MyDD :: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton

Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Names names

by DaTruth, Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:35:30 PM EST

Jeff Greenfield moderated a panel discussion at Manhattan's 92nd Street Y Sunday night that dealt with the anti-Clinton media bias that has been prevalent in this election cycle. Joe Klein, Jonathan Alter, and Rich Lowry were on the panel.

Klein actually named the names of the prominent newsies who have taken a very anti-Clinton stand: Russert, Chris Matthews, and Maureen Dowd. Alter actually got loudly booed when he tried to deny any bias vs. HRC. Here's the Conde Nast Portfolio article written by Jeff Bercovici:

She might not win the presidency, but Hillary Clinton has succeeded at one thing: getting us all to think about whether the press prefers Barack Obama over her.

Last night, three of the most prominent political commentators -- Time columnist Joe Klein, Newsweek scribe Jonathan Alter and National Review editor Rich Lowry -- tackled that issue in a discussion at Manhattan's 92nd Street Y moderated by Jeff Greenfield.

Klein, who's also a CNN regular, was most unequivocal in spotting bias.

"I do believe there's something weird a few of our colleagues have [against Clinton]," he said. "They tend to be Roman Catholics, actually. People like Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd. They've had it in for Bill and Hillary Clinton since Monica Lewinsky. They feel that the Clintons are trying to put one over on us all the time."

Lowry dismissed favorable treatment of Obama as "a classic bandwagon effect -- whoever's winning is a genius." But then he reversed course somewhat: "The glee we saw on the airwaves prior to New Hampshire about what everyone considered the imminent demise of Hillary Clinton was obvious." And analyzing last week's debate, he said, "I thought it was obvious that Tim Russert and Brian Williams were harder on Hillary Clinton."

Alter, for his part, actually drew loud boos for denying widespread media bias against Clinton. One male audience member seated near the back of the room even cried out "Bullshit!" (It should be noted that Alter is affiliated with NBC News, home to Williams, Russert and Matthews.)

Alter did say he thought Clinton was sometimes treated unfairly because she is a woman, but hedged even on that, saying, "It's hard to disaggregate her Clinton-ness from her gender."

Tags: Klein, media, bias, anti-Clinton, pro-Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 64 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (2.00 / 10)

look the public have known this for a while now and i think the clinton camp has finally found a way to point it out .

the story line is not good for obama at all.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:38:38 PM EST

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (2.00 / 1)

This has been one of the good educational effects of the Clinton campaign: exposing media bias. I would love to see the 'mainstream media is a joke' education effect go on till November.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:02:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (none / 0)

Hold on there! I seem to recall months and months of "Clinton inevitability" being trumpeted by almost all of the media, including some of those mentioned above. For instance, it was only a little over a month ago that Chris Matthews was confidently predicting that Clinton was unbeatable and would be not only the nominee but win in the general as well. Some of the later negativity towards Clinton may be a reaction to the realization that the press had swallowed the "Clinton inevitability" meme without question for far too long. And don't forget all that racial ugliness a while back that probably brought some of this on too.

I think this isn't as definitive as people are making it out to be. While I do tend to agree that some of the attacks on Clinton have gone too far, so too have some of those against Obama. For instance, there are the claims that he's a Muslim, which the media only expanded by airing the photo of him in Sudenese garb, the hullabaloo about his middle name, and continuing comments about ties to Rezko, although my understanding is this claim was debunked months ago. And has anyone actually gone back to check whether Clinton was always asked the first question in the debates? Clinton is using this approach because it's worked for her in the past.

Why does the press behave as if these claims and counterclaims are all-or-nothing propositions? That would be a valid criticism of the press, imho, that they tend to go overboard in one direction or another. First they all love Hillary, then they don't, now they do again.

Hillary is wanting to have her cake and eat it too, imho. It's hypocritical for her to complain that the press has unfairly slammed her while she herself is unfairly slamming Obama. I've already voted, but if I hadn't, a candidate who said that the Republican challenger was better than the other Democrat in the race would never get my vote.

And none of the press coverage of Hillary is Obama's fault anyway...

Some of all of this seems nothing more than manufactured ratings strategy by the press anyway, which is why we need public financing of elections.

by Wordie on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:04:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (2.00 / 1)

It's about ratings on tv. The tv press care about their high salaries.

