Do you read the paper editions of the New York Times? The Washington Post?
If so, this morning was both a profound disappointment and a confirmation about the motives of the traditional media.
Both papers featured large pictures of Barack Obama in Berlin. But neither paper could resist biasing their coverage.
The Times? Leads with another questionable headline: Obama, Vague on Issues, Pleases Crowd in Europe
Vague on issues? You wanted him to get into a domestic policy speech in Berlin? When Ronald Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" was he being too vague about the wall he was referring to? Was he wrong not to give Gorbachev a twelve-point plan for tearing down the wall?
When John Kennedy said "Ich bin ein Berliner", was he being too vague? Should he have referred to the particular street he lived on in Berlin? Should he have mentioned his neighbors, the Schmidts?
And the Post, believe it or not, was even worse.
While Post did have a nice picture of the speech - it didn't get addressed until page 6. Page SIX. Don't believe me? Read the byline on the link.
What important story was above the fold? A rumor that McCain MIGHT pick a running mate sometime in the next few days. Yes, a RUMOR about PROCESS was more important than Obama's groundbreaking speech.
Should Barack Obama start dealing in rumors? Is that what he needs to do to crack the media bias?
UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE.
What else did the Post decide to put on the front page? The twelfth part of story on Chandra Levy and a story about "E-teachers." Yes, the 7 year-old murder, and the fact that some people are taking courses online, was more important than a major foreign policy speech by a Presidential candidate.
If you want to learn why print is dying - this morning is a very good lesson.
Update As I was thinking about this some more, I remembered Obama's courageous attack on the media itself, and its enabling of the Iraq war. He made this attack before Iowa, and before it was clear he would be the nominee-making it all the more damning:
"The American people weren’t just failed by a president," Mr. Obama said, "they were failed by much of Washington, by a media that too often reported spin instead of facts, by a foreign policy elite that largely boarded the bandwagon for war, and most of all, by the majority of a Congress — a co-equal branch of government — that voted to give the president the open-ended authority to wage war that he uses to this day."
Is it any wonder the Charles Gibsons, Katie Courics, and David Broders feel threatened by this candidate?
Update 2 Thanks CaliSister for reporting that the LA Times paper edition had an Obama picture - with an article on page 14 about the speech. The headline, meanwhile, was about how obstacles remain for Obama domestically.
Crossposted at Strategy 08.