Reply #15: Here is the smoking gun in this article [View All]

[AlGore-08.com]

Quote: "Also, the national media of the day turned on Hart; they are unlikely to do the same to Obama."

The media shouldn't "turn" on any candidate. They should be covering all of them with objectivity and actively researching their statements, policy proposals and resumes to help voters make informed choices.

And how can Fineman know whether the media is likely or unlikely to "turn" on a candidate over the course of the next eleven months? How can Fineman know that the other campaigns can't successfully develop a strategy to beat Obama? How can Fineman know that Obama won't make some major blunders or even run a terrible campaign?

He can't - - unless the press coverage has less to do with journalism than with writing fiction.

Maybe the press has finally found The Democratic Candidate whom they are willing to boost. But what guarantees does anyone have that the Press will not get bored with writing glowing coverage of Obama, or decide that they really like John McCain better, or decide that a landslide victory for anybody would be boring, so they're going to "turn" on one of the candidates to tighten the race up? What guarantee is there that once Obama is in office, they won't "turn" on him then? When the media plays favorites, there are no guarantees.

Finally, what is it about Obama that makes Fineman so certain the media will continue to cover him uncritically? Given their earlier uncritical coverage of Smirk, or their earlier uncritical coverage of Hillary Clinton's "flawless campaign", shouldn't we be more cautious before believing the media's mass judgment?

IMNSHO, in the long run, the press actively promoting a Democrat is just as dangerous as them actively promoting a Republican.