Press bias? Naaaaaaaaaaaah.
|
|
The article was titled “Scholars question Palin credentials” as it quoted 4 “scholars” who bash Sarah Palin.
The McCain campaign caught it! The 4 “scholars” were either Obama donors, Democrat donors, or former Democrat speechwriters.
Kudos to McCain’s staff! Don’t let the media get away with it. Here’s their Press release:
“The authors quote four scholars attacking Gov. Palin’s fitness for the office of Vice President. Among them, David Kennedy is a maxed out Obama donor, Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor, and Doris Kearns Goodwin has donated exclusively to Democrats this cycle. Finally, Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt. This is not a story about scholars questioning Governor Palin’s credentials so much as partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Senator McCain.”
on 
I don’t think bias of the press is an issue here. I think it’s a mater of finding Republican scholars. As we all know, those damn educated yuppies are all flaming liberals.
Hmm…that might be the reason why the GOP platform committee had an amendment introduced which specifically spelled out discontent for any practice at any higher ed institution which used ideology as a hiring factor. It was a fun debate to watch as everyone seemed to squirm a little when it was brought up that the party shouldn’t include religion or religious institutions in the amendment. You’d think they would just come out and say that there are far too many liberals in higher ed.
Anyway, what was the original topic?
Joel, either it was a remarkable coincidence that all 4 “scholars” just happened to be Democrats or the reporter knew it, set it up that way and hid it.
Either the reporter is a slime or an idiot.
Whatever happened to balanced reporting? They claim to be so “free of bias,” and they wonder why we laugh at them.
I was on WHRO a few weeks back with a reporter and an editor and told them the only people who think newspapers are unbiased are those who write for them.
This is why.
They let a wingnut like you on WHRO Brian? I’m yanking my membership ;).
That’s ok. Your taxes will still pay for it.
I agree with Brian. First, the editors decided to run with this story, and then they looked for their four scholars. The reporters knew who they were interviewing and knew their biases. Don’t let them fool you. When I was a reporter, I knew where to go to get the quote I wanted. That has not changed. Also, it did not take the McCain campaign long to find out who these people were.
When a newspaper talks about, say, Rush Limbaugh, he is identified as a conservative talk show host. When the press quotes a liberal, knowing it is a liberal they are quoting, they quote an expert or scholar.
Maybe we should pass a true Fairness Doctrine: one that requires that every reporter, editor, etc. announce his beliefs on important policies and doctrines every six months. Failure to do this or if you are caught cheating and the government will revoke your reporter’s license! I would think liberals and their love of government regulations and fairness would love this idea.
The media in this country needs to be as transparent as radio talk shows and bloggers.
If the press truly was fair or non-biased as it claims to be, there would have been at least one or two scholars who said something like executive experience is more valuable experience for a vice president than legislative experience is. The scholar could have given examples of Palin’s achievements and Obama’s lack of any achievements while he was a lowly legislator. Also, it could be pointed out which of our recent presidents were governors and which were legislators. An argument could be made that H.W. was a so-so president precisely because he was more a legislator than an executor.
And Jeremy, great comeback! Saying someone should not appear on WHRO cos you do not like his beliefs, you might as well say you agree with government censorship cos it is clear to the rest of us!
Excellent rapid response from the McCain camp. When I read the article, I found myself wondering what the political orientation of all these scholars was. You’d think, just for appearances, if nothing else, the reporter would have gone out and laid hands on at least one or two more conservative or even politically neutral commenters. In Washington/Virginia/Maryland alone, there must be a hundred or so reputable professors of American History who could have been contacted on various university faculties.
Of course, the underlying point they made was absolutely accurate and correct. There was no rebuttal to that. This woman’s experience puts her well in the lower rungs of any documentable experience to be President of the United States (probably VP too, but that’s not what will worry most voters). She may, in fact, be innately superb presidential material. But there’s virtually nothing in her background or experience that tells us that. That’s not a matter of bias. That’s just historical fact. That lack of preparation and experience is what will let the Dems argue that this was a purely political pick, not a governance-driven measure, designed to simultaneously appease the right wing of the GOP and to cut into strong female support for the Obama campaign. Nothing wrong with that if it works and if McCain stays healthy. Potentially bet-the-country problems if he doesn’t. Keep your fingers crossed.
