An Heretical Thought

[Skeptic]

The Right is complaining that (a) the media is left-wing, and (b) that Obama is "getting away with murder" -- that is, the media isn't "going after" his association with Bill Ayers and similar unsavory characters, which would have buried any Republican. Presuming -- for the sake of the argument -- that both (a) and (b) are true, isn't this a *good* thing for Republicans, even if unintentionally?

The reasons:

(a) Forces them to present strong candidates that can deal with an unfair world. If you cannot handle Katie Couric, how could you handle, say, Ahmadenijad? Gee, so Palin needs to make a good impression with a reporter who hates her. Unfair. Well, it is. So? Welcome to reality. That's NOTHING compared to getting concessions on policy from some dictator who hates you even more. If you can't do one, how could you do the other?

(b) If the media was *hiding* and *refusing to report* Obama's association with Ayers, that would have been one thing. But it didn't. It just didn't get outraged over it. That's a good thing (even if there's no doubt that if McCain had done something similar the media *would* have been outraged). It is NOT THE MEDIA'S JOB TO BE OUTRAGED! It's job is to report the facts. It did. Let the reader (or viewer) then decide if to be "outraged" or not. Who the ◊◊◊◊ nominated some AP or New York Times or National Review reporter the gatekeeper of what should, or should not, outrage the public? What are they, the outrage police? Who asks them?

So, call me crazy, but...

 

[Puppycow]

These strike me as eminantly reasonable arguments.

Also, the NY Times does go after Obama. We know this because Sarah Palin pointed it out. "According to the NY Times [shrug] Obama was palling around with terrorists." (Gosh darn it, Sarah. There you go again, looking backwards. Let's talk about the future! )

They also run stories like this one.

I think it works for both parties, actually. It's vetting. Ultimately it's good for the country if all the candidates are examined pretty closely.

 

[Skeptic]

These strike me as eminantly reasonable arguments.

I find out that my views about the election seems to be, strangely, more or less the exact opposite of what the media (both left and right) and "common sense" seems to be saying. Am I crazy, or is the world crazy?

(Yes, normally we all know the answer to that one, but I think that in this specific case, an exception can be made. I am at least trying to think objectively about it, while partisanship does seem to make most of those who comment on the elections a little bit crazy.)

So I am praising myself for being more objective than the media ... but that's a bit like praising myself as being in better shape than the fat lady in the circus.

 

[Snide]

The Right is complaining that (a) the media is left-wing, and (b) that Obama is "getting away with murder" -- that is, the media isn't "going after" his association with Bill Ayers and similar unsavory characters, which would have buried any Republican. Presuming -- for the sake of the argument -- that both (a) and (b) are true, isn't this a *good* thing for Republicans, even if unintentionally?

The reasons:

(a) Forces them to present strong candidates that can deal with an unfair world. If you cannot handle Katie Couric, how could you handle, say, Ahmadenijad? Gee, so Palin needs to make a good impression with a reporter who hates her. Unfair. Well, it is. So? Welcome to reality. That's NOTHING compared to getting concessions on policy from some dictator who hates you even more. If you can't do one, how could you do the other?

(b) If the media was *hiding* and *refusing to report* Obama's association with Ayers, that would have been one thing. But it didn't. It just didn't get outraged over it. That's a good thing (even if there's no doubt that if McCain had done something similar the media *would* have been outraged). It is NOT THE MEDIA'S JOB TO BE OUTRAGED! It's job is to report the facts. It did. Let the reader (or viewer) then decide if to be "outraged" or not. Who the ◊◊◊◊ nominated some AP or New York Times or National Review reporter the gatekeeper of what should, or should not, outrage the public? What are they, the outrage police? Who asks them?

So, call me crazy, but...

Nope, it all seems reasonable to me. Although I'm not sure points (a) & (b) are a (net) good thing for the Republicans, if they want victory to be more easily attainable.

