Washington Post: Obama benefits from biased "blowout coverage"

[bidenista]

Howard Kurtz has a good piece in the Washington Post about how the M$M is spinning a particular narrative re: Obama:

Ask Not... What the Press Can Do For Obama
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 4, 2008; 8:48 AM

When Ted Kennedy backed John Kerry for president in 2003, no major newspaper outside Massachusetts bothered to cover it, and even the Associated Press kissed off the event with a 200-word item.

When Ted and Caroline Kennedy gave Barack Obama their political blessing last week, it was treated as the second coming of Camelot: live cable coverage, lead story on all the newscasts, anchors intoning the old JFK line that "the torch has been passed."

Why the difference?...

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020400841.html

And for those who missed it, in the Washington Monthly there was a great piece called "Ask Not! Why Obama is No JFK". The powerful conclusion:

In an editorial supporting Obama, the Boston Globe called attention to his “intuitive sense of the wider world.” But “intuition” would have seemed a silly quality to JFK, a realist even among the realists of his day. He and the other veterans he had served with were tired of inflated promises and wanted a world that would live up to the sacrifice they had already made for it. Like Kennedy, Obama certainly has a capacity to learn, and learn quickly. But there are qualities that cannot be gleaned from briefing books, even by the quickest study—independence of judgment, calm determination, and the deep knowledge of all possibilities that comes from years of experience in the trenches. To his credit, Obama has not personally cited intuition as a reason to vote for him, but the campaign profited enormously from the Globe endorsement, and has tolerated a certain vagueness about his background and intentions that now needs to be clarified. In fact, no modern politician has trafficked more in “intuition” than President Bush, who trumpeted his “instincts” to an incredulous Joe Biden as his justification for invading Iraq, and famously claimed to see into the soul of Vladimir Putin. To run entirely on intuition and the negation of experience can work, and did in 2000. But to do so while wearing the deeply realist mantle of John F. Kennedy is to spin a garment of such fine cloth that it is completely invisible.

More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801w.widmer.html

[Alamom]

1. Thanks for posting. This is quite an interesting article, although we've seen the

lovefest and MSM promotion of Obama for months. k&r

[avaistheone1]

2. Coverage like that is worth millions of dollars.

No more guessing who MSM is supporting.

[Tellurian]

3. The next followup question would be WHY?

Why has Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and the "blind" love struck, Caroline, (who never knew her father), aligned themselves with the RW owned media who may have played a role in the coverup of the death of her father?

[K Gardner]

4. Caroline never knew her father?? Try telling HER that. What a shameless and nasty shill of a post.

[Tellurian]

24. Of course she never knew him. Are you daft?

And if she believes as you do, she's daft too!

[karynnj]

54. She knew him as a child knows a father

and she knows him via stories that she has heard from friends and relatives. As she said, she has been told often over the course of her life how he affected their lives, inspired them and gave them hope. It is beyond sick that you claim that she "didn't know her father".

As to claiming that she, Ted Kennedy and Kerry had anything to do with covering up anything on his assignation is despicable. If there was credible proof, any of them would fight to get it out in the open.

[elixir]

59. I believe you misread the second half of Tellurian's post. Why wld Caroline align herself w/ MSM..

the folks that helped cover up her father's assassination?

"Why has Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and the "blind" love struck, Caroline, (who never knew her father), aligned themselves with the RW owned media who may have played a role in the coverup of the death of her father?"

[karynnj]

75. I read it right - I simply disagree that they

1)aligned themselves with the right wing media - where Kerry and Kennedy are two people who are reviled the most.
AND
2) That there was a RW media coverup. The media for much of that time frame was not right wing.

[Occam Bandage]

5. Because Obama is the best candidate the Democrats have run in decades.

[robbedvoter]

13. Far better than Gore, or Clark ...and the MSM just always LOVES good candidates.non?

Always MSM helped the best Dem candidates - as they only want us to win...wait, do they?:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

19. I think so, yes. The question was why the Kennedys endorsed Obama, not

why the MSM has given him favorable coverage. That is attributable to the fact that Obama, unlike Hillary and unlike Gore, knows how to work the media.

[robbedvoter]

27. Same reason he endorsed Kerry + the power struggle in the party. The rest

was political theater. The media is not being worked by Obama any more that it was being worked by Dean or Kerry in 2004
Remember these goings on?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4346496
MSM does NOT want a Dem in power.

[Occam Bandage]

35. Conspiratorial sour grapes. nt

[robbedvoter]

43. We may or we may not see reality confirm that. I'd rather we don't

Depending on the results tomorrow, it's either obscurity or turnabout from the MSM for the "best candidate ever".

