We’re going to see many attempts to ironize away all the talk of media bias as the ravings of rightwing kooks whose ravings, while statistically showing some slight merit, are nevertheless overdetermined, given the final numbers.Obama goggles, indeed.
– All of which will purposely obscure the point that it wasn’t necessarily the amount of coverage but the kind — and, in Obama’s case, the real complaint isn’t so much the statistical differential as it is the lack of a certain kind of vetting that speaks to the actual bias conservatives complain about.
In short, it’s what the media didn’t tell us about Obama — despite writing more about him — that bolsters the charge. And this is particularly evident when we stop to recall the coverage given to Sarah Palin — the vast majority of which was a deliberate attempt to over vet, to the point where the public knows far more about Ms Palin’s clothes and tanning bed than they do about Obama’s desire to create a civilian security force and to cajole a form of state servitude from the very youth vote whom he counted on to help swing the election his way.
And when these low information voters wake up, the hangover will hit them like that $5000 credit card charge they brought home from a strip club that one time, even though they could only remember having 2 drinks themselves, and buying a single round for the ladies...
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Obama Goggles
I love the title of Jeff Goldstein's post on the mass media's pro-Obama bias (especially the media's refusal to run stories damaging to "The One"), which helped boost the Democrats to power, "Obama Goggles":
Labels:
Barack Obama,
Mass Media
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Just wait until they bring up their proposal for nationalization of 401(k)'s and dumping them in with Social Security.
Not even Oprah will be able to cover for him ... the outrage will reflect an overwhelming mandate against such nationalization.
Post a Comment