To point (b), I would add that it may not entirely be the lack of outrage that upsets the right, it might be the lack of coverage in general. But the economics of it seem to suggest that the coverage is about right. That is, the mainstream press is covering it about as much as mainstream America wants it to. Supply is meeting demand.

 

[Ziggurat]

(b) If the media was *hiding* and *refusing to report* Obama's association with Ayers, that would have been one thing. But it didn't. It just didn't get outraged over it. That's a good thing (even if there's no doubt that if McCain had done something similar the media *would* have been outraged). It is NOT THE MEDIA'S JOB TO BE OUTRAGED! It's job is to report the facts. It did.

The problem is not a lack of outrage, it's a lack of curiosity. The press has seemed remarkably uninterested in examining the past of the man who might become the next president. His connection to Ayers should have been looked into during the primaries, but it wasn't. Obama's role in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge should have been investigated too, because it could shed light on the extent of contacts between Obama and Ayers and because it was an important part of Obama's record (if he did a good job, it might benefit him), but it wasn't until very recently. So I don't care if the press doesn't get outraged. But they're not even doing their job of reporting the facts very well.

 

[noch1Narr]

Ziggurat- you chastise the press for being remarkably uninterested in the past of a man who might be the next US president. Could it be that there really is not much dirt? Could it be that they did in fact try to examine his past and found nothing worth trumpeting to the world? Could it be that you are fixated on finding dirt on Obama, but brush aside proven dirt on, & stupid remarks by, McCain & Palin as being not noteworthy? Could it be that you are pretending to be "objective" when in fact your political leaning is quite obvious?
I know mine is, although I will join you and anyone else in loudly condemning any proven (not merely indicated or implicated!) dirt on anyone, Democrat or Republican, anytime!
I find it peculiar that you and others like you (mhaze,be a chooser, whiplash, liverleef, et ali) NEVER loudly & unequivocally condemn proven rottenness of character when it comes to the McCain/Palin ticket, y'all just skip over such deficiencies and concentrate on anything, any ever-so-faint connection you can pin 'that one' , as McCain referred to Obama in the last "debate"...In view of such one-sidedness by you and similar ones by the above-named I consider your 'points' raised hopelessly biased.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat- you chastise the press for being remarkably uninterested in the past of a man who might be the next US president. Could it be that there really is not much dirt?

Maybe there isn't. But dirt or not, the public should still know more about him than it does. If he's got a good record worthy of note, then they should hear about it. If he's got an unremarkable record with no skeletons but no accomplishments, they should hear about it. The details are worth reporting whether or not there's scandal, but there has been little examination (positive or negative) or his record. This may be hard for you to accept, but what I'm talking about in this thread isn't actually an attack on Obama at all: it's a criticism of the press for doing a terrible job. And one can think Obama is the best thing since sliced bread and still be able to recognize how poorly the press has performed.

 

[Tricky]

The problem is not a lack of outrage, it's a lack of curiosity. The press has seemed remarkably uninterested in examining the past of the man who might become the next president. His connection to Ayers should have been looked into during the primaries, but it wasn't. Obama's role in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge should have been investigated too, because it could shed light on the extent of contacts between Obama and Ayers and because it was an important part of Obama's record (if he did a good job, it might benefit him), but it wasn't until very recently. So I don't care if the press doesn't get outraged. But they're not even doing their job of reporting the facts very well.

What we call "the media" is a very different animal today than it was as little as ten years ago. A great deal of the media is highly partisan bloggers with no compunctions at all about posting outright lies. We've seen them on all sides of the issues. If there was serious dirt on Obama or McCain, you can be fairly certain that it would have been uncovered, seeing as how they've uncovered so many other "facts", like Obama being Muslim and McCain collaborating with the Viet Cong. Not only that, the candidates themselves have their investigators out there scraping the gutters to see if they can find a matching footprint. One thing you really don't have to worry about too much these days is that the candidates are not being scrutinized enough. We know more about these candidates than possibly in any election in history.