Like Timmy wanting to read Farrahahn's dispicable comments on tv (even after BHO had denounced them during the debate and before http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail 2008/01/15/obama_decries_farrakhan_stat em_1.html?hpid=topnews .) Timmy doesn't care that he's spreading this hate to the young people watching.

And the Rezko thing is just silly. The media doesn't bother to mention this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/200802 18/pl_bloomberg/ar8nlioqedc4

And, you need to look hard to see that the new Canadian memo claims Goolsbee told the Canadians that Obama was going to change NAFTA to strengthen labor and environmental standards. And the origianl CTV story was wrong about who, where, when, what was said, and who initiated contact. But, the media doesn't note Obama was correct to deny the accuracy of that story. You would think part of the story would ask who was feeding CTV a bunch of false information that hyped this whole situation. And, the media isn't focused on the undeniable fact that Obama and his campaign people have without exception (publicly and privately) stated that BHO wants to change NAFTA for environmental and labor improvements.

The tv media (and most print media) isn't running stories about Bill being nice with dictators for money, or what has made the Clintons so rich in recent years ( http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clint on_net_worth-wealth.html ), or http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/arch ive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx

And, a lot of the BHO coverage is negative for him because it is a restating of false email claims, e.g. the madrassa thing. And, this talk by the media is planting a seed of doubt in people, even though the story is not true. While the media may be the willing or unknowing accomplices, the Clinton machine is busy behind the scenes pushing this stuff. For example, Hillary on 60 minutes couldn't say definitively that BHO isn't a Muslim, even though the record is 100% clear that he isn't a Muslim and he never went to a madrassa in Indonesia. The record shows that this madrassa story was planted by the Clinton campaign, which explains why HRC was so sly on 60 minutes. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/o bama.madrassa

The media is just looking out for themselves, including Klein, who for the record, is has been pro-Clinton in other forums--he's probably angling for access, maybe we can look forward to Anonymous part II.

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (none / 0)

As a former Edwards supporter, I have no doubt about media bias. Perhaps my point was somewhat unclear.

I was just trying to point out that Clinton wasn't complaining during all those months when the media was inaccurately crowning her the winner before a single vote had been cast (which may have gained her a great deal of support, btw), and is responsible for some smears against Obama as well.

I actually do think the media has been unfair to Clinton, but it's been equally unfair to Obama, and even more so to Edwards. Over the last couple of days, it seems as if Clinton has gotten a boost from the media, in the form of her appearance on SNL, and last night's extended interview on the Daily Show (what was up with that, anyway?). What we need to do, imho, is bring back the Fairness Doctrine ASAP, because these sorts of appearances at crucial moments can potentially tilt the vote results in ways that just seem very wrong in a democracy.

Besides, every time I start feeling some sympathy for Clinton based on what I percieve to be an unfair media comment, she or one of her proxies comes out with something even worse against Obama.

by Wordie on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (none / 0)

Some (if not most or all) in the media must understand that continuing this nomination process will help maintain ratings and interest.

I don't believe this is a clear driving motivator for most in the media. But, they probably have a voice in their head saying, "it wouldn't be bad for me if this thing kept going." And, they are always eager to find conflict. So, it makes sense they're been piling on Obama.

HRC hasn't had tough media. Sure there's sexist comments, but there are plenty of racist hits on BHO (including the false madrassa story planted by the HRC team.) The worst coverage of HRC is when her staff tells the media (on and off the record) that the campaign strategy and management is a mess. Her other big problem is that she is facing a very likely insurmountable pledged delegate deficit, and she should be thankful that this is underreported. If BHO were in her place he'd be hearing nonstop calls for him to leave the race.

On the facts, the Rezko and the Nafta things are non-stories. BHO has more experience and better results than HRC at changing minds and building coalitions to pass meaningful legislation, as demonstrated in IL (tax cuts, health care, ethics, justice reform), and DC (ethics and nuclear arms reduction.) BHO was president of Harvard LR, HRC failed the bar in DC. BHO specifically predicted the things that would go wrong in Iraq, HRC trusted Bush to make good choices. BHO was a community organizer, civil rights lawyer, and constitutional law teacher. HRC was a corporate lawyer for fifteen years (when she served on corporate and nonprofit boards.)

