Big journos rarely examine press bias. Robinson helps us see why:

[springhill]

The Daily Howler

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

GUILD CARD EARNED: Big mainstream journalists rarely address the vexing question of “media bias.” The Post’s Gene Robinson goes there today. The result is predictably gruesome.

“Are the news media being beastly to Hillary Clinton?” he asks as he starts. “Are political reporter and commentators...basically in the tank for Barack Obama?” Robinson tilts the discussion a bit through his use of the language of ridicule (“beastly”). But these are very good questions to ask, and Robinson asks them from the front lines. He is, after all, a Hardball regular, and he’s a regular panelist during MSNBC’s long-winded primary coverage. He has therefore been on the front lines in one of the battlegrounds of this alleged beastly media conduct. Just how silly has it gotten on the programs where Robinson works? On this morning’s Post op-ed page, Charles Krauthammer, citing Paul Krugman, gives the short answer:

KRAUTHAMMER (2/15/08): You might dismiss as hyperbole the complaint by the New York Times's Paul Krugman that "the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." Until you hear Chris Matthews, who no longer has the excuse of youth, react to Obama's Potomac primary victory speech with "My, I felt this thrill going up my leg." When his MSNBC co-hosts tried to bail him out, he refused to recant. Not surprising for an acolyte who said that Obama "comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."

As everyone knows, Matthews was forced to apologize, just last month, for his endless gender-trashing of Clinton. Another MSNBC regular, David Shuster was forced to apologize, just last week, for engaging in more of the same.

Robinson has been on the front lines as this network’s strange Clinton-trashing has unfolded. For that reason, few people are better positioned than he to evaluate the questions he has asked.

[high density]

1. It's amazing nobody seemed to care when all of the news for Clinton was positive

There was about a year worth of talk about how great she was. She was inevitable with a 40% lead in the polls above everybody. Then came January 2008 and the rest is history.

I have to say the countless threads on this topic remind me of the right wingers who always bitch about how no good news gets reported in Iraq. Are the talking heads on TV supposed to generate positive buzz for Clinton to offset all of the negative news that she's generating? There aren't enough hours in a day to do both of those things.

[springhill]

2. If you can show me how Obama has ever been attacked.........

the way Clinton has, I'm all ears.

[high density]

5. You're looking at the effect instead of the cause

The ultimate problem here seems to be with the Clinton campaign and how it is being managed, not the coverage of it.

[DURHAM D]

12. Did you read the daily howler post ? Obviously not.

It is discussion about "Clinton Rules" going back to the beginning of Bill's term and includes Gore's treatment.

Eugene Robinson is a big part of the "Clinton Rules" gotcha game and KO and Tweety love to have him on to dribble drivel.

[rinsd]

3. That is not true. A study showed Obama had the most positive coverage last year.

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

[JimGinPA]

4. Tone Coverage?

That couldn't possibly be subjective.

:sarcasm:

[rinsd]

6. "Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center"

If you have doubts as to their credibility by all means share them.

[springhill]

7. Why not just argue with the facts presented in this piece.

It is true that the press has hated the Clinton's since they entered office. And yes, as this article plainly states, there are the Clinton rules. The rule that no matter what they say, you read their minds and put a negative or evil intent on it. By the way, is anyone suggesting that they didn't do this to Gore also?

[rinsd]

10. That is actually the crux of Somersby's defense of Hillary.

He saw it happen to Gore & Kerry and he hates it.

[jackson_dem]

8. And that is backed up by who the media is endorsing

Obama had 34 newspaper endorsements in California alone. Here is how the endorsements for the 50 biggest newspapers in the nation broke down a couple of weeks ago. This doesn't count, then, the endorsements corporations have given him in places like Ohio since then. Three of Clinton's seven came in New York. The overall disparity is 3.2:1. Exclude home state endorsements and it is 4.3:1 with Obama having 17 and Clinton only 4.

[rinsd]

9. Endorsements don't bother me so much as tone of coverage.

[jackson_dem]

11. Couple the two and you have clear and convincing evidence of msm bias for Obama

No Obamite can claim, as was done earlier about the study of coverage, that the newspaper endorsement list is subject. It is a fact that among the 50 largest newspaper Obama led 17-4 in non-home state endorsements. He got 34 newspaper endorsements in California alone.