[Occam Bandage]

45. Or so you desperately hope.

[elixir]

62. The MSM backs the best and most recent story, nothing more. They have no moral compunction becuase

that's not their job. If they backed Hillary right now it would be only because it would sell.

[krkaufman]

32. Well, then based on your negative reasoning, our best candidate ...

... was one of Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson, Dodd, Biden or Gravel, as they were the candidates who haven't been touted by any corporate media.

[Tellurian]

46. Obama is a media creation.. nothing more.. and comparing him to JFK is a denial of reality....

[Occam Bandage]

57. No. Obama creates media coverage. It must seem bizarre to a supporter of someone

as incompetent by comparison as Hillary Clinton.

[Tellurian]

78. Hillary has a record to stand on...Obama stands on a resume of non-accomplishments and thin air!

[LowerManhattanite]

21. “blind, love struck Caroline”

You are ruthless.

Classless.

Heartless.

Who the hell are you to say anything about WHAT she knows about her father? Being in that family and a direct descendant, one would assume she was very much surrounded by a level of detail about him that outsiders like us would never dream of having access to.

But she's “blind and love struck” because she deigned to not back your candidate of choice?

As much as that family's been through, and sacrificed?

Just...wow.

Be angry at her choice—but to cast a vicious, condescending aspersion on her in a fit of pique?

There is no bottom for you.

[Tellurian]

28. If Caroline can equate Obama to her father...then she's off her rocker!

[Occam Bandage]

37. I think she knows both better than you do.

[LowerManhattanite]

44. And now, she's “mentally ill”...

You know...I sat this forum out for a year and a half after the 04's because of the stupidity that overwhelmed this place.


And I'll be damned if it isn't worse now.


Done with you. Enjoy your...“life”, as it were.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

51. I'm just glad I have whoever this putz is on ignore. nt

[Tellurian]

53. Caroline explained, at her endorsement of Obama..

Her "CHILDREN" were so enamored with Obama as inspirational to the audience (read: college kids) they equated his inspiration to their grandfather, JFK.. hence, her supposed reasoning for supporting Obama! When Caroline pulls her head out of the sand...let me know!

[karynnj]

58. Do you know Obama better than she does?

She did not say their policies are the same - the issues aren't even the same. She didn't say the personalities are the same - they aren't. She didn't say they have the same sense of humor - they don't. She didn't say their speeches were similar - they aren't.

She did say that she saw the same sense of hope and inspiration that people have told her all her life that her dad gave them. She knows HRC well and, in fact, contributed to both her and Obama. She simply has made the decision to back Obama.

[desi]

70. Agreed. That's just like equating Humpin' Henry Hyde's marriage

to marital fidelity. Obama is hardly akin to JFK. He needs a damn teleprompter to keep from mumbling fer Henry's sake.

[sfam]

6. So are you saying Obama has worked the MSM better than Hillary? And...

this is a bad thing? Bully for Obama if he did. Is this really a bad thing going into the general election, or do we as democrats prefer the MSM to be against us?

And BTW, the endorsement Kennedy gave to Kerry (and everyone else) was quite different from the one he gave to Obama. In Obama's endorsement, he gave them the keys to Camelot.

[bidenista]

8. no, i'm not saying that. read the article

The "he gave them the keys to Camelot" line is hilariously overblown, btw.

[robbedvoter]

16. Obama didn't "work" the MSM - MSM is working the voters - manipulating our

primaries as always.

[rodeodance]

30. more and more--the biased coverage for Obama is coming out. The sheepies just lap it up.

[rodeodance]

26. "he gave them the keys to Camelot." HA HA--guess Fairy Tales are full swing in the

Obama camp!!

[robbedvoter]

31. I always wondered where Teddy kept those keys and why did he never use them

himself ...ah, wait...

[sfam]

33. What exactly do you think Kennedy said in his endorsement? Deal with it.

If not that? To the extent he could, he certainly did. Deal with it.

Kennedy was assumed to endorse Hillary just as he was supposed to endorse Kerry. He did not. In fact he went HARD - REALLY HARD in the opposite direction. This IS a big news story.

[rodeodance]

79. he gave him the fairy tale that never was.

[William769]

7. K&R!

[robbedvoter]

9. here's another good observation:

"If Kennedy had backed Clinton instead, it's hard to imagine he would have drawn the same blowout coverage as did his appearance with Obama at American University, which was so packed that some journalists couldn't get in. Indeed, Clinton's endorsement by Robert Kennedy Jr. and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was relegated to a mere footnote."

