Huge cheers as Obama visits Washington Post

[Robor]

OP needs a wahmbulance.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
They are (and have been) a cheering section for Obama all along, just as most of the media outlets have been. Don't think there's going to be *any* real media scrutiny on the actions of this new administration.....

Exactly. That 3 weeks of Rev Wright videos aired on the news networks 24/7 and written up in every paper? That was done out of love. When they reported on Bittergate ad nauseum, they thought that was good for his image. When they basically ignored his nomination acceptance speech in favor of showing Palin's smiling face for a month, that was designed to help him. It all makes perfect sense...

Uh, the general media tried to BURY the whole Wright scandal, until it came to light thanks to the Hannity show, after which it became a story the media could not ignore. It was out there for a long time, but no media outlet would touch it until they were forced to. Even then, the media outlets gobbled up the BS speach where the Dear Leader tried to distance himself from it.

And oh yeah, they "ignored" his acceptance speech to report on Palin -- in a most wonderful positive way, right? They ignored his acceptance speech so they could dedicate more time to unleashing the hounds after someone who's views the liberal media did not like.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
They are (and have been) a cheering section for Obama all along, just as most of the media outlets have been. Don't think there's going to be *any* real media scrutiny on the actions of this new administration.....

Exactly. That 3 weeks of Rev Wright videos aired on the news networks 24/7 and written up in every paper? That was done out of love. When they reported on Bittergate ad nauseum, they thought that was good for his image. When they basically ignored his nomination acceptance speech in favor of showing Palin's smiling face for a month, that was designed to help him. It all makes perfect sense...

Uh, the general media tried to BURY the whole Wright scandal, until it came to light thanks to the Hannity show, after which it became a story the media could not ignore. It was out there for a long time, but no media outlet would touch it until they were forced to. Even then, the media outlets gobbled up the BS speach where the Dear Leader tried to distance himself from it.

And oh yeah, they "ignored" his acceptance speech to report on Palin -- in a most wonderful positive way, right? They ignored his acceptance speech so they could dedicate more time to unleashing the hounds after someone who's views the liberal media did not like.

The media, all of it except for Fox, got together and decided to help Obama by burying the Wright story...is this really what goes on in your mind? It must be really depressing to live in a world where you think everyone is out to get you.

 

[Fern]

Common jonks,

The Wright story had been out there for a year before, as PokerGuy said, they had to cover it. Hannity kept hiting it and the internet chatter got out of hand. BYW, when they did finally bring it up they weren't bashing him for it, more like explaining it away.

Look at the media attention Biden's kids got (fraud chrages etc) vs Palin's.

Very little critisism about his vetting process considering his choices: Richardson under investigation, Geitner's (sp?) tax and 'nanny-gate' problems, his AG choice approving of the Rich pardon, the 'Billary' in charge of State yet soliciting money from despots all over the world (and refusing to stop) etc. Obama is getting treated gently.

Obama is in a big 'Honeymoon" period with the MSM. To some extent this is normal, but I'm starting to wonder just how far they will go with it.

Fern

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Fern
Common jonks,

The Wright story had been out there for a year before, as PokerGuy said, they had to cover it. Hannity kept hiting it and the internet chatter got out of hand. BYW, when they did finally bring it up they weren't bashing him for it, more like explaining it away.

Look at the media attention Biden's kids got (fraud chrages etc) vs Palin's.

Very little critisism about his vetting process considering his choices: Richardson under investigation, Geitner's (sp?) tax and 'nanny-gate' problems, his AG choice approving of the Rich pardon, the 'Billary' in charge of State yet soliciting money from despots all over the world (and refusing to stop) etc. Obama is getting treated gently.

Obama is in a big 'Honeymoon" period with the MSM. To some extent this is normal, but I'm starting to wonder just how far they will go with it.

Fern

Um.. the MSM doesn't decide this. The issues you mentioned haven't made front page headlines because powerful opposition has not been hammering them. If Mitch McConnel were to start pounding away at the Rich pardon, for example, it would be an issue. That is why the coverage mainly focuses on 'Is this going to be an issue?'

I'm sick of hearing this MSM bias bullshit. If the MSM, whatever that is defined as, is biased, Palin would have never been allowed to get a whiff of legitimacy. She got a lot more coverage because nobody knew who the hell she was, because she couldn't answer basic questions and wouldn't until weeks into her nomination, and because she didn't have a 36 year career in the Senate which had already been public for... 36 years.

