1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Biden's Bungles: A Blatant Bias

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Danny White, Oct 22, 2008.

  1. Danny White

    Danny White Winter is Coming

    12,345 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    BIDEN'S BUNGLES: A BLATANT BIAS


    By KIRSTEN POWERS
    New York Post

    Posted: 4:08 am
    October 22, 2008

    Barack Obama's choice of Joe Biden as his running mate prompted a small wave of warnings about Biden's propensity for gaffes. But no one imagined even in a worse-case scenario such a spectacular bomb as telling donors Sunday to "gird your loins" because a young president Obama will be tested by an international crisis just like young President John Kennedy was.

    Scary? You betcha! But somehow, not front-page news.

    Again the media showed their incredible bias by giving scattered coverage of Biden's statements.

    There were a few exceptions. On MSNBC's "Morning Joe," co-host Mika Brzezinski flipped incredulously through the papers, expressing shock at the lack of coverage of Biden's remarks. Guest Dan Rather admitted that if Palin had said it, the media would be going nuts.

    So what gives?

    The stock answer is: "It's just Biden being Biden." We all know how smart he is about foreign policy, so it's not the same as when Sarah Palin says something that seems off.

    Yet, when Biden asserted incorrectly in the vice-presidential debate that the United States "drove Hezbollah out of Lebanon," nobody in the US media shrieked. (It was, however, covered with derision in the Middle East.) Or when he confused his history by claiming FDR calmed the nation during the Depression by going on TV, the press didn't take it as evidence that he's clueless.

    And Biden is the foreign-policy gravitas on the Democratic ticket, so his comments are actually even more disconcerting.

    The outakes of his Sunday remarks don't begin to capture the magnitude of what he said. After warning the crowd that there would be some sort of international incident - Biden could think of four or five scenarios - he told the donors: "We're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

    What does that mean? Obama's election would provoke an international incident because of his inexperience and even Obama's biggest supporters won't be reassured by his response?

    Then there were Biden's predictions on the economy: "I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? . . . Why is this thing so tough? . . . I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point, because you're going to have to reinforce us.

    "There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision.' "

    Biden is teling us that, at a time when Americans need to feel confidence in their government, they will be going "Oh my God." Not a great message.

    Needless to say, if Sarah Palin said this about a McCain administration, the media world would be exploding.

    Whether you believe Biden is exaggerating, as he is known to do, or is providing real insight, the double standard in the media does even more damage to their lagging brand.

    Part of the problem is their "Obama love," but we're also seeing the media elite's belief - prejudice - that anyone with an R behind their name is dumb. So, if they say something dumb, they must be dumb. A Democrat, like Biden, can make wildly inaccurate or outrageous comments and they are ignored because the TV and press insiders feel they "know who he really is."

    On the stump recently, Sen. Biden declared he had "a three letter word"* for what the nation needs: "J-O-B-S."

    Lucky for him, his name isn't Dan Quayle, or that would have followed him for the rest of his career.



    * DW edit... the author screwed up that part, incorrectly quoting Biden as saying "three words"
  2. bbgun

    bbgun Benched

    27,868 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Why you'd almost think the MSM is completely in the tank for Obama-Biden. Oh wait, they are.


    Study: Coverage of McCain Much More Negative Than That of Obama

    By Howard Kurtz
    The Washington Post

    Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says.

    Fifty-seven percent of the print and broadcast stories about the Republican nominee were decidedly negative, the Project for Excellence in Journalism says in a report out today, while 14 percent were positive. The McCain campaign has repeatedly complained that the mainstream media are biased toward the senator from Illinois.

    Obama's coverage was more balanced during the six-week period from Sept. 8 through last Thursday, with 36 percent of the stories clearly positive, 35 percent neutral or mixed and 29 percent negative.

    McCain has struggled during this period and slipped in the polls, which is one of the reasons for the more negative assessments by the 48 news outlets studied by the Washington-based group. But the imbalance is striking nonetheless.

    Sarah Palin's coverage ricocheted from quite positive to very negative to more mixed, the study says. Overall, 39 percent of the Palin stories were negative, 28 percent were positive and 33 percent neutral. Only 5 percent of the coverage was about her personal life. But McCain's running mate remains a media magnet, drawing three times as much coverage as the Democrats' VP nominee, Joe Biden. He was "nearly the invisible man," the group says, and his coverage was far more negative than Palin's. That may be because Biden tends to make news primarily when he commits gaffes.

    The project says McCain's coverage started out positive after the GOP convention but nosedived with his frequently changing reaction to the financial crisis. McCain's character attacks against Obama hurt the Democrat but yielded even more negative coverage for the senator from Arizona.

    Obama's coverage since the conventions represents a fall to earth from the early primaries of 2008, when the project found that, horse-race stories aside, positive narratives about Obama were twice as frequent as negative ones, 69 percent to 31 percent.

    The Wall Street meltdown appears to have been a turning point for both candidates. Thirty-four percent of the stories about Obama's reaction to the crisis were positive, while 18 percent were negative. McCain's coverage, though, went into a free fall after he initially declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." By the following week, more than half the stories about McCain were negative and only 11 percent positive, just as Obama's coverage was turning positive by a margin of more than 5 to 1.

    The most negative element of the Palin coverage involved scrutiny of her record as Alaska governor, with 64 percent of the stories carrying a negative tone and just 7 percent positive. The coverage of her interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson was a wash, but stories about her subsequent sitdown with CBS's Katie Couric were 57 percent negative and 14 percent positive.

    While some will seize on these findings as evidence that the media are pro-Obama, the study says they actually contain "a strong suggestion that winning in politics begets winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls ... Obama's numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago, and McCain's numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore."
  3. Beast_from_East

    Beast_from_East Well-Known Member

    15,474 Messages
    2,894 Likes Received
    In the interest of full disclosure for posters who do not know:

    The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdock..............the same Rupert Murdock that founded FOX NEWS.

    Just saying.
  4. ZB9

    ZB9 Active Member

    1,024 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    The NYPost is more conservative leaning than the bastion of liberalism that is the NYTimes. So what?

    the points in the Post article are pretty accurate. If you can discredit a point in the article, go ahead. Give an example.
  5. Beast_from_East

    Beast_from_East Well-Known Member

    15,474 Messages
    2,894 Likes Received


    Doesnt this last paragraph kinda contradict the notion that the media is in the tank for Obama. In fact it basically says that "this article is not evidence of pro-Obama media, just who is ahead in the polls gets the best coverage".

    So how exactly does this article prove the media is in the tank for Obama?

Share This Page