The coming press pile-on?
I’ve noticed over just the last couple days that Barack Obama is falling under media scrutiny for the first time–and he isn’t bearing well under the pressure.
First there was his campaign’s leaked conversation with the Canadians: “Don’t worry, I’m only anti-NAFTA so that I can get the votes of the rubes.” Then his Rezko dealings got some long overdue notice. Now he is actually getting fact checked on the things he is claiming. And guess what? The facts don’t check. And it’s being reported. In San Francisco of all places.
We conservatives like to deride the media as being liberal conspirators. The truth is that they love controversy far more than conspiracy. And they absolutely love piling on. If–and it’s still a big if–Hillary wins Ohio and at least comes close in Texas, I suspect that Obama won’t enjoy the press pile-on he will soon receive.
The question then will be: How will his followers take it?
(ht:GR)
March 4th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
[…] plenty to choose from. And I stand by my earlier prediction: Obama will now be the object of a media pile-on just as they piled on Hillary the moment they sensed weakness where before there was […]
March 5th, 2008 at 7:18 am
They’ll call it the War Machine marching over him.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:02 am
[…] I can’t believe that that Obama campaign thought this stuff wouldn’t come up eventually. They need to get out front of this one fast before it becomes the only thing people are talking about. Meanwhile, in a post written before yesterday’s election results, Bob Krumm speculates on an imminent press pile-on of Barack Obama: […]
March 5th, 2008 at 8:05 am
I dislike using the term “conspirators” when describing the obviously liberal media. It is no more conspiratorial than the fact that the people who built your house and did your taxes are Republicans, while the people who teach your kids in high school or college and provide tv entertainment are Democrats. Certain professions draw heavily from particular mindsets and worldviews. The fact that mainstream media is far left of center is objectively true and requires no “conspiracy” for an explanation. Labeling it a conspiracy gives the deniers wearing blinders a legitimate reason not to listen to valid argument.
regards,
Jack Straw
March 5th, 2008 at 8:22 am
To Jack Straw: It IS a conspiracy if they pretend to be objective in their reporting. There is no such bias in home building or tax preparation.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:22 am
With H winning 3 of the 4 states on Super Tuesday II, OHB is in for the piling of a lifetime! Lay on, MSM!
March 5th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Hey Jack, FYP:
“I dislike using the term “conspirators” when describing the obviously conservative media. It is no more conspiratorial than the fact that the people who manage the workers who built your house and manage your portfolio are Republicans, while the people who teach your kids in high school or college and provide tv entertainment are Democrats. Certain professions draw heavily from particular mindsets and worldviews. The fact that mainstream media is far right of center is objectively true and requires no “conspiracy” for an explanation. Labeling it a conspiracy gives the deniers wearing blinders a legitimate reason not to listen to valid argument.
regards,
Jack Straw”
Regards,
Brad Wesley
March 5th, 2008 at 9:15 am
In other words, Jack, the mainstream media is obviously run by large media conglomerates whose primary interest, like taht of most Republicans, is the bottom line. It is rather naive of you to think otherwise.
The “bottom line” right now demands that the mainstream media milk the Democratic race for as long as possible. The media specializes at building political figures up–whether it is Barack Obama or George W. Bush–and then tearing them down when their success becomes uninteresting or tedious.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:56 am
“In other words, Jack, the mainstream media is obviously run by large media conglomerates whose primary interest, like taht of most Republicans, is the bottom line. It is rather naive of you to think otherwise.”
It’s also naive to believe that, even if the MSM is exclusively bottom-line driven, it isn’t slanted strongly left. Why? Because from bottom to top the media is overwhelmingly populated by Democratic partisans. What they’re interested in, they report. What discourages them politically, they don’t report.
If that population of reporters, editors and producers were balanced between the two political parties, there would appear glimpses of competition between the viewpoints in their stories and framing. There is no such competition to be seen. In the jousting to improve their bottom line, there’s no movement whatever to inject diversity of political orientation as a competitive tool.
Instead, they prefer high drama (all those front-page photos of individuals weeping after the daily disaster, and all the stories of the How and Whom and Results of celebrity-breeding), and use that, and lavish Bush-bashing, as weapons against their competition.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Brad,
If “the mainstream media is obviously run by large media conglomerates whose primary interest … is the bottom line”, then why do they suck so badly at it? Have you seen the stock price of the NY Times, lately?
