Hussein is all about looks.

I was struck by the “electing the prom king” nature of his campaign very early on.

Chris Wallace is saying right this minute that Obama is afraid to come on. 755 days since he promised to.

I could understand Obama avoiding an interview with Sean Hannity, the originator of the Wright story and an open foe; but why Chris Wallace? Wallace is a democrat and an old style journalist; a dying breed. He’s known for asking the tough questions to politicians on both sides of the aisle. A tough fair interviewer* .Obama would gain face for showing the confidence to meet him. Its significant that Obama doesn’t seem to want to show the least amount of effort to speak to his excluded Fox audience.

*Although Wallace has several political stands I don’t agree with–such as the Iraq War–I have developed respect for his professionalism and ability to ask the hard questions. He’s a great interviewer. Probably what scares Obama is Wallace’s famous stand-off with Bill Clinton over the Clinton’s failure to capture Bin Laden. He was the only journalist to confront Clinton.

Ed: I love the phrase: “Fawning sycophantry”…but, there was a red line under sychophantry after I typed it in! Well, if it isn’t a word, it should be!…An ode to BO and his fans should include this gem. ‘Come out of the pantry with your sycophantry. While we’re yawning they’re still fawning.’ The possibilities are many.

Fear the tough question Nancy!

The whole incident helps explain why Obanma is afraid of Fox News.

Lonetown on April 20, 2008 at 7:55 AM

The only people who fear fox news are people with epilepsy who would get a pokemon like seizure from the excessive screen graphics. Oh and people who dont want to die of slow brain death.

The same pattern repeats in the Ayers story. While reporting that Obama lives in the same neighborhood, serves on a board, and is “friendly” with Ayers; far too many media sources are failing to include the more serious accusation: that Ayers and his wife held a political meeting at their home to help launch Obama.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/18/how_obama_and_the_radical_became_news/

” In January 2005, in a progressive liberal blog called “Musings & Migraines,” a Chicago-based blogger named Maria Warren – whose writing suggested she was to the left of Obama – recalled watching the candidate give a “standard, innocuous little talk” in 1995, in the living room of Ayers and his wife, former Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn, when Obama was running for the state Senate.”They were launching him,” she wrote, “introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.”

The claim that Ayers was Obama’s original political patron is far more serious than serving on the same board.

rags

A lot of people vote according to the 6:30 p.m. networks news.

Most people watch few short clips of a candidate and decide according to what they see. They don’t take the pain of researching, analyzing and dissecting.

Many people vote because they follow loved ones, relatives, or friends’ decision.

Let’s be honest, the majority of the American voters are sheep.

According to one report I heard, not even the ‘pledged’ delegates to the Democrat convention are required to vote their pledges, not even on the first ballot. Is this true? If so, you could see a sudden movement to a ‘white knight’. Who would it be? Algore? Cuomo? It would almost have to be a governor, but I can’t think of one well-enough known to galvanize the convention.

Apparently most of the American media needs to find their way to a rehab center for shills in the near future.

Obama may get a serious case of backlash if so. One can only hope.

The anger by some of the talking heads or journalists in the tank for Obama is an expression of their outrage at being exposed for being less than scrupulous in researching facts and background about their candidate of choice.

Or to allow them to proclaim that “we are the change that we are seeking.” Or to once again bash George W. Bush.

“We are the change that we are seeking“. Heh, just heh.

His gracefully written autobiographical “Dreams From My Father” — we could learn, if we could get through all 464 pages — is a story not of transcending racial barriers but of developing a black and African identity.

Obama fans are upset that ABC News’ Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson broke the unwritten rule that you are not supposed to ask Democratic candidates about these things. Associations with unrepentant radicals and comments made to contributors at a San Francisco fund-raiser in a billionaire’s mansion are supposed to be kept indoors. Only the face that the candidate wants to place before the public should be seen.

