|
 |
||
|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
July 24, 2008 - 7:28am.
When the media start backing away from supporting a candidate or a cause read this as a sign that the media elite understand the public is seeing through the media's neutrality ruse. MSNBC's coverage of Sen. Barack Obama's trip abroad streamed online shows one commentator waxing poetic about the senator's rave visuals on the trip. Another equally valid interpretation of the video of Obama shooting hoops with the troops is that it made him look less credible as a world leader, not more. A second commentator in the segment takes a deep breath, steps back and states that the Obama campaign has manipulated media coverage during this trip to an extent not witnessed in a long career of covering presidential campaigns. And that's saying something. So is the fact the much-venerated New York Times Op-Ed page rejected an opinion piece submitted to the paper by Sen. John McCain late last week. The topic: the Iraq war. The McCain campaign released the rejection e-mail from Times Op-Ed Editor David Shipley, explaining the rejection as follows: McCain's article would have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory "with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan." While the Times has published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by McCain since 1996, and will reconsider the one he submitted last week if it is revised, it seems strange that the paper would seek such revisions from a presidential candidate. Whether the Times required similar changes of Obama, whose opinion piece the paper published earlier this month, is unknown. What is known is Obama has graced the covers of six editions of Newsweek in the past year versus two for McCain. What is known is that Obama has been on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine twice in the past year (McCain on the cover of Rolling Stone? Unthinkable!) The Project for Excellence in Journalism's weekly summary of media coverage for the week ending July 20th reported the following: "Last week, Obama was a significant presence in 83 percent of campaign stories studied, vs. McCain in 52 percent. (To be a significant presence in a story, 25 percent of the story must be about that person.)" Are the media, overall, in love with Obama? You betcha. Is he getting a pass in terms of negative media critiques? Again, you betcha. Is that fair? Life is not fair, as we all know. But the only thing fair about the media's portrayal of the two presumptive party presidential nominees is that media bias may be starting to backfire. In the latest Rasmussen Reports poll, 49 percent of voters told pollsters they believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44 percent a month earlier. Meanwhile, in the same time period, the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking poll has McCain and Obama running neck and neck. A month ago Obama maintained a pretty consistent lead of five points, most of which has dwindled to nothing while perceptions of media bias rise. Let me state for the record, I have no favorite in this race. I'm not a political partisan. I view the two candidates as well matched in one respect: they are each equally and fatally flawed, albeit in very different ways. That said, it's troubling to stand by and watch major media outlets drool over one candidate while ignoring the other. The media love Obama, for the moment at least, because he's young, hip and of color. They are bored by McCain for the opposite reasons. One man once described himself to me as being, "boringly male and embarrassingly white." Toss in another pejorative (to wit, old) and you've summed up the media's vision of John McCain. Both candidates should be covered and reviewed in terms of their policies and on their ability to maintain consistent positions on issues while accurately recounting their records. Nothing more, nothing less. That is the type of coverage we should be viewing this campaign season, but it is not the coverage we are in fact receiving.
(Bonnie Erbe is a TV host and columnist. E-mail bonnieerbe(at)CompuServe.com.)
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
 |
Technorati Tags: 
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Just wondering: The by-line
Submitted by old_curmudgeon on July 24, 2008 - 8:06am.Just wondering: The by-line identifies "Bonnie Williams" as the author of this piece but the tagline at the bottom of the piece identifies Bonnie Erbe (presumably) as the author. Are we to assume that Bonnie Williams and Bonnie Erbe are the same individual?
It's called a database
Submitted by Doug Thompson on July 24, 2008 - 8:11am.It's called a database hiccup. Thanks for the heads up.
That really large elephant
Submitted by neondog on July 24, 2008 - 8:50am.That really large elephant in the middle of the room is not Obama's media coverage or Obama himself. It is the narcistic media's coverage of how the media is covering Obama.
