Media Matters skewers Slobbering.

[buddinganarchist]

Media Matters, the liberal watchdog group, skewers Bernie's new book, showing the many flaws in the evidence or lack.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200901230017

There's also his criminal lack of endnotes to back up his stuff. The interview with the "fair and balanced" Rush Limbaugh gives this book away early.

Most of the proof of liberal bias comes from liberal op-ed columnists, not mainstream reporters. In his Sarah Palin puff piece, he completely forgets about the full boat of conservatives that went after her, including Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer. Chris Buckley even quit the National Review over her.

There's also the fact that Obama was a new sensation and McCain was known by the press corps, this contributed to more coverage. Goldberg also forgets to inform us about the fact that McCain has been a media darling for years.

He mentions that Obama was called a Rock Star. Palin was also called one.

Most positive press about Obama had to do with his superior fundraising. The media is about money so it doesn't surprise me that fundraising was a big story.

The race issue with Obama was sensitive and important, because remember, Obama got about double the death threats of any major candidate in American history. The media had to walk a tightrope in reporting negative stuff on Obama. There's also the fact that much of the bad news about Obama was floated by right wing blogs. If you notice, left wing stuff about McCain was underreported too. They were playing the usual bi-partison game.

The Reverend Wright issue was so overreported (in my view) that Obama had to give a speech on race. Why do you think he did that?

There's also the fact that Wright was taken out of context and the media refused to show us the entire videos, where Wright made better points.

What Goldberg and his ilk wanted was for the media to do a right wing hit job on Obama. This is the same guy who said that they were too hard on Bush. Which is it, Bernie, do you want the press to be hard or soft? Oh, I get it, they should only do hard reporting on liberals, I get it. That issue is idiotic as well, when looking at Obama's record so far which is pretty moderate, especially on the bailouts and Afghanistan, especially his one sided support of Israel.

I notice Goldberg also failed to mention how the media avoided many of the associations of McCain and Palin, like the fascist group McCain was on during the 80s or that Palin's husband was once in an extreme movment, wanting secession from America and that Palin sent a welcome video to their group. Also undercover video of the group, where they say that Sarah is "on our side, just pretending to be a Republican."

The Keating Five got little play as well or McCain's support of the terrorist Contras.

This tells me one thing, Goldberg is a disgruntled crank, nothing more. Plus, if the book was serious it would be longer..lol

[Jeffreydan]

Y'know, you're right. The MSM was absolutely fair in the reporting--McCain and Obama got practically the same treatment.

I couldn't tell if any of the reporters preferred one candidate over the other.

[MrSinatra]

[buddinganarchist]

I notice the people with the limbic brains have spoken. I forgot rational debate was not a strong suit with people who are fed a steady diet of Fox news and bad prescription meds.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

We'll see how you feel about "rational debate" after this response....

Most of the proof of liberal bias comes from liberal op-ed columnists, not mainstream reporters. In his Sarah Palin puff piece, he completely forgets about the full boat of conservatives that went after her, including Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer. Chris Buckley even quit the National Review over her.

But almost none of the criticism of Palin from the Left had anything to do with policy. It was almost all ad hominem attacks...and particuarly nasty ones, even from Democrats.

Also, of the five columnists you mention, only one is a true conservative- Krauthammer. All of the others are 'conservative' only if you compare their viewpoints with that of their employer, i.e. Brooks is conservative only by the standards (if you can say that they have such) of the New York Times.

Your point about Goldberg assailing liberal op-ed columnists as opposed to journalists is valid. I'd respond that there was an unprecendented blurring of the lines during this election. It was very tough to discern the difference between reportage and "slobbering".

There's also the fact that Obama was a new sensation and McCain was known by the press corps, this contributed to more coverage. Goldberg also forgets to inform us about the fact that McCain has been a media darling for years.

I agree that Obama was the "new sensation". Typically, if little is known about you, the media sets about the task of digging into your past and reporting what they find, good (rarely) or bad (more often). Ask Sarah Palin about that.

But for some reason, the MSM could not be bothered to shine the same light of truth into Obama's background that they did Palin's. If both were "new sensations", didn't both deserve to be investigated to the same degree?

He mentions that Obama was called a Rock Star. Palin was also called one.

Accurate so far as it goes.

But the record shows that, when the MSM referred to Obama as a "rock star", they were doing so out of a sort of messianic rapture; when referring to Palin thus, it was done mockingly.

The race issue with Obama was sensitive and important, because remember, Obama got about double the death threats of any major candidate in American history. The media had to walk a tightrope in reporting negative stuff on Obama. There's also the fact that much of the bad news about Obama was floated by right wing blogs. If you notice, left wing stuff about McCain was underreported too. They were playing the usual bi-partison game.

The race card was played well and almost exclusively by the Obama campaign, first against Hillary and then against McCain.

Most positive press about Obama had to do with his superior fundraising. The media is about money so it doesn't surprise me that fundraising was a big story.

No argument from me there, but, again, your comment doesn't go far enough.

Weren't we told that the vast sums of money being raised for and spent on campaigns was 'corrupting the process' in 2000 and 2004? Why was that media observation entirely missing in the 2008 election? Might it have been because the media liked the 2008 candidate but not the 2000 or 2004 one?

The Reverend Wright issue was so overreported (in my view) that Obama had to give a speech on race. Why do you think he did that?

Allow me to translate: 'The Reverend Wright issue was so overreported on FOX NEWS.....'

The fact is that the MSM ignored a story that should have ended Obama's candidacy for as long as they could. Hannity raised the issue some eight months before CNN or MSNBC could be moved to report it.

Let's play "What If?", shall we?

What if it had benn John McCain who had spent 20 years in the pews at, say, Westboro Baptist Church and it was McCain who had allowed rev. Fred Phelps to officiate at his wedding and to baptize his children. Would CNN and MSNBC not reported on that story for eight months?

What Goldberg and his ilk wanted was for the media to do a right wing hit job on Obama. This is the same guy who said that they were too hard on Bush. Which is it, Bernie, do you want the press to be hard or soft? Oh, I get it, they should only do hard reporting on liberals, I get it. That issue is idiotic as well, when looking at Obama's record so far which is pretty moderate, especially on the bailouts and Afghanistan, especially his one sided support of Israel.

Wrong.

What Goldberg- and, indeed, conservatives as a whole- want is consistency.

It's fine to be tough on a candidate with whom you disagree. But you should also be equally tough on a candidate with which you agree. Goes to simple fairness.

Well, I say 'simple'. It must be tougher than it seems because only Fox does so.

I notice Goldberg also failed to mention how the media avoided many of the associations of McCain and Palin, like the fascist group McCain was on during the 80s or that Palin's husband was once in an extreme movment, wanting secession from America and that Palin sent a welcome video to their group. Also undercover video of the group, where they say that Sarah is "on our side, just pretending to be a Republican."

Did these fascists want God to damn America?

Did that extemist movement set off bombs on American soil targeting Americans?

Apples to oranges.

The Keating Five got little play as well or McCain's support of the terrorist Contras.

Bob Bennett- Google him if you're unfamiliar with him- said that McCain should not have been charged with any wrongdoing in the Keating Five. McCain's only flub was in not coming forward and reporting it.

Oh, and are you as outraged at John "ABSCAM Jack" Murtha?

I didn't think so.

As for the Contras being "terrorists":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras#Human_rights_controversies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front#Reported_human_rights_violations_by_the_Sandinistas

Wiki lists no nonpartisan or nonideological groups or entities reporting human rights violations on the part of the Contras. It lists many reporting human rights violations on the part of the Sandanistas.

But please...don't let facts get in the way of a good solid (and hysterical) rant.

[Jeffreydan]

I notice the people with the limbic brains have spoken. I forgot rational debate was not a strong suit with people who are fed a steady diet of Fox news and bad prescription meds.

Spoken like someone who sniffs glue and thinks the MSM is fair.

[relizabeth]

What happened to the talking heads on Fox News friday night? Friday night, after the release of the report where Palin was found guilty of abuse of power in trooper-gate, Fox News talking heads Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity, and Gretta Van Sustran were all MIA!
_______________________
affiliateelite ~ affiliateelite.com ~ adgooroo ~ adgooroo.com

[Japanklet]

Hello, Relizabeth!

Welcome to the board!

I think the Fox News anchors took Friday off as part of their Memorial Day weekend.

Relizabeth, all viewpoints are welcome here, so please take the time to look around and join the discussions in the other forums. We'd be very interested in hearing what you have to say.

Again welcome!

Japanklet

[Jeffreydan]

What happened to the talking heads on Fox News friday night? Friday night, after the release of the report where Palin was found guilty of abuse of power in trooper-gate, Fox News talking heads Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity, and Gretta Van Sustran were all MIA!

Do you have a link to the story about the report? I can only find news stories from 2008.

Thanks

[ArielShaul]

This was a pro-Obama bias. IMO Bernie's book made a difference and even NBC is over the honeymoon. Most of the left is over their love affair for the wrong reason. The are lambasting him for not sinking BP and for not stopping oil and coal outright. WRT the spill the "journalists" should have advocated temporarily waiving the Jones Act, allowing foreign ships in just long enough to clean up the spill. Now all the Gulf states have oil-tainted coastlines, and the phony environmentalist share the blame. They are still madly in love with the exaggerated Global Warming hoax, so much so they are willing to increase poverty and willing to delay indefinitely the cleanup of toxic waste sites. Media Matters should be concerned with lack of journalistic integrity, especially the failure of most press organizations to do good research. The neurotic fear of CO2 prevents any real economic recovery and any real environmental cleanup. CO2 is so close to the minimum for plant growth (almost reached during the ice ages and even the recent Mini Ice Age) and so far from the maximum for animals that this is not even a real issue. The press should have led the way to the truth, not be led kicking and screaming by the "little people" who are actually better informed.