That was hilarious!

I don't mind the media admitting their bias, we all know they are bias in some way - having it be obvious makes it easier for us.

...but I don't think the media is as bias towards Obama as many think they are - mostly b/c the media has no loyalty to anyone or anything!

The reasons they obsess (noticed I don't say favor) Obama is b/c he is ratings gold right now - fresh, different, entertaining, young, hip...etc...if the people lose interest and 70 year old vets become the rage you can be the media will obsess with the other side.

The reason it is so extreme in this election is b/c the public interest in Obama is above normal, so the media obsession is above normal too.

Exactly, zeze.

If the media was monolithically infatuated with Obama, we certainly wouldn't have had to hear the words of his surrogates picked apart at every turn and splashed all over the news like huge scandals 24/7 the way they often seemed to be. The media is infatuated with ratings above all else.

*excuse me, I misspoke when I said "surrogates"--I meant "people associated with him who weren't authorized to speak for him anyway but were made out to represent him 100% because they said scandalous things that would be ratings gold if they were associated with him."

If that makes any sense. It's time for my caffeine fix.

That blind salamander article is cool, by the way.

The Wonkette article isn't about Sheehan, it's about Pelosi's republican challenger:

"Dana Walsh, an interior designer and member of the San Francisco GOP central committee, has raised about $360,000 so far — just $2 million less than Pelosi. That might sound like a big gap but it’s a lot more than previous Pelosi opponents have raised."

Good catch, Steph. I wonder if Sheehan has siphoned off some of the money that would have gone to Pelosi.

I'm sure Pelosi's fundraising is just fine. It might be kind of fun to run, knowing it's just an exercise. You can just say what you want without worrying about actually getting elected.

Ah thank you stephley! I had just read something about Sheehan and got the articles mixed up. Oops! The Wonkette link is still good.

Thanks Liberty - that the Republican is doing better than usual is interesting news as well. In response to Lilkimbo, I just checked Google and couldn't find much actual news about Sheehan - looks like she's not making a dent in attention or money.

In case you're interested: Cindy Sheehan needs 10,000 signatures by Aug 8 to make the ballot as an independent, so far she has 8,000. And according to an email Sheehan sent supporters, she's raised $250,000.

I didn't even know Sheehan was running.

Hmm...according to the FEC, she's raised just over $125,000. Interesting.

Boy, how incredibly amateurish her campaign must be to not even be able to get the signatures by now.

Isn't McCain's alleged lack of coverage just the free market in motion and the media covering the candidate they think will draw the most attention/profits?

If McCain received more coverage his so called maverick image would be destroyed.

It's not just coverage when you have reporters saying some of the things they said. How it made them feel, etc. That is personal.

GS, would you dictate content? First person journalism has been around a long time and is widely practiced these days on all networks.

I wish McCain would get more coverage. However, Obama is still a novelty act.

Besides, McCain doesn't bribe the press with global junkets on private planes.

I guess he needed them there to give him credibility, though.
The story breaking today is that the interviews being broadcast are suspect--they appear to have been staged and may be completely fake.

From Newsbusters:
"Andrea Mitchell might be a doyenne of the liberal media, but she has her reporter's pride and principles, which have been trampled by the way the Obama campaign has managed the media during the candidate's current trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Mitchell let loose on this evening's Hardball, speaking of "fake interviews," and decrying that she was unable to report on pertinent aspects of the trip because the media has been excluded and that the video released is unreliable because it's impossible to know what has been edited out."

Add http:// to the front:

newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/07/21/andrea-obama-trip-what-some-would-call-fake-interviews

Yes Steph, I want to dictate content. That goes along with everything else I have ever posted on here. So, I expect them to email me with proofs before they go on the air. Sheesh. You are digging, again, and didn't respond to the meat of the matter, but on a supposed technicality. That seems to be a trend.

I've been reading liberal media for two decades - never have I seen any indication that anyone ever considered Andrea Mitchell anything but a reigning queen of Mainstream Media. She definitely is not a celebrated liberal journalist.
And if Obama is bribing the media, why is Mitchell complaining that 'the media has been excluded?'

"It's not just coverage when you have reporters saying some of the things they said. How it made them feel, etc"

What am I missing? If you would have them leave out reactions, etc., would that not be dictating what should and should not be in story? I'm not sure who offended you by saying something about a personal reaction so I can't respond to anything more detailed.

Tell where I said they shouldn't be allowed to do that? Sheesh.

stephley, I'm not making accusations (yet), just expressing suspicions. That paragraph was a direct quote from Newsbusters, so it's their characterization.

One might think that the huge entourage was "bribed" by being brought along on the junket, but only minimally involved in any actual reporting. Their presence lends credibility to any stories that his "people" choose to release.

Great Sommelier, it sounds like you're distinguishing between "hard" news and human interest reporting. Is that accurate?