 

[nageov3t]

all I remember about the Wright coverage was everyone in the media outside of FN talking about how it shouldn't be a story and then orgasming over themselves after Obama's "race" speech.

wonder if the NYT would be in as much debt if they didn't have to spend so much on tissues.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Oh c'mon. I'd be cheering too if he walked into my office.

It's the president elect for heaven's sake.

Would you get a thrill running up your leg as well? This is a journalistic office, people should be more professional.

Let's get the term coined: ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
who considers MSM unbiased anyways......that went out the window years ago.

They're biased primarily for the corporate owners, and secondarily for the right-wing.

 

[Xellos2099]

I would shotgun in the face if eh dare appear before me.





You have a week off, possibly more. That is being discussed among the mods.


esquared
Anandtech Senior Moderator

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
I would shotgun in the face if eh dare appear before me.

quoted for secret service

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
I would shotgun in the face if eh dare appear before me.

This was BS when done about Bush & Co. and it's BS now. Ban + visit from secret service please.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Um.. the MSM doesn't decide this. The issues you mentioned haven't made front page headlines because powerful opposition has not been hammering them. If Mitch McConnel were to start pounding away at the Rich pardon, for example, it would be an issue. That is why the coverage mainly focuses on 'Is this going to be an issue?'

I'm sick of hearing this MSM bias bullshit. If the MSM, whatever that is defined as, is biased, Palin would have never been allowed to get a whiff of legitimacy. She got a lot more coverage because nobody knew who the hell she was, because she couldn't answer basic questions and wouldn't until weeks into her nomination, and because she didn't have a 36 year career in the Senate which had already been public for... 36 years.

So, the items I mentioned above aren't a topic for the MSM because the political opposition (i.e., Repubs) aren't hammering away on them? (BTW: how do we they are not? They could hammer away all day but if the MSM doesn't carry it we won't know unless we were there in person).

Now as far as Palin, going by your logic./excuse above must we assume Pelosi and/or Reid were hamering away about the Palin/Bristol baby, or Palin's being a member of the Alaska seperatists, or 'troopergate', or alleged book banning, or mother-inlaw's drug problems? Of course not, the MSM felt perfectly fine floating this stuff all by themselves. Likewise, they could focus on the things I mentioned without McConnel's help.

Fern

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Oh c'mon. I'd be cheering too if he walked into my office.

It's the president elect for heaven's sake.

You'd be cheering for President Bush as well then??

I would have been prior to his taking office and then subsequently taking a dump on the 4th Amendment.

Once his "leadership" style came to light, not a chance. This might be the same mindset employed by those at the Post.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Um.. the MSM doesn't decide this. The issues you mentioned haven't made front page headlines because powerful opposition has not been hammering them. If Mitch McConnel were to start pounding away at the Rich pardon, for example, it would be an issue. That is why the coverage mainly focuses on 'Is this going to be an issue?'

I'm sick of hearing this MSM bias bullshit. If the MSM, whatever that is defined as, is biased, Palin would have never been allowed to get a whiff of legitimacy. She got a lot more coverage because nobody knew who the hell she was, because she couldn't answer basic questions and wouldn't until weeks into her nomination, and because she didn't have a 36 year career in the Senate which had already been public for... 36 years.

So, the items I mentioned above aren't a topic for the MSM because the political opposition (i.e., Repubs) aren't hammering away on them? (BTW: how do we they are not? They could hammer away all day but if the MSM doesn't carry it we won't know unless we were there in person).

Now as far as Palin, going by your logic./excuse above must we assume Pelosi and/or Reid were hamering away about the Palin/Bristol baby, or Palin's being a member of the Alaska seperatists, or 'troopergate', or alleged book banning, or mother-inlaw's drug problems? Of course not, the MSM felt perfectly fine floating this stuff all by themselves. Likewise, they could focus on the things I mentioned without McConnel's help.

Fern

Are you suggesting Boehner has been holding press conferences but because of some sort of media blackout conspiracy we are not hearing them? Ok, I guess we won't be able to come to any sort of consensus then because you're fucking nuts.

Nobody hammered away at the Palin/Bristol baby. It was not the top story on NBC Nightly News. The most attention it got was when people analyzed how a woman candidate is treated differently. Troopergate was an instance where a bipartisan commission found she abused her power as governor, certainly relevant. I only heard about book banning on forums like this. Mother-in-law's drug problem I saw one AP story reporting it, it isn't making front page headlines.