[Occam Bandage]

17. Two notes.

1. The endorsement of Obama by TK was important largely because it gave Obama, for the first time, the blessing of a legitimate, established wing of the Democratic internal structure. If TK had endorsed Hillary, it would have been unremarkable. His endorsement of Kerry was unremarkable. His endorsement of Obama was interesting for that reason.

2. TK is far more important, well-known, and influential than RFK Jr. Caroline Kennedy is rather unimportant, but is at least nationally known. Kathleen Townsend is a political nonentity.

[AX10]

86. The MSM is setting...

the party of to lose in November.

[Occam Bandage]

10. Huh. So Obama is much better at controlling the media narrative than Hillary.

That seems to me like it's a very good thing.

[leftynyc]

38. He never had to control it

They've been fawning over him for months now. I don't care who your candidate is, reality is reality.

[Occam Bandage]

41. He does make it seem effortless. Hallmark of a talented politician. Hillary is hamfisted

in comparison.

[rodeodance]

50. No talent involved by Obama when msm does the kid glove approach when

it comes to him.

[Occam Bandage]

52. Nothing happens by happenstance in politics. Obama's playing them like a piano.

He might not be able to play them so easily forever, no. But he knows how to get coverage, and favorable coverage at that. There's a reason that he's standing up by Hillary, and not Edwards, Biden, Dodd, or Richardson. Obama knows how to work the media. Hillary knows how to work the media (but not quite as well.) The others can't.

[robbedvoter]

74. I hope I'll miss the part where the piano eats the pianist. I trully do!

[Dems Will Win]

11. The reason is that the nation has been waiting for a new JFK since JFK was killed

Now we have one. Thanks for the post.

Can you feel the O-Mentum?

[NJSecularist]

12. Hillary had a stranglehold of the media for months

It's not Obama's fault that she has managed to lose it.

[robbedvoter]

18. Hillary never got favorable coverage - Obama love=Hillary hate (that never changed)

[chascarrillo]

14. Col. Kurtz on DU: Just when I think I've seen it all.

rofl

[robbedvoter]

20. You mean, as opposed to every other media whore quoted in support of Obama

[chascarrillo]

23. No. In conjunction with.

Both sides are reaching as far as they can to bring out every "advocate" they can get their hands on. I just ain't seen Col. Kurtz dredged up yet.

[rodeodance]

36. How Rovian of you--kill the messenger.

[chascarrillo]

85. It's somehow "Rovian" of me to ridicule a right-wing media pundit?

Does this mean that I'm not allowed to make fun of FOX News now? Dude, seriously, send me a guidebook on how not to ridicule right-wing commentators. I don't want to run afoul of y'all.

[Apollo11]

15. It is expected that the Democratic Party establishment will support Hillary Clinton

Therefore it was unexpected that Ted Kennedy would endorse Obama. From a news media point of view - it looks like the Kennedys and the Clintons have fallen out of love.

Even more unexpected that Caroline Kennedy would get actively involved in Obama's campaign, when she has not made a habit of getting involved in previous primary contests.

[Little Star]

25. Hog wash! Kennedy's are establishment. They along with MSM

want more of the same old, same old. They have jumped the shark in order to rescue their place in history. MSM going along to get along. Obama is as much to the Kennedy legacy as I am! NOTHING!!!!!! Nice try though.

[Apollo11]

42. I was just saying why Kennedys endorsing Obama gets media coverage.

Because it goes against the grain of what we were expecting.

[Duke Newcombe]

22. Suggesting a different frame for this...

...instead of complaints of media bias for Obama, the coverage out there for all candidates provides a marketplace of ideas where one can feed whatever assumptions and predilections they may have.

In Europe, for example, it's an open secret that papers and television news are biased in favor of their particular political bent. If one's worldview is supported by paper/newsreport (a), then that is chosen. If one does not care for their alignment, news outlet (b) will suffice.

I don't get the uproar over this "bias" bogeyman here.

Duke

[LowerManhattanite]

29. Kurtz...

Who practically fellated wingnut hate-bot Michelle Malkin in a disgusting puff-piece last year (Malkin who is one of the worst anti-Clinton whack jobs on the intertubes)...

...Who pals about with folks like Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit)—one of the three big pushers of the Swift Boat attacks against Kerry in '04?

The same Howard Kurtz who's married to the hate-mongering GOP consultant and talking head Sheri Annis?

Well...okay.

[Summerza]

84. That's an ad-hominem attack

Attacking the author of an article for things he had done in the past is not a good argument.

Why do you doubt that the press is going ga-ga about Obama and hates Clinton? This is what you should be arguing.