There has been some truly outrageous stuff reported about the candidates. In most cases, the mainstream press has taken a look at it and found it was bollocks. In a few cases, it has turned out to be right, or had some basis in fact. But not many. If, after twenty months of campaigning under the microscope, you still feel like you still don't know enough about the candidates, then I don't really feel you can blame the media.

 

[Skeptic]

Ziggurat --

Sometimes two wrongs *do* make a right. I tend to agree that the press would have been outraged if Obama were a Republican, but decided to just report the facts in order to help Obama. But what is the end result? We get more-or-less objective reports of the facts about Obama's relation with Wright and Ayers. The press didn't abdicate it's responsiblity for "hard hitting reporting" that will "outrage" us about Obama's "shocking past". It showed that it never really had such a responsibility in the first place -- just report the facts, please.

And a good thing, too, I say.

I mean, if you think Obama's association with Wright and Ayers is shocking, you have every right to think so. But you have the facts to decide for yourself. Why bother waiting for permission from some idiot reporter before you know if it's "allowed" to be outraged or not? Sure, if the press were outraged, then probably it would have helped McCain at the polls. Good news in the short term for Republicans. But, in the long run, it would be bad news for everyone: you have a Republic where the press, not the people, are the kingmakers.

Also, as Tricky said, there's the problem of "crying wolf". With all the numerous rumors and stories on all four main candidates, even if a reporter had absolute proof of Obama molesting children, and set himself on fire on live TV in protest as he was showing the Obama sex video in the background, I doubt people would care much. (Speaking of which, there even *was* an "Obama" sex tape posted on a few right-wing blogs. So what?)

 

[noch1Narr]

Skeptic- thank you for that last post. Foolishly & prematurely I had 'pegged' you as a blind apologist. My bad!

 

[Ziggurat]

I mean, if you think Obama's association with Wright and Ayers is shocking, you have every right to think so. But you have the facts to decide for yourself. Why bother waiting for permission from some idiot reporter before you know if it's "allowed" to be outraged or not?

I think you're missing the heart of my argument, which has nothing to do with being outraged. And it isn't simply Ayers I'm talking about either: I mean Obama's entire record prior to the senate has been under-reported. Again, that's got nothing to do with whether it's a good record or a bad one. There's simply been little significant evaluation of it at all. What, for example, did Obama accomplish when he was with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge? There's been some attention there because of the Ayers connection, but what did he do? Did his efforts at educational reform work? Did they help? The press is utterly uninterested. But they should be, because it's relevant. It's relevant if he failed, and it's relevant if he succeeded.

 

[Ziggurat]

If there was serious dirt on Obama or McCain, you can be fairly certain that it would have been uncovered,

But it isn't just about dirt. If the CAC didn't succeed in it's mission of improving schools, for example, that's not dirt. It's not a scandal. But it is relevant, and it's worth reporting on. Same is true if it did succeed. Small-time bloggers are not well equipped to answer that sort of question, and certainly not on a level that's going to get much attention. Where do I go to if I want to find out how successful Obama's educational reform work was? It's exactly the sort of thing the press should be doing: digging up relevant facts. But they aren't. They're failing to do their job. It's true that this problem is mitigated by other information avenues, but it's still a problem. And it's not a pro- or anti-Obama problem either.

 

[BenBurch]

OP is pretty much right on the money.

 

[gdnp]

Well, I don't think the press being biased against you is an advantage. The theory is "that which does not kill me makes me stronger", but sometimes "that which does not kill me leaves me bleeding, crippled, and in pain".

I think the Republicans are just disappointed that their attempted swiftboating of Obama is failing. It is doing so because it is guilt by association.

Ayers: Obama served on non-profit boards with him, and he sponsored a cocktail party for Obama when he was starting out. There is no evidence they ever discussed any radical agenda, and no evidence that Obama shares the terrorist views that Ayers followed: in fact, he has denounced them. Significance of the connection: 1 of 10.

Wright: clearly holds some radical views about race, and Obama's connection to him is much stronger. But once again, there is no evidence that Obama shares Wright's most radical opinions, and once again, he has denounced them. Significance: 3 of 10.