Besides, the people in the newsroom are clearly on the left.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Too bad the MSM doesn’t have primary interests that lean democrat; it would be great comedy to see everything published on the basis of feelings and whether european nations would approve.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:18 am
It is no more conspiratorial than the fact that the people who built your house and did your taxes are Republicans, while the people who teach your kids in high school or college and provide tv entertainment are Democrats. Certain professions draw heavily from particular mindsets and worldviews.
Its a concept called “Shared Values”. Policemen and Firemen are good examples. Consider, if the media was unbiased re war reporting, people like Micheal Yon and Totten wouldn’t exist.
Jay also has a good point re the NYTs. They rountinely soil their reputation at the expense of their stock. They’re in the tank.
Geese don’t “conspire” to flock together and fly south for the winter, yet there they are.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:27 am
The “bottom line” right now demands that the mainstream media milk the Democratic race for as long as possible.
Fasle. It the media’s primary interest was the bottom line, the daily heroics of our troops would not go unsung. “Tonight on News 8, we”re covering how our hometown boy Sgt Copeland took three bullets while yanking an innocent girl from a terrorist’s grasp”. The ratings would go through the roof. And the pride from seeing things like that would increase support for our efforts in Iraq. But the media can’t have that, so instead they cultivate frauds and liars like Jesse MacBeth and Scott Beauchamp: “the troops are war criminals”.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:31 am
[…] Bob Krumm notes that the press may finally be giving Obama a thorough scrutinizing. […]
March 5th, 2008 at 10:32 am
/edited for typos, admin please delete 13 if possible
The “bottom line” right now demands that the mainstream media milk the Democratic race for as long as possible.
False. If the media’s primary interest was the bottom line, the daily heroics of our troops would not go unsung. “Tonight on News 8, we’re covering how our hometown boy Sgt Copeland took three bullets while yanking an innocent girl from a terrorist’s grasp”. The ratings would go through the roof. And the pride from seeing things like that would increase support for our efforts in Iraq. But the media can’t have that, so instead they cultivate frauds and liars like Jesse MacBeth and Scott Beauchamp: “the troops are war criminals”.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:36 am
“It’s also naive to believe that, even if the MSM is exclusively bottom-line driven, it isn’t slanted strongly left. Why? Because from bottom to top the media is overwhelmingly populated by Democratic partisans.”
“If that population of reporters, editors and producers were balanced between the two political parties, there would appear glimpses of competition between the viewpoints in their stories and framing. There is no such competition to be seen.”
Your assertions are entirely lacking in evidentiary support. Spend a week sitting through nightly broadcasts of MSNBC, CNN, & Fox News, watch the Sunday-morning news shows on the big networks, or read a few weeks’ issues of Time or Newsweek or U.S. News & World Report.
If, after doing so, you still believe what you say, you are not merely failing to pay attention but are lapsing into cognitive dissonance. On the television news broadcasts, there are in fact prolonged periods when ONLY middle-aged Republicans or right-wing men–or young, gussied-up Republican women–are advocating the party line. I know this because I have repeatedly turned off my television in disgust over the years.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:38 am
“Have you seen the stock price of the NY Times, lately?”
Sure. The NY Times has been in decline for some time, not because of its political stance, but because of its journalistic standards have fallen. In any event, almost all newspapers are struggling to compete with the Internet.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:47 am
“Fasle. It the media’s primary interest was the bottom line, the daily heroics of our troops would not go unsung. “Tonight on News 8, we”re covering how our hometown boy Sgt Copeland took three bullets while yanking an innocent girl from a terrorist’s grasp”. The ratings would go through the roof. And the pride from seeing things like that would increase support for our efforts in Iraq. But the media can’t have that, so instead they cultivate frauds and liars like Jesse MacBeth and Scott Beauchamp: “the troops are war criminals”.”
Ludicrous. The MSM almost wholeheartedly supported the Iraq War during the run-up and then again during the war’s first several months. The reality is that if the MSM had been doing its job in the first place, instead of alternately cowering and cheer-leading, this incredibly wasteful war could have been avoided.
This Sgt. Copeland story you have apparently cited all over the Internet is a nice one, but it would have legs on the MSM for about three days.
Who is Jesse MacBeth?
March 5th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Re: Jesse MacBeth:
Fen, after Googling this guy’s name, all I could come up with was that a couple of minor, far-left publications (e.g. “The Socialist Weekly”) took up his “story” and that the right-wing blogosphere then went berserk. Google turns up almost nothing on this guy in “mainstream media” sources.
