawning coverage of Obama’s recent overseas travel. An alien landing here from another planet would have thought he was on a victory tour.
Backpedal, my ass! I clearly spoke of McCain’s coverage by the MSM (that would be ‘MainStream Media’!).
Sampiro mentions CNN’s question. I reiterate my point about the MSM’s coverage in the main. You accuse me of backpedaling.
You’ve shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest and it’s time to stop engaging with you. I’m no longer gonna waste my time around here defending things I haven’t said or done.
You said McCain is calling out biased journalists. Who?
Campbell Brown’s tone belied her words. I am not surprised to see Tucker Bounds get defensive when asked questions in such a way. (However, I am not a journalist, campaign worker, or frequent tv watcher. For all I know, that is normal behavior for a reporter in which case Bounds should have been prepared. If it were me there instead of Bounds, that conversation would have ended a lot sooner.) Ms. Brown came off extremely forceful and made it very difficult for Mr. Bounds to get a word in edgewise. That being said, he didn’t ever actually manage to say anything. I don’t see either side coming off smelling like roses.
(But McCain’s still a whiny bitch if that makes him cancel an interview. If he’s not careful, people will forget that he’s running.)
I said I was no longer going to engage with you and I won’t. However, it’s legitimate to show the posters who responded to me in good faith where I’m getting the ideas that inform my posts. A recent example can be found here:
*McCain’s campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, yesterday lashed out at what he deemed offensive'' and demeaning’’ coverage and questions from reporters after McCain’s running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, confirmed her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.
``It used to be that a lot of those smears and the crap on the Internet stayed out of the newsrooms of serious journalists,‘’ Schmidt said at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Schmidt’s criticism is the latest example in the unraveling of what was once a fond relationship between the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and the media. Starting in the 2000 Republican primaries, the Arizona senator became a media sensation by chatting up the press in the back of his ``Straight Talk Express’’ campaign bus. The national press corps freely mingled with McCain for hours on the bus, with no topic off limits.
More recently, though, McCain, 72, has accused news organizations such as the New York Times, Time magazine and the NBC network of being unfair to him. The campaign even considered pulling out of one of the three presidential debates because it would be moderated by Tom Brokaw, a former NBC News anchorman. *
The rest of article can be found here, though my comments should not be construed to be limited to this article. It is an example of McCain’s maverick and courageous nature to be taking on the media like this, especially during this important campaign season. Most Republican politicians hunker down and try as they might to squeak this point or that through against an overwhelming maelstrom of media bias, thinking that to confront that bias openly would close off their only way of getting their message across. McCain don’t play that, and I admire him for it.
Well, to be fair, after James “Ragin’ Cajun” Carville took Michele Bachmann behind the woodshed on the King show and spanked her soundly over Gov Palin’s “experience” I can see why McCain might be a little scared shitless to get anywhere near the show. I mean, those pesky reporters are ASKING QUESTIONS and then actually EXPECTING RESPONSIVE ANSWERS!! Gasp! Quelle horreur! Why DO they hate America so? Don’t they understand that McCain’s a maverick and a POW and nobody’s allowed to question anything he does? Tsk, tsk, what IS the world coming to?
Was this an opinion/analysis show of some sort, or was she acting as a news anchor performing an interview? If it’s the latter, then the tone of the interview was inappropriately partisan, almost on par with a typical Fox News interview.
Either way, I have no opinion about McCain’s canceling on Larry King.
Did he do it because he’s a courageous maverick who doesn’t play by the rules set down by the mean kids, or might he have done it because generating a story about liberal media bias is more politically beneficial than not generating a story about liberal media bias? If it’s the latter, is that still admirable? Is there, like, any chance at all that it’s the former? Honestly.
From that clip when told how proud we should be of a female VP candidate:
“Congresswoman, I don’t know how to tell you this, but I supported a woman for president of the United States.”
I have to admit I’m glad that the Evil Fetus is in league with Obama now. (And how he and Matalin make it work is beyond me- not that I care to read their book.)
Exactly! Much of the media’s bias lies in its tone. Ever notice how when a MSM newsie is interviewing Obama, Hillary, Michelle Obama, etc., they are all smiles and sunshine, almost giddy in their excitement and their approval over what they’re hearing? But when it’s a Republican they’re talking to, it’s frowns, scowls and their voices take on an accusatory tone.
And then we’ve got MSNBC, which doesn’t even put up a front about their left-wing bias. They fired all their conservative program hosts sans Joe Scarborough, and have commentators like that idiot Erin Burnett openly referring to Bush as a monkey.
Hell, I can’t even pick up a copy of GQ anymore without seeing ‘tighty-righties’ being made fun of and lambasted here and there and on the editorial page.
