Despite Chris Matthews’ letting the world know that he himself has the sole responsibility of making Barack Obama a successful President, and regardless of biased Campbell Brown’s “No Bias No Bull” show on CNN, the mainstream media has already began questioning its integrity and its role in the election of Barack Hussein Obama. It’s only taken 5 days!
In today’s Washington Post, columnist Deborah Howell analyzes the Post’s coverage of the Presidential campaign since Novemebr 2007, and, not surprisingly, the Post’s coverage was far more favorable to Barack Obama than to John McCain, and revealed an obvious bias in the news stories. It was found that the articles that were printed consisted more of campaign jabs than policy comparisons of the candidates, as though the policy issues were not important in the Presidential race.
“But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama’s acknowledged drug use as a teenager.”
“One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission”
More news outlets will fall in line behind The Washington Post, except for, perhaps, the New York Times, and perhaps the true spectre of journalism might have a chance to be rekindled. In all fairness to our President-elect (Yes, Sean Penn and Bill Maher, even those of us who do not support Obama’s positions or ideology respect the fact that he is “our President for 1458 more days”, something you never did with our President Bush), the media must step back from the “Obama Kool Aid”, and drink from the ethics of unbiased news reporting if Obama is to be able to have a functional Presidency.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 9, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Heavenly
Did anyone ever think that McCain got more negative coverage because he campaign was running on negativity instead of the issues?
Obama for the beginning of his campaign has always stayed on the same issues to the end- the economy, health care, and education.
What was McCain’s main issues? The all had something to do with Obama- ever noticed that?
Not only did they not go into Biden’s background but they also didn’t go into McCain’s background either. We only knew so much about McCain’s military career because he always talked about it-how was part of the military since the age of 17 and how he lived 5 years being tortured in Vietnam.
McCain only has himself to blame for the negative coverage. If he didn’t make all his issues surrounded around Obama maybe could had a better chance at winning.
November 9, 2008 at 5:37 pm
JAMES
Obama only spoke on issues in the waning days. He campaigned as the One with a message of Change. The media bias was clearly evident long before Obama was the nominee. It was clearly evident in the primaries, before McCain was his opponent. Even SNL realized that, when it poked fun at Obama and Hillary debating. Nothing to do with negativity or positivity of anyone’s campaign.
This election of Obama was not one to make history, not one for change, but it was, plain and simple, a referendum on George Bush… no more no less.
November 9, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Interested Bystander
JAMES,
Although I agree that the election was a referendum on Bush, I would like to make a couple of other points.
I believe that the media started over a year ago to indoctrinate us that the economy was bad. The “R” word (recession) was bandied about like that is what was happening. The truth is that the true definition of recession has not been realized yet. But still the media drilled it in to our heads.
There has to be a decline in economic growth in the fourth quarter for us to be in what is the definition of a recession. The third quarter numbers were only down .3 percent. Not good by any means, but much better than the media would have us believe.
I believe that the media got Obama elected. I think that with all of the negative reporting on McCain and Bush, along with the propping up of Obama, had much to do with Obama being elected.
The coverage of the conventions was a good example. Mitchell looked like she was in hell whenever they went to her on the convention floor at the Republican Convention. She looked just the opposite at the Democratic Convention. The comments from the supposed “experts” was the same way. Mostly negative comments for the Republicans, and mostly positive comments for the Democrats.
I believe it is pretty well known that the only network that was fair was FOX News which had 40 percent negative stories on McCain and Obama. The other “networks” was slanted way to the left with Obama getting twice as much positive coverage than McCain.
Heavenly,
You can post that you thought McCain’s campaign was all negative against Obama, but my question to you would be, how many rallys for McCain did you attend? I would say that 75 percent of the rally was pro McCain, and 25 percent negative Obama, but the media only showed the 25 percent.
Only bolsters my argument that the media got Obama elected.
My last comment would be that I am just blabbergasted by Mathews statement that it is “his” job to ensure that Obama’s Presidency is successful. Honestly, this so called “journalist” should be fired. Olberman also. Both are fakes. At least Olberman’s show is “commentary”, but Mathews is supposed to have a “news” program. How is any conservative supposed to go on Mathew’s show and expect to be treated fairly?
I just scratch my head in bewilderment at our supposed “unbiased” media.
November 9, 2008 at 7:06 pm
JAMES
IB: Rumor has it that Chris Matthews wants to run for a Senate seat in Pennsylvania in 2010. No state deserves him.