Please help me figure this out

I am trying to think of ways to heal the rift between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters, because the most important thing is to defeat John McCain in November.

I started this election (years ago) liking first General Wesley Clark, then Senator John Edwards once Clark endorsed Hillary Clinton.  When John Edwards dropped out (just in time for my state's primary) I voted for Senator Barack Obama.  I began contributing to his campaign after his truly inspirational response to the first time he was publicly connected to Reverend Wright.  At that point, for me, this switched from being the best choice available to being about someone I really thought was presidential.

Over the months since then I have been appalled by a few things Hillary Clinton herself has said, and quite a few things that senior members of her campaign staff have said.  I do not attribute things her volunteers and supporters who are not actually on her staff have said to her; though I've debated some of them as individuals.  As an Obama supporter I have even over-reacted and said some unkind things about Hillary Clinton when angry, and I am sorry for doing so.  I am not part of Obama's campaign though; and as an individual I feel free to speak my mind.

There's more...

Rupert Murdoch did not predict an Obama "landslide"

I have seen a report from Reuters claiming that Rupert Murdoch predicted a "sweeping victory", and a "landslide" in November.

But I can't find a direct quote of Rupert Murdoch saying such thing.

Was Reuters hungry for links from other websites?

Do media outlets have editors? And if they do, do they want to make up the news instead of reporting it?

All the instances of "sweeping victory" and "landslide" are paraphrased by the news reporter.

See Reuters, Politicalwire, a blog which apparently doesn't fact-check the article it cites: The USA Today blog: Etcetera.

Indeeed, in the Wall Street Journal's (newspaper that conducted the real interview with Murdoch) article about the interview no mention of "sweeping" victory or "landslide" appears anywhere.

The only comment in the WSJ blog was, "the News Corps. chairman's hints that he sees Sen. Obama as having a good chance of winning the November election.

Is "a good chance of winning" a prediction of a large-margin victory, or "landslide"?

And most importantly, by watching the video (you can see it in the WSJ link), nowhere does will see Murdoch said no such thing.

There's more...

So, Op-ed pieces not included in PEJ media bias study

No wonder! I emailed the associate director of the Project of Excellence in Journalism, Mark Jurkowitz, asking if the study in which pro-Obama bias was found to be only slightly bigger than pro-Clinton bias, and he replied:

The list below indicates which newspapers were involved in the study, but when we examine newspapers, we look at their front page coverage and not their op-ed columns.

You heard it. The twice-a-week character hit-jobs by Maureen Dowd, the daily hit-jobs by Eugene Robinson, Bob Herbert, David Brooks (before he turned anti-Obama in March), Peggy Noonan, etc. were not included in this study.

I replied with a two-sentence email: "no wonder!"

There's more...

Even the right-wing admits: "Drudge is in the tank for Obama"

Hot Air's headline reads, "Another reminder  that Drudge is in the tank for Obama." and links us to this Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article which has the details.

The article does not simply argue that Obama is Drudge's favorite over Clinton; it makes the case that the famous conservative "journalist" even prefers the Democrat over John McCain.

Clinton's `gaffe' earned her top billing on The Drudge Report in blood-red print, with capital letters and bold type, with bells and music playing when you clicked on. (OK, just kidding about the bells and whistles, but you get the picture).

Obama's gaffe? Not so much. In fact, it is pretty much buried in The Drudge Report equivalent of A-13.

John McCain fares no better than Clinton on Drudge whether he is having a gaffe-day or a good day.

You might argue that Obama's gaffe was not as big as Clinton's. But Drudge is known for posting even the most trivial, negative Clinton news in the front page. Drudge does not believe in the proportionality concept, therefore this is not an argument
(Unless you think a picture of Hillary's wrinkly face on a bad day was worth the top spot a couple of months  ago.)

Why does Drudge love Obama? Any theories?

There's more...

The media lies: Barack Obama is not Bill Burton

The Clinton camp accused the Obama campaign of inflaming and taking out of context Hillary's recent RFK "assassination" remarks.

But both the NY Daily News print edition and the Washington Post's "The Talk" blog have published terrible stories whose headlines claim that  Barack Obama is the one being blamed.

The WAPO blog headline screams:

Clinton Camp Stokes RFK Flap by Blaming Obama

But that's not true. The story itself makes it clear that,

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama's campaign of fanning a controversy over her describing the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy late in the 1968 Democratic primary as one reason she is continuing to run for the presidency.

nowhere in this story does Zachary Goldfarb cite anyone blaming Obama for anything. Obama, after all, sided with Hillary on this whole thing. Why would her campaign have the necessity to single him out?

The New York Daily News pimps the story as follows:


Blame it on who? Let's see what the body of the story itself tells us:

Hillary Clinton's campaign brass blamed their counterparts on Barack Obama's team Sunday for fanning the firestorm over her gaffe last week about Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's assassination.

The Hillary campaign counterpart: The Obama campaign.
Hillary Clinton's counterpart: Barack Obama.

One person was specifically blamed for his response: Bill Burton, and only Bill Burton:

From the Daily News:

Shortly after Clinton's remarks to a Sioux Falls, S.D., newspaper were reported last Friday, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton fired off a press release: "Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."

Clinton communications chief, Howard Wolfson, appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," said Burton's missive was "unfortunate and unnecessary and, in my opinion, inflammatory."

Why did neither journalist saw it fit to single out Barack Obama, as the editors did in the headline--arguably the most important part of a story??

If a candidate's campaign is the equivalent of the candidate, why did neither story refer to the "Hillary campaign" as "Hillary Clinton"?

If I say the Yankees suck, I am not saying "George Steinbrenner" sucks. If I say the Yankees have a combined .323 average, i am not saying that Derek Jeter has a .323 average. This for those who would illogically argue that blaming a whole equals blaming each of its parts.

There are persons that specifically released statements that triggered the Hillary camp's reaction. And as you will see by reading the stories (without the headlines), Barack Obama is not one of them.

I assume the editors, rather than the writers, were responsible for these catchy, but deceptive headlines, which are nothing but a lie.

This is not surprising. The media will compromise the truth for a catchy, if untruthful, headline any time.

Contact the Washington Post and the NY Daily News and demand a correction:

There's more...


Advertise Blogads