An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Eight Reasons Why Obama Will Win

Scary Election »

The Media and Obama: “The Story They Wanted to Tell”

Posted by JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor in Media, Politics.
Oct 31st, 2008 | Comments

I was watching Morning Joe today on MSNBC and heard Joe Scarborough make a rather remarkable comment concerning the media coverage of the Obama campaign going back to 2007.

“All through this campaign, Barack Obama was the story the media wanted to tell. And if you ran against Obama, whether you were [Hillary] Clinton or John McCain, they were going to tear you to pieces.“

This was particularly noteworthy coming as it did on that particular network. One recent study in Variety revealed that MSNBC led the pack in apparent bias for election coverage, with 73% of their stories about McCain being rated as negative, compared to 57% negative stories on McCain in the other networks on average. Most of these networks also love to feature clips from the Daily Show and the late night programs such as Letterman and Leno. They do this in the spirit of “injecting some humor” into the campaign coverage, but the folks who did this study at the University of Delaware also noted that the jokes poking fun at McCain vastly outnumbered the digs taken at Obama.

So what do you think? I make a point of watching several sources each day: Morning Joe, Fox and Friends, and CNN Headline News. Except for Fox, I must admit that the coverage has really been telling the story as Scarborough described. Obama’s detractors have chaffed at the perceived lack of coverage on stories involving William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and other “questionable” associates of Barack Obama. Truth be told, I have seen these stories mentioned on MSNBC, but they are almost always couched in catch phrases, such as, “why anyone would care about this…” and it gets brushed aside. (Personally, I agree with them and don’t care much about those stories, but it is news, so you’d expect them to cover it in a more even handed fashion.)

And so I ask you, ladies and gentlemen. Did the media, in large part, decide that this was the story they wanted to tell back in 2007? Did they actively and knowing seek to “tear to pieces” Hillary Clinton and John McCain? Particularly for the Obama supporters here, please note that I’m not asking you to change sides, or say that Obama is horrible or any such thing. You are free to agree with the story being told and agree with the portrayal as you wish. But when you watch this endless coverage, I’m just wondering if you ever felt a small twinge of embarrassment or discomfort at the fawning going on over this candidate?

Was Barack Obama the story they wanted to tell? And did they wind up injecting themselves into the plot line to make sure the story stayed on script? Let us know what you think.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

Manchester2

There's no question, there is bias. I switch back-and-forth between MSNBC, CNN, and FoxNews. These represent the left, center, and right, the "big three" of cable news. On Morning Joe this morning, they speculated about who would be President Obama's chief of staff. On CNN, they talked about scenarios of how Sen. McCain could still pull this thing off. I didn't switch over to Fox, but probably they would be talking about the video tape of the Khalidi (sp?) event that the L.A. Times refuses to release. There you have it in a nutshell.

AustinRoth

Gee, let's check in at the LA Times, which is currently refusing to release a video tape very, very likely to contain damaging statements made by Obama.

Show of hands, please. How many TMV'ers think if it was a video of McCain waxing eloquent at a function for David Duke, the LA Times would be as reticent to release it?

Jazz

Look guys, I wasn't trying to make this into some sort of abject condemnation of Barack Obama. I'm just wondering what everyone thinks about Scarborough's analysis. Did large portions of the media see this election like some sort of Movie of the Week and decide that the story line where the bi-racial kid from the wrong side of the tracks ascends to the highest seat in the land was the best ratings grabber? And, if so, did they decide to become one of the actors on the stage to make sure the story stayed on script, rather than just reporting the plot as it unfolded?

CStanley

I don't see that there's any question that it has happened that way, Jazz. I'm sure some will disagree with that, or say that it's a case of the 'truth having a liberal bias' (ie, that there just IS more positive stuff to cover about Obama) or what have you, but even the press itself is finding it impossible to deny the slant.

I happened to be flipping through this morning and it was just as Manchester described (yes, Fox and Friends did have quite a bit to say about the LA Times/Khalidi tape.) I also noticed some interesting commentary by Geraldo Rivera (not fond of him, but I think this was an astute and accurate observation); he was pointing out that most of the media guys were part of the liberal, antiwar and pro civil rights movement of the 60s and they've gone through this morphing to a more establishment position, but now they see Obama as the fulfillment of those unfulfilled political aspirations- sort of a way to blend the establishment with the anti-establishment mentality that they've always embraced but gave up on as they reached midlle age.

Sounds about right as far as explaining all of the thrills running up legs.

Degrance

Of course there have been more negative stories about McCain. His entire campaign has been an embarrassment. How many screw ups can you list, just off the top of your head, from the McCain camp? Now, how many for Obama?

Likewise, just because a candidate shouts something doesn't make it news. The Repubs shout "Ayers!" That doesn't make it news. After you have debunked the Ayers connection a dozens times where else do you go with the story? Every news cast already starts with, "McCain mentioned Ayers on the stump again today."

In short the events surrounding McCain have been, objectively, negative. Those around Obama have been, objectively, positive. Therefore, the events reported about McCain have been more negative and those reported about Obama positive.

