Washington Post: We Blew Election Coverage

A

AAAintheBeltway

Put this in the dog bites man category. The Washington Post 's election coverage was biased in favor of obama.

It is noteworthy that their own omdbudsman recognized it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

I expect a few more of these morning after pieces as the media try to regain some shred of respect and credibility after their abysmal election coverage. Honestly, I can't think of a single TV or cable network whose coverage was fair and objective. Fox News came closest, but they went in the bag during the republican primaries for anyone walking the neo-con line. Their treatment of Rep. Ron Paul permanently tainted them in my eyes.

The worst? Easily MSNBC, which often seemed like a right wing parody of crazed, hate-filled leftwingers. Among the nets, NBC brought up the rear, not even pretending to be objective.
 
Thanks for the link. I scanned the on-line version of the Post this morning and missed this. Ironically to buttress Ms. Howell's argument-her coverage of the coverage was well hid from web readers. Kudos though to the Post for unlike the NYT not kicking off their McCain coverage with an innuendo charged piece on infidelity with a lobbyist.

The media was in the tank for Obama in his race against Clinton-even more so than in the general-and that AAA is where the seeds were sewn. By not adequately digging into stories when they were fresh-Rezko, campaign finance, Wright-it was impossible for the media in good left consciousness to revisit those allegations months down the road. Being late to a story becomes as bad as not covering it at all, so the institutional ego defense method is to just bury it.

The MSM's "vetting" of Palin vs. Biden was as over the top biased as anything associated with the campaign. Biden was a two time loser on Iraq-for the war against the surge. One of the few Democrats out front on bankruptcy reform-a bill his son made hundreds of thousands lobbying for, yet Palins every little mis-step was gleefully divulged.

And Fox? I've become certain that Murdoch if not Ailes' first alligance is to GOP sponsored defense of Israel with conservative fiscal issues way, way down the list.




Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Put this in the dog bites man category. The Washington Post 's election coverage was biased in favor of obama.

It is noteworthy that their own omdbudsman recognized it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

I expect a few more of these morning after pieces as the media try to regain some shred of respect and credibility after their abysmal election coverage. Honestly, I can't think of a single TV or cable network whose coverage was fair and objective. Fox News came closest, but they went in the bag during the republican primaries for anyone walking the neo-con line. Their treatment of Rep. Ron Paul permanently tainted them in my eyes.

The worst? Easily MSNBC, which often seemed like a right wing parody of crazed, hate-filled leftwingers. Among the nets, NBC brought up the rear, not even pretending to be objective.
More...
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:


And Fox? I've become certain that Murdoch if not Ailes' first alligance is to GOP sponsored defense of Israel
More...

HALLELUJAH. Now, WE AGREE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top