You guys have virtually all of Hollywood, the university system, print journalism, magazines, major newspapers, and television news programs promoting your side, and yet you scream bloody murder about Fox.
Media bias is real; it’s pervasive; and it’s obvious to society at large. It’s why Limbaugh and Fox came into being, and it’s why you’re so astounded when Republicans get elected. People see through that shit.
And on preview, VarlosZ, of course he sees it as politically beneficial. That was my point. It’s courageous because most other Republican candidates feel that they will only lose by taking on the media, and he’s decided to take a stand against it rather than playing it safe and hoping for the best.
Except McCain apparently don’t play that anymore. Looks like he’s been hunkering down. Oh, and playing the “victim” card against the big, bad liberal media elite is nothing new. Though at least Scott McCllelan had the marginal decency to be contemptuous of reporters who would dutifully copy his White House talking points for fear of the bias card. Maybe when McCain’s campaign is over, Mark Salter (McCain’s attack dog) will write a similar book.
A few people have been commenting on Brown’s tone and I think you might be better served by watching the whole inteview to get a better feel for it.
The link in the OP starts at the part of the interview where Brown starts getting badgery, but she was not like that throughout.
In my opinion she wasn’t really that out line. Bounds would not answer the question.
I kind of think it’s an interviewer/reporters job to not just ask questions but also get answers. She possibly could have been more tactfull, but I mostly feel like she was doing her job.
So, to protest Campbell Brown’s disrespectful tone towards an aide, McCain cancels his interview by Larry King. Yet again he is listing towards George Bush’s mentality, who responded to Al Qaeda regrouping on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border by … attacking Iraq.
I don’t recall a single instance during the Democrat primaries where any journalist pressed Hillary Clinton to give a straight answer on anything.
The hypocricy of that woman (and CNN) is astounding! First she insinuates Palin is a bad mother for accepting a position in which her pregnant 17-year-old daughter is subject to strong media scrutiny, scrutiny for which she and her ilk are far more responsible than Sarah Palin. In the days before tabloid journalism, such things would rightfully have been way out of bounds.
And then, while she’s in the middle of insinuating her castigation of Palin, CNN is showing one photo after another of the Palin family with the camera finally slowly zooming in tight on the face of her pregnant daughter!
Utterly fucking despicable!
And, as we all know, the only reason the media is going after this issue so strongly is because of their desire to discredit the Republican candidates. Palin’s pregnant 17-year-old daughter is no more germane to Palin’s suitability for office than Cheney’s gay daughter is to his, yet where was the media scrutinizing the impact of having an openly gay daughter on Cheney’s ability to carry out his duties? Or the impact of Chelsea’s love life while in England was on Clinton’s suitability for office? Etc., etc. And what about Bill Clinton himself. Sure, the media covered the uproar over the blowjob…they had to. But I don’t recall some stern-faced newsie insinuating that Clinton was unsuited to perform his duties because fo the effect it had on his wife and daughter. No, then it was a private matter for the family to handle.
Well, yeah. She interrupted him whenever it became obvious that he was dodging her question entirely, which was what happened almost every time he opened his mouth.
e: whoops, what I said was already covered by Lance Turbo. I’m going to go ahead and apologize for that because it bugs that hell out of me when a dozen people say the exact same thing over and over and over like they hadn’t read the thread at all.
Wait, how is several weeks of Wright coverage a “blip,” but a weekend of Palin is over-the-line and more evidence that the eeeeevil liberals have a stranglehold on the media?
And I’d be willing to bet that if it had been Hillary Clinton, she would have sat there with a huge shit-eating grin on her face, bobbing her head up and down enthusiastically and smiling approvingly at everything Hillary said (with the possible exception of some softball ‘hard’ question in an attempt to give her deniability to accusations of bias).
Where were all these tough, go-for-the-throat-and-get-an-answer reporters during the Democrat primaries? I don’t recall a single instance in which both Clinton and Obama weren’t given a free pass to answer any question with something totally unrelated to the question asked.
The Wright coverage was sensational. So was Clinton’s blowjob. The media, biased as they are, still have to report the news. Plus, Hillary was still in the race then and the media was covering two Democrats and trying to stir up issues.
Still, I don’t think anyone really expected Wright to have a significant impact on Obama’s electability. Even I thought it was ridiculous to try to paint Obama with the Wright brush.
And now I must bid you all adieu for the night.
Do you believe that the questions Campbell Brown asked of Bounds about the experience issue as a whole and Palin’s experience as National Guard commander were unfair to ask?
Why or why not?
I think you mean “IMUO, of course” with the U standing for “uninformed.”
I believe the Monday in question was July 21 as this piece was published July 27.