If anything I think some negative reporting around Obama has been unfairly negative because the idiots running news think that being objective means that every time you report something negative you have go to the ends of the earth to find something similarly negative to report about the other candidate.

See the many stories about Sarah Palin bringing down the Republican ticket and look for the obligatory, "but then Senator Biden misspoke himself last week."

joshbuckner

I can accept that there is bias in favor of Obama, but I believe that McCain missed his chance to steal the spotlight. These same news anchors would still be fawning over McCain if he continued to act like what the media has dubbed "the real McCain".

So the media bias might not exist, had McCain stuck to the principles that made him popular in the first place. If I am correct with this line of reasoning, then the bias might have stronger justification than Scarborough gives credit for.

JWeidner

McCain didn't complain so much about media bias when he was running his "Straight Talk Express". In fact, he specifically courted the media and referred to them as his "base". And they returned the favor with highly favorable coverage. For him to be upset now, just because the media no longer loves him, well that's just a tiny bit hypocritical.

Besides, the media was mostly on McCain's side as recently as the primary elections. It was only after McCain cut off access and started flinging the most egregious lies about Obama that the press started to change their coverage of him. He has himself to blame for the tone the media takes about him these days, no one else.

Lit3Bolt

Jazz I'd say yes with caveats. First, the media did give Clinton and McCain many chances to come back (after all, beyond Obama winning they want the horse race). Second, it was the abject failure of Clinton or McCain to distinguish themselves from Obama. So the only reason to vote FOR Clinton or FOR McCain is because you were AGAINST Obama. That was the primary reasoning, and historically people don't like to vote against stuff, they vote for stuff (the entire process of voting is itself a positive act).

Also, I could point to the Iraq war run up as saying dismissively, "The entire media has a conservative, pro-war bias." The truth is more complicated.

CStanley

Well, that didn't take long. 11 minutes after I said:
I'm sure some will disagree with that, or say that it's a case of the 'truth having a liberal bias' (ie, that there just IS more positive stuff to cover about Obama)

Degrance comes with:
In short the events surrounding McCain have been, objectively, negative. Those around Obama have been, objectively, positive.

The problem there of course is the circular logic. You can't know what you don't know, and if you are using the prefiltered facts from media to determine your 'objective facts', then those can be heavily skewed to one side or the other. You're using the facts that have been supplied to you through the media to determine your conclusion that the facts themselves objectively lean one way or another, and you really don't have the information necessary to make that determination.

I will agree though that Obama's campaign has been much more disciplined and polished than McCains- Axelrod is proving to be the liberal Karl Rove in that respect.

anne_NC

I think that is taking the easy way out.... "oh, the media did it". The campaign is so long, people forget that the media really "picked" Hillary and Giuliani to get the nominations. Obama and Huckabee winning Iowa surprised everybody, including the media. The Daily Show has a great clip of every single news commentator telling Barack Obama to drop out of the race because there is no way he could win. Ooops. People also forget when McCain was hammering him all over the summer, and Obama wasn't fighting back (turned out it was all part of his plan to lead up to his convention speech), and after he picked Palin, everybody noted how McCain was polling ahead and women were flocking to McCain.

Obama has been more mature than McCain, he has been more calm, appearing presidential to the millions who barely pay attention to politics and tuned in to the debates for their first chance to hear what this "Obama fellow" has to say. It is not bias to reflect that his campaign has been flawless, no doubt aided by the erratic campaign of McCain, whose emphasis on short term strategies and winning news cycles left him without a message.

Elyas

"I make a point of watching several sources each day: Morning Joe, Fox and Friends, and CNN Headline News."

I think that's the problem. Only one of those shows really strives to be an objective news program. A lot of people equate anything on one of these networks with news reporting, but Morning Joe and Fox and Friends are morning talk shows and, although they discuss the news, they don't necessarily strive to objectively report it. If we're going to have a serious discussion about media bias, we have to distinguish between punditry and journalism.

Man o' Law

Yes, absolutely, Obama was, and is, the story that the MSM wants to tell and sell. What is most problematic and in many ways frightening, is that in their zeal to sell the story of Obama they have given up the media's traditional role of being a filter and sounding board for the citizens of the this country. by that I mean reporting the facts and the teruth of it, not their perception or their coloration as fact. A simple declarative statement such as "the crowd applauded" can become "the crowd applauded in approval" or "the crowd barely applauded" all of which is coloration, "spin" if you will.

Mr. Obama has much unknown about him, particularly in light of his campaigning for nearly two years. The media has not done its job. If it can send dozens of folks to Wassila and breathlessly report on Joe the Plumber's tax lien within 24 hours of his name coming up during the last presidential debate, many of the issues concerning Obama could have been looked into. I'd rather not find out later, sfter he is the president about matters which should have been learned of earlier.

StockBoySF

I saw plenty of Wright, Ayers, and Obama being a liberal (now socialist) stories. I didn't see many McCain and Keating Five, G, Gordon, McCain being old or cheating on his first wife stories. McCain, IMO, is running a much more negative campaign than Obama. At least the press can interview Obama and Biden.

