Greg Roach's Berkshires Blog
Friday, October 31, 2008
So stupid it hurts.
This idiotic attitude also speaks to the claims of "liberal media bias" that the right parades about constantly: When a candidate says something that is not true, it is "biased" to point it out.

Likewise, when a candidate structures their entire campaign around attacks, even devoting 100 percent of their ad buys to negative ads, it is "biased" to point it out.

The McCain campaign claims this exactly. It is "biased" of the media to point out that his campaign has been overwhelmingly negative for the past 30 days---and it is really "biased" to point out that Obama's campaign has not stooped to this gutter level.

Therefore, the media is "in the tank for Obama". See how simple it is to see the world like a right-winger?

Cap'n John
Palin indeed said something silly here about the 1st Amendment (tempered only somewhat by her immediate example of Joe the Plumber, who was investigated by media and state government merely for asking an inconvenient question of Obama).

It's a good think Biden never says such silly things, like volunteering an argument based on total confusion between Article I and Article II of the Constitution, since he's been head of the Judiciary Committee and will probably be the VP soon. Oh, wait...

That said John, there are clearer examples of media bias than the media's claims that McCain's campaign is more negative than Obama's. Like the selective editing of the Palin-Gibson interview.
Dave, Having not read the criteria of the study you site, I have one question:

Would a media report that McCain has been running 100% negative ads while Obama has been running a 50/50 mix, be considered a "negative" story for McCain and a "positive" one for Obama?

If so, I would suggest that, in the words of Stephen Colbert, the facts have a liberal bias.

We are not in disagreement that it is silly to consider the press to be biased when they are merely reporting inconvenient facts. My point was that one can indeed find bias in the form of dishonest coverage in other stories, for example in the editing of the Palin-Gibson interview, or in the fact that the press widely reported the news that Palin was avoiding press conferences in the initial days after her selection, while ignoring the news that Palin has had several full press conferences in the past couple week, while the other 3 candidates had had none in over a month, at least as of a couple days ago.

You of course also highlight any story you think benefits the Democrats, while ignoring any story which benefits the Republicans. Since you are a blogger -- essentially a columnist -- and make no secret of your ideology, there is nothing wrong with this. For ABC News to act in the same fashion is more problematic, and yes, "biased."
Post a Comment

<< Home
A blog of random thoughts and reactions emanating from the bank of a mountain stream in the farthest reaches of the bluest of blue states.

May 2006 / June 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / September 2007 / October 2007 / November 2007 / December 2007 / January 2008 / February 2008 / March 2008 / April 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / July 2008 / August 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / January 2009 / February 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / May 2009 / June 2009 / July 2009 / August 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / November 2009 / December 2009 / January 2010 / February 2010 / March 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010 / January 2011 / May 2011 / June 2011 / July 2011 / October 2011 /

greg at gregoryroach dot com

"Livability, not just affordability." - Dick Alcombright

My ongoing campaign for North Adams City Council

iBerkshires' Online Event Calendar

Because a Chart is Worth 1000 Words

Congressional Budget Office data

Powered by Blogger