Obama's Media Shills [Nice Deb]

Hillary Clinton has long been complaining that the media have been harder on her than on Obama. She even has a new ad out in Oregon that underscores that point.

Could it be true that the media have been displaying signs of pro- Obama favoritism during this election season?

I think a very good case can be made that they indeed have!

On Friday, Drew wrote about the latest “big stink” in the media:

This morning’s big stink was Jamie Rubin’s op-ed piece in the Washington Post saying John McCain in 2006 had advocated dealing with Hamas. This was a clear attempt to help make Barack Obama’s desire to talk to every thug in the world without conditions look less insane than it is.

Well, Rubin was done in pretty quickly this morning by Ed at Hot Air and now by an extended excerpt from the interview.

Which led Drew to say:

We should really start keeping track of the lengths the media is going to protect the Chosen One.

To which Nice Deb immediately and enthusiastically volunteered. Just for the fun of it, I have broadened my search to include the more egregious examples of media favoritism towards Obama. So without further ado....

Chris Matthews:

He caused some raised eyebrows last fall when he took it upon himself to write a campaign speech for Obama, and read it on the air.

This now (in)famous quote, spoken after hearing one of Obama's speeches, however, removed all doubt that Matthews is hot and heavy in the tank for Obama:

"I felt this thrill going up my leg...I don't feel that very often..."

UGH!

Tom Shales:

Shales didn't like that ABC Debate where Obama was asked some challenging questions. Shame shame shame on ABC for allowing this travesty to take place.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

Questions about problematic past associations are specious and gossipy (and very liable to damage Obama's favorability rating). MUST NOT ASK!

Keith Olbermann:

Not that I am one of the 36 people who actually watch his show... I do hear things. There's even a blog that tabulates the number of media BJs Olbermann has given Obama. The Olbermann counter is currently at 233,237.

Wow, that's a lot of BJs.

Here's Olbermann himself, admitting what we all know to be true:

Newsweek:

This puff piece by Richard Wolffe and Evan Thomas about the messianic Obama girding for battle against the eeeevil Republicans, prompted an immediate rebuke from McCain's adviser, Mark Salter in the form of this letter to the editor:

By accepting the Obama campaign construct as if it were objective, Evan and Richard framed this race exactly as Senator Obama wants it to be framed—every issue that raises doubts about his policy views and judgment is part of a smear campaign intended to distract voters from the real issues at stake in the election, and, thus, illegitimate.

Commentary's Contentions had this to say about Newsweek's piece:

Few people are fortunate enough to receive the kind of love and tenderness we find in the Newsweek story. It is especially notable for two things. The first is that Obama is portrayed as a near-mythic figure. He possesses “almost preternatural equanimity.” He has “a light touch in the office, and he can laugh off adversity.” He makes jokes at his own expense. He’s not a screamer but he is an encourager. He wants “steady, calm, focused leadership;” his desire is to “keep out grandstanders and make sure the quiet dissenters” speak up at meetings. Obama even allows his aides to take naps after pulling a series of all-nighters–including putting his hand on their shoulder when asking them to nap. We read from his aides that he “does not get rattled” and he possesses “grace under fire.” He’s the “alpha male” who “doesn’t micromanage.” No word yet on whether he walks on water or if he can feed the hungry multitudes. But it’s still early in the campaign.

The Rolling Stone:

Stupidly titled an article about Obama's charisma, “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama, ” right before the Reverend Wright, and Obama's other radical associations came to light. They diligently changed the title of the article to, “Destiny’s Child.”

Seattle Times:

In possibly the most egregious example of shilling, we've seen, Seattle Times editorial writer Bruce Ramsey was willing to make excuses for Hitler in order to make Obama seem more reasonable:

Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority.

Let the revisions begin!

The Boston Globe:

Derrick Z. Jackson of The Boston Globe went whole hog, painting Obama as a pro-gun candidate reeling in Republicans:

She was in Decorah only because she was dragged here by a friend, Carol Hemesath, a Democrat and a mental-health therapist. Another Democrat nursing friend, Deb Tekippe, tried to persuade Meyer to come along earlier in the day but Meyer turned her down.

Meyer’s text message was, “Interesting for a Democrat. Obama believes we should own guns to hunt.”

She said she is seriously considering crossing party lines for the first time to vote for Obama.

Entire MSM?

Terry McAuliffe recently claimed that 90% of media is in the tank for Obama. That should be taken with a grain of salt because 90% of what Terry McCauliffe says is bullshit. But I think the boy may be on to something, here. How else can you explain why the MSM didn't cover the reverend Wright story until his sermons became widely available on YouTube. The story was ripe for the picking for many months before it finally became exposed, with no help from the MSM.

And how do you explain the media's lack of interest in covering Obama's extreme stance on abortion?

The American Thinker has been wondering about this, too:

For more than a month now, the media has effectively covered up a potentially damning statement made by Senator Barack Obama. No trivial matter, his single sentence, if widely known, could be the "deal killer" that destroys Obama's quest for the American Presidency. It was March 28th when he answered a Pennsylvania voter's question at a campaign whistle-stop, yet four weeks later, this potentially explosive "stealth position" remains less widely known than Senator Obama's taste for waffles.

No doubt, any attempt to discuss Obama's extreme views on abortion would elicit cat-calls from Obama's camp of "changing the subject", and "fear-mongering".

That is, if any attempts were ever made.

To be continued....

Cross-posted at Nice Deb

posted by xgenghisx at 11:30 AM

| Access Comments