As Erbe's article proves, the actual events of the trip are but a blip on the radar screen, while the media's self analysis of the Obama media coverage is what carries the day's news cycle.
The Times rejected McCain's
Submitted by woody188 on July 24, 2008 - 8:56am.The Times rejected McCain's piece because it was an mudslinging attack ad. Obama is mentioned at least 10 times in McCain's article. McCain is mentioned 3 times in Obama's.
In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama:
In this context, I think it appropriate for Shipley to say:
Regulars here know I don't support either candidate or party. That said, it seems like Drudge and the GOP are making mountains out of mole hills and using statements out of context to do it.
Cries of liberal media fall on deaf ears after the free ride the corporate media gave George W. Bush.
Bonnie is right that she doesn't support a candidate. Her favorite, Hillary Clinton, dropped out after losing more delegates to Obama.
it seems like Drudge and the
Submitted by old_curmudgeon on July 24, 2008 - 9:06am.But that's the point. It is all they have. The "Republican" brand is wasted especially when you are attached directly to Bush. It's why it seems every other word out of McCain's mouth is a slam at Obama or his ideas. It doesn't matter that McCain is playing a tune only for the 29% or so who still believe that going into Iraq was good or that Bush is "doing a heck of a job." It's all McCain has - and even that is weak.
I would love to see McCain's
Submitted by woody188 on July 24, 2008 - 9:22am.I would love to see McCain's plan for Iraq because he now seems to think they need to have an air force before we pull out. How much money and time does it take to build an air force? And do we want an Iraq that is busy aligning themselves with Iran to have the same air power as the Saudi's or the Israeli's? I highly doubt it.
Likewise, the media needs to start challenging the surge is working statements. The violence did not start to fall until the Iranians negotiated a cease fire between al-Maliki's government and al-Sadr's militia. Both candidates and all corporate media have conveniently forgotten this small fact.
An Iraqi Air Force? Heck,
Submitted by churlpat on July 24, 2008 - 9:23am.An Iraqi Air Force? Heck, just rent ours to them. It's pretty much unused, at least in the two theaters in which the US is militarily involved.
Churlpat -- a plutarch by any name is still a plutarch
I'm under the impression the
Submitted by woody188 on July 24, 2008 - 9:31am.I'm under the impression the air is the only thing we control in these countries.
My understanding is that the
Submitted by old_curmudgeon on July 24, 2008 - 9:31am.My understanding is that the use of aircraft-deployed ordnance is very high - it's just not being reported.
Yup. We drop bombs, but
Submitted by churlpat on July 24, 2008 - 2:49pm.Yup. We drop bombs, but almost all of them are from Navy planes. The Sec Def is apparently really angry at the AF's failure to step up on this. Of course, that would mean writing orders. People don't want their names on those orders is my guess.
Churlpat -- a plutarch by any name is still a plutarch
Just wondering but...it
Submitted by old_curmudgeon on July 25, 2008 - 12:45am.Just wondering but...it seems to me I remember something about a "chain of command" and that if the SECDEF said, "hey, AF, go bomb these targets," well, then AF would go bomb these targets! Has the command structure changed since I get out in 1981? Seems like a really ineffective way to run a War Department.
Medis is having a love
Submitted by sherry on July 24, 2008 - 10:57am.Medis is having a love affair with Obama. McCain has made numerous trips to Iraq. Did the three anchors follow him, EVER? No.
Now BHO is speaking at the Berlin Wall. Give me a break.
I guess he thinks he is JFK-esque?
Media neutrality - an
Submitted by jgw on July 24, 2008 - 6:24pm.Media neutrality - an amazing concept that flew the coop years ago along with the doctrine of fairness and the assumption that editorials need to be labeled as such. I can remember a journalism class that held Time magazine as being the greatest offender of press neutrality in existence. That was a long time ago. Now I have actually heard media wonks refer to sly editorializing as 'educational' and a responsibility of the press!
