TIME's Mark Halperin: 'Extreme Pro-Obama Media Bias A Disgusting Failure'

Politico:

Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

Read the whole story: Politico

Comments

[Badger84]

What was he watching? Obama was constantly hammered with questions about his ties to Rev. Wright while McCain got a free pass on Rev. Hagee. The media tried to create a relationship to Bill Ayers where none existed. Obama was accused of being a Muslim, a socialist and a communist. McCain had ties to a number of unsavory characters but was not called upon to account for them. His military record, of course, was off limits.

[pocee]

I had an opportunity to speak directly with Mr. Halperin when he was on a panel last week at USC. When the panel was asked by a member of the audience what was the media's bet "get" story of the campaign I suggested that a better question was what story was missed. No one offered an answer and I was asked what I thought had been missed. I said the shadow diplomacy conducted by Sen McCain with the help of Randy Schuenerman (forgive if misspelled) with Georgia in its conflict with Russia that made matters worse and got people killed. I asked if the story was to complicated compared to the basic, simple, binary point of discussion in the campaign about McCain "experience" versus Obama "charisma" . Halperin's reply is that the media should cover international affairs more. But the point was that in the midst of the campaign McCain showed poor judgment in encouraging the Georgians to get in a shooting war with Russia. It shows that his experience in these matters is a media myth. It shows that the media did more favors for McCain then they ever did for Obama. The media supported the central pillar of McCain's appeal. A pillar with no foundation.

[december30]

I would really like to know what media he was watching. All I saw on MSM was ditching of Obama. This guy is delusional. I heard some of the awful thing he said about Obama. Give me a break. It is unbelievable. MSM is not use to seeing intelligent, brillant Black men, especially one with a vision as President-elect Obama. Mark Halpern, get a life, will you? Remember, January 20, 2009, Obama will be your President too.

[ImpalaSuperSport]

Sign of the times. The media is the new King Maker pure and simple.

[NYed]

Mark Halperin. Yet another reason not to read TIme. He's about as relevant and insightful as Joe the "Plumber".

[Ramirez]

From Rich Hailey:
***********

“I think the media performed flawlessly during the two year election cycle. They managed the story, shielded their candidate, attacked the opposition, sat on damaging stories, and in short did everything a good state run media should do during an election cycle.”

http://shotsacrossthebow.com/archives/003205.html

[hawaiirod]

There are many weak minds in here...The rationalizations for why it is OK for the press to have favored coverage for Obama is sad. Integrity matters. I voted for Obama, but I was discusted by the msm's pro Obama coverage. I'm old school. I want equel coverage of both canidates in the MSM. But I did not get it. I found the networks and CNN and MSNBC with held many pertainate facts about Obama that were fair to bring up. They certainly did not omit any of McCains dirty laundry. Obama won the election thank God, But the main stream media lost. In the words of Mark Twain "sometimes half the truth is twice the lie".

[Charmed]

Oh Please....the MSM went on for weeks about anything negative about Obama......they are even talking about what church the man and his family should go to now....have they ever done that for other Presidents?

[nanceee]

C'mon. The MSM covered so much of the Pastor Wright videos that I am surprised Obama won. Do we even know what church the McCains attend? Do they even attend church? The Obamas received a ton of negative coverage for months and months. All through the primaries and then through the general election up until the final days they were talking about Ayers ties. What negative press was there about McCain? He was old? Seniors watch MSM and they voted for McCain. Figure it out. In addition, the radio waves and half of cable are anti-Obama and spew lies every single day that are meant to mislead this country of ours into believing the absolute worst. That is not balanced reporting. If some of the Press eventually covered the truth about Obama its because its the truth. All the misleading fear tactics were old and tired and weren't working anymore. Then Palin came on the scene, and well, she dug hers and McCain's own grave there. Even some of the seniors couldn't get on board with that choice. But the negative Obama stories were still around and he won in spite of them. The republicans always blame the fake and made-up Liberal Media bias and people just assume its true but its not.

[ohioan73]

I'm sure Faux News was completely unbiased. *eyeroll*

I think Halperin is trying to invoke the Fairness Doctrine without outright saying so. The right wing media drummed up the Fairness Doctrine fears in the first place and now they are trying to utilize it for their own purposes. They are still using that dumb tactic of accusing their opponent of what they themselves are doing and pre-emptively striking. Sounds more like the Bush Doctrine.

[FR]

This makes no sense. During the campaign, Halperin repeatedly commented on how good O's campaign was; he criticized Palin, especially for refusing to talk to the press; when McCain tried to claim that "lipstick on a pig" was a sexist attack on Palin, Halperin was on CNN telling the press to cut it out and not cover this (he said the controversy was being fabricated by the McCain camp and that Obama never in fact attacked Palin ...).

So Halperin, Republican or not, was clearly capable of rational journalism.

