Althouse: "Every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true."

September 29, 2008

"Every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true."

Do you believe this? I do. Unfortunately. Tragic, the loss of professionalism.

207 comments:

1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»

veni vidi vici said...: It's amazing to me that, election/event after election/event, things continue as usual and the media lives to continue its practices another day.

This is where the term "sheeple" used to describe our passively quasi-bovine citizenry isn't far from accurate. We'll take it and like it, apparently.; 9/29/08, 9:20 PM
Unknown said...: It's amazing that someone admitted it!

You know, the press was in the past much worse than this. During the Civil War, the invective against Lincoln was astounding by today's standards. Seems to me that the Redford/Hoffman heroic movie changed our views on that, to the detriment of society.; 9/29/08, 9:23 PM
Unknown said...: Define 'in the tank'. Define MSM (does that include FOX?).

You're above sweeping generalizations like these, Ann. How disappointing you postulate with little more than a claim. Wait, no more than a claim. It's your right to believe what you want, but come on. How about less hysterics and more discourse? Or, dare I say, stuff to back up your assertions?; 9/29/08, 9:27 PM
Rich said...: Patca,

That's true, but the press of that era made no attempt to falsely portray itself as objective, unlike the lying MSM sleazebags of today.; 9/29/08, 9:32 PM
Derek Kite said...: Are any of these media companies going to be in business in a year?

Derek; 9/29/08, 9:33 PM
JSF said...: Ann,

Back when I was interning on capitol Hill during the "Contract with America", I did an experiment with a friend (now long gone) on how the press treats different parties.

The Congressman I interned for was a GOP subcommittee chairman of the Appropriations committee; My friend's congressman was on two ancillery committees (DC and Science). We chose:

1) National TV station
2) National newspaper
3) News show
4) Local Radio station

The democratic intern had his calls recieved within the hour. I did not hear back until 48 hours later.

Bias? I've known since I was a Liberal democrat.

This science experiment confirmed my views. I wish the democrats would stop hiding under the MSM's skirts, such as Anderson Cooper.; 9/29/08, 9:36 PM
Fred4Pres said...: I am very concerned about how bad things are going. Not about McCain or Obama winning (or not) that is irrelevant. It is how in the bag the MSM is for Obama and how willing many are to derail the economy (both pro Obama folks and those WTO conservative anarchists who want to see a melt down to bring on a mythical conservative age).

I do not like this government intervention either, but if we are going to Ron Paul route we need to be honest about what that means. The tough love route might work in the long term, but it only works if you are consistent. A hybrid Ron Paul hands off approach with a massive Democratic entitlement expansion is a recipe to Argentina style economics. This is a very big deal and people better start wrapping their heads around that.; 9/29/08, 9:36 PM
MadisonMan said...: How does not reporting any possible Obama shenanigans compare to sitting on their hands and not asking actual questions about Iraq before the invasion? Or to not reporting on the actual cost of Bush's Medicare Bill?

The loss of professionalism long predates this election. And it is to everyone's detriment.; 9/29/08, 9:37 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: It's the natural result of moral relativism. Means-ends muddle.

Every journalist wanting to be the next Woodward or Bernstein; every lawyer wanting to be the next Watergate Special Prosecutor.; 9/29/08, 9:38 PM
Revenant said...: "Loss of professionalism" assumes professionalism ever existed in the first place.

The news media has always been nakedly partisan. The only changes in the last fifty years or so have been (a) the loss of most of the conservative news outlets (although this trend has reversed in the last 20 years) and (b) the news media now pretends to not be nakedly partisan.

It used to be no secret that such-and-such a paper was aimed squarely at Democrats or Republicans, and the staff of the paper never tried to hide it. Then they started trying, which was sort of pathetic.; 9/29/08, 9:38 PM
garage mahal said...: It's all a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. I'm telling ya! It's tragic we have to go to an anonymous reader at a major newsroom emailing Instpundit for the truth. Sad sad day.; 9/29/08, 9:41 PM
Revenant said...: How does not reporting any possible Obama shenanigans compare to sitting on their hands and not asking actual questions about Iraq before the invasion?

They sat on their hands because the Democratic leadership was in favor of the war too. If (for example) Bill Clinton had been dismissive of Bush's WMD claims instead of confirming them, the NYT would have fallen all over itself to back Clinton.; 9/29/08, 9:41 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Althouse is always honest. She'd be a great choice to replace Russert.

I have been tossing & turning about canceling my paper subscription. Want it to be a big splash and more than a nasty letter.

Or should I keep getting the paper but let them accumulate in my driveway and when the pile gets large enough, call the Guiness Book of Records?

Or maybe refuse to read the ads and start a website where other dissatisfied subscribers could sign their name to a petition with the name of they paper they buy but refuse to read the ads. Until the bias is gone of course.; 9/29/08, 9:46 PM
Revenant said...: It's all a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.

There's no need to posit a conspiracy. When the overwhelming majority of people in an organization belong to and support the same political party, that organization will be biased in favor of that political party.

The news media is biased against Republicans not because they're part of some conspiracy to conceal the truth, but because they're Democrats. If the news media was 80 to 90% right-wingers, the news media would be shamelessly biased against Democrats. As it is 80 to 90% left-wingers, it is shamlessly biased against Republicans.; 9/29/08, 9:46 PM
MadisonMan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/29/08, 9:48 PM
The Exalted said...: the left wing media conspiracy that hammered obama for trivialities like not wearing a flag pin showed its true colors by ...not even mentioning that mccain didn't wear a flag pin at the debate.

yup, [made up source] sure told [gop blogger] the truth! they're in the tank!; 9/29/08, 9:49 PM
Sprezzatura said...: That link is so dumb.

That note is a list of popular right wing talking points.

Lame.; 9/29/08, 9:50 PM
MadisonMan said...: I think part of the problem is that journalists fear lack of access, so they fall all over themselves to curry favor. There's a fear that a competitor will get a story -- and a Pullitzer! -- they miss 'cause they lack access.

In reality, I doubt any story requires access to any one politician. But lack of access does make writing the story more difficulty, and politicians, like everyone, are at their heart lazy.

Result: an incestuous schmooze fest in DC, where no one asks hard questions 'cause they don't want politicians to get mad.

Dreadful.; 9/29/08, 9:51 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: Only a moron or someone that doesn't want to lose the advantage would deny the bias. I'll give the lefties here the benefit of the doubt and assume they fall into the latter category.; 9/29/08, 9:53 PM
MadisonMan said...: Journalist, like everyone else, are lazy, is what that should read.

Politicians are lazy too, but that doesn't make sense in the sentence.; 9/29/08, 9:53 PM
Kansas City said...: The liberal bias of the MSM is clear. The success rate is mixed. They tried without success to help Kerry. The extent to which they tried to help Gore is unclear in my mind. I think a significant number of the MSM could not stand Gore, so their efforts were less than for the typical liberal. They succeeded in helping to beat Bush 41. But they failed on Reagan twice and Bush 41 the first time.

Members of the press should declare their politics and then earn the trust of their audience after full disclosure. A few columnists fall in that category, e.g., Will, probably Broder, maybe Brooks and I'm sure there are a few others.; 9/29/08, 9:54 PM
Kansas City said...: Madisonman also is correct that members of the press are lazy and restate information without regard to accuracy or truly fail to understand complex issues.

On plus side, parts of the media have been exposed. The New York Times is now generally viewed as biased, CBS lost its integrity with Rather, and now NBC has lost its with the MSNBC lunge to the left.; 9/29/08, 9:57 PM
Unknown said...: That's true, Rich, at least they were honestly dishonest in those days!

BTW here's a good example of that bias: Biden answers a question and sounds like a dope, so the "reporter" accepts his handler's excuse and makes up the rest.
Biden and the Media; 9/29/08, 9:58 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: No, I do not believe it.

The whole feeding frenzy around Jeremiah was based on a clip of about 10-15 seconds out of a 20-year career.

The media have been repeating internet rumors about Obama for months.

John McCain, himself, said "the media are my base."

Today Howard Kurtz admitted journalists privately admit To censoring themselves over Palin coverage.

Media Matters has a massive amount of citations of the news media under-reporting bad news for McCain and hurting Obama.

Norah O'Donnell aired cropped "John is right" clips, but in nearly all instances, Obama was criticizing McCain

Ignoring contrary evidence, Schieffer asserted McCain "suspended his campaign" because of Wall Street crisis

Despite evidence to the contrary, Blitzer continues to assert McCain "suspend[ed]" campaign

Pretty any campaign coverage from the Associated Press these days.

On CNN:John King credits McCain with pulling down his TV ads for "about 72 hours" during the so-called "suspension." 72 hours? McCain only announced the suspension about 57 hours ago, and the best estimates from media buyers is that McCain was only off the air for about 24 hours (although readers have reported ads running in different parts of the country virtually the entire time). One day, three days, eh, who's counting?

"claiming that the phrase "privatizing Social Security" is "incendiary" language that amounts to deception even though Republicans used the term "privatizing" for years before they learned it polled poorly.

This is just for starters...; 9/29/08, 10:00 PM
Palladian said...: "Media Matters has a massive amount of citations of the news media under-reporting bad news for McCain and hurting Obama."

Why should we trust "Media Matters"? They're an admitted partisan source. And why hasn't this supposed Obama-hurting material actually hurt Obama? Funny, that.

The media managed to actually hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign. What did "Media Matters" think about that?; 9/29/08, 10:02 PM
garage mahal said...: Elect some better candidates next time would be my advice. Try to kick around some ideas from, say, the 21st century maybe? I personally think Republicans [if they were serious] should have told America that they were going to sit out this election, regroup, and come up with a realistic gameplan for 2012. A nice 4 year walkabout in the forest can do a person good sometimes. But that's just me talking. Discuss.; 9/29/08, 10:04 PM
THE ORAL REPORTER said...: I think the media is biased for both parties - CNN seems to favor the democrats as Fox News favors the republicans. One needs to watch both for a full picture.; 9/29/08, 10:04 PM
Anonymous said...: There is no question that most journalists in this country want Obama to win. Anyone who tries to refute this is an idiot. It's also true that the veneer of objectivity is the only problem.

