Is Media Favoring Obama?

[finknottle]

So if I gather this correctly, the information about Obama which may or may NOT exist sways your opinion of him AND the media?

 

Why don't you do your own investigating if you're so rooster sure theres skeletons in those closets!

 

No. It isn't about Obama at all (though he is the benificiary here).

 

We trust the media to delve deeply into all the candidates to reveal the good and the bad and lay the facts bare, to let us decide what is important. They can do real investigative journalism, we cannot. The media (and I mean mainstream, not a blogger or partisan think-tank) isn't doing that any more. It is pursuing stories on the basis of an activist agenda, not on the basis of getting a scoop wherever they find it. The information we have access to, and hitherto to could trust to be objective, is no longer complete. To point again to the NYT, regardless of our opinions about extramarital affairs (and I couldn't care less), how usefull is it for the them to run a series accusing McCain of an affair (since discredited) and yet not investigate Edwards despite the existing allegations? When they start shaping the news coverage and slanting the facts they disclose (rather than simply shape their editorial position on on the facts), they have become nothing more than a personal blog with a really big market reach.

[Albany,n.y.]

Experience is no substitute for judgment!

Congratulations on your vote for Obama.

[drnykterstein]

Again, favoritism I don't mind - it's inevitable. ..

 

I've been trying to figure out what news organizations are actually professional about this stuff. I think the Washington Post and NYT do alright, I'm not sure who else though.

[SDS]

I think the Washintong Post and NYT do alright, I'm not sure who else though.

 

[PearlHowardman]

John McCain has forgotten to make the Presidential election a referendum on inexperienced Barack Obama. McCain BLEW it on the first debate because he treated Obama as a political equal.

 

Obama has very little experience and not the greatest judgment in the world. Obama selected a VP candidate running mate who said (not a gaffe) many times that Obama isn't ready to be President? Biden also said that Obama perhaps should have selected Hillary as VP (again, not a gaffe)?

 

For chrissake, McCain. This is all you really need to talk about with regards to Obama - the BIG PICTURE stuff! Forget talking about Afghanistan hills!

[drnykterstein]

 

Ya your right, my bad. PPP and the Deseret News are where I go for professional sources.

[SDS]

Ya your right, my bad. PPP and the Deseret News are where I go for professional sources.

 

You know - you don't have to dismiss everything the other side of the aisle says. Why don't you keep your own scorecard? Why not just take notice of certain events that would appear to be of equal magnitude and see how they are reported?

 

For instance, Oliver North once told a joke using a gay voice. Where was it reported? Front page Washington Post above the fold. Vice President Gore, around the same time, called Republicans the "extra chromosome party". What page do you think that made? I think it was a small article on page 14. Note that neither one was newsworthy, but front page above the fold? Really?

 

When the issue of abortion is discussed (or any other topic that has advocates), why not make note of which organizations are asked for their opinion? While I don't have current numbers, NOW was ALWAYS asked (membership around 200k), while Concerned Women of America (membership 600k) is NEVER asked.

 

Try finding an editorial in either paper that endorses a Republican.

 

Piss on Fox News all you want, that doesn't make either paper less biased.

[DC Tom]

For instance, Oliver North once told a joke using a gay voice. Where was it reported? Front page Washington Post above the fold. Vice President Gore, around the same time, called Republicans the "extra chromosome party". What page do you think that made? I think it was a small article on page 14. Note that neither one was newsworthy, but front page above the fold?

 

 

They should have reported both front-page, above-the-fold. That extra chromosome could have explained Ollie North's joke.

[SDS]

They should have reported both front-page, above-the-fold. That extra chromosome could have explained Ollie North's joke.

 

 

I apologize for the silly, ancient reference, but when I used to argue this stuff all the time in the 90's that is what came to mind.

[elegantelliotoffen]

You know - you don't have to dismiss everything the other side of the aisle says. Why don't you keep your own scorecard? Why not just take notice of certain events that would appear to be of equal magnitude and see how they are reported?

