How the Mainstream Press Bungled the Single Biggest Story of the 2012 Campaign

[emperus]

This is what I've been arguing for a while.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-froomkin/republican-lies-2012-election_b_2258586.html

But according to longtime political observers Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, campaign coverage in 2012 was a particularly calamitous failure, almost entirely missing the single biggest story of the race: Namely, the radical right-wing, off-the-rails lurch of the Republican Party, both in terms of its agenda and its relationship to the truth.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I thought that Benghazi was the biggest story of the race.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I thought that Benghazi was the biggest story of the race.

lmao!

Now, for your economic update, here is Olivia Munn:

 

[Bowfinger]

This is what I've been arguing for a while.

The MSM didn't cover it (much) because they're terrified. They're afraid of being called partisan, and they're afraid to call out the highly vocal religious right. They bend over backwards to appear "fair", even when it means presenting absurdly false equivalencies. Even most Republicans will acknowledge that the party has gone too far in indulging the whacky fringe, but would savage the MSM if they reported such an obvious truth.

 

[monovillage]

I thought that Benghazi was the biggest story of the race.

You'd be wrong, by focusing on a single instance of Obama and his administration's lies and stonewalling you reduce the impact of just how dishonest, opaque and unethical his entire administration has been.

 

[RabidMongoose]

You'd be wrong, by focusing on a single instance of Obama and his administration's lies and stonewalling you reduce the impact of just how dishonest, opaque and unethical his entire administration has been.

Please proceed, poster.

 

[Genx87]

The MSM didn't cover it (much) because they're terrified. They're afraid of being called partisan, and they're afraid to call out the highly vocal religious right. They bend over backwards to appear "fair", even when it means presenting absurdly false equivalencies. Even most Republicans will acknowledge that the party has gone too far in indulging the whacky fringe, but would savage the MSM if they reported such an obvious truth.

Right, our press worried about being called partisan?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

You'd be wrong, by focusing on a single instance of Obama and his administration's lies and stonewalling you reduce the impact of just how dishonest, opaque and unethical his entire administration has been.

Yeah, because the last 4 presidents before him were so honest and ethical we should hold him to a much higher standard!

 

[blankslate]

lmao! Now, for your economic update, here is Olivia Munn:

Too bad that the reporters who report serious news (not that there are really any left who have a national stage) aren't as attractive as her... then there would be some slim hope of a majority of people who actually pay attention to the news.

And no the bubble headed model-types on Fox or MSNBC (if they have any) don't count.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Given the source; it is easy to detect that there would be a partisan attack.

 

[Lemon law]

Yes monovillage, tell us all again again and again, how the GOP really won the elections of 11/ 2008 and and 11/2012. And now you can explain it to us all, that if the GOP stays its present course, the GOP is sure to win it all in 11/2016.

 

[Bowfinger]

Right, our press worried about being called partisan?

Yes, quite.

For example, from the article:

[ ... ]
Political journalists had no doubt heard similar arguments many times before, mostly from left wing bloggers. But this time the charge was coming from two of the most consistent purveyors of conventional wisdom in town, bipartisan to a fault.

And they were pretty harsh in their critique of the media. "Our advice to the press: Don't seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views," they wrote in the Post. "Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?"

Initially, at least, Mann and Ornstein weren't completely ignored. "We had really good reporters call us and say: 'You're absolutely right'," Mann said. "They told us they used this as the basis for conversations in the newsroom."

But those conversations went nowhere, Mann said.

"Their editors and producers, who felt they were looking out for the economic wellbeing of their news organizations, were also concerned about their professional standing and vulnerability to charges of partisan bias," Mann said.

So most reporters just kept on with business as usual.

"They're so timid," Mann said. ...

Also note this corroborates something I've pointed out before, to those who cry about the "liberal media" and "liberal reporters". Reporters are peons in the process of selecting content. It's the editors and publishers who decide what stories to cover and how to cover them. Their bias is financial, not political. Their "ideology" is make more money ... which is why they put out so much sensationalistic fluff instead of substantive news.

 

[Genx87]

Yes, quite.

We have entire networks dedicated to being mouth pieces to either party and you think the MSM care about looking partisan? Open up your eyes. I'd say this idea the MSM didnt cover topics deemed crazyby the left is because they were afraid of a backlash is rather silly. Perhaps, the guy running for president from the republican side wasnt as far right winged as far lefties want to think.