It looks like that web address (which I tried to cleverly convert to text so that it would post) was cut off. Let's try this:
http://tinyurl.com/56g429

I thought the "bribe" was time with Obama?

Please. Sorry, but as a reporter, you aren't allowed access to somethings. No, you can't ride in the Mercedes with the President of Jordan, get over it. No, you won't be allowed in the room when he discusses international security with heads of other countries. I think some reporters have gotten confused that THEY are the news. In areas of high security, they won't be allowed to go everywhere. It is silly to me that she would even bring that up.

Both candidates take a plane full of reporters with them as they are campaigning. I don't really see how this is different from McCain taking reporters with him on the Straight Talk Express.

If that's the case Torg, any reporter who goes on an fact-finding trip with a politician and thinks they're going to get significant alone time isn't terribly bright. For the candidate, the whole point of the trip is to be seen and meet with people they don't usually meet - not reporters who are around all the time.

I thought I heard the anchors were promised interviews with him...

The 3 anchors will get their interviews with him. Andrea Mitchell wasn't one of them.

Andrea Mitchell's not an anchor. ABC is airing an interview with Charlie Gibson today - being seen with the anchors makes sense, spending too much time with reporters dilutes the effort. And giving reporters too much access to any kind of meeting opens the candidate up to claims it's all about the publicity.

I gotta go, but for your enjoyment, please discuss if you feel like it:

1.) Latest John McCain ad that says Obama is the one to blame for rising oil prices (as his fellow Republican Senators drag their feet on the new "End Oil Speculators" bill). This ad is so illogical it blows my mind. Do you think it will work, or did it over reach?

2.) What is up with the conservative media and McCain surrogates saying that Obama will with draw "unconditionally". He has never said that. He continues to say repeatedly that to protect US interests and to prevent genocide he would reserve the right to deviate from the 16 month timeline. How can so many people LIE about where Obama stands?

I wonder the same thing with people LYING about where McCain stands, like when Obama constantly oversimplifies his energy plan, or when his surrogates say that drilling is his entire plan.

And, just to clarify, there have been times when Obama has stated his withdrawl plan without speaking about his willingness to change it. He does talk about his willingness to change it, but not every time he talks about it.

And, what is up with the liberal media constantly implying that everyone who isn't planning on voting for Obama is racist, like Chris Matthews did on the Tonight Show Monday night?

"Both candidates take a plane full of reporters with them as they are campaigning. I don't really see how this is different from McCain taking reporters with him on the Straight Talk Express"

Going overseas wasn't supposed to be a campaign stop for Obama. I thought this was supposed to be a fact finding mission. If he's going over there to campaign, then I hope that my taxdollars aren't paying for it. This should come out of his campaign budget.
I'm off to do business.

I also wonder what is up with people LYING about McCain's plans in Iraq, seeing as he has always said he will withdraw with the Iraqi people are ready.

There isn't just "LYING" about one candidate. There are always, always over simplifications on both sides of the other person.

I agree, torg, which is why I wanted to point out some of the oversimplifications Obama's campaign has made when it comes to McCain. I just wanted to make sure everyone recognizes that it's not one-sided.

I capitalized lying to give it the same emphasis Jill did.

I'm not seeing the connection to the conversation, but I meandered away for a while so maybe I just lost the train of thought.

And I dont generally use caps but I was typing on my phone, where html is too tricky.

Oh, shoot! Left out my apostrophe. I wish we could edit! (Though that would, of course, cause chaos.

Bah! Parenthesis! I give up.

It seems like you are defending the "whose to blame for high gas prices...Obama, obama, obama" ad. I thought we would all agree that was out of line. It seemed obviously subpar.

Flat out, do you think it is respectable for McCain an his surrogates to misrepresent Obama's plans for Iraq?

I know you see not explaining every detail of McCain's energy plan as a "lie"...but I don't. Disagreeing with one point of a plan (offshore drilling) doesn't require someone to fully explain every nuance of the opponent's plan, IMO. On the other hand, saying something is "unconditional", when it is not, is a lie.

Oh, and if you get poster of the month, Lilkimbo, you need to share the prize. I just helped you big time by inspiring that many repeated posts.

Actually, I am not defending the ad, seeing as I didn't say anything about it at all. I have not seen it yet and don't have sound on my work computer, so I can't judge it until I can see it with sound.

And I'm not talking about not explaining every little detail. I'm talking about when people say his only plan is to start drilling. I'm not sure Obama himself has directly said that, but I know his surrogates have. I have also heard his surrogates say multiple times that McCain will stay in Iraq regardless of what Iraqis want, which is another lie.

And I will be poster of the month! If I am not at least in the top five, I will be sad.

I get annoyed, because even though there's a slight difference between exaggerating and just picking and choosing what parts of your opponents plan to talk about, it's an important difference! I think it's okay to say, "He wants to drill!" but not okay to say, "His whole plan is to drill!"