None of the stories you mentioned were bigger than Wright, not even the one that was more relevant (troopergate)

 

[SagaLore]

Odd, nobody complains about Bush getting cheers when he visits the military.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
I would shotgun in the face if eh dare appear before me.

quoted for secret service

Apparently its OK when people like Harvey say Bush should be waterboarded.. but dare say anything against Obama and you get banned? Nice.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
I would shotgun in the face if eh dare appear before me.

quoted for secret service

Apparently its OK when people like Harvey say Bush should be waterboarded.. but dare say anything against Obama and you get banned? Nice.

Please tell me when I said that it is ok for Harvey to say Bush should be waterboarded. This is the first of many things wrong with your statement.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Odd, nobody complains about Bush getting cheers when he visits the military.

That's because he's their boss? They have to be partial.

 

[her209]

If it pisses off the right-wingers :thumbsup:

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Oh c'mon. I'd be cheering too if he walked into my office.

It's the president elect for heaven's sake.

You'd be cheering for President Bush as well then??

In January of 2001, YBYA. January 2005... probably not so much. I liked Bush before his response to 9/11.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well it looks like President Obama will be no Richard Nixon who put reporters he did not like on enemies lists.

It may not buy Obama a pass in terms of editorial policies, but if he signals administration access, it may allow some more fair minded but still hostile reporters to check out their theories, and reduce
some of the wild eyed conspiracy theories.

It still will not slow Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter types, but at least it is saying no one is excluded from the Obama table.

Barack Obama, didn't your mommy tell you you should be just like Richard Nixon?

Obama shuts out Journalists, he only allows pre-picked ones to ask him questions

The press corps, most of us, don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day.

This deserved a last time you linked to this. Sorry, I still owe you one.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Odd, nobody complains about Bush getting cheers when he visits the military.

That's because he's their boss? They have to be partial.

In a very loose way, sure... Bush is their commander in chief, but he doesn't sign their paychecks or anything. How many military decisions has Bush actually made beyond "Sure Cheney let's do that"

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Odd, nobody complains about Bush getting cheers when he visits the military.

That's because he's their boss? They have to be partial.

I'd say they respect the position, not necessarily the man in that position.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Fern
Common jonks,

The Wright story had been out there for a year before, as PokerGuy said, they had to cover it. Hannity kept hiting it and the internet chatter got out of hand. BYW, when they did finally bring it up they weren't bashing him for it, more like explaining it away.

Look at the media attention Biden's kids got (fraud chrages etc) vs Palin's.

Very little critisism about his vetting process considering his choices: Richardson under investigation, Geitner's (sp?) tax and 'nanny-gate' problems, his AG choice approving of the Rich pardon, the 'Billary' in charge of State yet soliciting money from despots all over the world (and refusing to stop) etc. Obama is getting treated gently.

Obama is in a big 'Honeymoon" period with the MSM. To some extent this is normal, but I'm starting to wonder just how far they will go with it.

Fern

The press was also calling Bush's cabinet the "dream team" around this time 8 years ago. I wouldn't get your panties in a wad if Obama's not getting ripped to shreds yet.

 

[JackRipper]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Odd, nobody complains about Bush getting cheers when he visits the military.

People don't look towards the military to provide fair & balanced daily news.....

Originally posted by: jonks
Bush has a 27% approval rating. I guess that makes 73% of the country biased.

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
?Mission Accomplished? is my title for that photograph. I think they?re just happy that they got the job done. The media was an instrument to drive public opinion, as it always is, this past election.

yet somehow the librul media couldn't get the last 2 dems elected president. its funny like that. Also funny how the media was calling hillary the annointed one for about a year before barack won the first primary. you have seriously selective reading/hearing/observing

1) Gore distanced himself from Clinton... left-wing media's all time favorite... would have destroyed the democratic party esp w/ Joe Lieberman running mate. (Lieberman goes on to support McCain)

2) Just be glad the moron Kerry did not get elected & the exposed scandals involved especially during this mortgage crisis... oh yeah John Edwards... lets not start.

3) Hillary would not have had the finances available to continue competing against Obama. Money talks... Obama could have had a bottomless supply of questionable campain contributions to back him up by all means necessary to make him the first black president. Besides, first black president would happen before first woman presidident considering how history opened up voting. White male first, then black male, then women, then children, then rest of minorities; like asians.... lol...


-JR