 

For instance, Oliver North once told a joke using a gay voice. Where was it reported? Front page Washington Post above the fold. Vice President Gore, around the same time, called Republicans the "extra chromosome party". What page do you think that made? I think it was a small article on page 14. Note that neither one was newsworthy, but front page above the fold? Really?

 

When the issue of abortion is discussed (or any other topic that has advocates), why not make note of which organizations are asked for their opinion? While I don't have current numbers, NOW was ALWAYS asked (membership around 200k), while Concerned Women of America (membership 600k) is NEVER asked.

 

Try finding an editorial in either paper that endorses a Republican.

 

Piss on Fox News all you want, that doesn't make either paper less biased.

 

If you think The Washington Post is too liberal then read the Washington Times. If you think the New York Times is too liberal then read the NY Post. If you think MSNBC is too liberal then watch Fox News. You guys act like their is no conservative mainstream media that you can turn to.

 

By the way the Oliver North tidbit is inaccurate. The incident you refered to happened in March 1993 and didn't result in a front page article like you suggested. Instead there was a 1953 word feature on the possibility of Oliver North running for the US Senate in Virginia against Chuck Robb who at the time was a supporter of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Only 2 sentences at the very end of the article mentioned the gay joke North made at the Fairfax County GOP roast.

 

Fund-Raising Prowess Makes North a Force;

High-Priced Senate Bid May Lie Ahead

 

BYLINE: Kent Jenkins Jr., Washington Post Staff Writer

 

SECTION: FIRST SECTION; PAGE A1

 

LENGTH: 1953 words

 

March 22, 1993, Monday, Final Edition

Correction Appended

 

Oliver L. North, the Iran-contra figure and likely U.S. Senate candidate in Virginia, has raised more than $ 20 million for political and personal organizations he controls during the last five years, building a nationwide base of tens of thousands of donors he plans to call on if he runs for office.

According to financial statements filed with New York state, North, a Republican, used a direct-mail campaign to collect more than $ 13 million for his personal legal defense fund and about $ 7 million for a political group he heads, the Freedom Alliance. Federal records show he also raised more than $ 540,000 last year through a political action committee he heads called V-PAC. Much of the money already has been spent.

 

Political analysts say North's fund-raising organization appears to be one of the nation's most formidable political money machines -- putting it in a class with the highly successful direct-mail operation of Sen. Jesse A. Helms (R-N.C.). They say it immediately establishes North as a powerful contender if he seeks the Senate seat now held by Democrat Charles S. Robb next year.

 

 

 

"It is a stunning amount of money," said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution. "This operation appears to be in a class that's matched only by Jesse Helms. It tells you that someone like Ollie North can mount a very serious campaign for the Senate."

North "has been fund-raising for a few years, and he's been quite successful at it," said Arthur Kropp, president of People for the American Way, a liberal group that tracks conservative direct-mail organizations. "He's clearly building a substantial base of support for something. A Senate race is logical."

 

The New York records give a more detailed picture of North's fund-raising activities after the Iran-contra scandal than had been available. But the records say little about who gave the money to North.

 

He declined a request for an interview last week about his fund-raising activities. But in a statement, North said, "I remain continually thankful to the American people for their generous support."

 

North's chief of staff, Mark Merritt, said he understands why some people would see the groups and their fund-raising as a prelude to a Senate campaign by North. Merritt said if North runs, he would be prepared to spend as much as $ 2 million to win the Republican nomination. "It would take that kind of financial firepower to fend off the ruthless negative attacks" that North would face, Merritt said.

 

Although North's groups cannot legally conduct a political campaign, both the Freedom Alliance and V-PAC have carried out activities that would help get a Senate bid off the ground. The Freedom Alliance has conducted polls to assess North's popularity, aides say, and V-PAC has contributed to Republican political candidates in Virginia. Those gifts, and appearances by North on behalf of the candidates, have built up considerable goodwill among GOP activists in Virginia, party regulars say.