When one runs a more respectable campaign (as Obama is) then one can expect better press coverage. If you don't even allow your VP nominee to be interviewed by the press, as McCain has, then you further open yourself up to criticism.

McCain has a tendency to bounce around and make demands of Obama, whether it be "come to town hall meetings with me" or "delay the first debate", which are not very presidential in bearing.

So yes, I think the press has treated Obama more positively but it has been fair because there are lots of reasons to treat McCain negatively.

kritt11

Since Obama has not trailed McCain he has not had the need to indulge in vicious attacks. Even last night on Maddow- he chose to abstain from attacking the Republican party- even though it has been responsible for some ugly attacks on him. Staying positive is the luxury of the frontrunner, but it definitely makes him look more presidential and McCain look more desperate.

Silhouette

It depends on which media outlet you're talking about. Fox news was against Hillary because they thought with Obama at the lead, they, *ahem*, um, I mean the GOP could easily defeat him.

The other outlets? I think they just followed Fox's lead for a good while with their own motivations of harboring the GOP-planted anti-Clintonism that the GOP-engineered Lewinskygate managed to take hold in people's minds. Willam Clinton, measured by his actual working record and not bucolic tabloidism, was possibly the greatest president this country has ever seen, and only subject to the usual mortal flaws.

So the Obama sensation was a tidal wave born of an illicit beginning: the framing of an otherwise great man, based on one of his few weaknesses, of which all men are susceptible; even the very best. The world was hoodwinked into despising all-things "Clinton". And so you saw that unfairly played out in the media. On Fox as purposeful strategy.. On the others as an innocent mistake.

We have who we have on our ticket. And he is far the superior choice at this point for President. If the press had handled Hillary fairly, she would be our nominee and the margins would be laughable. McCain would have his tail very deeply tucked between his legs instead of still daring to wag it.

kritt11

Degrance

I also think McCain's attempts to connect Obama with Ayers fell flat because the public did not sense that there was a strong connection that was currently influencing Obama in any way. The McCain camp did not do themselves any favors by hiding Palin or by McCain's own tendency to shy away from the press.

There is no doubt that the media got caught up in Obama's narrative--- its the real American dream-from food stamps and a single mother to the presidency. McCain also had a compelling narrative- but his campaign appearances did not inspire enough for that to carry him through. His lame attempt to reach the middle class with Joe the Plumber is no substitute for a genuine feeling for their plight-it feels choreographed and trite.

This election differs from previous ones in that voters are searching for calm reassurance and a real break with the policies that have hurt them economically. They have voted their fears and feel the need to vote their hopes this time.

CStanley

Stockboy, I do think the McCain camp blundered in the way they sheltered Palin from the press- but it's disingenuous to attack on that when Joe Biden is now also being scarce and the Obama campaign is kicking the media outlets that endorsed McCain off of their campaign plane and blacklisting the Orlando TV station that aired a hard hitting interview with Biden. Neither campaign should cherry pick their coverage like that, and the public should hold their feet to the fire when they do so.

GeorgeSorwell

It seems to me that the real story is the way a pantload of blathering chat has replaced news reporting on TV.

sophie_jane

I don't agree. How many days did the media dwell on Obama not wearing a USA pin? Also, the Wright/Ayers thing has been covered to death.

Yet, there has hardly been any mention of Cindy's McCain's drug addiction, the way she and John McCain had an affair while he was married, Palin's successionist husband (how on earth is that patriotic???), her shoddy record in Alaska, her crazy church, or creationist beliefs, her record in Wasilla of having women pay for their own rape kits, her suspicious contract buddies who built her half-million dollar house, or McCain's relationship with Gordon Liddy or Keating. We've spent over a year questioning Obama's patriotism when McPalin has a ton of skeletons in their closets.

AustinRoth

Jazz - you wrote your "some sort of abject condemnation of Barack Obama" after only manchester and I had commented. Neither of us said anything negative about Obama, rather we both talked about the press. Not sure what you were so up in arms about there.

kritt11

I agree somewhat with Sophie Jane-- and some of that seems more significant than sitting on a couple of boards with Ayers- at the time his crimes were 30 yrs old and he was considered mainstream enough for his educational proposal to be chosen by the Annenberg Foundation. No one else who worked with him on the projects walked off-- why would Obama?

Jazz

Sorry if it came off as "up in arms." I was only referring to the Khalidi thing, and hoping that rather thing bringing up a list of things the media *should* have been reporting on, I could focus the conversation on the meta-story of whether they injected themselves into the campaign with a purpose.

StockBoySF

sophie_jane: I agree, but the press was right to lay off Cindy's drug addiction. It is a personal matter and does not affect the race in any way. If McCain had the addiction, the press would have been right to cover it- but only as long as it centered on whether it would affect his judgement as prez. or if he might relapse.

Ricorun

Jazz: Look guys, I wasn't trying to make this into some sort of abject condemnation of Barack Obama. I'm just wondering what everyone thinks about Scarborough's analysis.