And, yet if people don't have time to look for this information they'll be bombarded with the unquestioned premise that we're deciding between 35 years experience and someone who's new to the US Senate. Then, the media brings up polls showing that BHO is seen to be inexperienced. And, the media likes to show how citizens can't identify anything BHO has done. It's circular, silly, and counterproductive to those who look to the media for information. But, that's the system, complaining about it it pointless.

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:12:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Alter's one of the worst (2.00 / 6)

If he thinks his own coverage is unbiased, he's sure not going to see bias anywhere else.

by Trickster on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:40:26 PM EST

Re: Alter's one of the worst (2.00 / 3)

On the eve of the NH primary, expected to be won by Obama, Alter was on Charlie Rose singing Obama's praises and reassuring viewers that Obama really is a Centrist.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:53:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (none / 0)

As an Obama supporter, I agree, but I don't think there's anything nefarious about it. It's a result of a few things - Obama's charisma, media tendency to pull for an underdog, and the shady tactics of some Clinton campaign members.

Joke Line's inference that it's because reporters are Catholic is just ridiculous. A better argument could be made that a lot of reporters fall into the "Obama demographic" - college educated, upper-middle-class, independent-leaning liberals.

by animated on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:43:14 PM EST

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (2.00 / 5)

So Obama is still the underdog in this race? And there are no shady tactics in the Obama campaign?

Wake up. Media bias is there, and it's having an effect on the elections. The media themselves admit. The MSM did not do its job during the escalation into the war in Iraq, during Gore-Bush, and during Kerry-Bush.

Now, do you really think that Obama-Clinton is any different??

And do you think, if Obama becomes our nominee, that Obama-McCain will be any different??

The press chooses sides. You're lucky if it chooses you, but chances are, they'll swoon over the "maverick" Arizona senator, over that "neophyte" one-term inexperienced Illinois senator.

WAKE UP.

by Sieglinde on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:26:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As a former Edwards supporter, (2.00 / 1)

I feel like we have gotten a double dose of media bias this time.

by georgiapeach on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:15:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nah. They just loved Bush (none / 0)

because he gave them all cutesy, demeaning nicknames. Plus, he gave them a dressing down if they got out of line. So some of them loved him, and the rest were afraid of him.

by georgiapeach on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's charisma! (none / 0)

Do you think Obama is really "charismatic"? Have you ever thought that it might be just a image made by the media?

by praxis1 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:04:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's charisma! (none / 0)

Exactly. I sure have thought this. Whenever you hear Obama speak directly, he falls flat and seems rather lackluster, except when he repeats his "fire it up" mantra over and over and over...
(it's getting a little old)

Then you hear from the press all about his charisma and charm and how darn likeable the guy is. (sound familiar -- want to join him for a beer?)

Yes, definitely the MSM makes up and spins personalities to suit its own desired end.

by moevaughn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (2.00 / 1)

Wow, I do not see Obama as charismatic, AT ALL.

You're perspective is really interesting.

The media is a tiny little lap dog, essentially appearing to be a bunch of PR reps, for hire, and none of them any good.

It is in the better interest of America to have a functional watchdog press, as it is , our reporters are a bunch of untalented corporate lackeys.

So, here's hoping it gets better.

On any given day, it is so much more informative, and interesting to read any given blog, and find citizen journalists reporting unbiased truth, as compared to the garbage Olbermann spews, say.

People doing it because they want to preserve this country, not seeking money, or fame, or power.

by Marsha1 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:07:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (2.00 / 1)

OK, then explain the following.
The parade had passed both George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole by in the 1990s, yet the press seemed bound and determined to prop the both of them up.
Obama was an Illinois State Senator at the time.

The media love fest was especially true in Dole's case. Anytime he acted as if he might be able to walk and che gum at the same time, the media turned into 1950's schoolgirls watching Elvis.

"OOO! Bob Dole! Bob Dole! Bob Dole!" followed by any number of cherry-pikced opoll numbers that sugggested a tighter race.

Media bias? Nothing new.

by spirowasright on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:22:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton (2.00 / 2)

Media bias will be there against any Democrat. The media took out Edwards out of the competition.

And it now is playing with the other two candidates.

