Is the MSM overcompensating for past charges of anti-Clinton "bias"?

[Armstead]

Once upon a time, this would not have been a serious question. Journalists at one time were a cranky bunch who tended to "call it as they saw it" and to hell with the repercussions.

But today, the Corporate media has created a climate in which News Departments are more craven and pandering. The corporations don't want to piss off advertisers, and they will do anything to goose their ratings.

The Right Wing successfully cowed them a while back. So networks bent over backwards to placate the claims of "liberal bias" by their conservative critics. As a result, there is now this false sense of "balance" in which honest analysis is replaced by Balance At Any Cost, in which there is no truth , only two dueling versions of the truth.

This gave false equivalence to some whackadoodle positions of the right wing, like "Global warming is just a ploy by liberals to get more regulation. There's no scientific basis for those concerns" despite the concensus among scientists that it is at least a string likliehood.


Are we seeing this being extended to the current campaign? Did the Clinton's endless whining and bullying about "anti-Hillary bias" (justified or not) cause them to bend over backwards to beat up on Obama to prove their "fairness"?

An example is the relentless beating the Wright drum, while ignoring similarly important (or more important) associations of Hillary. As Mad Floridian pointed out in anotehr post, Hillary has her own "spiritual advisor" issues, but we never hear about that.

I don't believe the media should favor either candidate in either their coverage or talking-head "analysis. I don;t mind critical covberage of the candidate I support (Obama) when it is justified -- as long as it does not stem from a craven desire to overcompensate for false claims of bias against Clinton.

What think ye?

[Muttocracy]

1. yes, and they benefit from switching sides periodically - they want this thing to drag on. nt

[OHdem10]

2. They get a horse race going. The Underdog becomes the

front runner with their assistance. Then they say, the field is
even. Start then appearing to go against the person they had
pushed to the position.

Howard Dean was their darling. When it appeared he just might
win ----the rest is history.

Couple this with their hatred of Hillary and Barak could do no
wrong. Wait for the shoe to drop. It has.

[stillcool]

3. Lets' see..

we've already had 3 weeks of the 'media' playing a clip of the Rev 24/7, which I would think was the precursor to the Rev speaking out in the past couple of days. I don't know what that is called. But I'm glad the media has picked up the baton and are running with it again. During those 3 weeks I was horrified at what the media was doing. Now, it doesn't phase me in the least. Stirring up racial divide may have an impact, or it may not. It has been going on since the beginning of this Primary season, and I'm sure it will continue. Nothing to do but watch and see what happens. See what the American people are made of.

[AllentownJake]

4. Nope

The race is good for ratings so whacking the front runner is their favorite sport. They'll turn on both McCain and Obama during the GE at different times just to try to keep the race as close as possible for ratings.

[Armstead]

9. You're right to an extent -- But if you really want a horse race....

you whack all of the candidates equally.

But I also think a large part of it is that the MSM is askeered to offend or to seem biased -- so they overcompensate by being biased in the opposite direction.

[jeffrey_X]

5. 3 straight days of coverage...unreal. It's flat out lazy and irresponsible journalism

eom

[kentuck]

6. They are the corporate media..

In the end, they report in their own self interests.

[TheDudeAbides]

10. You guys crack me up...

...and the Press is supposed to ignore the hilarious Obama / Wright soap opera?
get a clue and call the Waaaaaambulance

[TCJ70]

7. I guess I'm not as jaded about it...

...I figure, at one time, Hillary was the front runner. Now it's Obama. So he gets the attention. Hence, the switch.

[tokenlib]

8. Some of them are bi-polar! n/t

[Skidmore]

11. My guess is that if they cover politics, the example made of

Schuster is fresh in their minds. My guess is that no one wants to risk their job by criticizing her since everything is interpreted as a sexist slight. Reminiscent of the Bush campaign who used to harangue about elitist intellectuals and went after the press too.

Another reason I won't support Hillary.

[Armstead]

13. I have the same suspiciions

[Frank Booth]

12. I think you're exactly right. And this is one area where I've been disappointed with Obama's

campaign. Obama's campaign just isn't as good at manipulating the media. Part of it is that Hillary and McCain have been on the scene for much longer, so they're given more respect. But Wolfson's constant whining about the media "bias" against Hillary has really worked. The media is treating Hillary's campaign like it's thriving, when it's really not even viable anymore. Everyone knows McCain is masterful at manipulating the media -- they're not even scared to give him a standing ovation, since the bias is so apparent and accepted anyway.

Because of this false reality that Hillary's campaign and right wing outlets have created, the media's so scared of appearing to favor Obama that they report everything about his campaign critically. Of course they hype the Wright story, which they would have done anyway because it's so easy. But you never hear a glowing report about Obama's campaign on any subject, in contrast to Hillary and McCain. Just this morning NPR had a story gushing over Hillary's "fighting spirit" and "tirelessness." The reporter was giggling with glee over the wonderful candidate and her hard-workin', real American spirit.

Obama's campaign should be criticizing the media much more heavily. People called Obama a whiner for criticizing the fixed debate, but that's ok. They should keep it up. Axelrod should be doing it more than Obama, but it still needs to be done.