Folks, we are going to have to win this one without the help of the MSM. As

[coalition_unwilling]

a former print journalist, I have an idea why.

In the early 1990s, I wrote an investigative piece on Auburn University's suspiscious denial of tenure to liberal Catholic theologian Charles Curran. The piece (which scooped the NY Times and The Chronicle of Higher Education) depended on some confidential sources and some public sources. I had to maintain a quasi-syccophantic relationship with my confidential sources. I could not risk alienating them with "tough questions" or there might have been no story.

I do not believe there is any overt pressure on the print and broadcast media news desks from the publishers and boards of directors to deliberately skew to the Repuke perspective. I concede that this may happen at Fox News but am almost certain that, for example,
the Board of Directors at Disney\ABC does not call George Stephanopolous and Charlie Gibson (or their respective producers)
and directly order them to skew to the Repukes.

What I do believe is that the MSM skew to the right for the simple reason that its members wish to 'preserve access' to the halls of power. The MSM know that Dems (with a few exceptions) generally favor openness and transparency in relations with the media. Therefore, the MSM need not worry about preserving access to Dems, should Dems gain power.

Repukes, on the other hand, use press access like some prop in a Pavlovian experiment in operant conditioning. Ask the right
kind of fawning questions and you get access. Ask the wrong types of questions and you are shut off.

Palin is sequestered and access to her will only be allowed when the press shows 'proper respect and deference.' The proper
and professional response for journalists treated in this manner would be to cease coverage immediately of McBush. But, the working
members of the MSM are looking to the future and considering their prospects if McBush is (s)elected. They know that McBush and Palin
have demonstrated a vindictive streak a mile wide on numerous occasions and they must wonder, as I did, whether they will be able to "get the story" if McBush wins in November.

Just a thought. I'm interested to hear DU'ers response.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. Many of us have been saying this all along.

It's going to take good people in the media who are respected as credible like Andrew Sullivan and Arianna Huffington to hold these people accountable. David Brock and Paul Waldman are doing a terrific job over there at Media Matters.

But we have to do our part because the M$M refuses to scrutinize John McCain and "The Puppet." We are going to have to work harder.

Don't be discouraged by the polls. Get out there and canvass, knock on doors. Register new voters. Phone bank. Donate more money. Talk to all your family and friends who live in swing states.

We can't rely on the media. We have to win this thing on our own.

The Obama campaign is relying on us at the grassroots level.

Also, I'm sick and tired of hearing that Obama is not fighting back. HE IS!! The media is NOT showing his town halls and speeches. They are giving us--even in the so-called 'liberal press'--the *false* impression that he's not fighting back. Stop believing this shit and get out and do your part!!!

[coalition_unwilling]

3. I held a sign for Obama at my local Farmers' Market yesterday. Only

had one drive-by snark from a McBush supporter (about "lack of experience").

On the west side of Los Angeles (decidedly pro-Obama), so am not going to draw any firm conclusions just yet. But response was overwhelmingly positive

[renate]

2. I would have thought that politicians need the media more than vice versa

I don't understand how Palin is getting away with playing hard to get. Clearly I'm missing something :shrug: but politicians need to be in front of a camera like flowers need to be in the sun. How have the MSM gotten themselves into a situation where they're desperately pursuing the people who need them?

[ShortnFiery]

4. Well put! I'm with you ... working the phones for Obama next week. YES. WE. CAN.

:patriot: :hi:

[sandnsea]

5. Joe Scarborough said they get pressure

I believe it was Sumner Redstone who said television media is the only industry that is expected to work against its own best interest, and that there was nothing wrong with putting out the point of view that is most beneficial to the industry, that point of view being Republican.

They skew on purpose because they're afraid of Republicans, other CEOs and they believe its in their best economic interest to elect Republicans.

[coalition_unwilling]

6. Do you have a source for this? I'm not doubting, but would like

to see what Scarborough had to say.

[sandnsea]

9. He was on Bill Maher

It was widely reported. Google It.

[coalition_unwilling]

10. Will do. I'm pretty TV-illiterate, so need a (few) pointers. Thx - n/t

[chicagoexpat]

7. Instead of whining (again) about how the media won't do the Democrats job for them...

get down to your local campaign office and start registering voters, stuffing envelopes, calling people.

That is, IF you actually want to affect the election.

[coalition_unwilling]

8. I wasn't whining. (At least I don't think I was.) Merely offering a bit

of professional perspective on why help from the MSM may not be easily forthcoming.

N.B. I walked precincts for Dukakis in 1988 and Clinton in 1992. I have been protesting against Bush at two weekly vigils from November 2001 to the present. I plan next week to make my first contribution to Obama from my mid-month check (thru the DU link). And I plan to volunteer locally to walk precincts and phone bank.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Sadly, I agree

I think we can do it as long as Obama keeps up his "ground game" in the individual states and nothing particularly bad happens to him (or nothing particularly good happens to McSame) between now and November but, as Sam Seder once wrote, "the media is not your (our) friend" and we shouldn't spend a whole lot of time and energy attacking the media or waiting on them to do their job. They just seem to be too cowed by the GOP to do any hard-hitting reporting on them right now and, frankly, I'm not sure it's going to get any better. I don't think we should give up and stop doing interviews or monitoring the media but we simply can't expect most of them to actually do what they're supposed to be doing and should treat the information we get from them accordingly. We've won elections and pushed through despite the press before and we'll do it again.

[coalition_unwilling]

12. No self-respecting Dem should want the MSM as a "friend." We should

welcome them in their watch-dog status and encourage it for the health of our democracy (emphasis on the lower-case 'd').

Interestingly, if you go back and look at American journalism in the 19th century, it was as partisan or moreso than now, based on my admittedly cursory knowledge of media history.

After 1945, print media (and broadcast media following in its footsteps) pursued the mythos of "professional" journalism (read "objective," "un-biased," etc.) But the era of non-partisan journalism has been, imho, remarkably short-lived with respect to the country's 200+-year history.

Sites like DU and Counterpunch keep the tradition of "the muckraking journalist" alive and well. But the MSM is pursuing its own agenda, ad-driven profits.