The media is owned by Republicans. We raise money to help them play their game.

They use our money to campaign against us. Until Democrats stand up to the game
we will be at their mercy continually.

I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives

by pioneer111 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:47:03 PM EST

Win, lose, or draw, (2.00 / 2)

It can only be a good thing that HRC is calling them on it. It's about time somebody did. With any luck, if she doesn't win the nomination, she will go back to the Senate and start introducing bills to counteract the influence that the media has on our primaries and elections.

by georgiapeach on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:14:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Win, lose, or draw, (none / 0)

I agree with you on that. If the mood of the country is turning away from the right wing, the press is going to have to be called on its constant attempts at being conservative apolgists.
You need to do what Spiro Agnew did 40 years ago, I's sad to say.

by spirowasright on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:17:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Klein (2.00 / 1)

Joe Klein is horrible. He's just as guilty as the rest of them. He was touting Obama until recently. Will he take responsbility for his actions? I'm sure he won't just like the rest of them.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:51:00 PM EST

Re: Joe Klein (none / 0)

Don't harpoon the messenger for just being candid and telling the truth. Some people hate being exposed...to their own hypocrisy.

by Check077 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:15:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias (2.00 / 2)

Don't forget Jack Cafferty and Rolan Martin

by Wiseprince on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:53:12 PM EST

this is a testament to (2.00 / 2)

The Clinton's ability to use the media for their purposes, and they're doing a great job at it.

Imagine if the scenario was reversed. Obama has just lost 10 or so straight primaries and caucuses, the Clinton campaign is about to announce that they've raised $60,000,000 last month; super delegates are reversing course from their support for Obama and others are jumping on the Clinton bandwagon; there is evidence suggesting that an Obama at the top of the ticket is going to negatively affect Congressional races for the Dems; there is discord within the campaign; and just recently Obama has started running negative ads against Clinton's honesty.

What would the media be calling on Obama to do?

by highgrade on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:56:56 PM EST

Re: this is a testament to (1.85 / 7)

He won a grand total of 106 electrol votes versus Clintons 196 in the states Democrats are expected to win in November. He is hoodwinking and Bamboozilig the Democrats by winning in states that Democrats are not going to win in November.

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:51:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about senator from New York? (none / 0)

Her constituents seem happy enough with her.

-- she's 100% sure to rack up delegates tomorrow thanks to this system of allocating on percentages

I suggest you examine the Texas Democratic Party delegate allocation rules a little more closely. She's likely to come out behind in delegates even if she wins by a small margin. And it is far from certain that even a decent win in Ohio (say, 8 points) could make up for that.

You're looking at a more or less static delegate map with fewer and fewer contests left.

by corph on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:48:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It is really undeniable (2.00 / 6)

Of course, naming Russert, Matthews and Dowd isn't going out on a limb.

I'm waiting for a journalist with the guts to call out the beat reporters like Ann Kornblut and the influential editors and headline writers at the Washington Post and similar outlets.

by dcg2 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:07:51 PM EST

Re: media bias (2.00 / 5)

I remember when Gloria Borger first started out years ago on Wash Week. There were few women around then, and I was a big fan of Gloria.

Not anymore. What happened to the young exciting intelligent progressive Gloria I knew? Now she's just another MSM parrot.

and is anyone a fan of Maureen Dowd? I don't even bother reading her columns....puke.

by moevaughn on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:19:34 PM EST

Alter is great (1.50 / 2)

All of you Clinton people always want to whine and blame someone else for your problems. Clinton has run a shoddy campaign and can only blame herself for the predicament she is in. No planning whatsoever after 2/5.

Quit whining. You sound like Limbaugh complaining about the MSM. Laughable.

OBAMA08

by Lawdawg on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:32:59 PM EST

Re: Alter is nonsense (2.00 / 2)

Alter has consistently showed his bias. So of course, he is great in your hypocritical eyes.

