No unelected presidential candidate in U.S. history has received more media coverage…and more FAVORABLE media coverage …than Barack Obama. While liberals mock Fox News Network’s motto of being “fair and balanced,” they have nothing to say about the preponderance of so-called mainstream broadcast and print media escorting Obama for his second trip to Iraq (the first to Afghanistan) especially in view of his declaration that the trip will change nothing about his withdrawal strategy concerning Iraq.
In fact, it is not just a presidential entourage to cover a non-president, it is of the papal style, akin to when the pontiff of the Roman Catholic church travels…with the exception that the pope represents 986 million adherents, half the world’s Christians and one-sixth of the world population. “If this were John McCain’s first trip to the war zone that would be a story and we would cover it big time,” said Paul Friedman, senior veep of CBS News. I presume he said this either while nearly comatose drunk or laced in a strait-jacket to keep from laughing hilariously. McCain has made countless trips to Iraq and Europe in his capacity as a top senator and putative presidential candidate and CBS just remember to send wide-eyed perky Katie Couric along…nor did NBC detail Brian Williams to the story…nor did ABC thumb-jerk Charles Gibson to the plane.
Big media spokesmen make these denials (to which you can be excused if you add the cynical contemporary aphorism—YEAH, RIGHT!
1. Their superbowl coverage is NOT because Obama is black. No, if he were Caucasian he would receive the same treatment. Comment: ______.
2, And it is not because Obama is just the most liberal candidate because if Hillary Clinton had won and made a trip like this, the same media boat-load would clamber aboard. Comment: ______.
3. It is simply because Obama is a new and untested politician.
Comment: ______.
4. You see, if this were Ronald Reagan making his first presidential bid we would be doing the same. Comment: __________.
5. Besides, the Republicans are to blame for making this a big news event by questioning Obama’s foreign policy-defense credentials and keeping a list of the days passing without Obama’s going to Iraq…meaning that because they squawked, the media is motivated to find out how he does. Comment: __________.
6. You can’t explain charisma, you know? What can I say?
JFK had it, Nixon didn’t. Obama has it, McCain doesn’t. If Republicans had put up a candidate with charisma, the same jet would be loaded to overflowing. As to why no one covered Ronald Reagan when as a private citizen seeking the presidency he went overseas in 1976 and 1979, well it just so happened the media weren’t geared properly at that time as it is today. Comment: ________.
6. Besides, it’s only coincidence that Obama was on the cover of “Rolling Stone” twice, McCain none; Obama also on the cover of “US Weekly” twice. The fact that they are owned by a Obama contributor, Jann Wenner, is incidental. Comment: _________.
7. We try to be fair. “Men’s Vogue” had Obama on its cover (a shot by Annie Liebovitz and will have another…but we ran one article already on McCain; Liebovitz took a shot for the cover but it didn’t run because of a deadline problem. Comment: ________.
8. Chuck Todd, the political director of NBC News said the Obama fame is not surprising because “this is the way all new guys are treated, whether it was Ronald Reagan, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clilnton or George W. Bush. There’s always a candidate who gets more `new guy’ treatment versus the other one and it’s not always positive.” Comment: _____.
9. Findings from the “Tyndall Report,” a news coverage monitoring service that mainstream broadcast media with more thyan 20 million people, spent 114 minutes covering Obama since June and 48 minute covering McCain are just evidence of the “new guy” theory. Comment:_____.
10. It is entirely appropriate for Obama to be filmed making an address before The Brandenburg Gate in Berlin because John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan did and the people deserve to see the contrast; not political at all. Comment: ______________.
John Powers says:
"how can you blame someone else for doing the same thing?"....because there is a distinction between reporting the news and voicing an opinion. Tom is voicing an opinion.
Chris Matthews etc is theoretically reporting the news, but in fact is actively campaigning for a candidate.
See the below article http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-colu...
showing the media at their worst in removing uncomfortable parts of Sen. Obama's campaign from their reporting.
JBP
Ryan says:
Michael, You are right that we wouldn't be reading this story if McCain was being favorably covered by the media. The only problem with this is that that situation would never occur. The only thing that would prevent the media from worshiping at the alter of Barack Obama would be the Second Coming of Christ! And even then they would have to share the front page of the New York Times and the Washington Post. It is absolutely absurd to think that the media isn't quivering in delight every time Barack Obama takes a breath. The reason no one cares about McCain going to Iraq is because he continually goes to do research and greet his fellow soldiers! Barack Obama should be covered in amazement for not going to Iraq enough. This praise of Obama for finally making it to the frontlines is unreasonable and irresponsible.
MICHAEL says:
Mr Roeser it seems like you are understandably burning with jeolousy. I bet we wouldn't be reading this if Senator McCain was the one favoured by alot of the media. And get your facts right, Team Obama was the one who was clever enough to set a stage to tempt the news anchors. McCain, it has been reported doesn't always like to take a big pack of reporters with him when travelling oversea. Thats hardly the press or Obamas fault. Oh and the media might be biased but so are you. You choose your candidate probably long because you knew where they stand on issues so how can you blame someone else for doing the same thing?