Category Archives: Media

Why the New Yorker Cover Didn’t Work (a Tom Toles Cartoon)

Tom Toles, Washington Post

Cheers,
Charlie

Media, Grow Up and Act Like the Professionals You Claim to Be

Obama denies altering proposed Iraq withdrawal timeline

Obama has always said that he would listen to the military leaders in order to handle the situation responsibly. The media has gotten this new narrative in its head, that Obama is apparently shifting on everything, so therefore it interprets everything through this narrative.

For the love of God, media, stop doing this and start acting like the professionals you’re supposed to be. It’s no wonder no one trusts you.

Cheers,
Charlie

Internet Comment: The Democratic Primaries are the Next American Idol

Even though I really don’t know what the complaint is about, my favorite Internet comment today: From “Christine V from Dallas, TX” in response to Poll: Obama gaining support with key Clinton demographics:

HOW CONVENIENT!!! THAT YOU SHOW THIS NOW

Gallup’s results released Tuesday are based on a survey of 1,261 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters using combined data from May 16-18, 2008.

BIASED BRAINWASHING TECHNIQUE OBAMA REPORTING!
OH OK FORGET ABOUT THE OTHER MILLIONS!!!

YOU MEDIA PEOPLE AND OBAMA PEOPLE ARE REALLY WORRIED AREN’T YOU….WAIT TILL NOVEMBER WHEN MILLIONS WILL SHOW UP IN FAVOR OF HILLARY OR MCCAIN AND
NOT YOUR PRODUCT AMERICAN IDOL!

It’s a thing of beauty.  And I can kind of picture Geraldine Ferraro as the angry, bitter counterpart to Paula Abdul.

Cheers,
Charlie

There Isn’t As Big a Rift in the Democratic Party as Some Want You to Believe

You know, there is a rift in the Democratic Party, but certainly not anything that cannot be minimized come November, especially if Clinton ever starts reconciliation.  According to a new Quinnipiac University poll:

Both Democratic candidates beat McCain by a gap well outside the margin of error. Obama beats McCain by 7 points in the poll, 47 percent to 40 percent, while Hillary Clinton bests the Arizona senator by 5 points, 46 percent to 41 percent.

So while the media does its best to make it seem like there’s a gigantic rift in the Party that can’t be fixed (and to some extent, so does Clinton), the truth is quite the opposite.

Cheers,
Charlie

Keith Olbermann on Clinton Arguments

This video so fantastically sums up the problem with Clinton reasoning, I just couldn’t help but post it here even though it’ll probably be all of the place shortly, if not already.  MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann summarizing Clinton’s arguments as to whose votes should count:

(Note: MSNBC apparently keeps sending take-down notices to YouTube for this clip.  Why?  I have no idea at all.  You’d think they’d appreciate the attention.  Anyway, I’m currently on my third link, and will probably stop updating the video after a few days.)

Absolutely classic.

Cheers,
Charlie

Can the Media Make a Promise?

On NPR: “If Obama wins both states, he will make it all but impossible for Clinton to catch-up in pledged delegates.”  Uh-huh.  Right, sure.  Like that isn’t already the case.  But please, please promise that if it does happen (even though I highly doubt it will), you’ll actually cover it as such?  Please?!

Anyway, prediction: Obama wins North Carolina by 4 points, Clinton wins Indiana by 4 points, the media continues to say Obama’s dead even though Clinton can’t win.

UPDATE May 6, 1:38 PM:
Actually, I didn’t really figure in Indiana undecided voters in my prediction for today’s primaries.  If they’re still undecided at this point, they’re likely to go with the safety vote, that being Clinton.  As such, updated prediction: Obama wins North Carolina by 4 points, Clinton wins Indiana by 6 points, the media continues to say Obama’s dead even though Clinton can’t win.

UPDATE May 6, 1:46 PM:
Oy, and I forgot to figure in the possible Republican-caused “chaos“…

Cheers,
Charlie

Media Criticized for Reporting Math

And just when you thought the media wasn’t reporting at all on Clinton’s miniscule chances to win the nomination, and instead saying Obama was done for, out comes more criticism of the media for being anti-Clinton and for their “unique push to get a competitive White House hopeful to drop out of the race.”  From Slate.com:

Hillary Clinton and the Drop-Out Chorus

I’d distinguish between “pushing” Clinton to drop out and arguing that she can’t win. We’ve exhausted who knows how much server space detailing the extremely daunting metrics facing her candidacy without explicitly calling for her to exit the race. Of course, there’s the implication that, facing doom, a rational candidate would surrender. But rationality left the building long ago…

If anything, the media has done Clinton a favor in recent weeks: Judging from the way the Rev. Wright scandal has been covered, you could be forgiven for thinking Obama’s candidacy was about to crash and burn.

It’s a good post, and worth a full read.  It’s particularly interesting that people’s perceptions of the race don’t fit with reality.  That’s a big sign that the media isn’t doing its job.

