The Extreme and Imaginary Pro-Obama Bias

Mark Halperin, the useful monger of conventional wisdom and TIME magazine pundit, thinks there was an "extreme pro-Obama" media bias during the campaign. Ann Coulter, coincidentally enough, is promoting a new book based upon the same theme.

Yes, Ann Coulter and Mark Halperin are covering the same beat. We can only conclude that either Ann Coulter is becoming more mainstream or Mark Halperin has totally lost his shpadoinkle. I'm voting for the latter.

After all, Halperin recently wrote that Matt Drudge is "the Walter Cronkite of his era." Seriously. He wrote that in a book. If I were Cronkite, I'd be seriously insulted. Better watch your back, Halperin. He may not look it, but Cronkite can still kick some ass. When you least expect it, out of the shadows leaps a raging berzerker of kung fu fists and elbows. Cronkite wins. Flawless victory.

But as I reported in my book, and as the E&P Pub noted the other day, you might recall that Halperin advised Senator McCain to have his surrogates play the race card against then-Senator Obama. In the same jaw-dropping edition of "Halperin's Take," Halperin instructed Senator McCain to use Obama's middle name and "exotic" background to cast Obama as a Manchurian Candidate -- implying that, if elected, Obama would rip off his mask revealing his true identity as an Islamic evildoer. In other words, use the lies from the various whisper campaigns because they're excellent.

So given this one aforementioned example of the establishment press coverage of the campaign -- from TIME magazine's website no less -- it's remarkable that Halperin would have the temerity to lift up his Hack Chalice and declare:

"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."

Disgusting failure? Well, then, a charge like this demands some investigation -- the kind of investigation that you probably won't find in Ann Coulter's book. Put another way: the truth. So let me see if I can smoke out this alleged "disgusting" and "extreme" pro-Obama bias.

When the establishment media -- mainly, but not exclusively, the cable news networks -- hop-scotched through two years of election coverage in which they chronically reinforced a false rumor that the president-elect was secretly a radical Muslim; or that he was "the most liberal senator" (he's not); or repeatedly calling him "Osama" and, in some cases, "Bin Laden" (no, seriously); or showing b-roll of Bin Laden during Obama stories; or playing the Rev. Wright YouTube videos around the clock for weeks on end; or wondering whether the president-elect was "one of us"; or whether he was too exotic; or asking the president-elect in a televised debate why he doesn't love the American flag, this was somehow extreme pro-Obama coverage?

Should I go on?

Or what about questioning whether or not the president-elect was too presumptuous (implying, in some cases, "uppity"); or repeating McCain talking points, including that the president-elect was a socialist (he's not) and a celebrity not unlike Paris Hilton; or that the president-elect will never be able to reconcile with the Clintons; or wondering whether he passed the "commander in chief" test; or reporting that the president-elect's wife hates America (she doesn't). Somehow this is all proof that the establishment media failed to fully vet Barack Obama?

A reporter whose job it is to deal in conventional wisdom ought to know that the establishment press was Senator McCain's self-admitted base. Did Halperin or Coulter even watch that Sedona barbecue video? I haven't seen it in a while, so maybe I forgot about all of the pro-Obama bias hurled at McCain's head during the party. That tire swing? Clearly in the shape of an Obama "O" logo. A reporter from Newsweek with her butt literally inside of it -- swinging around with a big orgasmic smile on her face. Bias!

At the same time, an embryonic strain of conventional wisdom began to form and circulate about an alleged pro-Obama bias. Then, just before the election, a Pew Research Center analyses of the campaign press coverage concluded that there were a greater number of positive news items about the Obama campaign than the McCain campaign. So naturally Halperin had to, by his very nature, repeat and perpetuate the developing wisdom and make it, you know, conventional. And so he went off about an "extreme pro-Obama bias" the other day.

Naturally, however, this study failed to prove anything about a pro-Obama bias while proving absolutely everything about which of the two campaigns happened to have produced a greater share of good news and which happened to have produced a lesser share of good news. That's all.

Let's do this list. Beyond the array of unfair but expected attacks on President-elect Obama's character, the record shows that the Obama campaign was better organized and more disciplined. Fact. It raised more money and it remained ahead in the polls with the exception of the very brief Sarah Palin bump after the RNC. On the other side of the fence, the McCain campaign was comparatively awful by nearly all accounts. It lagged in the polls, lagged in cash and was nothing if not disjointed, undisciplined and exceptionally negative through the latter weeks of the general election season.

And yes, it's a fact that the Obama campaign carried more historical and transformational baggage. Was the press supposed to ignore this? Should the press have ignored the historical and global impact of a then-potential Obama victory? Was it wrong, in the midst of an economic meltdown, to wonder out loud whether or not McCain's spasmodic kitchen-sink reaction during those two weeks after Lehman failed were an indicator of how he might govern as president? This is all fair game.

