Sunday, November 23, 2008

Oh, boo hoo! The media wasn't fair in their coverage…

posted by Bill Arnett @ 4:30 PM Permalink

…of the recent presidential race that should rightfully be called what it was, a blowout, a route, a total butt-whippin', and a defeat of epic proportions.

But SOME PEOPLE just can't be fair sportsmen, shake hands, and move on, See this article from Politico that tell lies so bad they just beg refuting:
Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

Halperin, who maintains Time's political site "The Page," cited two New York Times articles as examples of the divergent coverage of the two candidates.
You mean after all the bully pulpit speeches of bush (perhaps not a fair comparison as the more people heard him speak, the less they liked him; and he, "…can't do the whole sentence thing."
"The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies," Halperin said. "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."

The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is," according to Halperin.
Well, if Cindy McCain wasn't a drug stealing addict with a gazillion dollars with which she might have bought the drugs she used and she instead chose to steal them from a charitable organization she herself started (which leads to the question: Was the charity just a drug front all along?), why shouldn't it be material for the press?

And as to the statement, "The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is," according to Halperin, it may just be that she has lived her life in a way so as to reflect just what a good and amazing person she is. After all, If pinheads like Halperin couldn't find any dirt to sling her way…maybe it just don't exist, eh? You know they woulda if they coulda.

At any rate, IMHO, both Michelle and Barack have conducted themselves with honor and dignity, some thing which has sadly been absent from the bush maladministration.

To be fair not all of Halperin's comments were republican pablum and were entirely fair. Read it. You decide.

This is just my opinion and I could be wrong.

Labels: , ,


At 6:18 PM, Blogger The Sailor said...

Yeah, where's that Michelle Obama 'whitey' tape Faux News kept talking about, or the African Press International tape that all the wingnut sites were talking about?

Yes, the press was in the bag ... not!

Good job, you saved me the trouble and did it better than I could have.

Halperin is no better than Drudge.

At 5:42 PM, Blogger Bill Arnett said...

I thought drudge was that gooey, black-tarry, gummy sh*t you wiped off your shoes and that Halperin was a weird, strange, sick, twisted, and perverted bird that existed only to give you more drudge to scrape from your shoes.

But I'll take your word for it.


Post a Comment

<< Home