Media tainted by anti-Clinton bias

[Algorem]

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/09/Opinion/Media_tainted_by_anti.shtml

By Bill Maxwell, Times Columnist
Published March 9, 2008
ADVERTISEMENT
Latest Video

For a brief period last week, earnest members of my chosen profession, the press, did a little soul-searching and asked if we have been, and are, biased against Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The conclusion: Of course we are. Any journalist who denies this fact is unable to recognize objectivity if it were branded on his eyeballs.

I am not referring to opinion writers, who are expected to bring their personal perspectives and slants to issues and events. I am talking about editors and reporters charged with delivering a product the public can trust as truth and fairness. (For the record, though, most pundits, conservatives and liberals, also show bias against Clinton.)

If Clinton had not raised the issue and if Saturday Night Live had not spoofed journalists for fawning over Sen. Barack Obama, like puppies licking their owners' mouths, the charge of bias probably would have remained a mere wink-and-nod charade...

[shenmue]

1. Of course.

:applause:

They've despised Clinton since the 1990s and they'll never forget it. They hated Bill Clinton, and they're not about to let Hillary Clinton get into office.

Thank you, somebody, for finally admitting it.

[ChazII]

2. Thanks for posting this story. n/t

[bronxiteforever]

3. Simplistic analysis.

The MSM is driven by the gods of profit. In the end it is all about money. Obama was selling newspapers, and getting high ratings. In fact the Clinton Camp sneers at the rock concert mentality of the rallies. That however is why the MSM liked Obama. He sells stuff.

Of course a Democratic party in full civil war will also sell which is why Daschle and Rendell are on Meet the Press today. A leave no prisoner convention between the two candidates will sell quite well.In order to accomplish this Obama needs to be taken down a peg. That will sell too.

Of concern to me is Hillary's continual purposeful frosty relationship with the press. She dealt with the shots given to her by developing an almost Nixonian attitude toward the press. If you wish to govern, having the press be hostile to you is a sure way to fail in achieving your agenda on issues such as health care. What is the prize of power worth if you fail to obtain policy goals?

[libbygurl]

5. What?

'Of concern to me is Hillary's continual purposeful frosty relationship with the press. She dealt with the shots given to her by developing an almost Nixonian attitude toward the press. If you wish to govern, having the press be hostile to you is a sure way to fail in achieving your agenda on issues such as health care. What is the prize of power worth if you fail to obtain policy goals?'

'Purposeful frosty relationship with the press'? 'Having the press be hostile to you'?

So you mean she really encouraged this hostility towards her in the media?

Did you miss that story in January about that busload of press people who PURPOSEFULLY gave HER the cold shoulder that wintry morning when she personally brought them coffee and doughnuts?

Would you not keep your distance, too, after having been vilified by the press for over a decade? She has been, in my estimation, very gracious and good-humoured about the horrible treatment she's received over the years. It didn't just start this primary season.

While you make good points about the money/profit motive in US media, good God - Hillary has been at least admirable in the way she's dealt with such abominable attacks from the press.

You might want to read McCamy Taylor's journals (on the right side of the page) to read about all this BS being thrown at her.

[bronxiteforever]

7. I agree with you that the incident with Hillary in January was not proper

The thing is how does she deals with it. The point I am making is that she can't keep her distance from the press. They eat her alive if she does and along with that our party goes down in flames. I will read the journals you recommend. Thanks
:hi:

[libbygurl]

9. You're welcome. McCamy Taylor's journals might just make you ill, though -

- there's so much rubbish in what he quotes from the media that I couldn't even read each piece in one sitting. (There are 3 parts to them.)

Thank you for maintaining a most civil tone in this exchange, though - and if I sounded a bit miffed about it (hope not), it wasn't intentional. I've just been so heartsick about the rabid, hate-Hillary tone of most posts around here anymore. I realise from your reasoned post that you aren't one among that wild pack of wolves, but forgive me if I came across as a little cross.

:hi:

[zabet]

10. How simplistic is it that

Hillary has been attacked for
many many years by the media and
yet, she has weathered it all.

Like libbygurl said, read McCamy Taylor's
posts in the journal, 3 parts about the
long term blatant media bias against
Clinton. Lots of links and verification.
Possibly one of the most well put together
summaries of this issue I have ever seen.

She comes off as anything but frosty, we
have seen more glimpses of the personal,
real Hillary over the career politician
facade she normally maintains (for self
preservation) this election.

[libbygurl]

4. Yup - Fox actually earns their 'fair and balanced' claims now -

- 'CBS and Fox were more balanced - 50 percent positive comments on Fox and 56 percent positive on CBS.'

Has hell frozen over? I cannot believe what's been happening here.

Agree totally with Mr Maxwell - the 'Fourth Estate' no longer merits that monicker in the US.

[flor de jasmim]

6. Ya wanna talk media bias... I've got one word for you: EDWARDS - nuff said

[libbygurl]

8. Yep, there sure was that, too. Ignored most of the time. nt