[RoadRage]

34. It was a big deal because it was assumed that the Kennedy's would endorse Clinton. The story wasn't

as much about the Obama endorsement as it was about the fact that he WASN'T endorsing Clinton.

THAT is why it was big news. Obviosly the Kennedy's saw something in Clinton that they didn't like, or saw something in Obama that they did - or both. But that was the story.

[sfam]

40. Exactly!!! n/t

[robbedvoter]

47. Assumed by whom? kerry already endorsed Obama - and we knew the rivalry

between the Clintons and the Kennedys. The only surprise to me was the blowout. I didn't for a second expect any favors to Hillary from Ted.

[sfam]

49. What rivalry? By all accounts they are very close. Talk about revisionism! Forget the MSM,

You have your own spin!

[robbedvoter]

60. DU has been abuzz with speculations - "Clinton didn't help Kerry in 2004 because

he wanted Hillary's turn in 2004). Try to find ONE single Kerry supporter who is now for Hillary and we'll talk again about those accounts of them being "very close".
It was Kerry who kicked Gore out of the race in 2004 - because it was "his turn". It was Kerry who felt "the party" didn't help him fight for his win - not that he would have. The rift is probably older and deeper, but I for one am aware since 2002 (when Gore was pushed off)

[sfam]

65. We are talking about Kennedy and Clinton, not Kerry and Clinton n/t

[robbedvoter]

72. Same thing. 2 spheres of influence. Soldiers of the main actors are mere surrogates

By himself, Kerry wouldn't have been able to knock Gore from the race.

[Occam Bandage]

55. Kennedy and Clinton are fairly close friends. You're simply making up "facts."

[RoadRage]

63. By "We" you must mean you & a friend? Because I certainly knew of NO

Rivalry between the Clinton's & the Kennedy's before this endorsement came out.. especially since RFK's kids endorsed her. That doesn't exactly talk of a rivalry.

This STORY is what showed that there was a rivalry.

[robbedvoter]

68. Find me a kerry supporter from 2004 supporting Hillary (even temporarily, before

Kerry jumping in for Obama) and we'll talk. Bobby is not a politician but an activist, so he goes for the candidate who he think can best advance his issues. Therefore, not a follower.

[RoadRage]

77. My post doesn't discuss Kerry at all - only Kennedy. NT

[karynnj]

67. Although there were clues that he was not enthusiastic about HRC even before 2007

He endorsed Kerry many many times for 2008. The last time was the week before Kerry pulled out on one of the Sunday shows. He effusively praised Kerry for the positions he had taken and for the person he is - but spoke soberly of how he had a difficult decision that he and his family had to make. Then he was asked about HRC, who the interviewer was clearly excited about. Kennedy unenthusiastically said she had done some good work.

[robbedvoter]

73. Thank you for the honest contribution. The signs were there for anyone paying attention

Only the uninformed had "expectations" to the contrary.

[adapa]

39. Face it, the corporate Media get to chose the POTUS-voters are a mear formailty

[robbedvoter]

66. Every. Single. Time. Eliminated progressive candidates, and now try toget rid of

the feisty Clinton. And if you think they'd favor Obama over McCain - you have another one coming.

[mckeown1128]

48. It is a double edged sword. [see NH] nt

[Politicub]

56. Interesting analysis - I'm feeling more and more what John hinted at last week

paraphrased, history is going to happen because we said it would -- if we're not on board, then get out of the way.

[bigtree]

61. Hell, even the CNN poll which shows the race tightening

has Clinton comfortably out front, overall, in all of the 22 states

[NoBorders]

64. So, suddenly Kurts is the Media Oracle

Quite a turnaround here for kurtz.

[guruoo]

69. I have a dream -of a PR machine. Like political photoshop

on steroids.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,774187,00.jpg

[bidenista]

71. looks like a good meal there. nt

[guruoo]

76. Here's the pre PR machine image:

[avrdream]

80. Very interesting.

Thanks

[Summerza]

81. Howard Kurtz has talent

Excellent piece of opinion.

[cd3dem]

82. the media is about as phoney as the voting computers in Ohio

[high density]

83. So where was this moaning about "blowout coverage" back before NH?

Both Clinton and Obama have benefited from this. Clinton had her weepfest that delivered NH, and now Obama has his endorsements "blowout." It's what the press does, and if you guys haven't realized this yet then welcome to America. Howard Kurtz, a self-absorbed clueless DC media slimeball himself, is not somebody I'll go to for insight on matters like this.

[Stand and Fight]

87. Nice to see that I'm not the only one noticing the BS Obama coverage. n/t