In other words, a really pitiful example to back up your claims about MSM war coverage.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:51 am
“If, after doing so, you still believe what you say, you are not merely failing to pay attention but are lapsing into cognitive dissonance. On the television news broadcasts, there are in fact prolonged periods when ONLY middle-aged Republicans or right-wing men–or young, gussied-up Republican women–are advocating the party line. I know this because I have repeatedly turned off my television in disgust over the years.”
Wow. Just Wow. Umm Brad, that cognitive dissonance thing, yeah you may want to look in a mirror. How can one not come away with an over-whelming sense that these MSM outlets you mentioned are not biased towards the left. It sounds like your definition of bias is that if the right-of-center viewpoint is even acknowledged, that that is right wing bias. My definition of bias is that right-wing viewpoints/memes always get challenged in the media by someone on the left (as it should be), but that left-wing viewpoints/memes rarely if ever get challenge or corrected.
Example: the whole Wilson/Plame thing. Bush didn’t lie, Wilson did. Hell, Bush’s guys didn’t even out Plame, that was the State Dept. and one Richard Armitage (and then only by accident).
March 5th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Ludicrous
Then why are Micheal Yon and Totten so popular? Because the public is hungry for information about whats going on over there, something more than “x number of troops were blown up today when…”
this incredibly wasteful war could have been avoided.
Disqualifier. All wars are wasteful. You would have left Saddam in power, to pursue his WMD programs, to hand off to terrorist orgs for proxy attacks against the West. And then blamed Bush for it.
Your assertions are entirely lacking in evidentiary support
CBS. Or do you still maintain the memos weren’t faked?
March 5th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Spend a week sitting through nightly broadcasts of MSNBC, CNN … On the television news broadcasts, there are in fact prolonged periods when ONLY middle-aged Republicans or right-wing men–or young, gussied-up Republican women–are advocating the party line. I know this because I have repeatedly turned off my television in disgust over the years.
Run that by me again? You’re saying that, on CNN for example, there are prolonged segements where ONLY “republicans” are allowed to parrot the party line?
Has it ever occured to you that perhaps you’re not in Left field, you’re out in the parking lot? Some perspective is required when discussing MSM bias. Standing next to Che isn’t it.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I think another question we have to ask is not only how will Obama’s followers take this, but more importantly, how will Obama take this? I think an earlier article mentioned that when Obama was questioned by reporters regarding NAFTA and Rezko, he looked like he had been bitten by his own dog. Obviously Obama won’t enjoy the press scrutiny that other candidates have had to deal with, but the real question will be how does he respond. Recently, he hasn’t responded to impressingly.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Scott, You’re right. Rezko certainly isn’t going to result in less Obama scrutiny.
Perhaps that ongoing court case combined with Obama’s deer-in-the-headlights reaction to actual tough questioning is why I’m getting the sense from so many of his followers today that they are desperate for this race to be over now. It’s like they know that the longer this goes on the less likely he is to win–even while he is now in the lead.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“How can one not come away with an over-whelming sense that these MSM outlets you mentioned are not biased towards the left[?]”
Um…by actually watching or reading those MSM outlets instead of immersing myself in the echo chambers of the blogs and radio talk-shows that continually critique them?
March 5th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
“Run that by me again? You’re saying that, on CNN for example, there are prolonged segements where ONLY “republicans” are allowed to parrot the party line?”
Sure, Fen. Ever watch Lou Dobbs? Guy’s about as conservative as Pat Buchanan (albeit, not “neoconservative”) and so are many of his guests.
“Has it ever occured to you that perhaps you’re not in Left field, you’re out in the parking lot? Some perspective is required when discussing MSM bias. Standing next to Che isn’t it.”
That’s empty, irrelevant invective that could easily be spun back in your direction. Merely disagreeing with the prevailing view here doesn’t make me a pinko, any more than your view makes you a “fascist.”
March 5th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Brad Wesley said “It is no more conspiratorial than the fact that the people who manage the workers who built your house and manage your portfolio are Republicans, while the people who teach your kids in high school or college and provide tv entertainment are Democrats. Certain professions draw heavily from particular mindsets and worldviews.”
Actually, I believe that owning a business or actually working for a living (without a government check) drives people to the Republican party.