I think the analyses of the media's treatment of each candidate are too broad. "Fair and balanced" are concepts that are sometimes at odds with each other. The media analyses speak to the balance issue. They don't say anything at all as to whether the criticism or praise was deserved. After all, it isn't exactly fair to report positively when a candidate screws up, or vice versa. As mentioned above, there has been a lot to criticize about McCain's campaign, and not that much about Obama's. Even from within McCain's campaign McCain's campaign gets a lot of criticism. How do you report that fairly without sounding more negative towards McCain than Obama?

So perhaps, rather than just indicating whether a given story was negative or positive in their assessment of a candidate, also indicate in the analysis what the subject was. Alternatively (or additionally), compare it to the frequency the candidates go negative or stay positive.

AustinRoth

jazz - understood.

I was not bringing up the LA Times to discuss the issue itself, but as a really good example of the MSM being in the tank for Obama, IMO.

JWeidner

Austin, the problem with your LA Times example, IMO, is that they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't. They are the news outlet that reported on the tape and the contents of said tape in the first place. Without their story, there IS NO story. They are the only ones with a copy of the tape, which was given to them in confidence and with the requested promise that it not be released - a promise that they are upholding because that's how all news media works - they don't burn their confidential sources.

Now, when I say the LA Times is damned if they do, and damned if they don't, I mean that here they have reported on the contents of the tape - they clearly didn't have to say ANYTHING about it, but they wrote the initial story. Now because the LA Times won't kowtow to Republican requests and release the tape, they take flak. However, if they DO release the tape, then that opens them up to charges of violating ethical standards just so they can clear their preferred candidate.

I don't quite understand how the Republicans can accuse the Times of suppressing this story, when they, in fact, were the ones who reported it in the first place (in April).

davigoli

@AustinRoth - how can the LA Times "not releasing" a damning tape about Obama being "in the tank" for Obama? How do we know they even have such a thing? If they did, it would surely help boost their circulation as they'd have a pretty big scoop. Sounds an awful lot like that fabled "Michelle Obama Whitey" video that also never turned up. There's a pattern of supposedly damning evidence about Obama that nobody can quite conjure, the way Michael Goldfarb tried to insinuate on CNN yesterday about how Obama supposedly has ties with anti-semites, yet couldn't name any of his ties. These are unsubstantiated rumors spread by those who are looking for any excuse to believe the worst about Obama.

Now, if they turn around and produce that tape, I'll eat my shorts. But until they do, it's grist for the rumor mill and very much a sign of an anti-Obama hitjob.

sophie_jane

Sure, I see what you're saying but think of how many articles there were dissecting Michelle's senior thesis from Princeton. It's more than obvious that Michelle is fair game to the media but Cindy is not. Also, when Cindy went on the campaign trail bashing Obama for putting her son in danger for not voting for the troop funding bill, hardly any news media pointed out that McCain voted the exact same way!

lurxst

McCain's uneven, erratic, lurching campaign has been comedy gold. Its his own decisions that have buried his hopes for the presidency.

The narrative from the TV, as I see it...

McCain = Maverick = Risky Gambler
Obama = Calm, Steady = Thoughtful

McCain tried to run on his persona from the 90s but ended up having to sacrifice all those principles in his race to the White House. Much of that persona was hooey anyway, as he has generally shown a penchant for mediocrity peppered with occasional bold displays of bi-partisanship or questionable ethics. He is not a leader within the global scale of things, he is an opportunist. I believe the U.S. has had enough of the shoot-from-the-hip style presidency.

McCain has been playing checkers while Obama has been playing chess.

I remember Obama back in the 2004 DNC, the first time I had seen him. I didn't pay much attention to him at the time, but I remember many quotes about how he is the future of the Democratic party, etc. The notion that he has somehow pulled the wool over everyone's eyes, despite years of scrutiny while on the campaign trail, is a failed narrative from his opponents that is just not sticking no matter how hard they try.

In an election filled with rabid arab hatred, the Khalidi issue is just another attempt to paint a broad streak of distrust across Obama because he "gasp" is able to sit and talk and interact with people with extremely different view points. You mean like foreign leaders of Iran or Russian?

This is a bad thing?

McCain and his surrogates are doing something commonly called "projection". Just because he has an inability to consider different viewpoints or interact with questionable people without coming away "tainted" doesn't mean that his opponent shares his shortcomings.

schmoey

This attack on Obama's aquaintennces is fair game.

Obama's only strength is that he's not Bush, so he has done everything in his power to tie McCain to "Evil" Bush. So in response, the Republicans put this in perspective. McCain is less tied to "Evil" Bush than Obama is to Ayers. McCain is less tied to "Evil" Bush than Obama is to Franklin Reines. Mccain is less tied to "Evil" Bush than Obama is with the PLO.

Does anyone see how this works? Speaking of Arabs, why do Iranian muslims not like OBama? Speaking of Kenya, why do many Kenyans not like Odinga? Who is Odinga? Ask Obama how Odinga won that election last year and ask him how is his own campaign similar?

Has anyone noticed that the smears on Palin and Joe the Plumber are desperate attempts by the Obama campaign to compensate for his lack of fiscal history? Gosh. Palin pulled off a deal with TransCanada Pipelines, cleaned up her budget.,,Obama merely served himself and got many "First African American" awards without any proven history of taxing people, giving tax credits, etc. All I know is that Chicago and Illinois have the highest sales tax at 10.25%.

