Our Illustrious Media

I just read another quite interesting article on the Huffington Post.  I have to say, their wide reporting open to both the likes of Taylor Marsh(don't roll the eyes, some people love her) and also Sam Stein(a fairly obvious Obama supporter I believe) makes this a place I like to dwell.  Basically, you get your fill.  

This particular article delves into the Media.  I know we all here have been decrying the media when it drenches us with the latest in gaffes or "misstatements", or participates in the guilt by association stories (especially when those stories concentrate on the candidate of our liking). I have come to call the media, our Media DJ's.  They just spin the stories around and around and around until the public gets tired of dancing to the tune.

This article was written by RJ Eskow, writer and consultant. It reveals a very interesting way to look at the media.  Now this is just an opinion piece, but one that I think reflects some of our own frustrations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Coffeecups and Gutterballs: A Precision Media Hit On Obama, A Pass For Clinton

A couple of the finer points that I would like to point out

Their game plan would have very specific objectives:

1. Extend the Democratic primary race as long as possible.

2. Remind the public that the seemingly "post-racial" Obama is a black man; make him seem as scary-black as possible.

3. Strengthen Hillary Clinton's image with white working-class voters by making her appear populist, folksy, and one of them. Conversely, characterize Obama as an elitist who is out of touch with "real people."

4. Break down Obama's post-partisan appeal to independents and Republicans by linking him to the divisive left/right politics of the 1960s.

This tidbit is funny and I personally believe has a bit of truth.  Considering how the Limbaugh "Operation Chaos" has played out, if not currently, I think it fair to say that the Republicans were eagerly pushing a Pro-Clinton bias. From what the polls and the pundits are saying now however, there seems to be an even split between who they would prefer to see win the primaries.

So, is the coffee-machine video getting airplay on the cable news shows? Not really ... well, wait: CNN did run a piece about it, but only to debunk the idea that this means Hillary's out of touch. "These coffee machines ARE finicky sometimes," says reporter Jeanne Moos, "I nearly broke one at the car dealership ..." Yet CNN breathlessly repeated over and over that Obama only scored a 37 while bowling, without reporting that he never finished the game! And there was no Jeanne Moos to say "we all throw gutterballs sometimes."

I found this interesting as well.  Although I admit, not being astute in working a coffee machine wasn't all that newsworthy, but my god, if I have to hear one more time about Obama's horrible bowling skills, I may just keel over from laughing.  Interesting even still is the fact that the media never stated that he only bowled 5 frames, 2 which were bowled by younger children during that press opportunity.

But, some Democrats will ask, don't we want people like than running the Democratic campaign? Won't they be more effective at winning? Maybe - but that argument would be more compelling if they weren't losing. If the Clinton campaign wanted to run such a negative campaign, it should have done so from the very beginning. But they were overconfident. By turning ugly now, when they're behind, they're damaging the party. And, ironically, that may be why they're been getting such favorable media treatment lately.

This basically paraphrases how I feel about the entire Media bias.  It's arguable about who they are really biased for.  But I humbly think that with all of Clinton's pushing of the goalposts, finding different equations in ways to win, stating that certain states don't matter, caucuses don't matter, wins don't matter, losses don't matter...it does tickle my humor when I hear some media outlets falling into line with the constantly changing logic.

I definitely think that within each media network, there are commentators or pundits whose certain leanings are well known:

For example:  

Keith Olbermann:  I love him,his humor and sense of irony is refreshing, but he seems most certainly in Obama's court

Dan Abrams:  His standings are arguable, however his protests of Clinton's bad media coverage opposed to his somewhat silence regarding the deluge of the Wright story seems to point towards him being for Clinton

Wolf Blitzer:  Most certainly Clinton

Anderson Cooper:  Hard to tell, he spreads the stories and nonstories around regardless as to who it may effect

Jack Cafferty: Most certainly Obama

Andrea Mitchell: Most certainly Clinton

Fox News (if you can call it news): um...I'd like to say Kucinich...just to laugh out loud, but it's no secret who they prefer

....and so on,

But the real story here is, are we giving too much credit to the Media?  Are we assuming that just because they say they are "fair and balanced", that somehow their biases won't come through the news they choose to cover.  If we can admit that there is indeed bias in the media, regardless as to for whom, then why do we stick our noses to the T.V set and exclaim such outrage when they do just what we know they will do? We have all sent letters and emails and called when disturbed by their coverage, but do we actually think they listen?  Maybe it isn't the Clintons or Obama who think we are stupid, maybe we are being dumbed down by the Media.  And if so, why are we such suckers? (myself very much included?)And...realistically, is there anything we can do about this?  Is there any such thing as an unbiased media anymore?

Your thoughts?