Katie Couric, on the media coverage of the 2008 Democratic Primary.
However you feel about her politics, I feel that Sen. Clinton received some of the most unfair, hostile coverage I've ever seen.
Two thoughts:
For me, the most refreshing thing about this otherwise disappointing election season is the shocked realization by some Democrats (Clinton supporters, mostly) that the legacy media is absolutley politically biased and terribly monolithic, and that when they want to push their narrative, they will do so without shame and without relenting. Republicans have been dealing with this for at least as long as I can remember, while getting a Democrat to admit to a left-wing media bias was difficult. Now, maybe not so much, at least among Clinton's supporters.
Couric ain't seen nothing yet: I'm no McCain shill, but the media's treatment of McCain will be much, much more unfair than that of Clinton.
I don't think the bias is a political one but a rhetorical one. Whatever they think is the most dramatic story, or most dramatic angle, that's the one they'll run with. If that means pretending for months after Super Tuesday that Hillary's campaign had not hit a fatal reef, that she still had a shot at the top of the ticket, they ran with it because dramatic battles means viewers. I don't think it's partisan in origin -- they all went through their Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright phases when that was deemed properly dramatic, and they ignored McCain because after he locked it up there was no drama there.
Couric ain't seen nothing yet: I'm no McCain shill, but the media's treatment of McCain will be much, much more unfair than that of Clinton.
It already has been so lopsided since Obama won that it has bordered on absurd to see who can put McCain in the worst light on any issue. While of course any question of Obama's intelligence is met with total hatred. The panels I have seen have been 3 to 1 for Obama or just plain a hot tub of Obama supporters bubbling away about how great he is. Even Pat Buchanan of Morning Joe is jumping in as another one of those that believes we should give up and let the Democrats take the White House. The hope is that the voters will hate what the democrats do and sweep in some conservatives in the next election cycle. I guess that is possible I hope there is something left after Pelosi, Reed and Obama get done filling all those judge seats that they have held open. Then who knows how many Supreme Court seats will be filled and how much the country will look more like San Francisco. No I think voters will get pretty tired of the media pretty quick anyway. If the polls are true the voters already don’t trust the media anyway.
If the polls are true the voters already don’t trust the media anyway.
And why should they, after all they did to sell us the war in Iraq, rushing breathlessly to the microphone to echo the latest administration lies about WMDs, aluminum tubes, yellow cake, Iraqi ties to al Qaida, and the rest of the ball of beeswax?
For me, the most refreshing thing about this otherwise disappointing election season is the shocked realization by some Democrats (Clinton supporters, mostly) that the legacy media is absolutley politically biased and terribly monolithic, and that when they want to push their narrative, they will do so without shame and without relenting.
Oh, we already knew that. Look at the terribly pro-Republican bias of the MSM for the last twenty years. It took the worst president in American history to make them shift slightly away from being pro-Republican. Maybe when they realize that Republicans are inherently anti-American they'll become reporters rather than cheerleaders.
BTW, if you think the media are anything but pro-McCain, you're a fool.
Riiiiigght.
Name-calling is so persuasive.
IP, I really get a chuckle out of this blog.