The media has been a waste of time. I refused to watch the debates. I actually turned off the t.v. altogether. I want the ability to see the news as if I was there and form my own opinion on the topic.

roro80

I think the argument that the media has been biased for Obama and against McCain would hold more weight if we were unable to also see the candidates themselves. We don't just watch the pundits. We have seen countless hours of speeches, debates, interviews, campaign appearances, convention build up and speeches. When we watch the debates and see Obama calm, answering questions in ways that make sense, with a strong presence, split-screened with McCain who looks like his head is going to blow up, reciting some junk about some terrorist Obama knew a long time ago, "air quoting" things (like "health" of women) that are highly inappropriate to treat glibly -- and then the media repeats what we saw with our own eyes and already were able to conclude, how is that media bias? We see Obama talking about hope and change and the details about how he's going to bring it about, and we see McCain doing his oogy-boogy fear mongering socialist terrorist pal talking about growing pies with no details. We all saw the 3 Palin interviews, and we know Biden's done hundreds of speeches and interviews since being tapped (we only get soundbites when he says something dumb...). We hear how the pallin' around with terrorist talk translates to McCain supporters in ugly ways. We can also look at the records of all 4 candidates.

In other words: this whole thing is silly. We're not idiots, we can watch the candidates for ourselves. When we hear Obama's an excellent orator and gives people hope, how is that bias? It's evident. When we hear that McCain just ain't what he used to be and running a negative campaign, how is that bias? Again: we can see that pretty clearly.

greenscheeks

I feel the media has been very biased toward Mc Cain and HORRIBLE to Sarah Palin..It makes me sick to see what my country has come to.. Maybe the fact that Mc Cain has served his country most of his life and is a TRUE AMERICAN is the reason he keeps bringing up Ayres..Ayres hates America and everything it stands for....If it was just Ayres,then maybe I could try to overlook it,...But there is Tony Rezko.. The Gangster,Frank Marshall Davis,the Communist,....Reverend Wright,spewing hatred of America....,Father Michael pflege..rthe radical priest..,Louis Farrakhan,the leader of islam..(And also the fact that obama didn't want to wear a pin with the flag on it),and now we're hearing about a video tape showing Obama at a dinner with a member of the PLO where they are talking very negative about Israel.and when you look at the things that Obama stands for such as distribution of wealth,smearing anyone that disagrees with you (Joe the plumber) silencing the media(Fox News)As he has threatened to do and ...taking away our guns ....Then I really can understand why Mccain keeps bring up Ayres..It Don't take too much intelligence to figure out what Obama's plans are for this country..Also his tax break that was supposed to be for people making under 250,000 was down to 200,000 on his silly tv (informercial Which by the way cost about 12 million which he can afford because he agreed to accept public financing and broke his word )and now Biden had it down to 150,000 at his last rally..Considering that Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes on people making 42,000..I am wondering where this will stop..Also his tax breaks for 95% of the people dont mention the fact that 40% dont pay taxes,so he is going to take from the people that work and try to make something of their life and send a check to the people that do nothing to improve their life..I can understand why John Mc Cain keeps bringing up Ayres I just think he should have done it more often,then maybe more people would have connected the dots..Obama...Socialism

kritt11

Schmoey- How is Obama tied to the PLO? LOL His tie to Ayres has been debunked over and over-- now its only still news to Fox viewers. And elaborate on his ties to Franklin Reines. A lot of smear but no substance- the usual right wing ploys.

And McCain tied himself to Bush right after 2004 so that he could inherit the mantle. He even nominated Bush instead of himself,for the Republican straw poll in Tennessee in 2006, even tho Bush wasn't running. For the last year he's been pulling away, but on major legislation he was 90%+ with Bush.

AustinRoth

"His tie to Ayres has been debunked over and over"

Really? Guess I missed that, unless you count 'spending years working along side him, sharing an office space, attending functions like the Khalidi sendoff together, and launching his political career at Ayers house don't count, so please stop saying it does' is debunking.

SteveK

Austin said: "Really? Guess I missed that, unless you count 'spending years working along side him, sharing an office space, attending functions like the Khalidi sendoff together, and launching his political career at Ayers house don't count, so please stop saying it does' is debunking."

Well, it seems you have missed it... Though it's been posted on TMV several times before here's the October 10, 2008 FactCheck.com response to the old, long disproved talking points that you raise anew: "He Lied" About Bill Ayers?

Isn't it time to let this dead horse lie?

kritt11

McCain TV ad says Obama "lied" about his association with Bill Ayers, a
former member of the radical, bomb-setting, anti-Vietnam War Weather
Underground group. In a Web ad, McCain says the two are "friends" who have
"worked together for years." GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has
said repeatedly on the stump that Ayers and Obama "pal around" together. And
in a large-scale robo-call effort, McCain's campaign implied that Obama
"worked closely" with Ayers in the latter's earlier, Weather Underground
days.