How leftists can point to Fox News and scream that its existence proves a lack of liberal bias, or conservative bias, is beyond me. The exception proves the rule, people. You only notice Fox because it's different from the herd.

In the end, it's a dumb game that the left is playing. Obama is too far to the left and not ready to be president. That spells disaster for an Obama presidency. The shell game of blaming Republicans will end. Hopefully, we'll get a Ronald Reagan president and a repeat of 1994.; 9/29/08, 10:04 PM
Roberto said...: Anybody (including Ann) ever consider the possibility the MSM is not stupid...and that they, as fellow citizens, recognize who would be the best President?

FOX NEWS is in the tank for McCain..why aren't we (and you, too Ann) hearing about that??; 9/29/08, 10:06 PM
Roost on the Moon said...: "The Edwards debacle was proof enough of where the heart of the MSM lies"

The MSM isn't covering the Palin adultery, or that her teenaged kids have local reputations as serious drug users.

Yet these stories are being heroicly covered by the courageous publication that broke the Edwards story.; 9/29/08, 10:07 PM
VariableSpin said...: Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies.
Oh no don't tell be 'bout dis guy.

Barack Obama will be the least examined major party presidential candidate in modern history. I would bet that if you quizzed his supporters well under 20% could answer the most basic questions about his background.

Quick, without googling, what job did Barack Obama hold before running for state senator and what did he do there?; 9/29/08, 10:08 PM
Anonymous said...: the media is biased for both parties - CNN seems to favor the democrats as Fox News favors the republicans.

And I guess those are the only two options on your television and you don't get ABC, NBC, or CBS, nor do you have access to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, or any of a number of crazy-liberal bigger city newspapers.; 9/29/08, 10:08 PM
Crimso said...: AL's right. Excuse me, correct. We never did get an answer as to how many houses Palin added to the ticket. They're covering for McCain!; 9/29/08, 10:08 PM
DaLawGiver said...: The whole feeding frenzy around Jeremiah was based on a clip of about 10-15 seconds out of a 20-year career.

That's a flat out lie Alpha. If Jeremiah had kept his mouth shut after the 10 second clip was first exposed Obama wouldn't have divorced him and it would have only been a lite news snack a la McCain/Hagee. The frenzy was only a frenzy because Jerry enjoyed the attention.; 9/29/08, 10:09 PM
Roberto said...: * The Dow fell nearly 778 points today, or almost 7%. It was the worst single-day point loss in American history. The S&P 500 dropped 8.7% and the Nasdaq fell 9.1%.

* As of today, the Dow Jones is lower now than it was the day Bush took office in 2001.

* This afternoon, responding to the economic crisis, the Obama campaign issued a statement calling for calm, encouraging lawmakers to keep working, and urging investors not to panic.

* The McCain campaign attacked Obama.; 9/29/08, 10:09 PM
Palladian said...: "A nice 4 year walkabout in the forest can do a person good sometimes. But that's just me talking."

Your party was out in the forest for 6 years there and it didn't seem to do any good. Why is that?; 9/29/08, 10:10 PM
George M. Spencer said...: Professor...

I can see from the "Advertise Here" link for blogads in the right column, that a standard ad here goes for $210.

If you are making any kind of bucks at all--anything--that's enough to pay some jobless hack or college kid to pound some pavement or make phone calls or cover something, even if it's sports.

Experiment.

Don't be neutral, cruelly or otherwise.; 9/29/08, 10:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Please stay on topic, astrtrollers.; 9/29/08, 10:11 PM
Palladian said...: Oh God, it's another re-run of "The Michael Show". I wonder when he'll start talking about dinosaurs.; 9/29/08, 10:12 PM
Crimso said...: Shorter, more coherent Michael: "Look, over there!"; 9/29/08, 10:12 PM
DaLawGiver said...: Did I hear an insect, a tiny annoying insect in the room?

No, it was only Luckyoldson's reincarnated troll droning in the background.; 9/29/08, 10:12 PM
Cedarford said...: rossi said...
Define 'in the tank'. Define MSM (does that include FOX?).

Another idiot who thinks they are so smart to reject a generality by pseudo-intellectual "lawyers word-parsing challenge" and atte,pting to disprove a generality by evoking an exception to the rule.

"Marines are good fighters"

A rossi-like smartass promptly responds:

"Define fighting. Are you saying that Marines are adept at all fighting? What about French savat combat? Or horseback jousting? If not, your claim is not proven.

" And are you honestly claiming that ALL Marines are good fighters? What about a rear echelon female Pentagon clerk?

--------------; 9/29/08, 10:16 PM
Palladian said...: Michael, you posted that same comment in another thread. You're a spammer as well as a troll.; 9/29/08, 10:16 PM
Roberto said...: This is like dealing with a bunch of little twits who just can't figure out how to respond.

Be careful now...there are dinosaurs out there...

Duh.; 9/29/08, 10:18 PM
DaLawGiver said...: Shorter, more coherent Michael.

That's like an oxymoron right?; 9/29/08, 10:18 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Yeah, I forgot the flag pin brouhaha.

There's also these examples of media bias in favor of Republicans...

White House Press Corps Fails To Ask A Single Question On U.S. Attorney Investigation

Media Dismiss Palin’s Ignorance Of The Bush Doctrine Because ‘Many Americans’ Don’t Know What It Is

Media Embrace McCain’s ‘Maverick’ Re-Branding Effort, quoting Fred Barnes.

Cable news covered more of RNC’s peak hour programming than DNC’s.

Drudge rules Nina Easton’s [media's] world

Halperin: McCain’s Houses Gaffe ‘One Of The Worst Moments’ Of The Campaign For…Barack Obama

Media Defend McCain: It’s Not ‘A Huge Deal’ That He Doesn’t Know How Many Houses He Owns

Media Rally To McCain’s Defense, Give Him ‘The Benefit Of The Doubt’ On Draft Comments

Bartlett joins CBS News as a ‘political analyst.’

CNN’s Convention Coverage Sponsored By Big Oil Giant Exxon Mobil

Media Blindly Accept Notion That Russia-Georgia Conflict Is Good For John McCain; 9/29/08, 10:19 PM
PogoПОССУМ said...: Korrect, Mikal!

In my country, only one газета newspaper, controlled by the Party. What need of else?

What is this fuss?
Everything in the Party, nothing outside the Party.

These I understand well!; 9/29/08, 10:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Agreed, Palladian. Hey dumb shit astrotrolling valise: can you read? Can you see what this thread is about?

It is rude and stupid to allow yourself to be a human spambot.; 9/29/08, 10:19 PM
garage mahal said...: Your party was out in the forest for 6 years there and it didn't seem to do any good. Why is that?

Well, they are set up pretty good for controlling all 3 branches of government here in a couple months. They do have an identity problem though -- I wish they would stop caring what a gross slob in Palm Beach with a radio show says about them.; 9/29/08, 10:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Astrotroller: if you want to set the terms and bounds of the conversation, get your own blog. Otherwise, play by the rules or go the fuck away.; 9/29/08, 10:21 PM
Crimso said...: What would somebody like Evan Thomas know about this subject? Probably nothing.; 9/29/08, 10:23 PM
Crimso said...: "there are dinosaurs out there"

No shit! I read about it in the Enquirer.; 9/29/08, 10:25 PM
Anonymous said...: they are set up pretty good for controlling all 3 branches of government

Like in 1992 to 1994, this is when the media's fawning and blowing of the Democrats will cause problems. Bush will be gone. You will not be able to blame him any more. Americans will understand that Democrats make the laws. All problems will be your problems, and you will own everything you do. What with the coming tsunami of tax increases and regulation, and the embarrassing foreign policy mistakes that Obama will make, there's going to be a lot of bad news.

Be careful what you wish for.; 9/29/08, 10:25 PM
KLDAVIS said...: The vitriol streamed from all liberal corners toward Fox News is so amusing. It's quite clearly the exception that proves the rule. I can almost hear the NYT editors scoff, "And you, a journalist!"; 9/29/08, 10:25 PM
Roberto said...: Palladian, does this mean we're not buddies anymore?

Tell me it isn't true...; 9/29/08, 10:26 PM
vbspurs said...: Tragic, the loss of professionalism.

From journalists to surrogates.

I just wish they would throw away the mask and admit it. I'd respect them a lot more, if they didn't pretend.; 9/29/08, 10:27 PM
Sofa King said...: Anybody (including Ann) ever consider the possibility the MSM is not stupid...

Considered, and rejected. With prejudice.; 9/29/08, 10:27 PM
Warren Rutledge said...: Michael asked: " Anybody (including Ann) ever consider the possibility the MSM is (sic) not stupid...and that they, as fellow citizens, recognize who would be the best President?"

The premise of your question would require the belief that journalists have sufficient wisdom to make such a determination and moreover the right to manipulate public opinion to achieve their aims. Do you assume that Fox News should make that same determination for you?; 9/29/08, 10:28 PM
Spread Eagle said...: It goes much further than just the news, strictly speaking. It's all of mass media. It's editorial cartoonists, and Comedy Central, and Letterman, and Leno, and SNL. When do they feature look alikes doing exaggerated caricatures spoofing Obama, making full unchecked fun of how he looks and talks, and of his long string of gaffes? You know, the way they do with Sarah Palin? I understand, of course they don't want to ridicule their guy, but beyond that they're afraid to do it because they might be called racist. Okay, I'll accept that, but that shouldn't be a free pass as it is to just then do it to one side full-tilt, but the other not at all. It's all one-way, and one-sided.; 9/29/08, 10:30 PM
Warren Rutledge said...: Michael asked: " Anybody (including Ann) ever consider the possibility the MSM is (sic) not stupid...and that they, as fellow citizens, recognize who would be the best President?"

