| Big Govt | Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| Ras. Reports | 0 | |
| Patterico | L.A. Times Columnist Uncritically Quoted Star of Latest ACORN Video |
0 |
| ABC News | Major Hasan’s E-Mail: ‘I Can’t Wait to Join You’ in Afterlife |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
WaPo admits pro-Obama bias
Ed Morrissey unloads this morning on WaPo ombudsman Deborah Howell’s analysis of election coverage from her paper over the last year. Make sure to read Ed’s full post to get a good idea of just how lopsided the coverage was in favor of Obama – not only that, but Ms. Howell admitted the WaPo flat out fell down on the job as it related to digging into Joe Biden’s past like they did Gov. Sarah Palin’s.
I suspect in the coming days and weeks we’ll see more of this, just like we did when Chris Matthews admitted earlier this week that he thought it was his “job” to help the Obama presidency over the next four years. The media’s done their “job” in helping get their candidate elected. Now that it’s all over, there’s no point in even pretending objectivity anymore. Numerous studies confirm the assertions made by many conservatives about the blatant bias of media coverage in favor of Obama.
This truly is the story of the 2008 election season. Even had McCain run a flawless campaign, between the economic collapse and the overwhelmingly biased coverage of the election, he faced an uphill battle the entire way. And the election results prove he was unable to overcome those odds.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
11 Responses to “WaPo admits pro-Obama bias”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
George Orwell, 1984
The WaPo remains committed to the truth, but on their own schedule, and only when convenient. Recall the “Worst economy in 50 years!” mantra in 1992? The WaPo had a great article demonstrating that it was in fact a very shallow recession, with an unusually robust recovery which was already under way. It was run the day _after_ the election.
Good for Deborah Howell.
The problem wasn’t so much McPain, as it was the flawed process which allowed his selection. Through I believe Florida Mitt Romney had more republican votes than McPain. It was the democrat votes allowed in the the open primary process which put McPain in the lead.
The Republican Party needs to go to exclusively closed primaries. Letting democrats select your nominee results in RINO’s like McPain.
Sarah in 12
The professional media are biased? Dog bites man.
The “First Effect” did the media in. And this is the whole problem with historic “Firsts”: people want part in it. And they became part of it. The only thing I can take away from this that if there’s another black or “First” candidate, it won’t have “First” power and that candidate will get their just examination.
T-Steel–
Oh, what a crock. They don’t care about “firsts.” They wanted a socialist in office, and now they’ve got one. They play to their own biases. There will be no “just examination,” now or ever.
Trish, I think I understand T-Steel’s point, and it does make sense. You’re right that the MSM will back anyone from the left, but why not Hillary, or Kucinich, or Dodd, or any of the other equally left-wing Democrats running a year ago at this time? Why Obama? It’s because the media likes something NEW, and he was NEW if nothing else. I think that’s T-Steel’s point. Think back 4 years ago – how enthralled was the MSM with Howard Dean until he imploded? Why? Mostly, I think, because he was the first candidate to use the internet as a primary campaigning and fundraising tool. That was NEW.
If I understand T-Steel right, he’s hoping that the next black presidential candidate will NOT get special treatment from the press because the uniqueness aspect is gone, and on that point I agree with him.
One thing I’d add to T-Steel’s point about the “first effect”. To get this much media fascination and devotion, the candidate or idea must be NEW, but also LEFT. Sarah Palin was equally new, but she didn’t receive the fawning and uncritical coverage reserved for Obama, because she was NEW and RIGHT.
Well, no.
I understood T-Steel’s point from the beginning, and he’s wrong. The MSM don’t give the north end of a southbound rat about “firsts.” “Firsts” are merely a selling point to us poor foolish voters. They didn’t support Howard Dean because he was the first to do anything–in fact they jumped off his ship with incredible alacrity.
ANY left-wing candidate will get special treatment from the press. Period. I hope and pray that you are right–but, unfortunately, I know that you are not.