What Media Bias?
I have been made an effort since I started writing this blog to make as much of it “original content” as possible, and to avoid merely “commenting” on other stories. However, sometimes I just cannot let a news story go by without interjecting. Today is such a day. You see, today we have reached an all time low in terms of media credibility. Its not enough that so called “independent” pundits like Chris Matthews admit to getting tingly when Obama speaks (watch him admit that here) or that the Washington Post admitted they have been covering Obama three times as much as McCain (full story here).
Allow me to introduce you to Gwen Ifill. Gwen is the managing editor of Washington Week and a contributor to The News Hour on PBS. She is also the author of a new book; The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. The description on Amazon for her new book reads, in part:
In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.
“The Breakthrough” is set to be released on January 20, 2009. Oh, did I not mention also that she is “moderating” tomorrow’s debate between Biden and Palin?
So let’s summarize…a woman who’s releasing a pro-Obama book on inauguration day for the next President and who has therefore shown great bias toward Obama and stands to gain financially from his election is “moderating” a debate between the Vice Presidential candidates. HOW does this pass muster with ANYONE as credible??
Message Wall RSS Feed
October 1st, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Speaking of bias…maybe we should read her book BEFORE we throw it on the bonfire. is it possible that her book might actually be what it claims to be: a review on the impact of BaBo is having on the polictical landscape for both this presidential election, as well as for emerging african american politicians? perhaps its you who bring the bias and assume that her book is a rah, rah, sis boom Obama kind of document. Can anyone deny that BaBo has had an impact? doesn’t this impact deserve to be documented and surveyed?
[Reply]
The Rluctant Republican Reply:
October 1st, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I am now more convinced than ever that you only read half of each post. Even if her book is “factual” and merely an “unbiased” look at his campaign, social effect, etc., she stands to gain financially by his election. THAT is the greatest bias of all.
[Reply]
justinchina Reply:
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
dude, i told you already…if you want me to read the whole post, just give me three bullet points. that’s it. the limit of my attention span.
[Reply]
October 1st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
You’re right, Justin C. He has had an impact and that impact does deserve to be documented and surveyed. Perhaps, however, the title should be something like “The Death of a Nation” or “How To Snow Friends and Con Just About Anyone.” Maybe even, “They Were All Stupid So They Deserve Obama.”
Whaddya think?
[Reply]
justinchina Reply:
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
personally, i am a big fan of checks and balances, because it limits the damage that a single individual can do. if we as a nation can survive eight years of George W. we can survive anything. regardless of who sits in the white house…the nation won’t be any better or worse at the very highest levels. i believe our system, with its checks and balances was developed just so that specific people can’t change too many things. every president, regardless of denomination, are more or less limited in what they can do to some extent. every president since Nixon has had to have the same policy towards China/Taiwan. Every president since JFK has had to have the same policy towards Cuba. these are just two examples. if we as a country are so stupid that we deserve George W. (who, it should be noted, has given all kinds of high school drop outs hope that they too can one day rule the world)then i don’t see why we can’t survive someone who actually dispenses hope in large doses. I will also, it should be noted, be proud of the US if they elect BaBo…even if i don’t vote for him. it will prove that the system, even if not perfect, can work. the value is in the system, the resiliency of our political system and the strength of our democracy, not the specific person who sits at the top of the pyramid scheme that is most important. just my humble opinion. I also think that anyone who actually WANTS to be president, should be looked at with suspicion. WHY would you want that job? I say we force someone to the role who doesn’t want it. I would like Colin Powell to be drafted into the presidential position, with Warren Buffett forced to be his VP. grab someone who doesn’t want the job, and make them do it! that’s what i would most like to see.
[Reply]
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
now, i know i’m going out on a limb here by posting a link not associated with the New York Post, the Enquirer, or Fox, but i think this is an excellent article on the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/us/politics/02debate.html?bl&ex=1223092800&en=9fa606ceef16e341&ei=5087%0A
of course, it should be noted, that the New York Times is known as a commie supporting, left wing, fifth-column, l-i-b-e-r-a-l mouthpiece for the Democrats, i think it’s important to note that:
a. McCain supporters have become the biggest bunch of whiners ever. ever. ever. it’s not fair, your biased. it’s not fair, this is gotcha journalism. blah blah blah. sad. man up, this is life, not some kids soccer game.
