Warm And Happy In The Tank

John Harris and Jim Vandehei cheerfully admit that they, their site, The Politico, and the overwhelming majority of the media is cheerfully in the tank for Barack Obama. And the are completely unapologetic about it, even though their own Obama worship makes even them cringe at times.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.

What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).

You call that balanced?

OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.

And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.

So what?

(Do go read the whole thing, don’t let me filter the news for you.)

In other words, those of us who have been pointing out the obvious are right. The media is in the tank for Obama and quite happy to be there. So, since we no longer have to question their objectivity, perhaps it is time to begin questioning their truthfulness. In other words, how much of what they are reporting as fact is being twisted, manipulated or simply made up in their need to please their tankmates and help their chosen one across the finish line?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Warm And Happy In The Tank

  1. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.

    You gotta wonder about the “centerism” of folks who hail from the al Qaeda wing of the Democrat Party. But what do I know? I am an embittered typical white G*d-and-guns-clinging anti-intellectual who is not one of yuri’s Official Smart People(C).

  2. Realist says:

    WHat is the danger of a biased media?? It is clear that MSNBC, CBS,ABC and NBC are virtually campaigning for Mr Obama. Everyone of us has biases, but in an effort to find truth we have to be aware of our biases and make conscious efforts to prevent them from influncing our investigations and conclusions.For example, the risk here is that since the “investigative reporters” appear largely interestd in supporting Mr Obama, this influences not only the conclusions they attempt to lead the reader to believe, but much more importantly, what they choose to investigate. For example, it seems Ms Palin has been examined to a level that is embarrassing even to the Obama camp, while I have seen virtually no follow-up on the reports of major Arab sources of Mr Obama’s contributions, his association with radical anarchist groups, contributions from an organization chaired by his wife to an extremeist group, just to name a few. Also, in contrast to the grilling Ms Palin has ben subjected to, I have seen no follow-up questions regarding the videos of Mr Obamas earlier speeche wherin he promises “to markedly curtail funding for the missle defense program” which he describes as “unproven”, desite its amazing and ever improving performance, demonstrated repeatedly
    North Korea has recently completed a second missle lanching facility, and is known to have nuclear capability. I seriously doubt they are planning a moon landingWe all know that Iran’s intends to develope nuclear weapons, and this regieme that has vowed to wipe Israel from the planet.These are not scare tactics–just recent headlines (and bylines)I have to admit I would be more willing to consider Mr Obama if I were not seriously concerned that we may be electing a radical In disguise, who really plans on making this country and Isreal vulnerable to extreamist attack. Were thisthe case, what clues would you hope to get–he certainly isn’t going to announce such intent. Some clues come from his book–but again virtually nomention of some very disconcerting ideas he expresses therin have been examined by the press. And the fact that we as a nation are likely to make this man the most powerful person on the planet means that NOT probing every detail of his background and intentions represents a clear and present danger to the future of mankind.But then it would make sense not to look if the investigator were concerned that the results might decrease the chances of his preferred candidate winning. Hence the danger of the biased media

  3. Jeff Pentington says:

    Given that the politico is guilty as charged and unrepentant, (Where have I heard this before?) maybe it is time to make some changes. Since liberals will be liberals and conservatives will be conservatives, why not mandate some affirmative action for the media and make sure there is equal representation from each group.

  4. LomaAlta says:

    Nice post, and yes I read the original post at Politico.

    I was taught that a free press is essential to freedom of speech and freedom in America. Somehwere along the way our press ceased to be free and now seeks to supress free speech rather than protect it. Just look at the way they seek to destroy the truth and anyone who might disagree with them.

  5. Gobsmacker says:

    “So what?” Here’s “so what”: if the press no longer performs the role of a politically independent and fearlessly unbiased Fourth Estate—the Public’s watchful eye over the abuses of government,—then it no longer deserves the special protections and privileges accorded it by law and, in practice, by the courts: no shield laws, no right to frustrate a prosecutor’s grand jury, no protections against libel, no inalienable right to publish state secrets, and no special dispensations to media monopolies. If the press deems itself the house organ for a particular political party, right or left, then it should be considered nothing special before the law. It is just another John or Jane Q. Citizen and subject to the same rules of behavior. That’s so what.

  6. Pingback: Blue Crab Boulevard » So What?

  7. Rich Horton says:

    I’m with Mwalimu here. A real “centrist” would never embrace Obama’s steamin pile o’ crapola. A real “centrist” would have said “I dont care about rhetoric…what have you done.”

    There is a word for people who care more about what people “say” as opposed to what they “do.” That word is “ideologue.” And a press that deliberately lies in order to affect a certain political outcome is not worthy of our respect or our money.

    If fact, they are not a “press” at all.

Comments are closed.