Dont come running and crying here in Nov when press goes against Messiah. It will be "laughable".

by Sandeep on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then post some Alter quotes (none / 0)

so we can debate it. Otherwise you're talking out of your behind.

by corph on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:49:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alter is great (none / 0)

two mackerel rating

On to the Convention Floor!

by oh puhleeze on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:36:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton (2.00 / 5)

The media bias against Clinton has been obvious for a while. Anyone who can't see it is simply blinded by their Obama love. It is a simple fact. Certainly the three names Klien mentioned are almost too obvious. The ravid Clinton hate from those three very shallow media shills is disgusting. I think there are more subtle versions, like Anderson Cooper, Brian Williams, and others.

by Christopher Lib on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:53:09 PM EST

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton (2.00 / 1)

you're so silly!

by Thaddeus on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:14:11 PM EST

Re: Many Journalists See The Double Standard (2.00 / 10)

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editor ial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/03/03/the _double_standard/

CARYL RIVERS
The double standard
By Caryl Rivers | March 3, 2008

THE "SATURDAY Night Live" skit that showed reporters fawning over Barack Obama and tossing him puffball questions, while grilling Hillary Clinton like a felony suspect, wasn't too far off the mark.

Caryl Rivers is a Boston University journalism professor and the author of "Selling Anxiety: How the News Media Scare Women."

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman

by Tennessean on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:30:58 PM EST

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (2.00 / 5)

"Alter, for his part, actually drew loud boos for denying widespread media bias against Clinton."

That's unbelievable; he'd probably say he's not biased too.

They guy has become a joke.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:52:52 PM EST

Do you think it's possible (none / 0)

Hillary has had more tortured equivocating pandering positions than Obama, and is therefore getting more tough questions?

A little introspection wouldn't kill the Hillary campaign. How about trying to play the media for better coverage instead of complaining about the coverage they get? You'd think they'd know how the media operates by now.

by corph on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:54:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yeabut, wasn't the media already biased against (none / 0)

Hilary before Obama? Before the '08 freak-show even began?

What I would really really really like to know from the media is:

WHY TF HASN'T HILLARY RELEASED HER INCOME TAX FORMS FOR PUBLIC SCRUTINY?

I mean, it is protocol for presidential candidates and others seeking elected office to make those documents accessible to the public prior to an election. Funny, your "Obama-biased-media" doesn't seem to be pushing for that. Why is the press giving Hillary a pass on this?

by sybil disobedience on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:15:17 PM EST

Re: yeabut, wasn't the media already biased agains (none / 0)

In '04 ALL of the Democratic candidates made their financial documents available for public scrutiny early on in the primary.

by sybil disobedience on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:42:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (2.00 / 4)

Did anyone catch the talking hairdo on Media Matters yesterday morning (youngish and female is all I remember) who agreed there was considerable media bias against Clinton but it was Clinton's "own fault" for not cultivating a more "amicable relationship" with the press, going back to the late 90's. She then went on to point out "how well the press is treated" by the Obama campaign and mentioned sandwiches.

Wow. So journalistic integrity and the power of the press is now determined by sandwiches. Walter Cronkite must be so proud. (if Katie Curic's "Frigidaire" question didn't put him into a coma)

How exactly do you not fall into an "adversarial" relationship with the press when they are speculating about your sex life and what role you played in your husband's infidelities?

Unfortunately, the press being the press, they are now bending over backwards to prove how unbiased they are by picking apart Obama.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:28:54 PM EST

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias (2.00 / 2)

I've seen that excuse for Clinton's treatment used a couple of times in the last couple of days. It is the media's new effort to excuse their behaviour, since none of the excuses for their ineptness have worked up to this point. They should all be fired. I am sick of looking at all the talking heads, the sames ones, decade after decade, and would like a new deck of cards.

by Scotch on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:46:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (none / 0)

The media is biased liberal. They don't like neo-cons.

by Drummond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:44:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (2.00 / 1)

not so. The mainstream press, all of them, kissed neo-con butt and would not dare utter a negative word about Bush, his policies or the war until Katrina. Until then Bush was just that lovable patriot frat boy president every guy wanted to have a beer with and every woman wanted to forgive. Until Katrina.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (none / 0)

Bush is paleo. Clinton is neo.

by Drummond on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:09:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (none / 0)

The media is OWNED by neocons, haven't you paid attention?

by splashy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:14:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I do have to give it up for of all people (2.00 / 1)

Lou Dobbs. Go figure.