As far as I can tell McCain has been skating through this campaign. The media usually simply skips over the fact that he is constantly confused. He is confused about geography, religions, where he is, and just, exactly what victory consists of. If one watches him, carefully, on TV they will soon notice that media has been overly kind to this man for a LONG time. Now he is simply befuddled and obviously drives his handlers crazy.
I was once a big supporter of McCain. He fell out of my favor when he decided to kiss the rears of both Bush and the religious right with enthusiasm! Can anybody imagine the whines, that would come from the McCain camp, if the media actually spent as much time vetting the McCain mutterings as they do Obama's? I realize that they are being kind to an old man who is a genuine war hero but, is this really a qualification for being president?
It always amuses me, for instance, when the press and his surrogates refer to McCain as a 'maverick' - the simple fact is that this man has overwhelmingly supported the Bush administration (95% of the time) and he stands in the top tier of Bush supporters according to his own voting record. If I was in charge of the Democratic party I would have that sound bite, every 5 minutes, on every tv and radio station, until the election.
jgw
Port Angeles, WA
The media (especially MSNBC)
Submitted by JudyB on July 24, 2008 - 7:46pm.The media (especially MSNBC) has been pushing Obama for president since his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. I have quit watching MSNBC because of their pro Obama stance during the primary. The way they abused Hillary, while ignoring everyone else in the race was not only disgusting, but I feel it was an injustice to our democracy. Citizens deserve to hear all the major candidates, not just their biased opinions.
I will be voting for Obama, not because of all the damnable media hype, but because he will be better than having a Bush clone in office.
Excuse me, but Barack
Submitted by spartacus on July 24, 2008 - 9:13pm.Excuse me, but Barack Obama's trip IS NEWS, and whether John McCain likes it or not, part of the thanks he's receiving for goading him into it is having his opponent look presidential and like a world leader. Instead of seeing protestors in Germany today chanting evil slogans at GW Bush, 200,000 people waved American flags and cheered at Obama. John McCain could NEVER draw that kind of reaction or crowd, as a candidate nor as a president. As such, he's spent the better part of this week whining and complaining about the press coverage Obama's been getting, and his own lack of coverage. He's whined, complained, even going as far as saying he'd rather win an election than a war (or, in other words, calling him a traitor): he's shown no shame whatsoever, which is what he's done since the 2000 election. McCain's proven he'll bow and scrape to anyone necessary to become president, even Bush after the most despicable thing I've ever seen one candidate do to another: use the other's CHILD in a lying, Karl Rove attack that would make a normal parent want to take the other person out. Yet McCain simply let Bush walk all over him, and walked in lockstep with him for the last 7 years. I lost my respect for McCain in 2000. The man has no shame.
McCain's gotten a free ride from the press for years. His gaffes, mistakes, flip flops, and other devestating behaviors have gone almost unnoticed by most of the press. He should be glad the camera's been off him for awhile. The whining and remarks coming out of his mouth this week have been petulent and offensive, particularly when he decided to call Obama a traitor. John McCain may be a war hero, but that shouldn't give him a free pass, especially when it comes to his bad behavior and petty complaining. When McCain was overseas, he made speeches, too. It was his own fault if no one came, not the media's.
200,000 Germans cheering for
Submitted by neondog on July 24, 2008 - 10:30pm.200,000 Germans cheering for America (news)...waving American flags (more news)...And that is bad for Americans?
I stand corrected Neon, I
Submitted by sherry on July 25, 2008 - 11:25pm.I stand corrected Neon, I had no idea BHO was running for President of Europe, or Germany. Pardon me.
Hmmm...European nations were
Submitted by JudyB on July 25, 2008 - 11:45pm.Hmmm...European nations were once considered our allies. It would be wonderful to know that an American President would be welcomed again by cheering crowds waving American flags, instead of the riots and protests that took place when Bush made hisofficial visits...just a thought,