The fact is that there was much more negative stuff to report on McCain, and still, McCain/Palin got a pass on so many issues (many posters have spelled those out). If anything, the media tried much too hard to be "balanced" when the candidates and the campaign were clearly not even!! (And that's not even counting Faux noise and their hysteria).

[FDRJFKLBJ]

I agree with Halperin, and the love-fest continues to this day.

"Oh, wow, look at him eat at a restaurant in Chicago!"
"Amazing cabinet! Markets go positive with Obama picks!"

It's disgusting.

[loveobamas]

MAYBE YO SHOULDN'T WATCH IT,REPUBLICANS LIKE YOU MAKES ME SICK :(

[FDRJFKLBJ]

I don't know what's making you sick because I am not a republican. Maybe it's all that Obama kool-aid you're drinking.

[LollieDotCom]

FDRJFKLBJ, after eight long years of night, you begrudge our joy at a new dawn?

Besides, it actually IS an amazing cabinet and the market did go positive with Obama's picks.... and if those aren't facts to add exclamation points to and to make the headlines of the day, the week and the year.... what the heck would YOU make the big headlines out of? What's a bigger story? What will sell more newspapers?

But you're right. They don't have to juice it like that. All they have to put in the headline to get me to buy the paper is.... !! OBAMA !!

We've had the worst too long, we just got the best, finally. You're not thrilled when you get out of the junker and into a consumer reports top rated car? Then you need to wake up. It's okay to be thrilled with relief. It's going to be rough. But things are going to be okay. ENJOY. :)

[nanceee]

But the markets did go positive after Obama's picks. Should the media lie about it?

[scroobius]

"Oh, wow, look at him clear brush!"
"Oh, wow, look at him eat barbecue!"
"Oh, wow, look at him ride a mountain bike!"
"Oh, wow, look at him choke on a pretzel!"
"Oh, wow, look at him jog!"
"Oh, wow, look at him fall over a segway!"
"Oh, wow, look at him toss a live fish to Barney!"
"Oh, wow, look at him go on vacation!"
"Oh, wow, look at him clear more brush!"

[Modaman]

The only disgusting failure is Mark Halperin. This GOP shill just can't believe that he couldn't buffalo the American people into rejecting good leadership for another four years of Republican failure.

Know what Mark? You are obsolete. Thank God.

[ToddG]

Was Halperin watching the same campaign I did? Obama was hammered in the primaries, and mostly for stupid stuff that wasn't core to anything like the lapel pin or Reverend Wright while McCain got a free ride.

The problem with Halperin's argument is that it presumes that both candidates should get the same amount of positive and negative coverage. McCain did get more negative coverage than Obama, but that was for two good reasons:

(1) McCain ran a terrible campaign that lacked any substance and was only about how Obama was a scary guy and when the financial crisis hit, McCain had no response. Worse yet, his response to the crisis was idiotic.
(2) Obama got hammered during the primaries and so all of the stuff about Ayers and Wright wasn't news anymore.

The bottom line is that McCain deserved more negative coverage because he was a lousy candidate and a hateful one in terms of his rhetoric. He flip flopped on most of his positions and he even flip flopped on his personality, going from Mr. Straight Talk to Mr. No Talk.

It isn't surprising Obama did better. He earned it by running a better campaign. That is the way it works.

[LollieDotCom]

AMEN

[America08]

DITTO

[Gnrshrtd]

I seem to remember (ok, I'm an old guy here) that the criticism of WJClinton began with one or two media shots such as this one and blossomed into virtually eight years of relentless attacks (that really haven't stopped to this day). I may be sticking my neck out here, but I'll make a prediction that the same thing is beginning to happen. If the GOP were not in such disarray, I might be tempted to suspect a vast right-wing . . .

[nanceee]

I think you are right. I pray Obama doesn't get the same 8 years of attacks from right wing radio etc. that Clinton had to face during his tenure. Our country cannot afford the distraction of hate this time around.

[Mike4Obama]

This joker is just bitter people didn't fall for his spin on things. It's great the internet has completely discredited many of these people that call themselves journalists and their perception of events can be ripped to shreds in a matter of seconds with an internet search.

Internet killed the cable news network star.

[proudem]

Whatever!! I am so tired of hearing about the liberal media bias (always by the right wingnuts) as being the reason for...well, everything that has gone wrong for them.

Here's a thought that should confuse the right...instead of calling Dems "liberal" or "progressive," let's call them "non-conse­rvatives," as in "the non-conservative media bias is responsible for blah,. blah, blah." Or maybe we can call the Dem's base "non-evangelicals," gay marriage can be "non-traditional marriage." We would be taking a page from the Repub manual of syntax. Sort of like the antithesis of Joe the plumber or Tito whoever...

Thank God, I was a "non-McCain" voter.