 

Mailings by the groups also suggest issues that North might use in a Senate campaign: attacks on Congress as too liberal and opposition to feminism and gay rights, especially gay rights in the military. North was criticized last week for making a joke at the expense of homosexuals during a Fairfax County Republican dinner. He later apologized.

 

A retired Marine lieutenant colonel, North is one of at least four people seriously considering a bid for the Senate in Virginia next year. Robb has said he will seek a second term. Gov. L. Douglas Wilder has said he will decide by June whether to challenge Robb, his bitter rival, for their party's nomination. Jim Miller, a former Reagan administration budget director, has said he is a likely GOP candidate.

 

Analysts say the campaign probably will be one of the most contentious and high-profile in the nation. It also is likely to be expensive. Robb spent $ 3.1 million against weak opposition in 1988, but activists say the 1994 Senate campaign is likely to cost far more, perhaps as much as the 1989 race for governor. Wilder spent $ 7 million and won; Republican Marshall Coleman spent $ 11 million.

 

Financial disclosure records show that North has spent almost all the money he has raised, and federal law prevents him from applying any of it directly to a Senate campaign. But one of North's groups publishes a monthly newsletter that keeps him in touch with his contributors, and North's advisers say those people would form the backbone of fund-raising efforts for a campaign.

 

Merritt said the size of North's mailing list varies, but totals at least 65,000 people nationwide every month.

 

Several people who have given money to North organizations said in recent interviews that they would eagerly support him in a Senate race.

 

"I have come to believe he should get into politics," said Mildred Reeves, who is retired in Columbus, Ind. Reeves donated $ 1,000 to V-PAC in October and has given money to other North groups. "If the situation comes up, I'd do the same thing again," she said.

 

Reeves's name became public because federal law requires the reporting of donors who give $ 200 or more to political action committees. State laws covering his defense fund and the Freedom Alliance do not require release of donors' names and do not set limits on individual contributions. In federal elections, no person can give more than $ 2,000 to a candidate, and no political action committee can give more than $ 10,000.

 

Records show that the Freedom Alliance received at least one $ 50,000 gift, from an heir to the Heinz food fortune, Clifford Heinz, of Newport Beach, Calif. He could not be reached for comment through phone calls to his home.

 

North's aides would not release a list of his donors or say how many large donations he has received. Merritt said the average individual contribution to North's causes is about $ 25.

 

Political analysts and Democrats say North's fund-raising is likely to come under intense scrutiny if he runs for Senate.

 

"Any time you are raising large sums of money and the sources are invisible, somebody is going to ask hard questions," said Don Foley, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "I can't imagine that amount of money not becoming an issue."

 

North's first fund-raising organization, his legal defense fund, began filing detailed annual financial statements in New York state when it was organized in 1988. New York law requires all charitable organizations that solicit contributions there to make financial information public.

 

The organizers of North's legal defense fund, who said in legal documents establishing the fund that the names of donors "shall be kept confidential," objected to disclosing any information, and they argued that the fund should be exempt from New York laws. But state officials would not grant the fund an exception.

 

North has said the cost of mounting a legal defense during congressional inquiries and against criminal charges -- he was found guilty of lying to Congress, shredding government documents and taking an illegal gratuity, but the convictions were overturned -- was astronomical. The records bear that out.

 

According to financial statements, North paid the lawyers who defended him almost $ 5.4 million from 1988 through 1991. Aides to North said that the fund was liquidated last year and that additional expenditures were limited. The aides would not say what happened to any leftover money; that will become public this year when the fund files its 1992 report.

 

The statements also show that the defense fund spent more than $ 1 million on security services for North from 1988 through 1991. During that period, law enforcement officials said they had uncovered a terrorist plot to kill North. Legal documents establishing the legal defense fund specified that the proceeds could be used "to provide personal protection for the safety of [North] and his family," who live in Clarke County, west of Loudoun. Much of the money went to pay salaries and expenses for security guards, North aides said.

 

During the four years, the defense fund raised about $ 13.2 million. About $ 6.8 million was used to pay the cost of fund-raising and administration, with most of that amount spent to pay for direct-mail appeals. Direct-mail fund-raising is often expensive, and sources in the industry said North's costs are not excessive when compared with those of other political groups.

