Rex Murphy offers a summary of the ways in which the traditional media supported Obama’s candidacy:
Much of the Obama coverage was orchestrated sycophancy. They glided past his pretensions — when did a presidential candidate before “address the world” from the Brandenberg Gate in Berlin? They ignored his arrogance — “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” And they averted their eyes from his every gaffe — such as the admission that he didn’t speak “Austrian.”
The media walked right past the decades-long association of Obama with the weird and racist pastor Jeremiah Wright. In the midst of the brief stormlet over the issue, one CNN host — inexplicably — decided that CNN was going to be a “Wright-free zone.” He could have hung out a sign: “No bad news about Obama here.”
If a company filing an Initial Public Offering were to conduct a campaign of misinformation, disinformation, and lying by omission on the level of what the dinosaur media did for Obama, that company and its officers would certainly face legal action, quite probably involving criminal as well as civil charges.
Will the traditional media be taken seriously as a source of information in the upcoming election season? Elizabeth Scalia thinks maybe not:
A while back, I asked my very frustrated mother-in-law why she voted for Barack Obama, and she shrugged, “I could only go by what I heard.”
She meant the nightly network news shows, which she and Pop watch or listen to while they bustle around the kitchen…Information worth listening to was the provenance of the press. For her generation, the press was meant to be listened to and trusted.
and
At a large, multi-generational family gathering this past weekend, inevitable discussions arose about the economy, jobs, and the bleak outlook for the immediate future. The general consensus was that our president is a failure, the congress is a wreck, and there is no authenticity or originality in our leadership, nor in our press. A majority in attendance—both Democrats and Republicans—had voted for Barack Obama (a few grudgingly, as they had supported Clinton) but while everyone expressed disappointment (there was not a single voice raised in support of the president) the senior citizens confided a deep sense of betrayal—of their trust being shattered.
Both links are worth reading in full.
I think the MSM’s main sin with Obama was the sin of omission. Turn any situation around with him and if it were a Republican – would they have acted the same?
Obama got treated like a precious, lusterous pearl – and anything that threatened to dimm it was ignored. At a cost to the media’s credibility that they are just now realizing. Some of them who went all out for Obama are trying, belatedly, to walk it back and excuse themselves, but I believe many of the others will go down with the ship.
I hope that is true Sgt – couldn’t happen to nicer people! You know, if it weren’t for the “New Media” (A blog broke the story of Dan Rather’s fake document in re: Bush’s national Guard Service) – if it weren’t for them news reporting life would have gone blissfully on.
And in writing this the thought occurred to me that if the MSM knows people are watching them – people with the ability to get their own views out to the world – wouldn’t you think they would report more objectively?
Only one of two possible reasons why they don’t:
1. Arrogance
2. true Belief in what they are reporting
(might be a combination of both)
Bill: Omission? Well, yes there many things they omitted. But it was deliberate and with malice aforethought. It is just as much fraud as is lying straight out. But, then again, I told you so.
Related–Sgt Mom: the juggernaut
Robert – I agree with you on one level but I have also come to believe liberalism is a religion – a world view – from which everything not acceptable to it is “filtered out”.
This these reporters (and more importantly news editors) may see opposing sides but they are true believers – the 60s radical generation coming to fruition.
I was just thinking of that Washington Post reporter who felt the need to expose some of the secrets of the special ops operators.
MSM, in an age where knowledge is more accessible than it has ever been, cannot be trusted to print the truth. This has been apparent for a long time. There is no excuse for not knowing this and for considering the the reasons behind anti-Obama sentiments before the election. A large portion of the electorate are apparently not qualified, intellectually and morally, to be voters in an ongoing, successful republic. The people that didn’t know the truth about Obama’s character were people who were too lazy, or too stupid, or too Democratic to dig just a little bit to find out about him, his record, and his associates.
They are philistines; people who, because they are “all right”, believe that the world is “all right”.
My mom, bless her heart, is 78 years old. She is a low end consumer of news. (MSM) Yet Mom managed to see right through the empty suit that is President Obama.
Plenty of different people pointed out that President Obama had zero executive experience. Even MSM couldn’t hide Obama’s lack of experience. Those people who voted for Obama and are feeling betrayed best look in the mirror, because, in the end, it’s their responsibility.
What was the choice? Hellary’s only substantial experience was as bagman for her corrupt husband; McCain was past it.
Quite right, dearieme! The Empty Suit has a genius for self presentation and mimicry (allowing him to appear to be what his audience wants him to be) and was also lucky. But appearances wear thin, and luck runs out.
Why would they report more objectively? The only reason is to maintain market share, be it print or broadcast media.
Arrogance and True Belief are two good reasons, but the more likely is the inability to think beyond what they are told to report. They are the product of a significantly biases educational system that has not allowed them the opportunity, in journalism schools at least, to think on their own and arrive at resonable conclusions.
They have never been taught that skill.
They don’t now how.
They don’t know what really drives market share, either, or they would be paying attention to the other 50% of their possible audience, which they don’t.
tom
I wish the disillusionment would spread. My 86 y/o uncle, who I am named for and have been arguing with online for 15 years, still believes the NYT and the Sunday morning shows are the height of credibility because they are “real” journalists, while all this new media is “just bloggers.”
Television, truth, and reality
“The only reason is to maintain market share…”
Tomw, if you really want to lose some IQ points quickly, try watch the morning shows. Insipid coverage of dancing with the stars or, if it’s not the network that broadcasts Dancing With the Stars, coverage of some other “reality”, fashion, or media awards event. I hope we don’t get the coverage of the world we deserve but I fear we do.
I get the feeling the media would title the presidential memoirs “Dizzy with Success”.