But nothing Obama said about Ayers has been shown to be untrue. All
available evidence indicates the two know each other but are not close. They
met in 1995, when Obama was asked to head the board of a school reform
group, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that Ayers had helped start. The
organization, formed to dispense grants in an effort to improve the city's
schools, was hardly radical; its board included a number of well-regarded
Chicago establishment types. Also, Obama and Ayers overlapped for two years
on the board of another foundation, and Ayers hosted a coffee in his home
when Obama was running for the Illinois state Legislature.

Ayers is unrepentant about his past, and Obama doesn't excuse him, calling
his acts as a Weatherman "despicable." But in Chicago, Ayers isn't seen as
all that controversial. He's now a professor of education and was named a
Chicago Citizen of the Year in 1997 for his work on school reform.
AR-- You stop. This is from factcheck.org
<http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied...>

AustinRoth

"AR-- You stop. This is from factcheck.org"

You forgot to add 'The Oracles of' in front of factcheck.org.

I will continue to believe what I believe, and say what I want, and you have no right to tell me to stop.

First, I believe the ties between them run deeper than just the official record. Any private meetings between these "neighbors" would not be known. I find it hard to believe they were just very casual acquaintances when Ayers tapped him to run the Annenberg Challenge (as a side not, you do know that factcheck.org was set up by another Annenburg organization? Just passing that little tidbit along).

Second, a 13 year history of working together, crossing paths, sharing office space, attending the same functions, etc., then passing it off as trivial just doesn't pass the smell test to me.

You believe what you wish to, and I will do the same. I, however, will not tell you to stop expressing your views and opinions.

kritt11

AR-Reread your last post telling me to stop talking about the Ayres debunking. So, you dish it out but can't take it???

You go right ahead and dig a hole at the beach and bury your head in it so that none of your precious beliefs will be threatened by a little thing like the facts!

BTW- You do know that Annenburg was a wealthy, conservative, Republican ambassador-, right? And if its not part of the official record, then its gossip on the level of wondering why Palin never looked pregnant until she delivered.

Marsh

“All through this campaign, Barack Obama was the story the media wanted to tell. And if you ran against Obama, whether you were [Hillary] Clinton or John McCain, they were going to tear you to pieces.“

Absolutely, no doubt about it. What's even more frightening is the thought that these same people will be covering Obama as President. Poor Joe, he had no way of knowing.

AustinRoth

kritt - Go re-read it yet again, maybe this time you will understand it. Granted, it is at a 6th grade level, but keep trying and eventually you may comprehend what was and was not said by me.

You say I told you to stop talking about the Ayres debunking. I did no such thing.

The 'please stop saying it' was in the quotes, not outside of it. As such, it was directed at me, actually, my impression, a paraphrasing if you will, of what Obama/Ayers defenders consider 'debunking', and was my criticism of those who do exactly what you subsequently did - told me to stop talking about it. Talk about irony. And stupidity.

So, next time you want to criticize me, try doing it for something I did, not something you did.

CStanley

The early statements by Obama about Ayers were clearly lies of omission- no matter what anyone thinks of Obama's relationship with Ayers, it's now impossible to claim that 'He's just a guy who lives in my neighborhood" is the extent of it.

kritt11

Whatever--- In 4 days it will be a moot point-since most Americans don't
even think this is worth worrying about. There's plenty in both McCain and
Palin's past that could have been used if Obama wanted to only concentrate
on the negative---like Palin's assoc with secessioinists, the fact that a
John Bircher launched HER start, and the fact that McCain went on a
convicted felon's radio show and told him he was proud of him. Then there's
McCain's chronic infidelity to his first wife-- when he wanted a younger,
prettier model, or Cindy McCain's drug addiction. Obama didn't emphasize any
of this and I'm glad ---but he could have.

kritt11

What is the deal with you-- you can't discuss anything without getting
insulting?

AustinRoth

You started the insults, not me, in the post I replied to.

You misread and misinterpreted my statements, bashed me for something I did not say, claimed I could dish but couldn't take based on your misreading of my post, and told me to go dig a hole and bury my head, and claim absolute rights to determine what are and are not the facts. Hardly civil discourse.

So, as you cannot seem to take the time and effort to go re-read my post, realize your mistake and back off (which, btw, I have shown time and time again that I can do when I am mistaken), then at this point all that seems left to do is to tell you to go f*ck off.

So go f*ck off.

StockBoySF

AustinRoth: concerning Ayers and the people he associates with... I have a couple questions for you.... Would you agree that anyone who funded a project a terrorist worked on was also a terrorist (or at least a terrorist sympathizer)? And if someone who funds projects terrorists works on are themselves terrorists or terrorists sympathizers, what about people who pal around with them? Does that make those people terrorists or terrorist sympathizers?

CStanley

Stockboy, I know you were asking AR and not me, but if I may....

My answer to those questions is no, but with a major qualification: you'd have to know more details in order to determine whether or not the relationship is acceptable to you as a voter. And that's what's been missing in Obama's accounting of his relationship with Ayers and others- he hasn't been open and honest about it.