 

Little more than a year after North's defense fund began its solicitations, he established a permanent, nonprofit political organization, the Freedom Alliance, that would add to the mailing lists built by the original group. The links between the two groups and V-PAC are strong.

 

One man has held senior positions in all three: Edward J. Bronars, of Falls Church, a retired Marine three-star general who was once North's commanding officer. The organizations have offices next to North's private business, Guardian Technologies Inc., in a Loudoun County office building near Dulles International Airport. Guardian sells security devices, such as bulletproof vests.

 

The groups' mailings give a clear picture of North's staunchly conservative beliefs, and they suggest a direction that a North Senate campaign might take.

 

In 1990, as the Freedom Alliance was getting started, North sent out a letter that said he would take on "an increasingly imperial Congress, dominated by the far left and containing too many members mired in immoral personal behavior" and "an arrogant army of ultra-militant feminists, opposed to traditional family values."

 

The Freedom Alliance also has repeatedly attacked gay-rights groups, which the Alliance says pose a threat to the country's future. In a January mailing, the group questioned President Clinton's plans to allow gay people in the military, asking, "Who would have ever thought that radical homosexuals would . . . have so great an influence on critical presidential decisions?"

 

Late last year, a mailing asked supporters to help keep gay people out of the Boy Scouts. A headline in a recent newsletter characterized the Clinton era as "The Gay 90's."

 

North was one of several prominent Republicans who came under fire from civil rights groups last week for telling jokes at a Fairfax County GOP roast that stereotyped homosexuals. North quipped that he was able to get through the White House switchboard only after he disguised his voice with an exaggerated lisp.

Gay rights could emerge as a theme in the Senate campaign next year if Robb, the Democratic incumbent, wins his party's nomination. Robb has supported allowing gay people in the military, a position that has drawn criticism from Republicans and conservatives, including North.

 

The Freedom Alliance mailings have struck a chord with recipients, raising about $ 7 million from 1989 through 1991. The money has helped North take part in several causes: The group launched vigorous protests against Time Warner Inc. for releasing the rap song "Cop Killer" and distributed thousands of Christmas packages to U.S. troops in the Middle East during Operation Desert Storm.

 

But Kropp, of People for the American Way, said North's groups have had limited political impact because they have done relatively little grass-roots organizing or lobbying on Capitol Hill. The groups have concentrated, Kropp said, on activities that would set the stage for a campaign for office by North.

 

"This operation has been dedicated to polishing North's image," Kropp said. "From the kind of issues he's been addressing, I would conclude there is a political race in his future."

 

Staff researcher Mark Stencel contributed to this report.

[The Big Cat]

If you think The Washington Post is too liberal then read the Washington Times. If you think the New York Times is too liberal then read the NY Post. If you think MSNBC is too liberal then watch Fox News. You guys act like their is no conservative mainstream media that you can turn to.

 

By the way the Oliver North tidbit is inaccurate. The incident you refered to happened in March 1993 and didn't result in a front page article like you suggested. Instead there was a 1953 word feature on the possibility of Oliver North running for the US Senate in Virginia against Chuck Robb who at the time was a supporter of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Only 2 sentences at the very end of the article mentioned the gay joke North made at the Fairfax County GOP roast.

 

pwned.

[SDS]

If you think The Washington Post is too liberal then read the Washington Times. If you think the New York Times is too liberal then read the NY Post. If you think MSNBC is too liberal then watch Fox News. You guys act like their is no conservative mainstream media that you can turn to.

 

By the way the Oliver North tidbit is inaccurate. The incident you refered to happened in March 1993 and didn't result in a front page article like you suggested. Instead there was a 1953 word feature on the possibility of Oliver North running for the US Senate in Virginia against Chuck Robb who at the time was a supporter of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Only 2 sentences at the very end of the article mentioned the gay joke North made at the Fairfax County GOP roast.

