Read the Bills Act Coalition

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Obama Blames FOX for everyone not liking him?

From OneNewsNow.COM AND Media Research Center (MRC)

A conservative media watchdog says it's outrageous that Barack Obama is blaming a major cable news service for costing him two to three points in the polls....In a recently published interview for the New York Times Magazine, the Democratic presidential candidate said: "I'm convinced that if there were no FOX News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls. If I were watching FOX News, I wouldn't vote for me, right? Because the way I'm portrayed 24/7 is as a freak!".....The Illinois senator continued, explaining that he is being typecast as "the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?"...Do voters watch FOX News because they don't support Barack Obama?...Or do voters oppose Barack Obama because they watch FOX News?...Seton Motley, director of communications at the Media Research Center (MRC), says Obama's lashing out is evidence he cannot stand the idea that FOX News does not worship him like the majority of the mainstream media do...."He's gotten unabashed, loving coverage from all three broadcast networks, the vast majority of the cable news networks, and every print publication you can imagine," says Motley. "It has been wall-to-wall glowing coverage."...FOX News, says Motley, has the "audacity to report on [Obama] as he is and quote him verbatim" -- and somehow, adds the MRC spokesman, the presidential hopeful credits that for a downtick of two or three percent in his polling. "[For him to single-out FOX News is] just a staggeringly myopic view of the media and how he's been treated during his presidential run," he says....In contrast, Motley suggests that if not for the pro-Obama bias of The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media, John McCain would be up 20 percent.

Read Here:


D. Toole said...

The following article appears in today's Richmond Times-Dispatch and on their web site at:

"Two years ago Republican Rep. Mark Foley left Congress as a result of a sex scandal (he had sent inappropriate e-mails to House pages). This year his Democratic successor, Tim Mahoney, is in a scandal of his very own. The congressman from Florida allegedly had an affair with an aide, whom he paid to keep quiet.

As many readers know, stories on Web sites invite comment. A FOX News item about Mahoney drew these:
# "I don't see this story in the mainstream media newspapers or cable news. Only on FOX. Had this been a Republican, I am SURE it would have been the BIG story."
# "The larger story is the silence from the media slugs who had a feeding frenzy over e-mails sent by Mark Foley . . . ."

The snippy observations arrived in the afternoon. The Washington Post and The New York Times reported the Mahoney news in that morning's editions. (That same morning

The Times-Dispatch published a wire story on the mess.) The Mahoney story appeared on the Web sites of every major TV network.

The national media did not ignore the story. FOX News was not the only outlet to report the allegations.

The press has its faults, many of which relate to ideology and sentiment and which have been amply discussed on these Editorial Pages, but the baseless bashing indicated above is just as bad as the bias it claims to counter."

Jody L. Wilcox said...

Your comments have valid points all around but I think for a major Presidential candidate to blame a network as to why people disagree seems to ooze with self righteousness more than fact. The media does have influence over the voter more by what they do not report that what (and how) they do report. The tit for tat of FOX news being conservative. CNN being liberal and the three major networks somehow being neutral just doesn't hold water....FOX News is drawing the ratings they because their reporting reflects what their viewers see as the balanced view of news (right or wrong.) As for as the criticism being as bad and what is being criticized….if that e the case we need not have any commentary at all…..calling something what it is, does not necessarily make the caller wrong.

Alter of Freedom said...

Here an example that I like to pull out for those who contend no bias; the Iraq War. Look at MSNBC portrayal of the situation in Iraq even today. Nothing. Why? They would have you believe that all of their folks are out on the campaign trails and there is little time or interest really no that violence is down. UMM excuse me, if they think violence is really down how about reporting it. If Iraq was still in turmoil on a daily basis and attacks were still at 2006 levels, do you think that MSNBC would spare a reporter to send there from the trail to cover it. YOU BETCHA they would. Why? Because it would shape the campaign thats why.
Ask yourself this, why does NBC News, different from MSNBC in structure (code for these are the real journalists) are relegated to the web to inform the public on stories that do not fit the lense management seeks to promote. If that is not true than why did MSNBC fail tocover the homoring of a family whose son gave his life in the line of duty and sacrificed his own life to save his comrades was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Bush honoring their sons sacrifice on behalf of our country. Was this covered by MSNBC? No. How many MOH are awarded historically? Is this not news? Given Kieth Olbermann constant exploitation of the military in the field when things are going badly, you would think is he were not such a partisan he could have at least honored this sacrifice and cover the ceremony, but alas it is a sacrifice on a battlefield in a war that they never have supported and so its not news, but hey covering all those protestors like Code Pink throughout the whole War is always news. I am not defending FOX news nor an apologist for them, but MSNBC is the worst network on television and frankly I would not lose any sleep if General Electric went belly up in this financial crisis. In terms of journalistic integrity the country may be better off. Tim Russert must be rolling over right about now to witness what has happened at NBC.

Anonymous said...

The Republican Party is just a bunch of white racists. It is filled with a bunch of Angry White Guys (and Gals) who think the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Act ruined America because it made it a lot harder for whites from Ireland, England, France, Germany, Italy, etc. to immigrate to the U.S. and made it a lot easier for the Chinese, Indians, Jamaicans, Mexicans, Egyptians, etc. to immigrate to the U.S. What these racists don't GET is that the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Act (Thank You Senator Ted Kennedy) greatly increased Diversity in the U.S. which has made OUR Nation stronger and a much more multicultural place to live. Before 1965 Whites of European descent made up 88% of the U.S. population. Now whites only make up 65% of the U.S. population and by 2042 they will only make up 49% of the population. By 2100 Whites of European descent will only make up about 30% of the U.S. population and also by the year 2100 only 3% of the World Population will be White. The 2008 Election is just a turning point in American History though. By the end of this century white Europeans will be out of power in the United States(FINALLY!). The World is Flat. The white racist Republicans just don't seem to get it!

Jody L. Wilcox said...

wow! all that hatred and venom from Anonymous (and I was beginning to like Anonymous from his/her other comments.) If you're going to call people you never met names that don't apply and can't muster enough intellect to participate in a civil debate about differing ideas at least have the balls to use your name...lame dude (I'm not going to delete the comments since it should serve as a reminder of the ignorance we're up against.)