Media Bias of the Day

I should try to make this a regular feature up until the election, since it’s become abundantly clear that the media is in the tank for Obama.  Today’s was courtesy of the local news talker.  The issue was MCain’s new ads highlighting Obama’s ties with William Ayers.  You’d think they’d want to explain to the general public exactly who Ayers is, or even, you know, mention his name at least once in the story, to give the public some background information on the accusation.  I would argue, in fact, that it’s their duty to the citizens of this country to explain such things.

But they immediately cut to Obama’s retort that this attack is merely desperation, and an attempt to district Americans from the real issues.  Sorry, but I think associating, and owing your political career to a self-admitted domestic terrorist is something that’s a bit more than a distraction.  Apparently the media doesn’t think this is news.

Even this article, which offers decent coverage, tries to dismiss the assocation.  The Washington Post Fact Check dismisses the association.  The British press is getting in on it.  CNN is also is whitewashing the connection.  ABC News actually manages fairly good coverage.

The Corner has more on this here and here.

UPDATE: David Bernstein has more to say here.

16 thoughts on “Media Bias of the Day”

  1. Shouldn’t be hard finding at least one example per day, especially during election season. In fact, it’ll be harder to decide which one of the many you want to discuss.

  2. I’m tired of the media bias canard. The party of personal responsibility is gone. It’s “blame everyone but myself” time. Now I know that you’re not like that, but you sure spend a lot of time on it here. How is it then that the most popular, biggest news outlet is Fox?

    Jokes about Fox aside, they ARE biased. I agree. Now, who cares? Stop whining. I’m sick of BOTH sides constantly whining about the damn MSM’s bias. If we had a decent frigging candidate (he’s not really all that friendly to gun owners) and a VP-candidate who wasn’t flying like a lead kite these days, we’d win. I’m a real life swing voter from a real life swing state. Obama’s a big government Democrat who will limit 2A rights, and McCain’s a sell-out of massive proportions whose domestic and foreign policies look to me to be an extension of more crap Bush policy. Nothing good here. McCain used to be my favorite politician in the US. He WAS a real maverick. But when you spend all your time telling everyone you’re a maverick, you no longer are.

    And this whole Ayers thing is silly lashing because of the polls. McCain is as good as toast in the election unless something really changes. McCain should be careful pushing these buttons. He’s got a skeleton or two himself (ex-wife? Keating?). If he’d stuck with something of substance he probably wouldn’t be losing independents like me. But between that and Palin, he’s toast with people like us. Of course, I’m not voting Obama either. I’m actually close to not voting this time around.

    But really, if we had Reagan or someone of that caliber running, we wouldn’t have to whine about the MSM. It’s our excuse. On top of that, one of the reason Obama’s kicking butt is because of the growing popularity of Off-MSM media like blogs and youtube. His substance may suck, but his game is waaaay better. yuck. I’m gonna go live on a mountain and cling to my guns and religion for a while.

  3. Noops:

    I’ve not been one to toot the bias horn in past elections, because what bias has been there has been relatively mild. But don’t think you think the extent of Obama’s associations with an unrepentant terrorists should be explored a bit more than they have been? People have tried to find out more about this and had their FOIA requests blocked. There’s evidence that this is more than a casual association, and even if it’s a professional one, I certainly wouldn’t be willing to co-chair anything with someone like Ayers. I think it’s a real story and the media is burying it. That’s more than just bias. They aren’t doing their jobs.

  4. Another thing I don’t really get is what made McCain a maverick in 2000, and not now? What has been the change since then? If anything, McCain’s gotten a lot more centrist in his more recent years. I don’t really believe maverick is a label I would have ever assigned to him.

  5. This “charge” by Palin and McCain is yet another lie.
    ALL charges against Ayres and his wife were dropped decades ago, and the political “terrorism” they engaged in took place when Obama was 8 years old. Obama amd Ayers live in roughly the same neighborhood and worked on some of the same projects in Chicago, where Ayers is a college professor, as Obama was at the time.

    Palin is as much of a liar as McCain has been for the last 35 years or so.
    “Straight Talk”, my ass.