Beliefs that most activist liberals share should be kept under wraps if they are unpopular with most of the voting public. That is how mainstream media have operated for the last generation or more. But not at Philadelphia’s Constitution Center on April 16. The rules had changed. And Barack Obama was not well prepared.

I believe that the MSN really hates McCain, and will turn on him in a horrible way just as soon as the Diminocrat candidate is chosen. Mark my words, there will be 24/7 negative news about old John.

Lines blurring between journalism and advocacy…

How is this less problematic? More maybe, but not less, IMO.

I’d call HuffPo a misleading example, since HuffPo is somewhat
sui generis. More illustrative of agenda journalism would be TIME mag on Gorebull Warming.

faraway on April 19, 2008 at 8:35 AM

Couldn’t disagree more. When the big (3) networks had the monopoly over the news, what we got was really well disguised agenda driven biased news. The invent of cable news brought into play “real time” news reporting, shattering the ability of the big (3) to mold their stories over 24 hour cycles. The invent of internet news/blogs brought into play “truth detectors/fact finders” who blew the cover right off fabricated agenda driven reporting (Charles Johnson/Rathergate).

The NYT is an example of the past, as they have continued to print agenda driven biased stories as if the new media didn’t exist. Of coarse, they didn’t help themselves by printing top secret military/defense programs.

Ask anybody over at the LAT if old ways/methods of doing business have played out successfully for them. These Liberal power houses are all going to die the slow death they are so deserving of; American’s are a proud people that don’t care much for having been played for fools.

When there were only 3 networks, the MSM had to be somewhat balanced to attract viewers.

Now that there are zillions of blogs, cable networks, etc. so everyone can view and read about their own particular ideology.

This will drive more zealotry from both sides. And less and less independents.

Bravo. Sorta reminds me of the line:

“But enough about me… What do you think about me?!”

IMHO it’s the remaining residue of the “Woodward and Bernstein School of Reporting.”

Consider this thought experiment: Assume that a conservative candidate for the GOP nomination spent two decades at a church whose senior pastor was a white supremacist who uttered ugly racial (as well as anti-American) epithets from the pulpit. Assume, too, that this minister wasn’t just the candidate’s pastor but also a close friend, the man who married the candidate and his wife, baptized his two daughters, and inspired the title of his best-selling book.

In addition, assume that this GOP candidate, in preparing for his entry into politics, attended an early organizing meeting at the home of a man who, years before, was involved in blowing up multiple abortion clinics and today was unrepentant, stating his wish that he had bombed even more clinics. And let’s say that the GOP candidate’s press spokesman described the relationship between the two men as “friendly.”

Do you think that if those moderating a debate asked the GOP candidate about these relationships for the first time, after 22 previous debates had been held, that other journalists would become apoplectic at the moderators for merely asking about the relationships? Not only would there be a near-universal consensus that those questions should be asked; there would be a moral urgency in pressing for answers. We would, I predict, be seeing an unprecedented media “feeding frenzy.”

The truth is that a close relationship with a white supremacist pastor and a friendly relationship with an abortion clinic bomber would, by themselves, torpedo a conservative candidate running for president. There is an enormous double standard at play here, one rooted in the fawning regard many journalists have for Barack Obama. They have a deep, even emotional, investment in his candidacy. And, as we are seeing, they will turn on anyone, even their colleagues, who dare raise appropriate and searching questions–the kind journalists are supposed to ask. The reaction to Stephanopoulos and Gibson is a revealing and depressing glimpse into the state of modern journalism.

Ok, assuming we vote for McCain, how can we make any difference when the media is on Hussein’s side, and he’s gaining popularity every time he’s been attacked. How can you explain that? How can McCain win when he doesn’t have the majority? I’m trying to be realistic. That’s all.

Indy Conservative on April 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM

Indy, it sounds like you’ve given up before the fight started. Sorry to hear that . . . good luck.

Indy Conservative on April 18, 2008 at 9:51 PM

What a stupid thing to say, I wish I could say I was suprised.