But in the establishment media's self-consciousness -- a character trait whipped into it by the far-right's claim of a "liberal bias" -- certain segments of the media decided to stir into its coverage a wide variety of smears against the president-elect and his family in order to craft a sense of balance, albeit awkward balance. The osmotic journey of these rumors from fringe internet conspiracy theories to establishment media news items can be, in part, attributed to conventional wisdom shapeshifters like Mr. Halperin who, through his reporting, legitimized it.

Ultimately, the problem with Mark Halperin is that he lacks his own unique insight and therefore simply repeats whatever ridiculousness crosses through his internets. And because he's literally employed by a colossus of the establishment press, he can be far more destructive in his drone-like repetition of these items than outsiders like Ann Coulter or even Matt Drudge. He's like a money launderer -- cleansing the awfulness and making it palatable for the Sunday shows.

And this is what we can expect for the next four-to-eight years. Mark Halperin, and therefore the all-powerful D.C. conventional wisdom, says that the so-called pro-Obama bias is as terrible -- as "disgusting" -- as the pro-invasion media bias during the lead-up to Iraq. Conventional wisdom, in essence, is triple-dog-daring the press to make up for its egregious Iraq failure by striking down upon the Obama administration with great vengeance and furious anger.

Hang on tight. It's going to be a crazy and infuriating ride.

BobCesca.com

Order my new book: One Nation Under Fear, with a foreword by Arianna Huffington. Also available in stores.

Comments

[1will]

I asked a few pro Obama friends of mine to name one thing they don't like about Obama. It could have been anything from his ears to his voting record. I wasn't picky. They could not find one single thing they did not like about this man. NOT ONE. Bear in mind these same people could run on for an hour about their spouses faults. So after constant news coverage on the man and the campaign for almost 2 years, Obama's supporters were not exposed to enough bad press to give them ONE unfavorable opinion of the man.
I then asked them to name a few stories they thought were unfair about Obama. They could only name stories run on FOX.
So this group of friends have a cult like devotion of Obama and agree with everything on all of the news networks except FOX.
Either Obama really is perfect or he got some pretty favorable coverage from 5 out of 6 networks.

[MtDavid]

The really annoying press coverage occurred when Obama went abroad.
He was greeted by huge, wildly admiring crowds. Instead of the press assessing this as a positive thing, they repeated the McCain campaign's talking points that Obama had too much "celebrity."

Never once didn't the press analyze how a popular president might benefit American interests.

The bias was obvious.

[Tayo]

You're absolutely right, Bob. I guess this also counts as pro-Obama media bias. http://mediamatters.org/items/200807230001

[Aroura]

I was pro Clinto (hit me later), and it wasn't the media that changed my mind to vote for Obama, it was very very specifically his performance in the debates, and his ability to answer questions directly, with minimum rhetoric, and real actual figures, numbers, and ideas for us to mull over. Plus he's so reasonable and calm (Hubby calls him Double-O-Bama). That personality feature, his reasonable-ness if you will, is what won us over. That and I happen to agree on his policies quite a lot.

So, did the media manipulate the actual debates? No, we got to make up our own minds watching the candidates.

[BN2112]

I guess the 24-7 video looping of Rev. Wright by the MSM during the primaries, including MSNBC, was a good example of all that pro-Obama Bias. Give me a break. Besides, I want my news fair, but balanced? I just want the truth even if it makes one side look worse than the other in which case balance becomes bias.

[cinesimon]

Well done: your piece exactly reflects my responses to and thoughts about the sad 'liberal/Obama' bias charge thrown about by those the right who refuse to take responsibility for their own failings.
I only hope the media doesn't respond by acting like they did for the year after 911 - they can be rather fickle when it comes to the loud but numerically insignificant whining from Fox and Company.

[WyomingJack]

How original. Another attack on the so-called main stream media liberal bias that everyone is always talking about but no one has ever found. I'm hoping someday someone will come up with an observation about media coverage that has a little more credibility than the same drivel spewed out by Halperin and Coulter. Can you get any more boring?

[diogeron]

"Halperin and Coulter" It has a nice ring to it. Maybe they can sign a contract with Faux News so that they can take turns spewing out nonsense to an audience who only wants to hear things that reinforce their own biases.

[pcplz]

Can we add Limbaugh to this crew? He would absolutely love to be on TV and we would get to see his wonderful face with that huge cigar as he spews the news.

Call it The Trio-Ego News Hr.

[ObjectiveRealist]

You're embarrassing yourselves, