russ ([info]goulo) wrote,
@ 2008-07-01 06:44:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
the so-called liberal media bias, and different treatments of Obama and McCain
How many times will supposedly competent reporters do the "Osama, uh, I mean Obama" schtick?

A FOX reporter started to talk about the idea of an "Osama" assassination, then corrected herself, and actually joked about killing both: "Osama, Obama — well, both, if we could."
http://gawker.com/5011014/fox-news-wants-to-kill-obama-too

"In a report on the failure to capture Osama bin Laden on the Today Show at 7:10 a.m, Matt Lauer was asking NBC's Pentagon reporter Jim Miklaszewski, a question. Lauer began "The reports says that, uh, Obama....excuse me, Osama bin Laden...'"
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/monday-morning-open-thread_30.html

This is such a transparent attempt to make people think "Ooooh, Obama is different and scary and dangerous and Not One Of Us." Right wing talk show hosts like saying "Barack Hussein Obama" and making false claims, like that Obama's a Muslim. That one is particularly interesting since people who only get their news from FOX are used to cognitive dissonance and believing 6 impossible things before breakfast, apparently able to simultaneously believe that Obama is Muslim yet also knowing that Obama is Christian because of all the media attention about the manufactured scandal with Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright...

Imagine if some prominent figure opined that Obama's background doesn't necessarily qualify him to be president. Wait, that actually happens all the time... But if it happens to McCain, then it is called "a provocation; an insult." Pundits rise up to defend McCain.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/pundits-of-course-rise-to-defend-their.html
General Wesley Clarke simply said
John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.

Why is that "a provocation; an insult", but the media is happy to print far worse criticisms of Obama without displaying any outrage over them?

Imagine how the McCain campaign and the media would be continually mentioning it if Obama's wife had been addicted to prescription drugs and stolen drugs from a charitable organization she headed. McCain's wife did this, and the media barely mentions it.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs/

Imagine the scandal if Obama had said he never really loved America until he was 31. McCain said this, more than once, and the media barely mentions it. Yet Obama's wife (not even Obama himself) said she wasn't proud of America until recently, and it was a media feeding frenzy.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/when-does-media-plan-on-reporting-that.html

Imagine if Obama had made a propaganda tape for the enemy as a POW. McCain did this, and the media barely mentions it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/us/politics/15pows.html

Imagine if the Obamas owned many houses and illegally didn't pay taxes on one of them. The media would make a bigger deal of it than they did when the McCains actually did do this.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/8950

Now ask yourself why McCain himself can criticize Obama for not having served in the military ("Sparring between McCain and Obama over the GI Bill got personal last week when McCain said he would not be lectured from someone 'who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform.'"), but when anyone not even related to the Obama campaign asks legitimate questions about things that actually happened during McCain's military service, such as the propaganda tapes, the McCain campaign, and the media in tow, treats such questions as out of bounds and "fringe" and "Swift Boating." That's my favorite, the Swift Boating charge. Yes, the media that quite literally hand fed you the Swift Boat story for a good year, pretty much putting the nail in the coffin of John Kerry's presidency, now suddenly cares about our vets and negative campaigning. (Had Obama done propaganda videos for the enemy, the video would be on an endless 24 hour loop on CNN and FOX...)
The mainstream media literally serves McCain coffee and donuts with sprinkles, just the way he likes them:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/with-sprinkles.html

Meanwhile the White House is yet again "warning that terrorists could test the new president with an attack next year."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-backs-liebermans-warning-of-attack-2008-06-30.html
Oh no! Vote Republican, or the terrorists will kill us all!


(Post a new comment)


[info]mdf356
2008-07-01 11:54 am UTC (link)
Everyone who was a POW in Vietnam made a propaganda tape, or at east anyone hose parents were involved in the direction of the war like McCain's father was. It was the easiest way to get released. I' surprised McCain did it, though, as he seems to still think his cellmate sold out for signing a "confession" and getting released.

Most of this I am not too concerned about, since Fox "news" will always be a rag.

Quite simply, there's still a lot of racism in this country. It's a minority but it's vocal. I have no one's word but McCain's and Obama's that they're Christian. For that matter, the rumor about Obama being born in Africa is funny (and sad, since people actually believe it) -- if he were, he wouldn't be eligible for POTUS. McCain *wasn't* born in America and it took hasty legislation to insure he could still be President (he was born on a US base in Panama; the law never *intended* this to disqualify for prez but technically it may have until earlier 2008).

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]goulo
2008-07-01 12:42 pm UTC (link)
Right, in case it wasn't clear, I'm not slamming McCain for having made the propaganda tape. (I think most everyone will break under enough torture.) I'm just saying that if it had been Obama instead of McCain, there's be continual Swift Boat noise about how Obama was weak and had no honor and supported the enemy and betrayed his country and blah blah blah.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sonjaaa
2008-07-01 04:24 pm UTC (link)
Did you see the BBC article about the Vietnamese guy who was McCain's prison warden in Vietnam? He says that McCain was never tortured but that he looks up to McCain and respects him a lot.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]goulo
2008-07-01 08:38 pm UTC (link)
No, I didn't see that article. I read something about a Vietnamese good Samaritan who helped rescue McCain when his plane crashed and protected him from an angry mob (who unsurprisingly were beating the hell out of him for dropping bombs on them).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Trovite
[info]sonjaaa
2008-07-02 04:19 am UTC (link)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7459946.stm

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Dankon
[info]goulo
2008-07-02 04:33 am UTC (link)
Heh, interesting. Given that McCain does have concrete injuries with evident physical effects (e.g. inability to raise his arms over his head), and reports of torture by other people as well, I don't really believe the guy interviewed in that article... but I wonder if he really believes what he said in the interview, and if so, has he successfully deluded himself and wiped out guilty memories, or was he in charge at the time but didn't know what his subordinates were doing, or what...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]gwalla
2008-07-02 03:38 pm UTC (link)
It depends on where you are, I suppose. The local metropolitan paper is much less apologetic towards McCain...but I live in the San Francisco bay area. TV "News" is of course a joke, and Fox in particular is just the propaganda arm of the Republican party.

What really annoys me is coverage of any candidate's statements only seems to be concerned with their poilitcal acuity...not their actual truth value.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]goulo
2008-07-02 03:46 pm UTC (link)
Re: your last point: Yes indeed. It's all about "Was it smart for person X to say Y about person Z? Will it alienate Christians/liberals/hawks/whatever?" I liked this article about that theme:

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/attacking_mccains_military_rec.php?page=all
The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had “attacked John McCain’s military service record.” Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.

But many in the press have been unable to. ABC News senior political reporter Rick Klein led the outrage, writing in a blog post on ABCNews.com:
Find me a single Democrat who thinks it’s good politics to call into question the military credentials of a man who spent five-and-a-half years as a prisoner of war.
This is the perfect embodiment of the press’s unbelievably destructive habit of assessing every piece of campaign rhetoric for its political acuity, rather than for its validity and accuracy. Clark’s comments may (or may not) have been impolitic. But that has no bearing on their validity or lack thereof—which is how the news media should be evaluating them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…