The premise of your question would require the belief that journalists have sufficient wisdom to make such a determination and moreover the right to manipulate public opinion to achieve their aims. I think your argument falls apart under its own weight.; 9/29/08, 10:31 PM
Anonymous said...: I trust the journalists. They know what's best for us. And if they are wrong, surely they will send a Republican out into the wilderness to atone for their sins.; 9/29/08, 10:31 PM
Unknown said...: the right-wingers found a new word, i see--astrotrolling.

anyhoo, since Bill Clinton is the only Democrat president we've had since before the 80's, I'm thinking you all are just whiny babies.

and worse...afraid of Katie Couric?!? ha ha ha!

i do love when you all get McCain mad at the astro--i mean, Michael! temper, temper!; 9/29/08, 10:35 PM
Unknown said...: "Be careful what you wish for."

you're right, Seven. i don't want to vote in Obama if he's going to get all the blame for Bush's shitty job!

thanks for the tip, buddy!; 9/29/08, 10:38 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Katie Couric behaves like a journalist, outrages Republicans.

You've got to see that video. Palin says the exact kind of thing McCain attacks Obama for.

As long as the Republican ticket is so thoroughly pathetic it's ridiculous to expect the coverage not to be critical.; 9/29/08, 10:38 PM
Daniel12 said...: I'm sure all of you ridiculed Hillary's vast right wing conspiracy. While enjoying your 28 of 40 years with a republican in the white house. The media killed Al Gore in 2000. They killed John Kerry in 2004, with an assist from the man himself. They loved McCain in 2000. And they loved him this year until he stopped talking to them. Did we whine this much when you guys were winning? Did you whine about the media being in the tank when the NY Times was publishing Judith Miller's nonsense?

Also, what's the point of basing all this on some anonymous email from someone who claims to work in the newsroom? This is sad, really, after all the electoral success and policy failure of the republicans for the last eight years.; 9/29/08, 10:39 PM
kimsch said...: The three branches of government are the bicameral legislature (dem controlled at the moment), the Executive (republican), and the Judiciary. Is there one party in control of the Judiciary?

Now if you were talking about the House, Senate, and White House as the three branches, you are wrong. The House and Senate are two parts of ONE branch of Government.

Harry Reid actually made this mistake once as well.; 9/29/08, 10:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Daniel -- You are a pointless twat but you are not a troll because you have stayed on topic and expressed your "opinion," however poorly and fuzzily.

Our resident astrotroller pastes in shit that has nothing to do with the topic at issue, and goes 100 percent moonbat on people with no humor whatsoever.

You are a lefty, so even though you can't write for shit, I take it that you believe yourself to be really smart. Surely, therefore, you can see the difference.; 9/29/08, 10:40 PM
KCFleming said...: It was a bit surprising how well I could get along without the MSM.

I no longer read or watch anything at all on their single-party stations. What's the point? There isn't any real reporting on the news, there isn't anything actually funny in their comedies.

So goodbye, Mpls Star Tribune (affectionately known as the Star and Sickle), goodbye Pioneer Press (really, goodbye; they're dying), so long CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, and PBS. Goodbye NY Times.

My own fortunes, like the entire country's, are in decline. I cannot afford to waste my time reading propaganda. You win. Your Party will rule for now. Enjoy the responsibility. But I don't have to read or watch your pap and spin.

Goodnight and fuck you.; 9/29/08, 10:40 PM
DaLawGiver said...: Astrotroller is good but I like German Valise more better cause it makes me think of a grumpy middle-aged man in a dirty, tattered black suit without a tie waiting for a Greyhound in Muleshoe, TX. Leaning against the bench he sits on rests a beaten up old valise. Stenciled in red ink on the valise is MADE IN GERMANY. Mr Valise picks his nose, wipes his finger on the underside of the bench. Standing next to him is a tall weathered ranch hand who says, "Dang, you're a gross ole cuss aint ya? Use a dang hanky, don't be wipin them boogers on that bench." German Valise guy relies, "Fuck you" and the young cowboy drop kicks him into the street. "Learn some manners if you wanna get anywhere," the cowboy says as the bus pulls away leaving Mr German Valise groaing in the dust.

Astrotroller just reminds me of Jetson's dog thanks to trooper York.; 9/29/08, 10:43 PM
Unknown said...: wow, a "pointless twat" who stays "on topic"! you make sense too!

watch that McCain temper, Seven! you're about to explode! you too, Pogo!

btw, there are 2 Daniel's here. i am the one making fun of the right-winger's (and Ann's) whining about the MSM. maybe that one is too though?; 9/29/08, 10:44 PM
Anonymous said...: What with the coming tsunami of tax increases and regulation, and the embarrassing foreign policy mistakes that Obama will make, there's going to be a lot of bad news.

Seven: What makes you think a peep of any of this will be mentioned as "bad" news?

The MSM's job is to support and aid President Obama and the party. "Bad news" is a concept that will not apply; 9/29/08, 10:45 PM
Crimso said...: "the right-wingers found a new word, i see--astrotrolling."

What word do you use, "work?"

"anyhoo, since Bill Clinton is the only Democrat president we've had since before the 80's, I'm thinking you all are just whiny babies."

Yeah, and a major media outlet knew about the Lewinsky story and sat on it as long as they possibly could. I'm sure that's what the NYT was doing with their McCain affair story. Their hand must have been forced by Drudge.; 9/29/08, 10:45 PM
Palladian said...: "btw, there are 2 Daniel's here. i am the one making fun of the right-winger's (and Ann's) whining about the MSM. maybe that one is too though?"

No, that one is smart enough to use capital letters, correct punctuation and a semblance of proper English grammar. So we can always tell that it's you: you're the stupid one.; 9/29/08, 10:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Good luck blaming Bush for Obama's presidency, Daniel. It worked so well for Bill Clinton, who was forced, in his own words, to govern as an Eisenhower Republican.

There isn't going to be a depression. The Fed has opened up the spigot of money for banks, which is all you need to do in a credit crisis. (The Fed in 1929 did the opposite). The fact that we have generally free trade is just a bonus.

What's Obama going to do? Regulate like crazy. Kill free trade (his promise). Raise taxes epically. This isn't a recipe for economic success, kids.

As for foreign policy, don't get me started.

With a Democratic Congress, there would be no one for the press to blame.

I look forward to hearing Bryant Gumble tell me about the temper tantrum of 2010.; 9/29/08, 10:46 PM
Anonymous said...: What makes you think a peep of any of this will be mentioned as "bad" news?

It won't be reported as bad news. However, the results will be bad. The press will not be able to put lipstick on the pig.; 9/29/08, 10:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Daniel -- Please learn to write coherently and come back to us. Thanks.; 9/29/08, 10:50 PM
Unknown said...: wow, i didn't realize we were being graded by the professor, palladian.

"Yeah, and a major media outlet knew about the Lewinsky story and sat on it as long as they possibly could."

well, at least it wasn't something silly like the faulty intelligence and lack of WMD that led to a illegal, immoral war of choice!

Bush didn't get impeached for his war crimes, did he?; 9/29/08, 10:50 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: I missed this response from someone with a dog for an avatar:

The whole feeding frenzy around Jeremiah was based on a clip of about 10-15 seconds out of a 20-year career.

"That's a flat out lie Alpha. If Jeremiah had kept his mouth shut after the 10 second clip was first exposed Obama wouldn't have divorced him and it would have only been a lite news snack a la McCain/Hagee. The frenzy was only a frenzy because Jerry enjoyed the attention."

OK. 2 things:

1) You admit that the frenzy was "based" on the 10-second clip. Of course, Wright over-reacted to the frenzy and made a wanker of himself.

2) THere was the initial frenzy over the 10-second clip. That was played over and over again. Then Wright behaved like a clown and stoked a whole new frenzy.

So my statement was accurate.; 9/29/08, 10:51 PM
Unknown said...: Actually, AL, there were quite a few soundbites floating around the internet. God Damn America was just the most famous.; 9/29/08, 10:53 PM
Anonymous said...: illegal, immoral war

Leaving the oxymoron that is morality of war aside, please explain to us with as much coherence as you can muster how the Iraq War or any American war ever has been illegal. Specifically, which state or federal law (or local ordinance) was broken?; 9/29/08, 10:53 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: "You are a pointless twat...."

More Republicans elevating our rhetoric.; 9/29/08, 10:53 PM
Palladian said...: "illegal, immoral war of choice!"

Interesting that you cite a violation of a legal canon and a moral canon. Which legal canon did the Iraq war violate? Which moral canon did the Iraq war violate? I hope the answer to the latter isn't a religious canon, because that can't be applied to the actions of the US government.
I'm not interested in having an Iraq war discussion (talk about yesterday's news!) but I often see purported "left wingers" refer to the illegality and immorality of the war and I like to see them attempt to defend such statements.; 9/29/08, 10:54 PM
vbspurs said...: Goodnight and fuck you.

That's their sign-off in all but name.; 9/29/08, 10:55 PM
Palladian said...: "More Republicans elevating our rhetoric."

Fuck you, douche-bag.

See, I can say that because I'm not a Republican!; 9/29/08, 10:55 PM
Palladian said...: "Goodnight and fuck you.

That's their sign-off in all but name."

Yes, I fear we're in for a thorough fucking by a big, black cock. Normally I'd be excited at such a prospect. In this case, it won't be very enjoyable.; 9/29/08, 10:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Alpha, when I write the words pointless twat, it's better than the best treatise or moonbat linkapalooza that you even dream of writing.

