The Media And The 2008 Election: The Perfect Storm Of Clinton Hate

[Karmadillo]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/27/72417/8822

Regarding the Media coverage of this primary season it now seems clear that there is a new rule that objectivity and appearances thereof are out the window. Certainly at NBC this is true. From the far right commentators like Joe Scarborough to the liberal newscaster Keith Olbermann and Establishment columnists like Eugene Robinson and Margaret Carlson any pretense of not openly rooting against the Clintons has now been discarded. NBC's performance last night was unlike any other I have seen outside of Fox News. Olbermann, who likes to trash Fox, properly in my view, should pause for a moment and consider how much his broadcast last night resembled Fox.

But Barack Obama has an opportunity here to make these new rules, as they pertain to him, lasting. And so does the progressive blogosphere. I have long stated that Obama is a Media Darling, and indeed it is one of the main reasons I tepidly support him for the nomination. Here are some of the rules that Obama and progressives should look to enforce through to the General Election:

1. Rezko is a nonissue and bringing it up is a slimy personal attack on Obama. This one has the virtue of being true. Let's get that enforceable against John McCain and the other Republicans.

2. Discussions of experience and youth are, at the least, vaguely racist, and a personal attack. When a candidate touts experience or points to Obama's lack of it, they are expressly arguing for a return to the past as opposed to looking to the future. It means they are opposed to change. Indeed, it expressly means for Republicans that they want to continue the policies of the Bush Administration. For Republicans, this also has the virtue of largely being true. The GOP field is indeed basically arguing for a continuation of Bush policies in most areas - tax cuts permanent, continuatio of the Iraq Debacle, less government regulation, etc.

3. What Obama Meant. Any review of Obama statements or past votes is subject to an explanation by Obama of what he REALLY meant. Any criticism of Obama's statements which do not take into account Obama's clarifications and explanations of what he REALLY meant are unfair personal attacks and the attacker is a "liar" who will say and do anything to get elected.

4. Obama's attacks are always fair and merited. Any suggestion otherwise is, at the least, vaguely racist.

more...

[thunder rising]

1. But I thought the Clintons were already vetted by the media for 35 years or so.

[AX10]

2. Those "rules" are sadly true.

Number 2 stands out.

[Berry Cool]

3. I am SO tired of hearing about how various media figures are hating on this candidate or that one

or, for that matter, loving on this one or that one, that I can't tell you. They are so specious it's ridiculous.

I wish the election were tomorrow, just to get it over with quicker.

[NastyRiffraff]

4. These are already enforced by some in DU, for the primary.

Especially #4.

[Freida5]

5. Good post-I cannot believe the bias against the Clintons by NBC.

switching to CNN

[wisteria]

6. I really don't see that. They go along with whomever has the momentum at the moment.

Obama talk was subdued most of the week. Now that he has won SC in a blowout they have changed their tune. This too will probably change again. They have done the same thing with the Rebubs.