From what I've been able to determine, I don't have any concern about Obama actually sympathizing with Ayers' terrorist activities- I certainly don't think he's a closet anarchist. But I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask what Obama does or doesn't agree with Ayers on, regarding his education agenda and other political views. Ayers' politics may not be violent any longer, but they are still radical, despite what certain people in liberal establishment of Chicago will say. I'm sure there are plenty of people in S. Carolina who feel that Bob Jones University is completely 'mainstream' but that doesn't mean that someone with close ties to it would necessarily be welcomed on the national scene- and I feel certain that such a candidate would have some 'splainin to do. Yet the national media chirps away on how Ayers is now completely mainstream in Chicago circles, and thus it shouldn't be a big deal. How's that for a double standard?

CStanley

I don't quite understand how the Republicans can accuse the Times of suppressing this story, when they, in fact, were the ones who reported it in the first place (in April).

JWeidner: The clue to answering your question was right there in your parenthetical. I don't recall how the LATimes leaned in the primaries, but it's pretty obvious that a media outfit that perhaps supported Hillary Clinton would have been willing to air some dirt on Obama in APRIL, but not willing to expose him to any further scrutiny now that he's running as the Dem nominee. In fact, I think it's highly probable that the anonymous source for the tape was either someone in the Clinton camp or someone who wanted to do them a favor- which is perhaps why they now don't want to be exposed for having publicized this tape.

kritt11

AR
So, now you are even violating the comment policy and are acting like a
stalker----you must really take yourself seriously-now I will no longer read
your comments since you are not even rational. Really you are going off the
deep end-you should get some help before you hurt someone, ASAP
Kim

kritt11

I wrote that the fact finding site determines facts-not me---you need to
read it again! If you want to dispute the fact finding site, then, yes I
think you are burying your head--if that's such a big insult--well you can
take it- right?

AustinRoth

Typical Liberal crap.

Oooh, he disagrees with me, he doesn't worship the same sources I do, he was rude to me in my stupidity, and said something I interpret as violating the comment policy (although it didn't. Again, your inability to read what is there, rather than what you THINK is there, blinds you. I made no threat, nor used profanity. I only implied profanity).

He must be a stalker, and potentially violent! He might even be crazy!

Glad you won't be reading this, I would hate to scare you further with my disagreement with you, and have you try to get a restraining order or something.

Why don't you go take a Zoloft, and calm down.

AustinRoth

SB - I do not think Obama is a closet terrorist, and am not stupid enough to get sucked down your rat whole. The question is a) why is he so downplaying their long-term relationship and b) what does his Ayers relationship, taken within the totality of his other close ties to people like Rev. Wright, Khalidi, etc., say about some of his core beliefs?

He seems to have a long list of friends and associates with very radical views towards America. He has stated that he likes to have multiple viewpoints as the reason, but there seems to be a very real scarcity of of any balance in the types of people he looked to when young. By his own admission, he sought out Left wing activists and Marxist professors in his early academic career. Again, nothing unusual for a young intellectual. It is the constant attempts to pretend that these are not important figures in his life and adult development that make me nervous.

CStanley hit the nail on the head. I remember when Bush got taken to task for weeks in the press for just giving a speech at Bob Jones during the 2000 elections. But decades-long associations with Ayers and Rev. Wright, etc., should not even be discussed in polite company.

ChrisWWW

Lively discussion here.

Bringing it back to the original post, I'd say that removing bias or unfairness from news is an impossible task. I can never quite decide if it's worth the effort, because often times, attempts at being unbiased introduce a bias all their own.

Like CNN's Campbell Brown is fond of saying lately, if politician A tells you it's raining outside, and politician B tells you it's dry and sunny, you can't just report both statements and wash your hands of it.

Journalists can and should provide context and fact-checking for the claims made by the people they report on, otherwise we might as well dismantle news organizations and just get our news directly from campaign press releases.

So what, do I think about this election? Well, I think Obama has received far better coverage than Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry could have dreamed of. That could be for any number of reasons, the historic nature of his candidacy, his charisma, the level of enthusiasm he's created in the country, disaffection with the Republican party.

But I don't think it comes simply down to liberal bias. We have roughly the same press we had in 2004 and 2000, and yet the coverage in those elections were incredibly hostile to the so-called "liberal" candidates.

I know I see McCain's campaign through my own biased lens, but I think there have been a number of simply absurd moves on his part that can't simply be spun away by media attempts to be even-handed. The non-suspension suspension of the campaign, the Sarah "abused her power, but is a reformist maverick" Palin pick, this Joe "my role model" the Plumber business, the charges of socialism while simultaneously supporting a massive buyout of failed mortgages and banks, the mostly fabricated Khalidi connection that reveals his own deeper financial ties to the man, and on and on.

The campaigns could hardly be more different, so it makes sense that they'd evaluated differently.

StockBoySF

AR, thanks. I don't think Obama and Ayers working together on an education project and then Ayers hosting a coffee get together for Obama when Obama ran for public office qualifies as a close relationship.

Obama can't downplay a close relationship that was never there.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied...