Last week he had the pair to say even he thought NAFTA was a good idea in the 90's. Way to go Lou, you old jingoist bigot you.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:31:58 PM EST

MaDo hit jobs against Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Great post. Glad people are actually talking about it. I think MaDo is the worst of them all. I'd love to bitch slap her. Seriously, I challenge Maureen Dowd to arm wrestle, mud wrestle, WWF smack down. You name it.

by grlpatriot on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:49:50 PM EST

NBC = (2.00 / 4)

Nothing But Crab. NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC. MSNBC is the worst of the lot. I can't stand watching it. The bias is horrible.

When Hillary becomes president, I hope she can:

* Restore the fairness doctrine Reagan eliminated

Reorganize the FCC so it can have more teeth
Push to break up the media monopolies that have destroyed our free press

We have a constitutional right to a free press and that right must be restored.

by Nobama on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:59:36 PM EST

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (none / 0)

We have been saying for weeks that they forgot how to be a good journalist; remain neutral and report facts.

by JoeySky18 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:07:34 PM EST

The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-Obama (2.00 / 1)

CNN has played downright pro-Clinton bias through out this campaign for over a year. Clinton got positive media coverage by almost all news media outlets through October; remember how they were all singing praises of the beautiful campaign she was supposedly running?

Obama did get some positive coverage after his IA win, but even there, tons of media people kept chanting Clinton's talking points including the "experience" meme. Even during this period, Clinton surrogates have been for more commonly found pushing those talking points and hardly any Obama surrogates.

Also, the Clinton campaign against Obama has been incredibly negative. Given Clinton camp's negative tactics/attacks against Obama, of course, they'd tend to get negative treatment when those events are covered by the media in any balanced manner. Yet, I don't think enough justice has been done to expose the negativity of the Clinton campaign, IMO.

Further, had Obama lost 11 states in a row, lost (or pulled even) on pledged delegates on every single primary/caucus day thus far (as HRC did), trailed in the popular vote, he would've already been sent packing from the race by the media.

And, how many in the media raised Clinton scandals (money scandals or sex scandals)?

Clinton started out with massive name recognition-based double digit leads everywhere before actual contests and campaigning took place.

The media declared Hillary Clinton the winner of most debates, and even when Obama did superbly (as in several of the recent debates), the media only called them draws instead of as wins for Obama.

As a simple example, consider this: had Obama fumbled Medvedev's name, we would've seen media playing that over and over like they played Dean's so-called scream.

Given all this, this whole victim-card business by Hillary Clinton is a political ploy, but it is pure nonsense on substance. In the balance of things, given Clintons' baggage, IMO, the media has given a far more favorable treatment to Clinton than to Obama.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:20:03 PM EST

You peddle hate towards Obama. (none / 0)

My opposition of Hillary Clinton for President (having supported her for it 2.5 years) is based on objective grounds. Main reasons: her votes for the Iraq war (without reading the NIE), her Kyl-Lieberman vote and now her negative campaign smearing Obama day in and day out, including her latest (and shamless) salvo: Hillary: McCain would be better than Obama.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:27:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You peddle hate towards Obama. (none / 0)

Readers can see that HRC was a top choice of mine for President 2.5 years ago, here:

Prez list: Gore, Bill Richardson,
Hillary (in decr. order, but pick any).
Runner up: Wesley Clark

Veep list: Dean, Bill Richardson, Clark,
Obama, Feingold, Mark Warner, Bayh (in no
particular order except for Dean on top, but
pick any).

by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 09:46:10 PM PST

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You peddle hate towards Obama. (2.00 / 1)

You contradict yourself. Iraq vote happened more than 2.5 years ago. Find another excuse which doesnt contradict.

by Sandeep on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:57:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Diary posted: (none / 0)

The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-Obama.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:28:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O (2.00 / 1)

there must be two CNNs.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MoDo on Hillary vs Obama (2.00 / 2)

.
i can't express it better than this letter to
NYT editor:

........................................ .

To the Editor:

Re "Begrudging His Bedazzling," by Maureen Dowd (column, Feb. 27):

Ms. Dowd says Hillary Rodham Clinton is lame for accusing journalists of treating her campaign differently than they treat Barack Obama's, and applauds the "open-mindedness of the press" in its treatment of Senator Clinton.