You are worse than a pointless twat, Alpha. You are a pointless twat who wants to write about pointless twattery.

Your writing skills offend me.; 9/29/08, 10:57 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: mcg, the question is whether or not the media are "in the tank for Obama." The way they inflated the JEremiah Wright into a top campaign story disproves the notion.

You see, if they were in the tank, they wouldn't have published the story as aggressively as they did.

Got it? I know, it's getting late.; 9/29/08, 10:58 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: The Wright analogy is pretty weak. Obama wasn't running against McCain when this story broke. He was running against another democrat. Namely Hillary.; 9/29/08, 10:58 PM
Crimso said...: "well, at least it wasn't something silly like the faulty intelligence and lack of WMD that led to a illegal, immoral war of choice!

Bush didn't get impeached for his war crimes, did he?"

While being sarcastic (and continuing to refuse to capitalize, odd that), you're more correct than you realize. It wasn't about something so silly. It was about an objective fact.; 9/29/08, 10:59 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Seven machos, your mam wears army boots.

That's more your style right, kid?; 9/29/08, 10:59 PM
Unknown said...: Writing Coherently, by Seven Machos:

"Anyone who tries to refute this is an idiot."

"Hey dumb shit astrotrolling valise: can you read?"

"play by the rules or go the fuck away"

"You are a lefty, so even though you can't write for shit, I take it that you believe yourself to be really smart."

Ann, you get the greatest commenters ever!; 9/29/08, 11:00 PM
Anonymous said...: It's certainly one of the better attempts at argument that you've put forth tonight, Alpha.; 9/29/08, 11:00 PM
KCFleming said...: Palladian,
I had more in mind the scene from Deliverance.

suuuuWEEEEeeee!!; 9/29/08, 11:02 PM
Anonymous said...: A friend of ours is an editor at a major daily on one of the coasts.

He's about my age. He thinks I am, you know, one of us, a Boomer of a certain age and background (I mean, Berkeley, for chrissakes), not to mention politics. So, when I occasionally see him, he's pretty candid.

I can tell you categorically that what the Instapundit reports is entirely consistent with this guy's attitude. He doesn't realize I'm a cranky independent type, because I have never disabused him of the illusion of Boomer lefty solidarity.

It's all true, people. The Democratic Party is "the Party." Democratic candidates are "our candidates." Republicans and conservative Democrats are mentioned, when mentioned at all, with a literal wrinkle of the nose. He never heard of a regulation he didn't like. He thinks the state should basically run everything, and sounds like Michael Dukakis when he starts talking deep politics. You know, that slightly nasal, bored, insider expression that lets you know he knows all the cool people and places, and you don't.

He's now looking for a job, and having no luck.

My heart bleeds.; 9/29/08, 11:02 PM
brando said...: Did anybody ever consider that McCain may in fact be an addled loser, and that the MSM is simply reporting the truth? If during the time of Nazi Germany the MSM reported Hitler as an "evil man" would you consider the media biased?

Seven Machos, are you toe-tapping in some airport bathroom stall somewhere? That's pretty much what all macho republican tough guys like you do, isn't it?; 9/29/08, 11:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Daniel -- It's touching yet scary that you have waded through my posts. Perhaps by reading them again, something will get through.

The important thing, though, is that all of those comments are concise and to the point. Good writing is writing that is easily understood.

Furthermore, we do wait aflutter for your "explanation" concerning what made the Iraq War "illegal."; 9/29/08, 11:03 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Well, I need to get on with my life, but I'll just say you guys need to stop expecting kid gloves treatment.

You Republicans have got incompetent candidates and an incompetent campaign. You need to stop expecting the media to ignore that and carry your sorry asses to victory.; 9/29/08, 11:03 PM
Unknown said...: mcg, the question is whether or not the media are "in the tank for Obama."

Uh, no, the question you posed was whether or not you were right that it was all about a single 10-15 second video clip.; 9/29/08, 11:06 PM
Crimso said...: "You see, if they were in the tank, they wouldn't have published the story as aggressively as they did."

I think a more realistic view of that situation is that they published as "aggressively" as they did because they couldn't ignore it any longer. Note how as a result Obama did the old "I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!" and the media just shrugged and swallowed his ridiculous excuse (just like they did with that story about some guy who lives in his neighborhood).; 9/29/08, 11:07 PM
Anonymous said...: No, Alpha. McCain's campaign has been brilliant.

It's just that the fix isn't in for him. AND he is too old. but otherwise an excellent, very entertaining campaign.

Obama will still win, damnit.; 9/29/08, 11:07 PM
Unknown said...: and those were only your comments from this post. imagine what all the rest might offer!

but yes, "wading" through your posts is an apt way of putting it, considering the amount of bile and bullshit in them.

i'll give you this: you have impeccable grammar skills!; 9/29/08, 11:10 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Sigh. mcg, I made the initial post re: J Wright in response to Ann's post saying the media are in the tank for Obama. Some wanker said I lied in using the word "basing." So I responded to that.

Funny how West Side Story was about toughs in their day but now they just look like a bunch of metrosexuals.; 9/29/08, 11:13 PM
Anonymous said...: If this was West Side Story, the media would be in the tank with the Sharks.; 9/29/08, 11:15 PM
Fatmouse said...: "The news media is biased against Republicans not because they're part of some conspiracy to conceal the truth, but because they're Democrats."

YES. That simple fact right there should prove the existence of bias by itself.

Big journalists live in the bluest of blue cities, have liberal friends and neighbors, and have been indoctrinated in liberal universities. How, barring a robot-like lack of emotion, could they not be biased?

I've been reading, for some godawful reason, celebrity gossip blogs. It blows my mind how intensely almost everyone involved in the entertainment industry loathes McCain. It's not a difference of opinion, it's an almost visceral disgust. With the east coast pumping out blatantly biased "news" and the west coast generating preachy, biased "entertainment," it's a wonder we haven't had a serious secessionist movement.; 9/29/08, 11:17 PM
Jim Howard said...: Let's try a little thought experiment.

Suppose the Anchorage police chief and borough prosecutor announced they planned to ""target" anyone telling 'lies' about Governer Palin.

How large would the type be on the front page of the New York Times?

How much of the ABC/NBC/CBS evening news shows be devoted to the scandal?

How large a hole in the rug would Keith Obermann eat?

How many comparisons to Hitler would be made per second on the moonbat web sites?; 9/29/08, 11:22 PM
Anonymous said...: How many comparisons to Hitler would be made per second on the moonbat web sites?

I would set the current clip at about 1000 per second across the Internets. I agree, though, that there would a fantastic increase.

Here's the thing about truth squads, though. They're means to an end. What really matters is which side's truth is at issue. If it's the side of goodness and light, then the media supports the truth squads.; 9/29/08, 11:25 PM
Unknown said...: oh yeah, the illegal war? really, i have no desire to re-hash this but...

the premise of the war was that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Bush never proved this to Congress, which gave him the authority under those conditions, but he of course, went to war anyway. preemptively.

my guess is that many of you think that's just fine, which is where the immorality of it comes into play. but i am not going to sit here and argue this all night. if you think that that is moral, then you and GWB are on the same page. enjoy that.

i'll be over here. way over here.

But really, you think that Clinton got a free pass with Lewinsky and have no problem with this? well, this is why i am here, to mock your judgment.; 9/29/08, 11:27 PM
DaLawGiver said...: Some wanker said I lied in using the word "basing." So I responded to that.

Well, now you're lying again. Do a search of this thread and see how many times you have typed the word basing. Only once, in the comment above.

Woof, woof.; 9/29/08, 11:29 PM
Revenant said...: the premise of the war was that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11.

What's scary is that there are actually left-wingers out there who are dumb enough to believe that "Iraq was behind 9/11" was a stated reason for the invasion.; 9/29/08, 11:32 PM
DaLawGiver said...: Hey alpha, if we are gonna parse you have to do it wright. The word you used was based.

woof; 9/29/08, 11:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Daniel -- Your explanation of the "illegal" war is novel but stupid and poorly written. How was Congress able to withhold money pursuant to conditions? If it was so able, why did it not do so? And how come we never hear about this in the press?; 9/29/08, 11:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Moreover, the premise of the war was that we want our military to have a beach head in the Middle East in a country that touches Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. You couldn't ask for a better strategic location.

But for the left politics is all a big soap opera of feelings and meaning.; 9/29/08, 11:36 PM
Crimso said...: "the premise of the war was that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Bush never proved this to Congress, which gave him the authority under those conditions"

You've clearly never read the AUMF, and are embarrassing yourself. Hell, I'm embarrassed for you.

"but i am not going to sit here and argue this all night"

Thank you.; 9/29/08, 11:37 PM
brando said...: What really matters is which side's truth is at issue. If it's the side of goodness and light, then the media supports the truth squads.

wow, I haven’t heard that much relativistic douchebaggery in a long time. way to go macho! tap-tap-tippity-tap..wink wink; 9/29/08, 11:38 PM
Jim said...: alpha -

Your point about the Jeremiah Wright story is a non-player. Hillary Clinton brought it up - it was blue on blue campaign fireworks. Republicans had nothing to do with that story. The media covered it like inside baseball. They never went in depth on that story either: Where were the reports that it wasn't just one sermon, but an entire anti-white, anti-middle class theology which has wide acceptance among African-Americans? Where were the replays of quotes from Obama's own books about how he used tapes of Wright's sermons to practice his oratory? Where was the actual investigation as to how often Obama actually attended the church?

They never covered that story the way they would have had it been a Republican. They took Obama at his word and left it at that when it became clear that he was going to win the Democratic nomination.

But you know all that. You're being as dishonest as you usually are. Constantly pretending you aren't something that you obviously are must be tiring....go get some sleep...; 9/29/08, 11:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Brando -- You told the "macho" joke earlier, the Seven Machos equivalent to You! A law professor!. Good work. Highly original.

