Media bias in the age of Obama
To say that the elite media has a liberal bias is similar to declaring that the sun rises in the east. But it’s never been this transparent, the infatuation never this deep, the advocacy this passionate. We are now seeing shows like “60 Minutes”–once a fearless giant in journalism–give interviews that you would expect to see on Entertainment Tonight or state-run television. We’re at the point when we have to count on tough interviews coming from news outlets like Univision. …
A combination of factors, I think. One is the rise of Fox News. For decades progressives had a monopoly on news, which meant they were content to slant the news but not routinely cross the line into advocacy. But now that Fox News has offered not only a different perspective, but a popular one, journalists may feel they must, in order to compensate for their loss of influence, increase their liberal advocacy.
A second factor is Barack Obama. He is liberal, Ivy League, and a person of color. That is simply too powerful of a combination for the elite media to resist. (If Obama were conservative, Ivy League, and a person of color, he would be a marked man, as Clarence Thomas has been.) Mr. Obama touches the media’s erogenous zone in ways that no other president, even JFK, ever has. One gets to sense that journalists not only like Mr. Obama; they are in awe of him. They want to impress him and please him and are afraid of being rebuked by him. (It is very much how my 3rd grade son views his teacher.) Being a bright fellow, Mr. Obama understands this, which is why from time to time he transitions from being president to being media critic. He issues marching orders to the elite media–and a stunningly high number of journalists salute and do as they are told.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Media Bias: We’re Well Beyond That Now
Resist We Much on February 1, 2013 at 7:50 AM
Spot on
cmsinaz on February 1, 2013 at 7:55 AM
It’s not media bias.
It’s propaganda.
If they were just advocating for Obama, that’s one thing. But to generate the untruths against against anything Conservative that they do, crosses the line.
Rank propaganda.
Cooking the books on the economy for him before the election. Running a national news story on unemployment seeming to improve a freaking week before the elections without questioning the government numbers. Citing dropping gas prices as proof the economy was improving weeks before the election. Ignoring the prices rapidly rising afterwards. Declaring a two hour visit to Hurricane Sandy victims was a diametric improvement over Bush’s handling of Katrina. Ignoring Menendez and giving every excuse they could muster for Obama’s first debate. The worst debate performance I’ve seen in my life and what should have been a game changer for Romney. I could go on.
Rank propaganda.
hawkdriver on February 1, 2013 at 7:57 AM
And the Obama Campaign has a well designed plan to further manipulate journalists. They randomly toss access to local morning radio shows like Pimp With a Limp, while snubbing major network requests. It gives the little guys the impression that they have a chance for access if they pay tribute, and motivates the big guys to try even harder to service the campaign to finally get their chance to kneel down for the One.
forest on February 1, 2013 at 8:07 AM
Just like MLK declared: to be judged not by the color of one’s skin, but by the content of one’s character.
Case closed.
BuckeyeSam on February 1, 2013 at 8:12 AM
Sorry, but FoxNews and Obama’s skin color are weak excuses for what the so-called mainstream media has reduced itself to. I could almost accept the blatant propaganda they promote as “news” if Obama was a huge success as President and things were going well economically(as they were during most of the Clinton years). But it’s painfully obvious to even the biggest Obama buttsniffer that with his horrible performance thus far, we’re either dealing with the anti-colonialist radical that D’Souza alleges he is(meaning this is all deliberate) or we’ve elected twice the most incompetent moron to ever sit in the Oval Office.
Either way, that requires the press to abandon their infatuation with the guy and start doing their job. If for no other reason than to save their own asses, and I don’t just mean in terms of their careers. If this economy crashes and civil unrest ensues, there will be two groups certain to be targeted by the angry mobs: the politicians and the media.
Doughboy on February 1, 2013 at 8:19 AM
Obama is more a tool of the left than the leader.
gh on February 1, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Unfortunately, many HotAir commentators do not understand that he is a bright fellow.
Yes, he makes mistakes, he gaffes, & he stumbles.
If you had cameras & microphones recording your every move, many would be convinced that you are “Obumbles.”
Last cycle, he beat a very good debater 2 out of 3 times. Obama is pretty smart.
Which is why it’s easy to believe the accusations about him trying to sink the US. It seems he’s to smart to do it accidentally.
itsnotaboutme on February 1, 2013 at 8:31 AM
The entire concept of “The Fourth Estate” has been shattered forever.
tommyboy on February 1, 2013 at 8:32 AM
Obama is street smart. He is not nearly as “bright” as his sycophants would have you believe. Valerie is his brain.
Obama is not the problem. The problem is the left. And the stupids.
gh on February 1, 2013 at 8:37 AM
Smart people don’t hide their college grades, they brag about them.
tommyboy on February 1, 2013 at 8:57 AM
.
Your comment is entirely believable and probably more true than mere supposition would indicate. He just doesn’t have the energy, stamina and strength to effect an entire US capitulation. The media, lefties that they are, intend to help.
ExpressoBold on February 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM
It is not bias. It is corruption.
If any journalist gets out of step with The Party they get destroyed. Their goal is domination of America by their Party.
The media is the root of the problem. We must fight them or we will be destroyed.
Stop talking about bias. Organize. Boycott. Fight or be destroyed.
GardenGnome on February 1, 2013 at 9:17 AM
It begins with us–educate those that can be influenced. Each day, I post only once on my FB account–very simply, I post “What the media will NOT report today….” and then list 3-4 brief topics (ie., IRS forecasts $20K per yr for health ins. in 2016)…
hillsoftx on February 1, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Media bias? It’s more like media worship.
Red Creek on February 1, 2013 at 9:48 AM
The author makes some excellent points about some of the origins of today’s corrupt media, but leaves some major events out.
1. The Democrat Media in 1998 desperately tried to prevent the news of their Democrat President engaging in workplace adultery with a subordinate from getting out. It got out anyway. His subsequent impeachment made them even angrier.
2. 2 years later, the Democrat Media was aghast when their Democrat Presidential candidate, who was rejected by the voters of his own state, had that election “stolen” from him by an Activist Supreme Court. The fact that said court “stole” that election for Bush by a 7-2 vote was totally irrelevant, so was never mentioned.
They then themselves rushed down to Florida, to desperately recount the ballots themselves, so they could prove to the world that their Democrat had in fact really won the state of Florida. When the votes wouldn’t cooperate, they got even angrier.
3. They got even more angry when Bush got 90% job approval ratings after 9/11.
4. The following year, they watched as Bush conned the Democrats into signing off on his liberation of Iraq. And then another year later were once again aghast when Bush “stole” the next Presidential election (this time in Ohio). Add the Swift Boat dudes and their anger was complete.
If, and that is a very big if, an “objective” history of the American news media during this era is ever written, the parallels between the US between 1998 and 2012 and Germany in the 1930s and 1940s will be remarkable.
Del Dolemonte on February 1, 2013 at 9:55 AM
And he is just realizing this now….?
This has been going on for five years now.
NeoKong on February 1, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Heard much from Ciny Sheehan lately? Nope, they dumped her by the nearest curb, when Barry got in for the ride.
Red Creek on February 1, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Ciny=Cindy. Wish there was an edit feature on this blog.
Red Creek on February 1, 2013 at 10:17 AM