Quoted from http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/17/kurtz-does-tweety/:
Crooks and Liars » Kurtz does Tweety
...As I read The Kurtzing piece, it just made me more aware of the fact that the media has been much harder on Hillary than on Obama. I guess that should have been expected since so many of today’s reporters made their bones during Bill’s presidency. Atrios links up a piece by John Heilemann—that discusses the surprisingly favorable coverage Obama. In response—Duncan writes:
I also think that while the press has been good to Obama, the press has been pretty damn good to every candidate with an R after their name. Obama’s coverage may be strangely positive, but strangely positive for a Democrat.
I say surprisingly favorable too because he has a (D) attached to his name and as we’ve seen, even when McCain and Romney were calling each other liars, the MSM was virtually silent. I keep writing this point and I will continue to do so because on Howard’s show today he brought up several segments about the favorable coverage for Barack—hint—hint everyone. They are laying the groundwork to do you know what. If Obama wins, I predict the gloves will come off—they will use the excuse of examining his record and McCrazy will be their anointed choice. The press will pivot and turn on him in a heartbeat. How much coverage have you seen by the media over McCain’s pathetic pandering to the GOP base and his vote for torture? Kurtz did bring up this topic on Reliable Sources today. He agrees with us that the media was soft on McCain on this one.
“The New York Times” today has a story about this five days after the vote. “The Washington Post” did it yesterday. But most of the establishment media kissed it off.
Kissed it off. Do you think they would have done the same to Obama or Hillary? There would have been wall to wall coverage. (videos below the fold) ...
Of all the "Big B logs" C rooks and Liars has, I think, maintained the most balanced perspective on the C linton- Obama competition.
No comments:
Post a Comment