You have twice suggested that it's bad to be gay, which is highly bigoted of you.

And, in all your cleverness, you utterly and totally fail to see the sarcasm in my one of posts.

Way to go, jeanyus. I bet you can't wait to tell the other pizza delivery guys how you really showed me.; 9/29/08, 11:42 PM
Unknown said...: (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.; 9/29/08, 11:48 PM
XWL said...: Tragic, the loss of professionalism.

Small point of contention, can't lose what you never had in the first place.

The various entities that make up mainstream media have always been biased, have always let their biases effect their professional judgment, and have always assumed that the tiny little NYC-DC bubble they live in is the only reality that counts.

The difference between the Murrows, Conkrites, and Brinkleys of the past and the Olbermanns, Coopers and Courics of the present isn't presence of bias, or professionalism, it's the number of people watching them (both in the sense of audience which is way down, and the sense of scrutiny, which is way up).

The biased MSM of the past was better at hiding their bias, mainly cause their critics didn't have the means to communicate as massively as the grandees of the media did. That hasn't been the case for awhile now, a critic of the media with a point to make can get as many eyeballs as the person they're criticizing (and sometimes more).

There's nothing tragic about comforting lies being stripped away. The current situation isn't a new situation, it's just more nakedly apparent than before.

I'm a big fan of nudity.; 9/29/08, 11:49 PM
Revenant said...: It is particularly interesting to see those lefties who oppose the Iraq war but support the war in Afghanistan explain why it was absolutely horrible that we invaded a nation that never attacked us and didn't threaten us (Iraq), then occupied it and replaced its government... whereas it was of course vital that we invade a *different* nation that never attacked us and didn't threaten us (Afghanistan), then occupied it and replaced its government. Indeed, we're told that the worst thing about Iraq is that it is a distraction from Afghanistan.

A lot of lefties forget that the Taliban weren't behind 9/11 either. Al Qaeda, who had *bases* in Afghanistan, were behind 9/11. So what was our justification for toppling the Taliban? Oh yeah -- enlightened self-interest. Strangely, though, international law doesn't support an "enlightened self-interest" justification for war. :); 9/29/08, 11:52 PM
LoafingOaf said...: There's a wide gulf between a majority of journalists and organizations in the MSM having a bias for Obama and the MSM being "in the tank" for Obama. If legit dirt comes out on Obama, or Obama screws up, it gets covered. If the best you've got of late is "lipstick on a pig" -- you can't blame the media for that. But. heck, they even covered that pathetic, manufactured scandal.

Also, given that McCain's campaign has made the strategic decision to run against the MSM, it's hard to tell how much of the outrage at the MSM is legit and how much the McCain campaign is trying to create the appearance of a bias against him to manipulate voters. I'd say it's a little of both.

Then there's the fact that Obama's a pretty clean, nice man, so it's hard to find much dirt on him. I thought the Jeremiah Wright issue was a legit issue, and the MSM gave it a lot of coverage. Most of the crap the right wingers try and smear Obama with is not worthy of much coverage. Yet much of it gets coverage anyway; it just doesn't stick because it's B.S.

Obama is also a sharp, bright candidate who doesn't make a lot of mistakes, and when he does he finds ways to handle it with minor damage to himself. It's frustrating to the right that Obama's got the skills to pay the bills, and they wanna pretend it can only be because the media is in the tank for him, not that Obama is a pretty damn good politician.; 9/29/08, 11:52 PM
Anonymous said...: "Are any of these media companies going to be in business in a year?"

Of course, in an Obama administration there will subsidies
(think affirmative action) for newspapers that supported him.; 9/29/08, 11:54 PM
ron st.amant said...: yes yes it's all a "vast left-wing conspiracy"; 9/29/08, 11:55 PM
Unknown said...: "How was Congress able to withhold money pursuant to conditions? If it was so able, why did it not do so?"

Congress rolled over for Bush. No opposition party at all.

"And how come we never hear about this in the press?"

Ha ha! Because they're biased! Rolled over like a dog for Bush, until they realized how wrong he was.

Unless...you thought they did a good job reporting the facts re: Iraq? No cheerleading by the MSM, right? riiiight.; 9/29/08, 11:56 PM
Anonymous said...: And here comes Ron, bringing his A-game.; 9/29/08, 11:56 PM
LoafingOaf said...: Furthermore....

I had the feeling that McCain was making some good moves in the weeks before the conventions, where he mocked the celebrity hype surrounding Obama. Obama has been taken down to earth quite a bit by that, but it turned out he's still a strong candidate even after people realized they got carried away with celebrity worshipping him. There's more there than the right wants to acknowledge

Then McCain made a massive (probably election-losing) blunder. He picked a running mate who doesn't appear to know a goddamn thing. Huffington Post has an item today claiming that there's un-released footage from Palin's Katie Couric interview where Palin could not think of a single other Supreme Court case besides Roe v Wade. We'll have to see if that's true, but after witnessing her idiocy over these past weeks, I believe it.

Had McCain picked a running mate with real "gravitas", it wouldn't have excited people as much initially, but as the weeks went on he might've continued picking up ground at the same pace as he had been before Palinmania. Especially if his running mate brought more to the table over the long term than mooseburgers and a Downs Syndrome baby. Some of us saw that the Palin bounce was, well...as Andrew Sullivan described it: Wile E Coyote suspended in mid-air for a moment before taking a hard fall. Althouse got swept up into Palin hype and thus started attacking those who were scrutinizing the governor.

The media will seem vicious when you throw a shockingly unqualified and unfit vice presidential candidate at them just weeks before the election.
But they weren't the ones who called up a politician from the minors waaaay before she was ready to swing at major league pitching. Even Bay Buchanan (who adores Palin) said today that Palin is coming off as someone who's just memorizing lines from her handlers.

I realize the disaster of the Palin selection means the majority of Althouse commenters were as wrong about her as could be. So they'll blame the media.; 9/29/08, 11:58 PM
Anonymous said...: It sounds to me like Congress broke the law under your theory, Daniel. It gave money before all the conditions were met.; 9/29/08, 11:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Fatmouse: FWIW, I'll tell you my story of liberal indoctrination:

I grew up in the 'burbs of LA, which I suppose weren't that liberal, but my area did produce James Fallows, who writes about it in More Like Us. Sorry, no links. Too late and sleepy.

In any case, I went to the University of California, hung around with arty, leftish types, and generally had the most perfect late-60's indoctrination you could imagine. My roommate was on the national board of Planned Parenthood. My girlfriend was the daughter of a well-known environmental activist biologist, and I used to see Paul Erlich socially several time a year. (Of course he wouldn't have noticed me, a miserable student, but, still, you might expect then-trendy eco-freak attitudes to have rubbed off on me big time.)

That's only the beginning. You can't imagine the perfect bicoastal liberal hothouse I've found myself in over the years. I now live in a very liberal Boston 'burb, and my son goes to school in Cambridge, hard by Harvard University, and I am friendly with all sorts of Cambridge and Harvard people whom I see every week.

But, as King James VI of Scotland said of the strict Calvinists who raised him, "I was among them, but not of them."

I think of myself as a cranky independent, who utterly rejects the looney left, and is much more comfortable in conservative company, including Evangelicals and conservative Catholics. I tend to vote Democratic, but I'm a "regular" Democrat, a la Joe Lieberman, which means I go Republican when the time comes.

My wife grew up in Berkeley, and went to UC Berkeley, the Sorbonne, and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, yet she, too, has an Althousian independent streak, and has avoided becoming a standard-issue Eurocentric lefty.

How did we do it? I really don't know. I just thought so much of leftish culture was crap. My wife's more thoughtful attitude is captured perfectly in this little quote by Itamar Moses:

I grew up in Berkeley. Which instilled me both with an uninformed liberal bias and with enormous skepticism of uninformed liberal biases. Berkeley taught me that tolerance can be a kind of fascism.

So, having avoided indoctrination myself, my question for those who buy the lefty line, is "why?" Given that there are a surprising number of independents and conservatives lurking in liberal venues (even, I suspect the University of Wisconsin), why is it that journalism seems like a monoculture of narrowly leftish political and social views?

The answer I come back to is that given by Dr. Johnson about a mistake in his Dictionary: "Ignorance, Madam, sheer ignorance." Combined with the weakness of mind of those who go to J-school, you now have the very model of a modern liberal journalist.; 9/29/08, 11:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama would have lost the Democratic nomination to Hillary if the media had vetted Obama with one-tenth the intensity they vetted Sarah Palin. People on the Internet knew about Jeremiah Wright and his race-baiting ways a year before the media picked up the story. When they finally did it was too late for Hillary to win. Advantage: Obama; 9/30/08, 12:01 AM
Crimso said...: "acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations"

I read it as meaning that Bush was required to not allow OIF to interfere with operations in Afghanistan. Then again, I'm literate.

And I'll note that you asserted (falsely) that the only reasons were WMD's and 9/11/01. You dishonestly didn't post the statements in the AUMF prior to the ones you did post, the ones beginning with the word "Whereas." I was tempted to cut and paste all of that here, but won't muck up AA's blog further. I encourage anyone inclined to believe daniel's word over mine to look it up. The AUMF is publicly available and easy enough to find online.; 9/30/08, 12:02 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Dukakis was in the tank for the media, but that didn't work out so well.; 9/30/08, 12:02 AM
Donn said...: Actually, in a way it really is a left-wing conspiracy. No, not a conspiracy in the sense that the MSM get together and plan their strategy, but yes, a conspiracy in their desire to move this Country in a leftist direction. I posted on this exact thing a couple weekends ago, and provided a link to a story about why Europeans hate Americans...guess what? It's due to the European media, who constantly hammers the USA.