 

[nehalem256]

The MSM didn't cover it (much) because they're terrified. They're afraid of being called partisan, and they're afraid to call out the highly vocal religious right. They bend over backwards to appear "fair", even when it means presenting absurdly false equivalencies. Even most Republicans will acknowledge that the party has gone too far in indulging the whacky fringe, but would savage the MSM if they reported such an obvious truth.

So is this why the MSM media

(1) Fails to call out the Democratic Party on their conspiracy theory that corporations will pay men more than women for the same work

(2) Fails to call the Democratic Party on not being able to distinguish between abortions and women.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Too bad that the reporters who report serious news (not that there are really any left who have a national stage) aren't as attractive as her... then there would be some slim hope of a majority of people who actually pay attention to the news.

And no the bubble headed model-types on Fox or MSNBC (if they have any) don't count.

Ever heard of Robin Meade?

 

[thraashman]

So is this why the MSM media

(1) Fails to call out the Democratic Party on their conspiracy theory that corporations will pay men more than women for the same work

(2) Fails to call the Democratic Party on not being able to distinguish between abortions and women.

What is it with you and hating women so much? Were you molested by a woman, was your dad killed by a woman, were you born a woman and are ashamed of your false penis? Seriously, you and women hating is getting as old as Incorruptible and muslim hating.

 

[chucky2]

This sounds like asking a question no one cares to ask simply to draw attention to a topic they want out there. Kudos HP, kudos...

 

[Bowfinger]

Given the source; it is easy to detect that there would be a partisan attack.

Is it wrong? What is your FACTUAL basis for believing so, rather than your emotional bias?

 

[Bowfinger]

We have entire networks dedicated to being mouth pieces to either party and you think the MSM care about looking partisan? Open up your eyes. I'd say this idea the MSM didnt cover topics deemed crazyby the left is because they were afraid of a backlash is rather silly. Perhaps, the guy running for president from the republican side wasnt as far right winged as far lefties want to think.

See my edits.

I'm not talking about Fox and MSNBC. Yes, their business model is to provide slanted coverage, and they're proud of it. They are minor outliers. I'm talking about the legitimate MSM, those who still present themselves as serious journalistic organizations.

 

[nehalem256]

What is it with you and hating women so much? Were you molested by a woman, was your dad killed by a woman, were you born a woman and are ashamed of your false penis? Seriously, you and women hating is getting as old as Incorruptible and muslim hating.

Oh, did I strike a nerve?

Do you not like being called on the "radical left-wing, off-the-rails lurch of the Democratic Party, both in terms of its agenda and its relationship to the truth"?

 

[Bowfinger]

So is this why the MSM media

(1) Fails to call out the Democratic Party on their conspiracy theory that corporations will pay men more than women for the same work

(2) Fails to call the Democratic Party on not being able to distinguish between abortions and women.

Go away child. Find an OT thread to taint with your mindless drivel. Grown-ups are trying to talk.

 

[nehalem256]

Go away child. Find an OT thread to taint with your mindless drivel. Grown-ups are trying to talk.

I am not the one engaging in personal attacks because they get upset when their party is exposed for their radical off-the-rails lurch both in terms of its agenda and its relationship to the truth.

 

[Genx87]

See my edits.

I'm not talking about Fox and MSNBC. Yes, their business model is to provide slanted coverage, and they're proud of it. They are minor outliers. I'm talking about the legitimate MSM, those who still present themselves as serious journalistic organizations.

That is their opinion. I saw plenty of coverage of republicans during the campaign cycle. I saw plenty of fact checking by the MSM. What exactly didnt get coverage? I dont believe for a second any of what wasnt supposedly covered was due to worries about being called partisan. These guys seem to believe the extremism of the republican party was not covered. I question if they understand what extremism is within our political system. But also I think they have a book to sell. One that appears to lay the blame of govt woes on republicans "extremism" and blames the media for not covering it.

 

[Jaskalas]

This is what I've been arguing for a while.

Lies from Republicans generally and standardbearer Mitt Romney in particular weren't limited to the occasional TV ads, either; the party's most central campaign principles -- that federal spending doesn't create jobs, that reducing taxes on the rich could create jobs and lower the deficit -- willfully disregarded the truth.

So... Democrat group-think believes that Republican group-think is a lie...

News at 11!

 

[Atreus21]

Democrats take a hard left turn and then accuse the republicans of taking a hard right turn.

Man, that's so clever.