CStanley

I agree with almost all of your comment Chris, except of course the criticism of McCain's campaiging. Well, that's not to say that I think he's run a great campaign- he certainly could have done better. But the types of things you are criticizing are all part and parcel of the media narrative and on the whole, not worse than things I could name about Obama's campaigning such as:
1. Flip flopping on his pledge for public financing AND falling way short of his promises regarding transparency of donations (he's gotten a larger share of his donations from large donors than we've been led to believe, and has done less toward transparency than has McCain.)
2. Incoherent adjustments to policy that make it impossible to know where he really stands on certain issues like free trade
3. Criticizing McCain for his campaign suspension because he said that would insert presidential politics into the economic bailout- and then he proceeds to take credit for the bailout package and let the Congressional Dems insert presidential politics by slamming McCain.
4. Picking Joe Biden, an obvious move to placate people who don't feel he has the experience and gravitas on foreign policy (yet somehow he's not criticized for this by those who believed that Obama's judgement on Iraq was correct.)
5. Constantly criticizing McCain for running a negative campaign when he was the one who went negative first (with the dishonest use of '100 years in Iraq' taken out of context) and has distorted in other ads (fearmongering seniors on SS) and has run more negative ads overall than has McCain.

I could go on but you get the idea. These negative campaign features haven't hurt Obama as McCain's negatives have hurt him- so I say that's mainly because of the wind at Obama's back and the headwind that McCain has to fight. And that's before you even get into the money advantage.

I don't want to make excuses, as McCain clearly could have done some things better. But if the results come out even close, then I think McCain has done incredibly well given the conditions he's had to operate under.

ChrisWWW

CStanley,
I appreciate where your coming from, but I think there is qualitative difference between the campaigns that's hard to ignore. Taking each of the examples you've brought out, I can bring up a worse example of a similar sort on McCain's side:

1. Running roughshod over campaign finance laws he helped draft in the primaries. Claiming that Obama "promised" to take public financing when Obama had always left himself a loophole in his rhetoric. Remember, he said he'd like to seek an agreement, rather than he definitely would.
2. Incoherent adjustments to policy that make it impossible to know where he really stands on certain issues like taxes, deregulation, withdrawal from Iraq, bailouts.
3. Saying he was going to suspend his campaign and yet doing no such thing. Criticizing Obama for supporting socialism after voting for the government takeover of a large part of the financial industry.
4. Picking power-abuser and lightweight Palin after meeting her once, and previously pledging that his VP pick would be based on immediate readiness for the presidency
5. Running advertisements that dwarf the negativity of Obama's by painting a picture of Obama as a celebrity, traitor-terrorist socialist who will raise your taxes (even though he won't for 95% of people) and so on.

Jazz

Holy cow! I wrote this some time back during the Clinton administration and you guys are still going!

kritt11

Well- AR- the terrorist's best friend is now your new president
-elect. That is a fitting way to end this argument. Maybe you
conservatives can regroup and then regurgitate the same crap that the
voters have been rejecting for the last 2 elections!

AustinRoth

Wow, and that response only took you 5 days to come up with! OK, maybe 2 days since the election.

Still, quite an amazing display of your rapier-like wit and repartee. Given another week or two, you might even have managed to have been cogent.

kritt11

Well, I had a good reason for the delay, my friend. I was down in
Richmond working to elect the first Muslim
terrorist/anarchist/Communist/socialist-in chief so pardon me if I
didn't respond earlier to your urgent email! Obama/Biden 2012!

AustinRoth

You forgot to add non-US citizen to your list!

:-)

Seriously though, I am ready to stop this silly tit-for-tat between us. Politics causes strong emotional reactions, and both of us have certainly displayed them during this election cycle.

But the election is over, and it is time to move forward. I do congratulate all who supported Obama, and especially those such as yourself who personally got involved. For any offense I have caused you, both intentionally and unintentionally, I apologize.

If you have read any of my post-election comments, you know I have been very clear that whatever policy differences exist between myself and Obama, you will not find me out there saying anything other than he is our new President, and all of us owe him our respect and support. As time goes on, I am sure there will be objections from me to particular proposals, but I will not be part of any reverse-BDS.

kritt11

All in good fun-AR- ok I admit to occasional cyberimmaturity and may
sometimes be a tad argumentative.

No apology is necessary--but it was gracious of you to offer one
anyway. In the end I just couldn't see the US electing a VP who didn't
know that Africa was a continent, and so got involved at the bitter
end. KR

AustinRoth

Hey, no argument there from me. You can't find one post or comment from me where I say anything other than she was a stupid and destructive pick. I may have defender her against unfair attacks (like the daughter/granddaughter crap), but I am no fan of hers, or the far-Right portion of the Republican Party she represents.

Here is a related thought though. Who will be on the ticket with Obama in 2012? Still Biden? He would turn 70 right after the election, and would be 74 by the end of a second term. As age was a major factor against McCain (according to exit polls), you do have to wonder if he would pick someone else. The Democrats as a party would like to use that slot to tee up a potential successor, I would expect.

kritt11

If age is a problem Obama might replace Biden with Va Gov Caine or
Sen. Mark Warner. Biden doesn't want to seek the presidency again.

I'm more interested in seeing if the GOP will pick a moderate or a
far right firebrand. I hope I've seen the last of the lovely Ms.
Palin, but you never know........

blog comments powered by Disqus