I think we conservatives underestimate this "conspiracy" to our own peril, because believe it or not, this is what shapes the vast amount of what people believe.; 9/30/08, 12:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Of course the White liberal media is biased. For partisan and racial reasons.

And it's not simply due to Palin's lightweight status.

They hated Mitt Romney and they would be all over him if he were the candidate for prez or vp. And he was clearly the most capable, qualified and deserving of all the candidates for President.

Yeah, Palin is a lightweight. And Obama is not a legitimate presidential candidate.

Biden/Obama is more legit. But I still wouldn't support them.

McCain & Palin Take on ‘Gotcha Journalism’ in Duel Interview With Katie Couric; 9/30/08, 12:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Donn, it is as bad as you think, and worse.; 9/30/08, 12:06 AM
Unknown said...: Back to the original point (this asinine "liberal media" meme):

When the MSM was rolling over for Bush, and his approval ratings were sky high, were you whining like babies then? Or was it only when they began to cover his failings? (Yes, he had a few!)

When the MSM was hyping Al Gore's "exaggerations" and sighs, did you think that was liberal media bias? or was that just fair coverage?

When the liberal media fed the Swiftboat tactics against John Kerry, that is, unproven claims about his war days, was that fair coverage? Or should the MSM have ignored it?

When the media branded John McCain a "Maverick" and he hobnobbed with celebrities and hosted SNL, did you feel like he was getting a raw deal from the MSM? or are you just whining like babies now?

The premise of this post is utter bullshit, Ann. You know why? I heard from a friend of a friend in "the business" that it was.; 9/30/08, 12:08 AM
Unknown said...: the AUMF was to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. that would be 9/11.

What does this have to do with Iraq?; 9/30/08, 12:11 AM
Zachary Sire said...: Dumb. I don't need some anonymous email on a right wing blog to tell me that journalists are biased. I don't care if the media are biased, I think we should just have full transparency. Let them all come out of the closet and then we can move on. Let them investigate, report, and tell us what they really think. The facts, meanwhile, will speak for themselves.; 9/30/08, 12:11 AM
LoafingOaf said...: duscany: Obama's been thoroughly vetted over the course of over a year now. They've gone over his life from his childhood forward. If you actually had a highly damaging story on him, you wouldn't need the MSM to lead the way to get it out. You got the Jeremiah Wright story out, and it damaged Obama. It just wasn't judged by the people to be as bad as some Republican partisans thought. Which was probably the right judgment by the people, unless you actually believe Obama agreed with Wright's extremist statements about whitey spreading AIDS and so forth. Most people can see Obama doesn't think that way.

So, since it doesn't appear you can character assassinate Obama, I guess McCain's gotta beat him on the issues. Maybe he can still do that. But he won't be getting any help from his running mate! LOL! And his little stunt with the financial crisis didn't help either.....; 9/30/08, 12:15 AM
LoafingOaf said...: McCain & Palin Take on ‘Gotcha Journalism’ in Duel Interview With Katie Couric

How an earth is that "gotcha" journalism?! A voter asked Palin a question. She can't handle that?

Your video is hilarious. McCain's stting next to her like her father, trying to hold her hand and help her through the interview. LOL; 9/30/08, 12:20 AM
Unknown said...: Oh no! Voters can't ask questions! Then they'd be just like those biased MSM reporters!

To the right-wing nuts, Gotcha Journalism is going off script. Not used to it after 8 years of Bush, I know.

Go to sleep, whiners.; 9/30/08, 12:32 AM
JSF said...: Something to ponder:

A family friend ran for Mayor of NYC back in 2001 (Before 8:14AM, 9/11/01 was Primary day in NYC). He was a well known Dem who went to see Senator Clinton and helped pave the way for her win back in 1999.

What was known in the annals of NYC Democratic Politics was that "Pinch" Sulzburger is always on Conference calls with the DNC Press office and Chair, and the leaders in the House and Senate (or their top staffs) during the day.

Why?

To determine the lead articles for the next day's newspapers. The question is: Do any Democrats want to stand up and subpeana "pinch's" Home and work phone to get those facts.

Modern democrats don't care how they win, as long as they win. Remember Senator Schumer going through Lt. Gov Michael Steele's credit report and Andrew Sullivan going after Palin's daughters.

Yet Crimso, Michael, Alphaliberal et. al. would rather detroy a Conservative then argue their case on-topic.; 9/30/08, 1:03 AM
Anonymous said...: The objection that conservatives would be happy if the pervasive bias were in their favor is ridiculous. Of course conservatives would be happy. But we aren't asking for that. We aren't even asking for objectivity. We are merely asking that media entities drop the pretense of objectivity when, in fact, they are incredibly biased against conservatives.

You act as if that is a crazy request.

The good news is that leftist big government does not work. Hence, we'll all be back to free markets and conservatism eventually.; 9/30/08, 1:06 AM
Donn said...: Recently someone said that the difference between conservatives and liberals in the media is that conservatives know they are conservative, and liberals think they are neutral.; 9/30/08, 1:10 AM
Donna Pence said...: There are now so many TV stations I won't watch anymore, newspapers I no longer buy as I can't trust the commentary, and movies that I'll no longer enjoy because of actors/actresses inane political comments. Actually, it's saving me a lot of money!; 9/30/08, 1:13 AM
Anonymous said...: LoafingOaf said...Your video is hilarious. McCain's stting next to her like her father, trying to hold her hand and help her through the interview. LOL

Grandfather.; 9/30/08, 1:30 AM
Alex said...: I can see the usual trolls are in here to defend the indefensible.; 9/30/08, 1:35 AM
former law student said...: We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored.

I would fear tankage in any other city but Chicago. Chicago politics have traditionally included plenty of scandals, and Chicago papers have historically covered them with relish. On a visit a few years ago, I remember watching the breaking news story of Rezko's selling a 12.5 foot wide strip of his yard to his neighbor Obama. At the time, I had no idea of who either one was.

Now, Obama has been in public life in Chicago since 1997. If there was a story worth covering, the local papers would have covered it. Just peruse the online archives of the Tribune and Sun-Times. Lynn Sweet has a nose for stories critical of Obama. Check out the Reader, too. There is an Obama debunking story on the web written by a former reporter from the Hyde Park Herald. But there is no smoking gun.

"Freddiemae" employees did contribute to Obama's Presidential campaign, as they did to Kerry's and HRC's. Presumably they intended to have BHO think kindly thoughts about them when he was elected. If BHO was able to give more tangible help during the 140 days his butt was planted in the Senate chamber, I am still waiting to hear about him.

The Arizona media have covered McCain's free rides on Keating Airlines, the drug thefts of addict Cindy, her convicted felon dad, and her two unacknowledged half-sisters cut out of the will. We don't hear much of these stories either, in the MSM.

Palin is new to the national scene -- less than a month if you can believe it. Inquiring minds want to know about her.; 9/30/08, 1:41 AM
former law student said...: conservatives know they are conservative, and liberals think they are neutral

This doesn't ring completely true for me. Everyone always thinks they're more moderate than they are, in my experience. Liberals always think I'm conservative, while conservatives always think I'm liberal.; 9/30/08, 1:46 AM
Alex said...: Palin is new to the national scene -- less than a month if you can believe it. Inquiring minds want to know about her.

1:41 AM

Sure you do. It's a fact that Obama attended Rev Wright's sermons for 20 years. Any common sense person will conclude he agrees with Rev Wright's hatred of America.; 9/30/08, 1:47 AM
Alex said...: shorter FLS:

There are no liberals, they are true moderates. Conservatives are evil right wingers and must be destroyed.

There I fixed it for you.; 9/30/08, 1:51 AM
Donn said...: FLS,

The person who made the statement was talking about people in the media, not sure it's true or not, but I did think it was interesting.

Funny, though, that I identify as a conservative repub, and I had a gf who identified as a liberal dem, yet more than once we took political surveys and she came out more conservative than I did (I came out about dead center). I have no idea how accurate the surveys were, but I thought it was interesting nevertheless.; 9/30/08, 1:53 AM
MTfromCC said...: Bias in favor of Obama?? Puh-leeze. There is bias all over the media, some favors McCain, some favors Obama. But the overall media bias is MUCH more to the right than was the case when Walter Cronkite ruled CBS and Dan Rather was covering Nixon. By a wide margin.

McCain has been in a state of near complete self-destruction for over 2 weeks now. Candidly, I think he has been erratic in ways that are actually disturbing. If some in the media have sharpened the stories on McCain to make them sound more like attacks, it's because he has earned those attacks with his erratic behavior and dishonest campaign. And if some in the media like Obama, maybe it's because he has been a fundamentally decent, honest, and thoughtful guy, who has no hidden agenda that they have been able to find despite looking for it pretty hard. Maybe they are making the same judgment a majority of the rest of us are making.

By contrast, McCain has been petty, manipulative, dishonest, vindictive and at times completely unhinged. PTSD? Old age? Who knows. All I know is that it's more than a little kind of weird and troubling, and the fact that very few of you even see it is that much more disturbing.; 9/30/08, 1:54 AM
John Stodder said...: How about this?

The MSM can continue to be as biased as they want, can put all ten thumbs on the scale to make Obama/Biden look good and McCain/Palin look bad...

if...

They would tell us why.

What do they see in Obama that is so vitally important that it justifies this blatant, discrediting lack of professionalism. What are people like me missing? Tell us what it is about his program, or his philosophy that hangs together for you when it seems like a bunch of buzzwords to me? What is this grand vision you say he is imparting to you.

If anyone wants to answer that question, I have one request. Focus completely on Obama. Do not refer to Bush, McCain or Palin. Just make the case for him.

It might not be so enraging if they could clue us in to the source of the tingle.; 9/30/08, 2:02 AM
Masterasia said...: The liberal media (a.k.a.: MSM) just has this angst over the Republicans.

