Showing posts with label Newsweek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newsweek. Show all posts

Saturday, November 8, 2008

MSM Obama Confession Time: WashPo, NewsWeek, MSNBC, LA Times



Your Ad Here


Bias on Record:
Washington Post
Chris Matthews
Newsweek
Los Angeles Times









Mainstream Media: Yes We Can!

Deborah Howell, the ombudsman at the Washington Post completely agrees [An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage]:

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.


Human Gaffe Machine Joe Biden?

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.


John at Power Line wasn't surprised [Ho Hum] and offers a possible solution.

Howell finds that the Post's coverage of Sarah Palin was especially biased. To which my response is, tell us something we didn't already know. Anyone who can still be shocked by newspapers' liberal bias hasn't been paying attention for a long time. The Washington Post is a Democratic newspaper, and a good one, for the most part. As I've said before, the Post is the most respectable voice of the Democratic Party. But it would be foolish to expect objectivity from what is essentially an arm of the Democratic Party.

Conservatives should stop talking about media bias and start founding (or buying) some newspapers of our own. Of course, until that happens we'll probably still complain about bias from time to time.


Ed Morrissey at Hot Air [Right on time!] sums up DBKP's position on the matter exactly.

Why didn’t the Post want to look at the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama’s only executive experience prior to his run for the presidency? The media never bothered to make a hundredth of the effort on Obama that they did with Palin, and they had two years to do it.

That’s the issue Howell should have addressed in her column. We already know that the Post gave imbalanced coverage of Obama and McCain, as did most of the rest of the media. And now Howell gives the mea culpa in her first column after Election Day, when it’s far too late to do anything about it. Where was Howell during the last three months? Why wait until the election is over to speak up? That’s an answer in itself.




Gateway Pundit has a video of MSNBC's Chris Matthews. [Now That the Election is Over... Media Admits Bias For Obama] Matthews declares that his job as a journalist is to continue his Grand Obama Pimp he perfected during his election coverage.

There will be no traditional press honeymoon between Chris Matthews and Barack Obama, Matthews already having been guilt of the press equivalent of premarital sex.

Journalists not only love new...
They love Democrats.
Sarah Palin was new but they raked her over the coals.
Such is the demise of our mainstream media.
The one thing that is clear after this election-- If you want to find the truth you will have to go elsewhere for your news.

Two words-- Rashid Khalidi.



Jammie Wearing Fool, WaPo Ombudsman: Yes, We Were Completely In the Tank for Obama :

They found plenty of space to go over McCain's health in agonizing detail but ignored Obama's drug use, shady connections and mysterious undergrad years.

I'm sure they'll make up for their grossly imbalanced coverage now that their guy is safely in office. And I have an oceanfront spread in Wyoming up for sale.


It's to the Washington Post's credit to admit that its coverage emanated from within the tank. We may see more stories like this.

More likely, we'll see the usual apologia from the MSM about how they were non-biased stalwarts looking out for the interests of the unwashed sheeple who remain as their customers.




NEW YORK Times



Since the NY Times ceased being a serious journalistic endeavor some time ago, we'll let its horrific coverage of Election 2008 pass without comment.





LA Times and the Khalidi Video


The Lost Angeles Times' refusal to release the video of the Obamas, Rashid Khalidi and Bill Ayers is well-documented. The LA Times previously had ordered its reporters not to write on their blogs about John Edwards getting caught leaving his mistress Rielle Hunter's room at the Beverly Hilton--even after it had been confirmed by Fox News.

* Obama, Khalidi Hidden Video: The Evolution of the LA Times Excuses
* LA Times Obama-Rashid Khalidi Video: $175,000 Reward Offered for Tape
* Obama-Khalidi Tape: Blogger Obtains Quotes from Hidden Video UPDATED
* John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Love Child: LA Times Censors Reporters on Story

As the LA Times mulls over further lay-offs, it might examine its refusal to provide its remaining customers with a product they seek: news.




NewsWeek Keeps its Obama Thoughts to Itself--until AFTER the Election

Mikes America, at Flopping Aces, tipped off a post election admission from Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas of Newsweek on Charlie Rose: Newsweek Editors: Obama a “Creepy,” “Deeply Manipulative,” “Creature”

Why didn’t they say this in their magazine BEFORE the election?