 

I'm not acting like anything. I responded to the silly notion that "the Washington Post and NYT do alright" and was met with criticism of Fox News. Well, I never mentioned Fox News and if the Times and Post is someone's definition of unbiased reporting then I would like to see what the heck constitutes biased reporting.

 

WRT to the WP article, I thought it was the headline, but regardless - it was reported on page A1 like I said. It was a 15 year old reference....

[SDS]

pwned.

 

If you say so....

[drnykterstein]

If you say so....

 

Yeah I'm thinking its not easy to go back to the paper that was published on that day and prove or disprove your claims. So that was weird. I don't care if you were wrong or not, I tend to believe you on that.

 

In any case SDS, my strategy is to query people who are the ones who claim that news sources are biased and try to find out what sources they think are not biased. Because if they trust it, then I can admit those news sources into a discussion with them. Technically, I just assume everyone is biased about everything and don't trust anyone. But the thing is, when I'm arguing with people, I really want to use sources they trust. At that point, my theory is: they can't hide behind the "it's biased" cop out.

 

While I'm here, I have to say, I've tried that and it doesn't really work well. I found the most republican papers I could find one day and sent a few disparaging articles about Palin's past to my very republican dad. He never admitted I was right, and went off on some tangent on how we should re-asses the method we are using to debate.

 

Moral of the story: People do not ever like to admit they are wrong *especially* when it comes to politics.

 

 

 

 

Also, SDS. You keep mentioning Fox News. I never said anything about Fox (wuts-up-wit-dat?). To a point, I have learned to respect Bill.

[elegantelliotoffen]

I'm not acting like anything. I responded to the silly notion that "the Washington Post and NYT do alright" and was met with criticism of Fox News. Well, I never mentioned Fox News and if the Times and Post is someone's definition of unbiased reporting then I would like to see what the heck constitutes biased reporting.

WRT to the WP article, I thought it was the headline, but regardless - it was reported on page A1 like I said. It was a 15 year old reference....

 

Is there really such a thing as unbiased reporting anywhere?

[Philly McButterpants]

Is there really such a thing as unbiased reporting anywhere?

 

Not any more . . . IMHO just about every news outlet wears its agenda on its sleeve.

 

I'm driving my wife nuts yelling at the freakin' Today show every morning. THE TODAY SHOW!!

 

I need a new hobby . . . maybe soemthing nice with crayons or watercolors

[finknottle]

If you think The Washington Post is too liberal then read the Washington Times. If you think the New York Times is too liberal then read the NY Post. If you think MSNBC is too liberal then watch Fox News. You guys act like their is no conservative mainstream media that you can turn to.

 

I'm glad you raised that. I've been a 20 year subscriber to the Post, and what's been going on over the past two years has finally nudged me to the Times. I will probably let the Post subscription lapse.

 

Here's the difference: The Times is more overtly slanted on the editorial pages. But the reporting is fine - it's not any different from any other papers. And it is equal-opportunity-expose. Case in point: today they ran a front-page story delving into Palin's personal finances and possessions - how many boats, etc - to question whether she was a 'regular Alaskan.' Not the sort of thing Obama has undergone.

 

The Post, on the other hand, has crossed into the territory where I no longer trust the facts of the reporting itself, especially on the issues they are concerned about: Obama, Bush and Iraq, African-Americans, and Illegal Immigration. The very fact that their own 'fact check' column, in recently debunking a McCain ad, discredited it by noting that the claims came from Washington Post reporting and were therefore not credible evidence, speaks volumes as to the papers agenda.

[UBinVA]

Plagiarist!

 

http://harmlessness.blogspot.com/2008/08/s...y-judgment.html

 

Just like your V.P. candidate

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/0...sm_problem.html

[pBills]

Just like your V.P. candidate

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/0...sm_problem.html

 

 

 

we're using blogs as credible sources?

[Andrew in CA]

I remember a question posed to Noam Chomsky once, essentially "which papers does one need to read?" Chomsky answered something to the fact of "for as much as I skewer NYT, it's a must-read, because no other paper has the resources to deeply cover the amount of news that NYT can."