Here are the words she uses in association with Senator Clinton: "desperate," "primal scream," "clanging," "churlish," "discombobulated," "gloomy," "flipping," "begrudging," "whining," "experience," "pea green with envy," "Sybil," "cascading," "dizzying," "unsettling," "struggling," "tartly," "peevishly," "pointlessly," "sarcasm."

And here are the words she uses for Senator Obama: "golden child," "sunny," "consistency," "bedazzling," "confidence," "excitement," "exceptionally easy in his skin."

If Ms. Dowd wants to make the point that she doesn't like Senator Clinton, then she's made it. If she wants to make the point that the press treats Mrs. Clinton fairly, contrary to what the senator may believe, then this column, alas, has made Senator Clinton's point.

Donna Lawlor

Brooklyn, Feb. 27, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/2u86st

by toddy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:33:56 PM EST

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias (2.00 / 2)

Joe Klein is a good one to talk. He, IMHO, is partially responsible for the idea of Clinton as being a hard, bossy, bitchy, controlling, unfeminine woman. When he was given the opportunity to ride along with Clinton and Gore in their '92 campaign, and then wrote the book, Primary Colors, he portrayed the fictional wife of the fictional presidential candidate as such.
Everyone knew it was the Clintons who the characters represented. The only positive characteristic about Hillary that he showed in that book was her competence, and her hand in running the campaign and keeping Bill focused.

Nevertheless, if he mentioned the 3 media people that he did, he should have gone further and talked about CNNs Bill Bennett, Haggerty, and the asshole Berstein, who have all been about as nasty towards her as they come.

by Scotch on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:40:30 PM EST

Re: Joe Klein? (none / 0)

Joe Kline? Are you kidding? The man is a beltway hack.

by NewOaklandDem on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:07:28 PM EST

Names names (2.00 / 2)

I think the parts of the media that are right wing are really just against Clinton - and using Obama to get at Clinton. If Obama wins the nomination, they will turn on him quicker than Obama can lie about NAFTA and the Democrats will suffer. An election we should win by a landslide, we will lose by a landslide. I don't think it will be even close.

And the reverse racism used by Obama will backfire against McCain.

by moi moi on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:14:38 PM EST

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (2.00 / 0)

Well, it's the liberal media establishment, right? Maybe that's why Clinton is endorsing McCain.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3 /3/203910/3644/635/468212

by Drummond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:39:44 PM EST

Too bad folks don't use facts anymore, just lies (2.00 / 1)

by a blogger,

Now, all you folks were so quick to believe a blogger posting quotations from a CBS blog...did any of you bother to even look that it was a question on who would be able to match up against McCain's foreign policy experience? Nooooooo

March 1 Dallas,

"“I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience.Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

Gee, much different than a blogger claiming Hillary was endorsing *MC CAIN*, huh?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/01/ politics/fromtheroad/entry3896372.shtml

by LindaSFNM on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:03:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton (none / 0)

this is an absolute MYTH. Why are RePigs giving millions to BO. Why are they telling everyone to cross over and vote for obama? Why are they singing his praise? Why have they not vetted him?
Why are they saying " Oh ... we are so scared to run aganist BO all day everyday? They KNOW they can beat him. They are TERRIFIED of Hillary.

by IndyRobin on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:18:09 AM EST

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton - Na (none / 0)

my take on the inevitability thing:

The media never saw the "rise of obama" coming---they were clueless. Many of them reacted with glee--as in "my goodness there's a story here."

That bandwagon effect gave cover to anti-clintonistas.

by vivelosdiablosdelsol on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:36:52 PM EST

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton (none / 0)

Of course there is media bias against Hillary. I hear anti-Hillary stuff all day on Air America here in the South Ca area on 1150am. She gets hit from the right and left.

Obama is looking like a weak general election candidate right now. He had the momentum, the money (out spending her from 2-1 to 4-1 in the four states today), and he still can't close the deal.

His foreign policy credentials look weak and that will undue him. He can side-step the issue in the Democratic primary but not in the general election. If the Democratic primary voters figure out that Obama is a bad bet against McCain, Hillary has her opening.

by mmorang on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:33:30 PM EST

Re: Joe Klein sees media bias against Clinton (none / 0)

by mmorang on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:37:14 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.