Cheers,
Charlie

Whose Poll is it Anyway? Obama is Both Tied and Ahead (Depending on Who You Ask)

CNN says that Obama [is] losing support, even though Obama and Clinton are tied at 46%, the same as they were a few days ago.  More telling, however, is that this figure is among all Democrats, not just primary voters, those who actually go out and vote.  Among primary voters, according to a new CBS poll (pdf), Obama is up 46% to Clinton’s 38%.

That said, following polls at this point is a little silly, especially since it’s basically impossible for Clinton to get the nomination no matter what happens.  However, a little balance to CNN’s coverage would be appreciated (or any of the media at this point).

Cheers,
Charlie

Whether It’s Ineptitude or Bias, the Media is Keeping the Democratic Race Going

Over the past few days I’ve really been asking myself why I continue to post about the Democratic race.  Clearly, Obama has an insurmountable lead in delegates, and it would be nearly impossible for Clinton to overcome him overall even with the Superdelegates killing their party by overturning the pledged delegates.  I’ve even posted here that I was done writing about the Democratic race.

I’ve figured out, however, why I keep writing about it.  It’s not that Clinton has any realistic chance, and it’s not like the truly rational are buying her “Big State,” and “Popular Vote” arguments.  However, with the current state of the media, it’s become nearly impossible to not post.  When it’s a big thing when Clinton wins states she is expected to win and a small thing when Obama wins states he is expected to win; when Obama is criticized as vulnerable because doesn’t win the majority of blue collar voters in a number of states, yet still gets a reasonable portion of such voters in those states and actually has gotten the majority of them in a few states, against a fellow Democrat, while Clinton fails to come even close to win over a lot of other demographics (especially African Americans, younger voters, college educated, independents, Republicans); when “Obama can’t close the deal” matters more than “Obama has an insurmountable lead” or “Clinton can’t win”; when Clinton relentlessly attacks Obama, Obama responds by calling it negative politics, and Obama’s tactics are therefore equal to Clinton’s; when Clinton’s “Popular Vote” and “Big State” arguments are met by the media, not with the derision such nonsense deserves, but with view that there’s a “debate” on these issues (much like there’s a “debate” over evolution, apparently); when lapel pins rather than policies dominate the headlines; when Obama’s vague associations with people who have questionable views matter more than Clinton’s clear ties to people with worse than questionable views;  when the state of politics in the media is as such, there is no choice but to weigh in.

Unless the Superdelegates go to Clinton en masse, which is extremely improbable even ignoring that it would possibly destroy the Democratic Party, Obama will be the nominee.  This is a fact which cannot be ignored, and yet oddly is.  Because of this I would love to ignore further Clinton antics and return my aim to Republicans, but because of the extreme ineptitude of the media (I’m coming this close to finally calling it bias), I cannot.

Cheers,
Charlie

The Media Are Doing Keg Stands on the Kool-Aid Tap

It started awhile ago, when the math against Clinton became clear and yet the media refused to acknowledge that she was in a dire situation.  The usually reasonable Gary Eichten of MPR actually called the race “virtually tied” on multiple occasions, even ignoring that Clinton just can’t overcome Obama in the popular vote or pledged delegates.

 

After some time, the media finally did come around to the fact that Clinton can’t win, and in reaction, started exploiting the Wright and “Bitter” “scandals” in order to keep a narrative going.  I’m not saying the media is biased, I’m saying that they’re inept.

 

And the ineptitude continues.  After Clinton won Pennsylvania, even though there is no significant change in the race, and certainly none in the delegate count, the media continues to pound the message that Obama is in trouble.  He’s in trouble because he can’t win a certain demographic.  Let’s not forget that Clinton can’t win over far more demographics, but that wouldn’t keep the narrative going, would it?  Let’s also not forget that the majority of that demographic would still vote for Obama in the general.  But again, that would mean the story would be over.

 

At least Obama supporters aren’t the only people who recognize such things.  It’s hard to find any such stories in the media of late, they’re probably afraid of appearing “biased” against Clinton by reporting the truth, as they have been attacked of all election, but they do exist.  Perhaps my favorite of late is from Slate’s Trailhead Blog:

 

Right now, the Clinton Kool-Aid is on tap, and the media are doing keg stands. The same writers who once said Clinton was doomed are now ignoring the fact that the math is even more oppressive for Clinton. Obama will likely need to convince 25 percent to 35 percent of the about 300 uncommitted superdelegates to support him, and he will reach the 2,024 delegates needed to become the nominee. Put another way, Clinton needs to convince 65 percent to 75 percent of them to vote for her. That’s 200 elected officials and party bigwigs she needs to convince not to support the guy who has the most pledged delegates.

It’s still nearly impossible for Clinton to win without superdelegates, and is completely impossible for her to overcome Obama in voters.  And yet, listening to the media, you’d think that they were “virtually tied.” 

 

Cheers,

Charlie