Media Bashing

We all know the media is biased. Here are some more examples, and some of their results.

First, remember the Us Weekly magazine cover that trashed Sarah Palin? Well, apparently that wasn't a good move, as there are reports of as many as 10,000 subscribers who have dumped the magazine because of it. The fun part was that most of those cancellations happened before the magazine hit the stands (today), so it is entirely possible that that number will climb much higher. The liberal Left MSM simply doesn't get the fact that their bias and vicious attacks don't play well with most Americans.

Another thing they don't get: Republican voters. While the GOP has gone absolutely nuts over Sarah Palin, the MSM is wandering around asking people how long it's going to be until McCain dumps her from the ticket. Jonah Goldberg:

"What is wrong with these people?” was the nigh-upon-universal reaction among conservatives at the GOP convention this week. Liberal reporters inquired of conservative journalists, Republican delegates, right-leaning janitors, free-market short-order cooks, even the guys walking around in elephant suits: Will Sarah Palin drop out? What about the Eagleton Option?

For those who don’t know, the Eagleton Option refers to Thomas Eagleton, George McGovern’s first VP pick in 1972, who was forced to withdraw because allegations of mental illness.

A hybrid of myth and deceit peddled by the chattering bandersnatches of the Democratic Party’s backup communications offices at MSNBC and other press-release transmission belts of the Obama campaign, the whole pseudo-story was surely the brightest flare in the bonfire of asininity in St. Paul this week.

Of course, it was hardly the only journalistic will-o’-the-wisp unleashed from the media bog. The claim that Palin was a Buchananite — and hence an acolyte of a “Nazi sympathizer” according to Florida Rep. Robert Wexler — was not true. The claims she cut funding for pregnant teens, that she was a member of the more-goofy-than-scary Alaska Independence Party, that Trig Palin — her special-needs baby — was really her daughter’s: these were all bogus. As for the even more disgusting smears peddled at the Daily Kos and one blogger at The Atlantic — smears that drove much of the prurient investigation into the Palin family’s privacy by more reputable sources — they were as untrue as they were repugnant.

But it was the Eagleton canard that spoke volumes. First, just as a matter of reportorial fact, as opposed to Keith Olbermann clicking his ruby-red slippers and wishing it were so, the idea that the rank and file of the GOP wanted her gone before her speech was distilled nonsense. Now, it’s plain hilarious.

If you look up the definition of out-of-touch, there will be a big picture of the MSM. It doesn't get more out of touch than them. But that's not all...! The MSM has been looking around at the RNC and noticing how white everyone is. Naturally, they decide that's a knock on the party at large (never mind the fact that they didn't televise African American Michael Steele's speech). Pot, meet kettle:

This is a shot of the press box at the RNC...see any non-whites? Now, Bill O'Reilly has made his reputation as being a no-spin guy, and I would agree that he is generally pretty fair to both sides of the aisle. It appears that he has now chucked that reputation to score an interview with Barack the Obamessiah. Excerpts:

As Fox News prepares to interview Barack Obama [tomorrow] night, during prime time, TV journalist Michael Wolff details a meeting between Barack Obama, Fox News president Roger Ailes, and News Corporation president Rupert Murdoch in which the Fox execs promised to lay off the Democratic presidential candidate.

According to Wolff's telling, this was more than a mere tete-à-tete, this was a full-on diplomatic meeting (initiated at Murdoch's request), conducted only after preparation and with preconditions from the Obama campaign.

The apparent purpose? To smooth things over in the event that Obama defeats John McCain.

To this point in the campaign, Fox News has been at the forefront of coverage related to Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, Annenberg-gate, Ayers, etc., etc. Though new media has begun to break the monopolistic liberal stranglehold, numerous stories would never see the light of day were it not for Fox News.

This smacks of a news outlet hedging its bets and desperate not to be shut out by an Obama presidency. But the price of placating Obama? One can imagine the Obama campaign saying, 'you want access? Have O'Reilly interview Obama during McCain's night at the RNC.'

We can only hope Fox News and O'Reilly didn't agree to pre-scripted questions in addition to the promise of no "embarrassing or underhanded stuff."

This is truly disturbing. Bill O'Reilly has built his reputation on being a fair interviewer ("no spin"), so to see him do this is to see someone throw their own credibility into the toilet.

The timing of the interview (during McCain's speech at the RNC) is both understandable and forgiveable in my opinion, because that's a good political tactic for Obama to play - stealing the thunder. Most people have recorders, anyway. But, for the interview itself to be pre-arranged as being easy is completely unacceptable. I hope we hear updates that it's not true, but even the hint of this getting out could hurt the ratings. To be fair, we should wait and see how the interview comes off after being aired...I suspect that if O'Reilly had hit him hard (which wouldn't have been difficult to do), he'd already be complaining about another 'Fox hit job'.

The biggest problem is that Fox in general -- and O'Reilly in particular -- have set themselves apart from the rest of the MSM by retaining objectivity, which is why they're the tops in the industry. As we learned from the Us Magazine incident above, objectivity and real journalism is what people want, not one-sided reporting and fluffy prop-ups.

Finally, Oprah appears to have quite a 'quagmire' on her hands. Though she has often said she doesn't provide a forum for political candidates with her show, she has openly endorsed Barack the Obamessiah in his run for the presidency. Now, though, with Sarah Palin being the hot ticket, she is hedging. Apparently, her staff is split between serving their constituency (mostly women -- many of whom are white -- who want to see more of Palin). I heard someone on the radio comment that her quagmire is of her own making: she is in opposition to the very people on whom she has built her empire. What will she do?

The media has chosen its favorite son, and appears willing to do anything to get him elected, even if that means trashing their own (previously favored) constituencies.

There's my two cents.



***UPDATE***
Just before posting this, I saw that the Drudge page had offered an update on that last story: Oprah has declined to have Palin on her show until after the election is over. No, that's not bias at all, is it? Will her ratings continue to decline because of her devotion to the Obamessiah?