Duck - check your bedside table. You left your sense of humor on it when you got up this morning.
“This woman’s experience puts her well in the lower rungs of any documentable experience to be President of the United States”
Right above Obama!
Both are above Lincoln.
Both Obama and Palin have remarkably thin resumes, BK, and, while I can’t figure out how one would rank hers above his, we can stipulate that they’re both at the low end of the spectrum for national office. The difference, of course, is not that her lack of experience is qualitatively superior to his lack of experience. The difference is that he’s running for President and she isn’t.
But it seems an objective truth that choosing an unknown like Palin does compromise the ferocity with which out guy can attack Obama’s dearth of testing. If McCain were 55 and in stellar health, the fact that he took a flyer on his VP choice wouldn’t be as significant.
The Lincoln example proves that credentials don’t necessarily define the universe of potentially strong Presidents. Lincoln’s election was a fairly flukey event,given a four-way race and the country flying apart. But keep in mind that when it came to the compelling national issue of the day, Lincoln was very much a known quantity and that someone like Douglas, who had been in the middle of the machinery of compromise, manipulation, and equivocation on slavery, had, by 1860, expended much of his capital with even those who had found him worthy of support in 1858. Palin may be a Lincoln waiting to emerge. But we know far less about her in relation to the compelling issues of the day than our forebears knew about Mr. Lincoln.
Another angle that this may reveal is that John McCain is such a superb judge of quality that he can see through the lack of experience and pick that latent Lincoln. One of the reasons I prefer candidates who have served in the military is that the military experience often (though not always) provides a talent for spotting character and mettle that civilians don’t develop. McCain may have seen an inner strength that the press, pundits and voters can’t yet see. If that is the case, it’s another reason to want him to be Commander in Chief. But we don’t know that yet. Time will tell.
Jeremy,
The thing about humor is there always an element of truth to it. Given that I find topics like censorship and government-run or even semi-government-run media really scary, you probably are right regarding my humor.
About Lincoln, why does everyone have to compare Obama to Lincoln? Is it because they are both from the same state or because both are tall and funny looking?
Is my humor back?
On a more somber note: I am worried about Obama. Does he have a death wish? If I were him, I would not associate myself so closely with FDR and Lincoln considering how they ended their presidential terms.
Duck, i expect we’d both subscribe to the (oft-mis attributed to Voltaire) quote “I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it.”
Regarding Lincoln and Obama, its numerous things, superficial and otherwise. Both from Illinois, similar build, rhetorical ability, personality, intellect, legislative only background (and slim at that), portrayal as bi- (or post-) partisan. Not to mention the background of Obama’s race and Lincoln’s role in emancipation.
Obama’s campaign i imagine only encourages the comparison.
The comparison is horrible. Would Obama have held firm during the Civil War to save the union?
There is nothing in Obama’s record to suggest he would of done anything of the sort.
Was there anything in Lincoln’s? He spoke out against the Mexican-American War, accusing President Polk of waging it for personal glorification.
I’m not saying Obama is Lincoln reincarnated by any means. And you can certainly choose to see similarities or dismiss them. I was merely answering Duck’s question, as one who sees them.
The parallels between the Mexican War and Iraq (and the Lincoln and Obama reactions to each) are interesting.
Looking at Obama’s record, I fail to see any bi-partisanship. But I guess if you say something long enough, some people will believe it.
McCain may have voted with Bush 90 percent of the time, but Obama has the most liberal voting record of any Senator. Then he picks another very liberal Senator as his running mate. Not how I would define bipartisanship, but what do I know? Heck, Obama would not even pick Hillary as a running mate, and she is a little bit to the right of him.
It is convenient that Obama forgets those times when McCain railed against W. The gang of 14 comes to mind. Weren’t there some Democrats in that group? And didn’t McCain at least consider selecting a Democrat as his running mate?
That said McCain equals Republican partisanship, and Obama equals bipartisanship. Makes perfect sense to me!!