  6. Pretty much what Mark said. Obama was eight years old. They met on the board of a civic group. I’m on the board of a non-profit in Oregon (2 actually). On on of them, I don’t even know all the members. I’ll bet I’ve been in the same room as them. Maybe some of them are bad. But this thing is so tenuous, that I feel it’s reaching. And Obama has publicly distanced himself from Ayers (whether you believe that or not, is a different matter). But this is just too much of a stretch. It’s like saying the “Other PGP-Sebastian” hangs out with hookers (ok, that might be a little too much hyperbole there, but you get my point).

  7. I do think you can be judged by the company you keep. Ayers certainly seemed to help Obama get his career started. They certainly knew each other. That the association may have been more professional doesn’t lend me any comfort, especially when politics has driven driven most of Obama’s career choices.

  8. Bitter has worked in issue oriented politics in her career so far. Ask her if she’d work for or closely with a guy who is a known and unrepentant terrorist, and is known to hold radical views far out-of-the-mainstream. People don’t work in that sector unless they believe the shit they are selling.

  9. I can answer this one: You know who you work with and who you work for. You do your research. I have refused an offer to work with someone whose tactics I don’t like. He’s by no means a terrorist, under any stretch of the definition. Yet I still did my research and found he wasn’t someone I wanted to work with. It’s not hard.

    If Obama is incapable of doing that kind of research, then how is he qualified to sit in the Oval Office?

  10. The TV Media lied again and covered for Obama last night and simply called The Weathermen “A 60’s radical organization.”
    No mention of the 9-year old kid who they tried to kill with a bomb – along with his parents.
    Or that Ayers has famously said, “We didn’t do enough.”
    Or that the bomb that ended their operations killing many of the Weathermen planners of them was prepared for an attack on Fort Dix that would have been the biggest homegrown terrorist act ever in the US.
    Three people building bombs in the basement, Diana Oughton, Terry Robbins, and Theodore Gold were obliterated, along with a townhouse that was reduced to rubble and caught fire.
    Charges dropped?? Ayers and Dohrn escaped prosecution only because of government misconduct in collecting evidence against them.
    I remember when I was five Kennedy was assassinated, when I was ten Bobby was shot and killed by Sirhan-Sirhan. How old does it matter? There’s no statute of limitations on murder.

  11. I find the age argument particularly weak in terms of deflecting the association. I was only just born when David Duke was a Grand Wizard in the Ku Klux Klan, but I wouldn’t have anything to do with the bastard today or ever. I find his ideology repulsive. The fact that Obama didn’t find Ayers ideology so, or didn’t care enough to check, does not inspire confidence.

  12. DirtCrasher –
    You might also want to check on who the judge was who dismissed the evidence against Ayers as being illegally collected.

  13. While I still think it’s a pretty big stretch…It’s not really my point. McCain has some of the same “guilt by association issues” as Obama.

    What bothers me is that it seems that McCain has so lost people on the ability to fight this fight on policy and execution that it’s now resorting to this type of last ditch effort to win. Obama is no better with his new thing trying to tie McCain to Keating 5 scandal, but McCain has lost the substantive fight and has resorted to what amounts to playground name-calling all wrapped up in the politics of fear: OMG Hussein Osama/Obama cavorting with t3rr0r1st! Teh Gays will rule the world!

  14. p.s. That last thing is what bothers me. It’s the fear mongering. Do the people commenting here really think that Obama “pals with terrorists?” To me it simply plays out as the politics of fear. Trying to “fear” people into disliking Obama, instead of pushing real reasons why people should dislike him, such as his stance on the Second Amendment. In fact, wouldn’t the two be dichotomous? Wouldn’t he want less gun legislation if he supported terrorism? Isn’t that how Dems go after guns? The terrorists might get them? Ok, that was snarky…But I just find myself reacting forcefully in my mind to the politics of fear. I won’t go for it. I don’t think other independents will either, but I could be wrong. Maybe it’s because I feel like I suckered for it in 2004 that I feel a strong reaction to it now.

  15. All politicians have some shady associations… this isn’t just a shady association. The guy was a fucking terrorist!

  16. Yes, it is politics of fear… because Obama scares the fucking shit out of me. He scares me in a way that Hillary Clinton never could. I am not a fan of the Clintons, but I can’t tell you how much I wish Hillary were the nominee. Even if I knew that meant McCain’s candidacy would be utterly hopeless.

Comments are closed.