Thursday, September 20, 2012

Why Can't The Media Be Relied On To Cover Obama Objectively?

When they needed it most, the Democrats put on a nearly flawless convention.
Paul Begala, supposedly referring to this year's convention in Charlotte


Michael Knox Beran is something less sanguine -- when it comes to the media itself and their coverage of the 2012 election campaign in general, and of Obama himself in particular. Beran writes about the media bias as it dedicates itself to Obama's re-election:

The closeness of mainstream journalists to President Obama has debauched their integrity. Some of them give the White House veto authority over their stories. Others look to be rewarded with plum jobs or stimulus-funded ads. This abasement before power presages a return to a time when political writers, among them Swift and Defoe, were the professed protégés of statesmen and relied on Whig or Tory patronage for their bread; it also leaves the country vulnerable to the distortions of ostensibly neutral journalists who are too fervently committed to the leader to tell the truth about him.
The Cagle Post's Rick McKee on the Media's unquestioned support
for Obama during the Convention


During the Democratic National Convention
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz  fabricated a statement she claimed was made by Israeli Ambassador Oren about Republicans being dangerous
  • Wasserman Schultz attempted to claim she made no such statement, but a recording of her statement refuted that claim to
  • The Democratic platform was found to have been changed from the previous year to exclude the statement recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
  • That plank was forced back into the platform after it was rejected 3 times by voice vote
Yet in addition to Begala's fawning that the convention was nearly flawless:
Time’s Mark Halperin spoke of the Romney campaign’s “death stench,” and MSNBC’s Steve Benan said that the president was now “exactly where he wants to be.”
Benan's statement is especially puzzling, since Obama was not due to be in on the Letterman show until weeks later.

Investors Business Daily's Michael Ramirez on Media's dedication to Obama

And then came the Muslim riots that ended up with the attacks on the US embassies in Cairo and Benghazi and the tragic murder of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and members of his staff.

The same media that is critical of Romney's every word -- including some that he didn't say -- accepted Obama's original explanation of what happened at face value.

Beran writes that the media did not ask:
  • Was the president’s version of his emissary’s death a self-serving attempt to salvage a failing foreign policy?
  • If the administration’s Islamic policy has failed to pacify Islam and “make us safer,” why didn’t the president act forcefully in the months preceding the tragedy to protect American diplomats?
Instead:
Yet other than the British Independent and Matt Drudge, no big journalistic enterprise pressed for an explanation. Rather than probe the most devastating assault on the diplomatic corps since 1979, the media-political complex blithely turned its collective attention to happier matters, among them the president’s rising poll numbers in the swing states.

Investors Business Daily's Michael Ramirez on Media's protection of Obama

Michael Ramirez, who usually does his talking through his cartoons, apparently felt the need to vent about the media's partiality towards Obama -- Media's One-Sided Coverage Is Clear Evidence Of Bias:
A July 16 Rasmussen poll revealed "59% of likely U.S. voters believe Obama has received the best treatment from the media so far" and "51% expect most reporters to help Obama." Only 9% expect the media to help Romney.

The media should, at bare minimum, be expected to reveal the truth. But it won't even do that.

Still the media focus nonstop on unsubstantiated reports about Mitt Romney's tax returns — not on anything substantial.

MSNBC analyst Mark Halperin, when asked about Mitt Romney's tax returns on the Today Show, said, "The press still likes this story a lot."

He added, "The media are very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on this."

The fact the media are susceptible to do what any campaign wants is disturbing enough.

But the way the media focus relentlessly on gaffes and ignores substantive issues when covering one side, while ignoring gaffes and issues critical of the other side, does serious damage to the integrity of news reporting.
But the hard reality of the economy and events in the Middle East -- let alone gaffes made by Obama -- are not being covered critically by the media as the presidential draws closer.

Unbelievable.

Beran concludes:
Having been corrupted into a semi-official state press, America’s mainstream media is now transforming the most important election in a generation into the political equivalent of an episode of The Bachelor. Liberalism’s scribal class is actually pleased that the contest has become a referendum not on the president’s record or his plans but on his charisma and popularity. In the kingdom of vapor, substance has no place.[emphasis added]
Investors Business Daily's Michael Ramirez notes the president has no clothes

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!


Technorati Tag: and and and .
Post a Comment