The MSM was clearly there for Bush during the start of the Iraq war.

Maybe it's just time for a regime change to a Democratic ticket.; 9/30/08, 2:03 AM
former law student said...: It's a fact that Obama attended Rev Wright's sermons for 20 years.

A real fire and brimstone preacher. Sinner, repent.; 9/30/08, 2:14 AM
John Stodder said...: The MSM was clearly there for Bush during the start of the Iraq war.

No matter how many times people repeat this, this horseshit myth doesn't become any more true.

The media were highly skeptical of the case for war. They didn't have the facts to question all Bush's assertions, and certainly there were some in the media -- those who perhaps remembered that just a few years before then, Bill Clinton had rattled a saber in Iraq's direction -- who were less than zealous against it. But for the most part, Bush was fighting against the media to get support for the war. He got the approval in spite of the media, not because of it.

Maybe Bush had the stronger case. Stranger things have happened.; 9/30/08, 2:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Have I mentioned that Glenn Reynolds is an idiot?; 9/30/08, 3:42 AM
rhhardin said...: It's a loss of audience, not a loss of professionalism.

MSM is a business, and they play to the audience they can get.

The side effect is that no public debate on anything can occur unless it's in terms that interest soap opera, but that's beyond the concern of the MSM business model.

Note that a financial meltdown is in the interests of the MSM.; 9/30/08, 4:21 AM
Michael McNeil said...: Glenn Reynolds is no idiot, nor is he a “gop blogger” as an earlier commenter asserted. Instapundit is a libertarian and liberal on many social issues, but believes that the war in Iraq was both justified and important — and unlike so many folks who panicked at the first sign that the war would be long and hard, maintained the even keel of support necessary to actually win difficult wars — which, to the left's enormous chagrin, has now actually occurred.

Of course, the left wants to excommunicate and banish to the outer darkness anybody who was a war supporter — which is exactly what they tried to do (largely with success) to Hillary Clinton.; 9/30/08, 4:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Saying the media is in the tank for Obama is like saying the Catholic church is in the tank for Jesus.; 9/30/08, 4:33 AM
etabby said...: "Tragic, the loss of professionalism" Not just that: a free press "is basic to the existence of constitutional democracy". This is subversive. It harms our democracy. The political corruption of the press subverts liberty.

I don't question their patriotism. They're unpatriotic, in a very deep sense.; 9/30/08, 5:59 AM
Floridan said...: A.J. Lynch:"I have been tossing & turning about canceling my paper subscription. Want it to be a big splash and more than a nasty letter.

Or should I keep getting the paper but let them accumulate in my driveway and when the pile gets large enough, call the Guiness Book of Records?

Or maybe refuse to read the ads and start a website where other dissatisfied subscribers could sign their name to a petition with the name of they paper they buy but refuse to read the ads. Until the bias is gone of course."

When I read this, why does the word narcissistic come to mind?; 9/30/08, 6:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Maybe it's just time for a regime change to a Democratic ticket.

Sorry, that's a foolish statement. The idea of Reid, Pelosi and Obama having unchecked power is frightening for what it would do to America.; 9/30/08, 6:25 AM
Ken Pidcock said...: Yeah, someone told Glenn Reynolds. So now I finally know for sure.; 9/30/08, 6:26 AM
KCFleming said...: The left offers the adolescent reaction to the 'revelation' that the MSM is in fact completely biased for the Democratic party.

I didn't do it, but if I did I had a good reason.; 9/30/08, 6:37 AM
KCFleming said...: I do have to agree however, that the left has been much more successful at appealing to the interests of voters over time. That I consider these interests sliding toward Eurosocialism is neither here nor there, or at least who gives a damn what I think.

Which is exactly my point.

The left has done what they set out to do in the 1930s: achieved the seats of power in every major industry, in the House and Senate, all universities and media, grade schools and school boards, city councils and most state governments, and now the Presidency.

I happen to think this pushes us away from the American experiment. But again, my line of thinking has proven unpopular. As a result I have to seriously consider my next step.

There is no real USA anymore, there is only the Party and its interests. My ideas, once common amongst the Founders, are now considered evil on their face.

So where do I belong? Nowhere, it seems. The left says good riddance; that fate I accept. I only apologize for having instructed my children on a path that is anti-Party, one that will do them harm. Better that I should have told the story of people who survived the Chinese Cultural Revolution by acquiescing in all but their hearts.

But what is the point of that little flame?; 9/30/08, 6:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Qando weighs in the issue with a graph for "the children" Maybe now they'll understand...maybe? Nah

Good morning all.; 9/30/08, 7:28 AM
George M. Spencer said...: How tiresome it is to hear that the MSM sucks and blogs are cool, particularly when log-rolling bloggers do the criticizing.

Prof. Reynolds publishes a leak from someone who may or may not be in the media and who may or may not be with a big media player.

How different is that from the MSM?

Ask Prof. Reynolds why he hides behind an anonymous source. Ask some Wisconsin media people if they would do that and what they think of the anonymous person's allegation.

Do some reporting. (Or get a student intern to do the interviews.)

Add something; don't just pass it along.; 9/30/08, 7:33 AM
AllenS said...: Concerned Citizen said...
"Ask Prof. Reynolds why he hides behind an anonymous source."

Concerned Citizen's profile...
Profile Not Available; 9/30/08, 7:39 AM
Anonymous said...: "Concerned Citizen said...
"Ask Prof. Reynolds why he hides behind an anonymous source."

Concerned Citizen's profile...
Profile Not Available"

LOL. Thanks allens, I needed that.; 9/30/08, 7:57 AM
Revenant said...: Concerned Citizen's profile...
Profile Not Available

Meow!; 9/30/08, 7:57 AM
Anonymous said...: AllenS said...
Concerned Citizen said...
"Ask Prof. Reynolds why he hides behind an anonymous source."

Concerned Citizen's profile...
Profile Not Available

7:39 AM

Thanks, Allen! They really do think we are stupid. Don't they?; 9/30/08, 7:58 AM
Original Mike said...: Well, duuuhhh.; 9/30/08, 8:01 AM
Maggie Goff said...: Here's an excellent report on just how deep the media is in the tank for Obama:

http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/obama/obama.asp; 9/30/08, 8:31 AM
knox said...: Dukakis was in the tank for the media, but that didn't work out so well.

Thanks Peter, we all need a good laugh this morning.; 9/30/08, 8:33 AM
knox said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/30/08, 8:33 AM
knox said...: XWL said it all. Cronkite and all those trustworthy, venerable guys were, in fact, no more so than the guys at the helm now.

I remember when Rathergate happened, thinking: "how many Rathergates have there been, that we just never knew about?"

I actually feel pretty positive regarding the media. The old guard is dying. As long as we can fight off stuff like the Fairness Doctrine long enough, conservatives might actually end up with an equal say in the information that gets out there. Here's hoping.; 9/30/08, 8:40 AM
John Burgess said...: In the tank so far that they've become the tank.; 9/30/08, 8:42 AM
A Salient Voice said...: My only place of media refuge is now ESPN. I hope that they can keep up the political vacuum. Kudos to HGTV and Food network too.; 9/30/08, 8:53 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Here's another example of false Republican victimization by the media.

Steve Benen does a good job of nailing the silliness of the charge:

All of this is completely absurd. First, Palin did more than just recommit to protecting the country -- she specifically said we should "absolutely" cross the border to stop terrorists from moving into Pakistan.

Second, what are these bizarre rules McCain is coming up with? When a voter asks a topical, pertinent question, it's "gotcha journalism." When a candidate gives an answer while talking "back and forth" with a "group of people," it doesn't count.

This is insane. Palin isn't a victim here -- a voter asked a question, and she answered it. Palin, in other words, said something in public and the media reported it. Indeed, she said something important about a pressing national security issue, so the media is supposed to report it.

Cwy me a wiver.; 9/30/08, 8:54 AM
PogoПОССУМ said...: Da, Alpha! Is the ha ha!

The universities she are 99% Democrat, like the TVs and newspapers!

But is not this fact of still 1% remains non-Party evidence of media too much driving the tank for Mr. McKane and the Wonderbra Бабушка babushka from Alaska?

Soon this the crime.; 9/30/08, 9:05 AM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: Good lord. It's no mystery. Just the sight of all the lefties rushing to the aid of the MSM confirms the bias. These people side with the media for one reason and one reason only; it represents their views. If this wasn't the case, the left would be complaining just as much as the right.; 9/30/08, 9:17 AM
Original Mike said...: If this wasn't the case, the left would be complaining just as much as the right.

The smarter lefties realize this, so, to hold up appearances, they do complain about right wing bias in the media.; 9/30/08, 9:35 AM
krylovite said...: Glenn Reynolds is no idiot

Hee hee!; 9/30/08, 9:44 AM
former law student said...: These people side with the media for one reason and one reason only; it represents their views. If this wasn't the case, the left would be complaining just as much as the right.

This assumes that lefty crooks are as numerous as righty crooks. But Republicans have been the party in power in Congress for most of the past 16 years. So crooked interest groups have been more motivated to seek out crooked Republicans.

Which reminds me -- Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff went down over an Indian gaming scandal, along with a lot of Republican Congress people. But not John McCain, chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in the 109th Congress, and co-author of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Was McCain properly vetted? Who gave him a clean bill of health?; 9/30/08, 9:45 AM
rhhardin said...: All of this is completely absurd. First, Palin did more than just recommit to protecting the country -- she specifically said we should "absolutely" cross the border to stop terrorists from moving into Pakistan.

Pakistan isn't a sovereign country. It can't control what's going on within its borders, in particular.

That situation doesn't give a free pass to terrorists as much as it might seem. It also gives free hand to intervene as seems appropriate.

