Read all about it here.
I may have changed the facts a little there. But seriously, don’t you think my verson would have gotten a LOT more press coverage?
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Support Dean’s World
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Read all about it here.
I may have changed the facts a little there. But seriously, don’t you think my verson would have gotten a LOT more press coverage?
{ 12 comments }
Not only that, the Vatican has given Obama,
a No Irish Need Apply signal:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/5138135/Vatican-blocks-Caroline-Kennedy-appointment-as-US-ambassador.html
I go back and forth on it. If this were campaign season–which is when the feeding frenzy on Palin was most out of control–I’d say definitely. But now? Not so sure. Especially because it would have to be “Palin’s half-brother who she didn’t grow up with and who she barely knows was accused of…” and that’s harder to see.
I don’t know if Obama’s even met this guy. Of course, one might make hay out of the fact that they have no real relationship. Indeed, I recall some efforts to make an issue of the fact that Barack had a half-brother Obama in Africa who he’d never done anything to help out and really didn’t know–why DIDN’T he do more?
Not sure if it’s this same half-brother or a different half-brother.
I am not sure you are correct, Dean, considering the rounds the media her ex-almost son-in-law is getting ATM .
Dean,
You’re aware that the attacks on Palin haven’t abated, right?
Right now she’s racked up over $500,000 in legal debt defending herself from attacks by her enemies. You can see Glenn Beck talk about it here: http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3998255&referralPlaylistId=playlist
Uh, well, no, I wasn’t aware that she was subject to 9 lawsuits–but the fact that I wasn’t aware of it tells me that Palin’s no longer subject to much of a press feeding frenzy. If it were the press that were after her, they’d be going apeshit over the obviously corrupt Governor of Alaska facing a firestorm of ethics charges. Instead all we get are a few entertainment shows giving interviews to Sarah Palin’s daughter’s estranged boyfriend, and that only on entertainment shows.
So no, I don’t consider that if Sarah Palin had a half-brother by a different mother from, let’s say, Ukraine, who she hadn’t grown up with and had barely met, and he got accused (not convicted, just accused) that the press TODAY, RIGHT NOW, would be all over it.
The fact that the Governor’s been accused of ethics violations is minor news to me. The argument that some of them look flimsy and entirely politically motivated would say things about Palin’s political opponents. If the Glenn Beck show is being fair and even-handed. In any case, I’m agnostic on the matter because if the charges are flimsy then she’ll emerge stronger for having batted them down. If not, and they stick, then she probably gets what she deserves. In any case, I’m not that interested, and obviously, neither is most of the press. And it’s the press we’re talking about here, right?
Dean,
Beyond the nuisance lawsuits, HotAir had a screenshot from a few days ago where three of the five top wire service stories were about Palin, her daughter, and her daughter’s boyfriend.
Well, OK, I didn’t see that screen shot, and without trying to be belligerent, I have to point out that the online news services I use these days are constantly shifting from hour to hour and even moment to moment. So one screen shot of one moment where there were a flutter of stories on Palin (which tends to happen if two or three services all bring out a story the same time), but 15 minutes later she’s buried with all the other random news items, that would also prove nothing.
That, indeed, is one of the things that I have complained about Malkin and crew doing in the past (and I do like and respect a lot of those folks by the way): taking one isolated fact or incident and blowing it way out of proportion.
Again, I scan news sites every day, and political web sites constantly, and I simply haven’t noticed any screaming press jihad against Palin–and I don’t see a spate of lawsuits as being part of a PRESS attack, unless it’s the PRESS that’s suing her.
I suppose you might say that the press is showing its bias by not covering these lawsuits more thoroughly, i.e. ignoring the fact that she’s subject to these terribly unjust attacks (if that’s what they are, I don’t know). But you can’t jibe that with the idea that the press is obsessed with attacking her.
I mean, seriously, even this stuff with her daughter’s ex-boyfriend (who I am sympathetic with by the way): that’s all been on news-lite entertainment shows, like The View and stuff like that. Maybe he did Oprah, I dunno. But that’s just about as far away from a pervasive news media assault as you can get and still call it news. In my estimation.