Yesterday I shared with you the audio of Tom Brokaw being interviewed by Charlie Rose where both men admit they don’t know who Obama really is or what he intends to do in office. Now, a post election admission from Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas of Newsweek; also interviewed by Charlie Rose. Audio is provided with commentary by Rush Limbaugh (transcript):



FA provides the Brokaw video, as well as a transcript, ending with the following observation by MA:

At what point will Meacham and Thomas, along with Brokaw and so many others face the fact that they committed journalistic malpractice by hiding the character concerns they are only now sharing about Obama? Were they just tooooo busy digging dirt on Sarah Palin’s children and Joe the Plumber to tell the American people what a “creepy,” “manipulative,” “creature” Obama is?


Yes, they kept all of this out of their publication before the election.

Again, we'll give Meachum and Thomas credit for admitting their bias.

As with the others, they get absolutely no credit for being journalists--their professed profession.




by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file




Thursday, September 25, 2008

Sarah Palin 'Unnerves' NewsWeek Elitist Sam Harris; An Atheist Responds



Your Ad Here


Sam Harris Doesn't Speak for Me
The Crack Emcee
The Macho Response




Response from an Atheist

[NOTE: An interesting rebuke of Newsweek's Sam Harris and his opinion piece, "When Atheists Attack".

Harris wrote that he was 'unnerved' when he heard Palin speak at the Republican Convention. Harris reveals much more about himself than Sarah Palin. Newsweek subheaded the Harris piece, "A noted provocateur rips Sarah Palin—and defends elitism." Of course, readers of Newsweek know that a writer need be neither a "provocateur" nor "noted" to attack Sarah Palin.

But then, readers of Newsweek, largely a cult following these days, might be unnerved by the "news" magazine's declining subscription base.
]


I got a call today from one of my best friends, asking me if I'd read Newsweek magazine recently; specifically Sam Harris's article on Sarah Palin called, "When Atheists Attack". I told him no; that though I am an atheist, I'm not a fan of Sam Harris, and don't trust the stance he's taken in the dialogue on atheism - because he's another angry Buddhist - which I regard as a spiritual con, beyond weird, a sign of elitist liberalism, and - as practiced in the West - part of the NewAge (rhymes with sewage) movement that I despise.

My friend, who sits on the fence in regards to a lot of political and theological arguments, read me a few of Harris's paragraphs about Palin that he found troubling. But, while doing so, my friend also gave me further reason to dislike the elitist Harris even more.

Let me explain:

See, I'm not like other atheists in a number of ways: though born an atheist, I've always considered the battle, and taken-offense, over "In God We Trust" on money (or the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge Of Allegiance) to be silly. For me, God is not "dead" but merely outgrown his usefulness. I understand why, mostly as a response to communism, presidents say "God bless America", and why these gestures were made historically, so they don't bother me a bit. They're nothing to rail against. They're anachronisms, kitschy, and (though I'm loathe to admit it) touching, threatening my atheism not one iota. I guess I'm saying I find many atheists, and the planks they stand on, petty, laughable, and weak, and that's also how I feel about Harris's critique of Palin as well.

Harris starts off with the confession that he "was genuinely unnerved by Sarah Palin's performance at the Republican convention" because it was "the most effective political communication" he'd ever seen. Considering how much we in the general public knew about Palin at that juncture, what was Harris afraid of? Why wasn't this man, who I suspect is a feminist, overjoyed to see this "sexy" woman (Harris's word) break the glass ceiling of presidential politics? He claims it was because "if anyone could make Christian theocracy smell like apple pie, Sarah Palin could", but I suspect - as the early, and hypocritical, attacks on Palin indicated - it was mostly because this married mother of five clearly wasn't a card-carrying member of the so-called "progressive" movement. Some elitists, who appear outwardly reasonable, have even gone so far as to declare she isn't even a woman.

Ladies and gentlemen (especially the gentlemen) I ask you: is Sarah Palin not a woman?

Whatever the case for his anxiety, Harris wasn't giving this new face on our national stage a fair break, as he indicates while discussing her Charles Gibson interview.

Harris says he was "relieved to discover, as many were, that Palin's luster can be much diminished by the absence of a teleprompter" - without uttering a word on how elitist Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's celebrated stumbling without a teleprompter affected his mood. Harris adds that he "didn't much care that she did not know the meaning of the phrase 'Bush doctrine'", but as Charles Krathammer (the man who coined the term) has pointed out, that great "gotcha" moment apparently hasn't yet registered with "progressives" like Harris - or even the New York Times - as Charles Gibson's gaffe - not Palin's - three weeks later.


Continue reading: Sam Harris Doesn't Speak for Me



by The Crack Emcee
image: The Macho Response
Source: Sam Harris Doesn't Speak for Me



 
coompax-digital magazine