The Failure Of The Press

The American press blew it completely on covering Barack Obama. So says a longtime member of said American press - in fact, a professor who teaches journalism and contributes to USA Today, Don Campbell.

The vetting of presidential and vice presidential candidates has long been a responsibility that journalists took seriously:

Two reporters won a Pulitzer Prize for disclosing that George McGovern's short-lived choice for running mate in 1972, Thomas Eagleton, had been treated for mental illness.

In 1984, news exposure of the financial dealings of Geraldine Ferraro's husband after she became Walter Mondale's running mate threw that campaign into a tizzy.

In 1988, reporters discovered that Dan Quayle, George H.W. Bush's obscure running mate, had used family influence to land a cushy desk job in the Indiana National Guard and avoid service in Vietnam.

In this election, alas, most of the bloodhounds have lost their sense of smell. For the most part, they've relinquished that space to bloggers and radio talkers who have an ideological agenda, not an obligation to root out the facts and present them fairly.

Wright coverage

Thus, the coverage of Obama's spiritual relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ is disturbing. True, Wright sounded so unhinged on his recent ego tour in Washington that it might generate sympathy for Obama. But the issue still hanging is how a man who played such an important role in Obama's life for more than two decades drew so little scrutiny from reporters covering the Obama campaign. And since Obama himself has said the Wright controversy is a legitimate issue, I'll take that as an invitation to weigh in.

First, it took much too long for major news media outlets to appreciate the importance of the Wright connection. (Not that they all do yet; the pummeling of ABC News by commentators for raising this and similar issues in the Pennsylvania debate further illustrated how out of touch some commentators are.)

There is quite a lot more, I'd urge readers to follow the link and read it all. Campbell obviously believes that the press fell flat on its collective face on Obama. Which makes you wonder how brutal the backlash is going to be when the press realizes it failed. It also makes you wonder how much more dirt there is out there that the media is pretending not to notice. This is what the Clinton camp has been hinting at: that Obama has not been vetted by the press the way she has.

Is there an October surprise big enough to sink Obama?

Department Of Redundancy Department

I fully understand where James Kirchick is coming from in a piece over at The Politico. He points out the raging double standard of the left regarding religion.

Yet the left, with its healthy skepticism toward religion, has shown itself to be cynically flexible over the past few weeks in response to the utter insanities emitted from the big mouth of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor, mentor and friend of 20 years. Suddenly, some liberals have discovered a newfound love for extremists who hide behind the cloth to justify their radical views.

The lunatic remarks made by Wright in videotaped sermons released in March — which, lest there be any doubt that these pearls of wisdom were taken “out of context,” Wright reaffirmed at the National Press Club last week — are indefensible, and it is beyond pedantry to quibble over whether a spirited defense of Louis Farrakhan is more or less offensive than blaming abortion doctors and gays for Sept. 11, 2001, as Jerry Falwell infamously did two days after the terrorist attacks.

But in the warped minds of some on the left, uttering such inanities is not only “understandable,” it’s laudable. That is, of course, if the person alleging that the government created AIDS to kill African-Americans is an aggrieved black man lashing out at the rapacious, capitalist and irredeemably racist United States. Wright, you see, is actually a “patriot” for speaking uncomfortable “truths” about his country.

Still, pointing out the hypocrisy of the left is a more or less full time occupation. This is nothing new for them. But it isn't a bad thing to keep pointing it out, either. Eventually, enough people will catch on. Or maybe they already have.

Surprise From Microsoft

I figured that with the demise of Windows XP already set for June Microsoft would not release Service Pack 3. Surprise, they did just that yesterday.

Microsoft today finally released Service Pack 3 for Windows XP users. The update should now be offered via both Windows Update or Automatic Updates. The company was expected to release it last week, but pulled the plug at the last minute due to a compatibility problem with an obscure product they offer.

Many readers have asked me whether this update is really necessary, given that there isn't a whole lot new in Service Pack 3 aside from all of the security and non-security updates Microsoft has ever released for the operating system.

The following are some of the things you should know about installing Service Pack 3 for Windows XP.

Microsoft says it is not adding any significant Windows Vista technology into XP with Service Pack 3. No surprise there, given that Microsoft has said Service Pack 3 will be XP's swan song: The company currently plans to stop issuing new licenses for the operating system this summer.

Brian Krebs at the Washington Post does not see any problems with the update so far. But it would be a good idea to follow directions (he has the link) if you do install the last service pack. I have to see about getting it on disk so I don't have to download it over and over.