I think conservatives have a tendency to overplay their hand on the issue of media bias, to be honest. I consider the phenomenon real, and important. Bias sometimes skews against the left, but usually it skews against the right. But when the right overplays its hand and starts grossly exaggerating it, they shoot themselves in the foot. So, when I see an accusation of press bias from right or left or anywhere else, I think tough questions have to be asked. If conservatives want to claim the moral and intellectual high ground, they should demand no less. No?
Actually, you know what?
For all the complaining I hear from the right about “media bias,” I’m actually asking a very serious question:
Can you actually document this, to the point where those who question it get their due?
Sigh. You’re missing the point. The odds of that happening to, say, John Edwards in 2005 is nil. The press is obsessed with destroying Palin and has been since the second she was announced as VP. They’re even giving awards for it.
The press does its best to bury stories that hurt Dems (the Rielle Hunter story the press ignored for weeks, the Monica story Newsweek spiked, the Acorn/Obama story the NYT spiked, this new Obama story that will get little play) and trumpets poorly-sourced attacks on Republicans (Rathergate, 10 million reasons Palin is dumb, etc).
I mean, seriously, even this stuff with her daughter’s ex-boyfriend (who I am sympathetic with by the way): that’s all been on news-lite entertainment shows, like The View and stuff like that.
Which skew violently left, because the people who run them skew violently left. How much discussion of Obama’s brother’s sexual assault (a much more serious issue involving the family of a much more important public official) do you think we’ll see on those?
Can you actually document this, to the point where those who question it get their due?
With a few hundred hours of work, sure. And no one would care, because it’s obvious to half of us and the other half like it that way.
Anyways, there have been umpteen studies on this kind of bias for years and years. No one is going to “get their due,” people who care about honesty and fairness will just have to watch Fox News Channel and listen to talk radio.
Dave, honestly, I am sympathetic to most of what you say, but seriously dude: You actually think it would take hundreds of hours to prove you’re unbiased? Seriously?
I thought you were talking about an intellectually rigorous study of bias against Palin. Yes, that would be hundred of hours. Some similar studies were done for the top of the tickets and found Obama received much more favorable press.
To prove I’m unbiased? Well, no, I don’t think I am unbiased. But I don’t operate a “neutral” news service, either. Most news sources do either implicitly or explicitly claim to be unbiased, which is really where the problem comes from.
What we need is for the credits of these “unbiased” news sources to list the political affiliation of every person who has any editorial input to the process. They should do this voluntarily so we can all see just how unbiased they are. Of course, they won’t do this because the massive disparity of Ds over Rs would put the lie to their claims of neutrality.
The reality is that no person or group of people can be totally neutral in reporting and analysis. The best we can do is be honest about our biases.
As far as the Palin stories go, the main thing I ever hear about are her daughter’s adventures with the “baby daddy”. This is probably because they are the most entertaining to many people. There’s a reason that Jerry Springer gets the ratings he does. When it comes down to it, whatever gets the most viewers gets the spotlight.
“Bad” Bush stories were popular because of the unpopularity he had according to polls. If Obama slips in the polls one can most likely predict that “Bad” Obama stories will be more prevalent. The media was all over Carter, for example. The “killer rabbit” incident, Billy Carter stories, and he was basically ripped a new asshole on the Iran Hostage crisis. Especially, when his attempts at military intervention resulted in the helicopters sent on the mission getting lost in sandstorms and crashing horribly.
You also have to take into account that the “liberal” anti-war press cried foul on a lot of issues surrounding the Vietnam war and that LBJ was a democratic president. The D in front of his name did not protect him from anti-war propaganda and chants like, “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?”
I am fairly certain that the media is biased towards ratings and anything that generates viewers and makes more sponsorship money. If not, then sponsors will pull out to more “neutral” networks that generate more viewers/listeners for their ads. Networks have been doing poorly, FOX was hit hard in November, although much of this may be due to companies not spending much because the economy is still crummy. If CNN could only show incestuous reality shows it would truly be unstoppable!
In any case this will be moot as networks will air more shows about trailer nurses and Jackasses doing things to harm themselves because they are cheap to make and the viewers are going to the internet these days.
Comments on this entry are closed.