b. the book was started before babo ever started his election run
c. a writer writes his or her book, but it’s the publisher who markets it…so i think it’s possible that the book in fact only has one chapter on BaBo, BUT, it’s that one chapter that the publishers decide to push, because that’s whats going to sell. writers rarely have control over how the books are marketed. even if the book only had babo in the footnotes, that’s what the publisher would zero in on.
d. She has been doing the VP debates since before BaBo was on the political stage.
e. none of us have even read the book.
f. If she was going to financially gain anything from this book…she would have written a thriller, not a political documentary. she’s not john grisham or danielle steel. in case you hadn’t noticed…nobody reads or buys books anymore.
g. i think this is a natural progression. we went from assuming that: a. if the news doesn’t agree with us they are biased. to B. anyone else who doesn’t agree with us about the Babo and Mccain debate outcome must have come to the table with preconcieved notions to C. preemptively calling the biased card before anything actually happens to protect ourselves in case our VP candidate turns out to not do so well. when actually the problem is D. everyone, at all levels of this process, whether it be just dumb voter, or blogging blowhards like us, or grandma, or john q public, or commentator, or debate facilitator, has biases…that’s just a fact. the mccain team just needs to accept it, and work with it. work with it, and stop shopping at walmart. that’s my advice to the Mccain campaign and supports. Stop whining, and stop supporting commies by shopping at walmart: people who shop at walmart are propping up a communist regime. even they don’t use credit cards to do so.
[Reply]
justinchina Reply:
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
sorry…she started the book in 07…not before Babo threw his hat in the ring as stated in my previous post…i thought i would correct that notion, so that any of you who have moral objections to the New York Times don’t actually have to click on the link.
[Reply]
The Reluctant Republican Reply:
October 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
If you want anyone to read your replies you need to just give three bullet points. That’s it.
[Reply]
The Reluctant Republican Reply:
October 2nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
As usual, you have missed the major point of the post. The moderator, by having a financial interst in the results of the election (and you’re out of your mind if you think she doesn’t because it isn’t a “thriller”), BY DEFINITION has an ethical conflict of interest. You can dance around and blow smoke about who decided how to market the book in what way and when, or how long she’s been writing it, or how ling she’s been involved with debates, but NONE of that changes the aforementioned FACT and elminates the CLEAR ethical conflict of interest.
[Reply]
justinchina Reply:
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Here is, as i understand it, the major point of your post : a woman who’s releasing a pro-Obama book on inauguration day for the next President and who has therefore shown great bias toward Obama and stands to gain financially from his election is “moderating” a debate between the Vice Presidential candidates. HOW does this pass muster with ANYONE as credible??
there are SEVERAL POINTS, despite the fact that during your 3.15 post, you choose to highlight only ONE of your main points enroute to saying that i don’t see your main point…let me say that the above sentance appears to have at least three points: (and here are your three bullet points)
a. She is releasing a book about Obama and THEREFORE, ipsofacto is bias TOWARDS obama (you go so far as, without reading the book to say it’s Pro-obama…i guess because you read that phrase on the absurd site world net daily.com). this is what i’m choosing to focus on as semi-truthful.
AND (emphasis yours)
b. stands to gain financially if obama wins.
Am i misreading something? do you not in fact have TWO points to your post, as you AND in all caps indicates?
[Reply]
justinchina Reply:
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:31 pm
HAHAHAHA, i said three points…but now that i count with a calculator…i think you only have two.
The Reluctant Republican Reply:
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Ok, so we now know that you need a calculator to find the difference between two and three. And I have to admit, I was just informed that Jim Lehrer’s book, “Eyebrows: The Stunningly Bushy Rise of Michael Dukakis” DID, in fact go on to be a best seller after the ‘88 election where Bush Sr. trounced him. So clearly there is a precedent established and any conflict is irrelevant.
Brad Moser Reply:
October 2nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
justinchina, I scrolled through your post to point g halfway through to sub point D, and noticed again that you made mention to Walmart and shoppers are supporting communism. I’m all for the local little guys to make it, but is the strong lashing out b/c of A) they pushed your mom and pop store out of business B) they bought your business and you lost a job or C)can’t think of anything else b/c if you prospered off this large company acquistion then it’d be hypocritcal….plus I wanted to keep it to 3 points
[Reply]
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
JustinC you went WAY over our self-imposed word limit, so I’m going to enact my own system of checks and balances and refuse to read your comments. Plus,I think your just try to egg the RR on….
[Reply]
justinchina Reply:
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:32 pm
i mean EVERYONE ELSE should only have three points and keep it to a minimum…i obviously can’t be subjected to such harsh restrictions!
[Reply]