When Pakistan can control things so there aren't external effects from them, then we are obligated to work through their government.; 9/30/08, 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...: "Which reminds me -- Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff went down over an Indian gaming scandal, along with a lot of Republican Congress people. But not John McCain, chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in the 109th Congress, and co-author of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Was McCain properly vetted? Who gave him a clean bill of health?"
Which reminds me of our current economic condition brought to you by Barney Frank (D) Fannie Mae, Chris Dodd, (D) Countrywide, BH Obama (D) ACORN. Who gave these guys a clean bill of health to conjure up a bailout? Were they properly vetted?; 9/30/08, 10:00 AM
Bob said...: The problem with the MSM being in the tank for the left is they are the gatekeepers of the narrative. They frame the overarching stories for a political contest. Now, they are much less effective at this then they use to be. But it has a huge impact, especially as it relates to TV. Visual images carry a far larger impact and that's still almost entirely to left.

Chris Matthews interviewed his own daughter yesterday. And didn't acknowledge it. We have no real standards for journalists. Its a self-policing industry - frankly the only industry today that demands and that we accept as self-policing. There are no disclosure requirements - be they party affiliations, financial disclosures, etc on par with what we would expect of a stock analyst. Long term I think thats becoming a larger issue with public because we know they have biases. Someone is going to do an exposee on some story by Matthews, where his story slammed a company, and he has a financial stake in its competitor and the "crusading journalist" facade will crumble. Its not just a bias on left/right but also good old greed. Does anyone think Andrea Mitchell can do an unbiased piece on Greenspan?; 9/30/08, 10:22 AM
Michael McNeil said...: “Glenn Reynolds is no idiot”

Hee hee!

Maniacal laughter emerges from the original asserter of nonsense….; 9/30/08, 10:43 AM
Unknown said...: The MSM:

Bill Kristol and David Brooks in the NY Times.

Jonah Goldberg and Kathleen Parker syndicated in my Chicago Tribune, and many other papers.

The Chicago Tribune NEVER endorsing a Democrat, ever.

Fox News...just, Fox News

Byron York, George Will, Mark Halperin, Cokie Roberts and all the other right-wingers masquerading as MSM on Sunday talk shows.

I'll let you know when the "MSM" starts speaking for me, as a liberal.

Meanwhile, keep whining, babies!; 9/30/08, 11:23 AM
Unknown said...: Oh, Ann!

Just when I start to think you are okay, you come up with something like this. I mean, really? The anonymous email to Instapundit with the "inside scoop"? Come on.; 9/30/08, 12:07 PM
Unknown said...: I'm confused. By MSM are we referring to the same people who cooperated so sycophantically with Bush's reign of terror following 9/11? Aren't they the ones with the spooky music and the orange alerts prominently displayed on the screen?

What you don't get is that media is not biased. It doesn't make sense for it to be. What does make sense is that the media goes for what's the most provocative, insteresting story. Sorry, but for a while, a virtually unknown moose-hunting, hot, mother of five from Alaska was just interesting and so tons of interest turned there.

What bothers me is that people ignore that the MSM is what built her up in the first place! When she was announced, and hardly anybody knew much about her or even who she was, they made her sound "cool" and like an awesome choice for McCain...she was going to snatch the Hillary votes, she was going reinvigorate the base, etc. Who, if not the MSM, was the one propogating these opinions?

Also, I'm sorry, but if what you want is more O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity-type people out there spewing under nonsense and vile lies, then what you want is a conservatively biased media that is uninterested in the facts.

As Jon Stewart so aptly said (paraphasing): Maybe the facts have a liberal bias.

AND, before people get "all crazy" about Stewart, you should know that he was actually a good friend and McCain supporter before McCain went off the deepend. Hell, I even thought McCain was okay. It wasn't until he became a political prostitute of the GOP that he became annoying. Someone who would do anything (lie, change entirely, etc.) for political office doesn't belong there.

Thanks for listening. That was a rant of the day.; 9/30/08, 12:17 PM
vbspurs said...: Who, if not the MSM, was the one propogating these opinions?

The American people.

And unless you were blind, and didn't tune in from the Friday she was announced to the Wednesday where she made her speech, the entire narrative of MSM about Sarah Palin was that she was:

1- A Pageant Bimbo
2- A bad mum to run for office with young kids
3- Her child was possibly her grandchild
4- Is her daughter fair game?
5- Her daughter was pregnant OMG!
6- Inexperienced, blue-collar nobody

And then she gave THAT speech which really sent them on the deep end of absolute vitriol.

So don't talk down to people who have access to the same coverage you do. Your points are nonsensical to anyone who has tuned into news coverage, about Palin or any other topic.; 9/30/08, 12:25 PM
former law student said...: vb, are you sure all of those stories appeared in the mainstream media? Because at least no. 3 appeared only in the blogosphere, where it was read over Labor Day weekend only by internet addicts with no lives.

3- Her child was possibly her grandchild; 9/30/08, 12:35 PM
George M. Spencer said...: "The weak gain strength through effrontery," Henry Kissinger observed, paraphrasing Bismarck.

"And the strong grow weak because of inhibitions."

Such is the way of blogs and old media.; 9/30/08, 12:52 PM
chickelit said...: Malakas said: What you don't get is that media is not biased. It doesn't make sense for it to be. What does make sense is that the media goes for what's the most provocative, insteresting story.

The MSM, whether you like it or not, is becoming more politically biased, mirroring the emerging and still evolving trend of blogs and internet sites as news sources, which feed the MSM. Blogs as news sources harknen back to an earlier age when many competing and politically conflicting newspapers thrived.

Sorry, but for a while, a virtually unknown moose-hunting, hot, mother of five from Alaska was just interesting and so tons of interest turned there.

That’s just low and personal, malakas.

What bothers me is that people ignore that the MSM is what built her up in the first place! When she was announced, and hardly anybody knew much about her or even who she was, they made her sound "cool" and like an awesome choice for McCain...she was going to snatch the Hillary votes, she was going reinvigorate the base, etc. Who, if not the MSM, was the one propogating these opinions?

Go back and look at the remarks on Althouse the morning of her selection. See it as a microcosm of many other blogs and places where people’s opinions come together. At the time, many, many readers expressed positive emotion and also reasoned delight. That scenario may have been foreseen by the McCain side (and Victoria too :), but it most certainly wasn’t the “MSM” who made her sound cool or any of that BS you spin. The left’s entire shtick since the Palin selection has been a personal tear-down strategy.

Also, I'm sorry, but if what you want is more O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity-type people out there spewing under nonsense and vile lies, then what you want is a conservatively biased media that is uninterested in the facts.

What we always need are consistent yet conflicting opinions to make informed decisions. It is the left which talks about government imposed “fairness doctrines”.

As Jon Stewart so aptly said (paraphasing): Maybe the facts have a liberal bias.

Facts don’t have bias!

AND, before people get "all crazy" about Stewart, you should know that he was actually a good friend and McCain supporter before McCain went off the deepend.
Turn that one around, with the plausible counter-notion that it was Stewart that went off the “deepend [sic]” and maybe it is just a petty personal thing between Stewart and McCain. That would make sense too.

Someone who would do anything (lie, change entirely, etc.) for political office doesn't belong there.

That’s precisely why Obama hasn’t earned my vote.; 9/30/08, 1:23 PM
Unknown said...: vbspurs:

Oh, that's right. The American people found out about and decided to love Palin based on their own research. The American people went in search of information on their own, searching through archives for primary sources and engaging in personal interviews, without information about Palin from the media. And then the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny got married!

chickenlittle:

You either deliberately miss the point or you are a fool. Either way, it would be tedious to respond to you. That and it's inappropriate to constantly refer to me as "malakas," especially when you aren't even declining the noun correctly. Oh, and if I went through and sic'ed all the errors I've seen posted here, by you and by others like you, the S, I, and C on my keyboard would break off.; 9/30/08, 3:08 PM
Unknown said...: vbspurs:

I can't stand people like you. Prove what you are saying. Point me to ONE source from MSM that said:

(1) Palin is a bimbo
(2) A bad mom
(3) Her child was possibly her grandchild
(4) She's bluecollar and for that reason somehow lesser.

This is your spin. And whether or not her underaged, unmarried daughter is pregnant would be interesting if it were the case for any of the candidates. Are you saying that if Chelsea were pregnant, the media would not have said a peep about it? You've got to be kidding.

You people are so delusional sometimes that you have to scurry around trying to find excuses for why the FACTS make your candidates look bad. It can't just be that they are severely flawed, it has to be the MEDIA. THE EVIL MEDIA. Yawn. So tired and no one's buying it anymore.

When conservatives said Obama was unqualified, it was fair game. When people say that of Palin (whose entire town is smaller than many high schools -- maybe principals are qualified for VP?) then it's sexist, an attack on her being bluecollar, etc. Give me a break.

Meanwhile, Fox News can report whatever it wants, including that Obama went to school in a Madrassa, and that's okay. I don't see your complaint there.

At least the things that were reported about Palin were facts, not specious lies.; 9/30/08, 3:18 PM
Ann Althouse said...: It's not anonymous. Glenn Reynolds knows who the person is. I'm accepting Glenn's credibility on that. You don't have to, but I do.; 9/30/08, 3:26 PM
Joe said...: At least the things that were reported about Palin were facts, not specious lies.

Like that list of books she banned? You're an idiot if you believe what you just said.

Where is the MSM in reporting Biden's many recent fumbles?; 9/30/08, 3:40 PM
LoafingOaf said...: Point me to ONE source from MSM that said:

(1) Palin is a bimbo

I saw Bill Maher call her a "bimbo" on his HBO show last weekend. Ralph Nader went off on him for his "raw sexism" immediately after.

But I don't think HBO is considered the MSM, is it?

Anyway, Victoria has been one of the most worshipful of Palin, so she's a bit over-protective of her.; 9/30/08, 4:01 PM