So we don't know so much about Obama's history? He's written two books. To tell you the truth, I know more about him than about Joe Biden or John McCain. I don't see the press spending much time talking about McCain's special treatment in the navy, his adultery and divorce, or the Keating 5 scandal. I guess they figure these were vetted in 2000. Name a piece of legislation that has passed that he authored other than McCain-Feingold.

Do you really want more coverage of these things and less of the issues?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The problem is not a lack of outrage, it's a lack of curiosity. The press has seemed remarkably uninterested in examining the past of the man who might become the next president. His connection to Ayers should have been looked into during the primaries, but it wasn't.

But it was.

From Feb. 16: http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-bill-ayers-problem.html

Feb 19: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

April 17: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/17/fact-check-obamas-relationship-with-william-ayers/

April 18: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/902213,CST-NWS-ayers18.article

And that's just what comes up on the first page of google results for "Hillary Obama Ayers".

ETA: I think the problem is neither lack of outrage or lack of curiosity, but lack of substance to the story.

 

[Skeptic]

I mean Obama's entire record prior to the senate has been under-reported.

Is there a need for a conspiracy to explain that? It is human nature to concentrate on more recent significant events. Most biographies, for instance, devote far more time to what the subject did after he became famous than to their "early years".

How much about McCain's past record is made an issue? Did he never associate with anyone with doubtful reputation? Perhaps he did, for all I know. So what? It seems to me that what people care about, probably correctly, is his record since he became an important Republican Party personality.

The whole thing seems to suffer from the conspiracy theory mindset -- the belief that if only people knew THIS SHOCKING FACT that PROVES Obama is a radical / Bush is a murderer / 9-11 was planned by the Jews / Jesus is Lord / Islam is the Truth / whatever, they would abandon their false, stupid, propaganda-based beliefs, and the evil, evil Obama / Bush / Jews / evolutionists will get their just punishment.

This is wrong not so much because the shocking fact is necessarily false (though it usually) is. It is wrong because (a) the logical connection between the "shocking fact" and the conclusion drawn from it is usually tenuous, and (b) more importantly, in practice, people simply don't change their beliefs his way. Even when -- indeed, particularly when -- there is undeniable truth that something they believe is false, they tend to cling to it ever more strongly.

If tomorrow the lead story in all newspapers and networks is "Obama is a dangerous radical--here's why!", it would hurt Obama, sure... but not nearly as much as one would naively think.

 

[Skeptic]

An addition -- as a general rule, such "shocking discoveries" about how evil, EVIL a candidate is tended to be the province of the left "activists". Why is the right copying them, is beyond me.

It is, of course, possible for all I know that Obama is as bad as all that, and the right is just reacting perfectly objectively to the incomprehensible choice by the Democrats of a criminal radical as a candidate for the presidency.

But we have heard that same song from the left-wing activists -- it isn't that they are loony, but that the Republicans really did choose a retarded murderer for the presidency.

Let's just say I doubt it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is there a need for a conspiracy to explain that?

No there isn't. Nor did I ever suggest that it was a conspiracy. It may be nothing more than laziness. But it still is a failure on their part.

 

[Tricky]

No there isn't. Nor did I ever suggest that it was a conspiracy. It may be nothing more than laziness. But it still is a failure on their part.

There is as much info, both truthful and fictional, about Obama as you could ever possibly assimilate if you cared to take the time to investigate it. Sure, not all of it is on the front page of your newspaper, but if laziness is a cause for you not being spoonfed the info you crave, it is not laziness on the part of the press.

 

[gdnp]

To echo Tricky, there has to be 10 times more information out this year about the candidates than any presidential election in history. The candidates have web sites, news organizations have links to the candidate's positions, at least half a dozen "fact check" sites are analyzing every claim, there are bloggers of every color and flavor. You can Google "Obama" and "Rezko" and get over a million hits, or "Obama" and "Ayers" and get over 2 million. What do you expect? That CNN will lead off its political news each day with a report "this just in: Obama's still not palling around with former terrorist Ayers"?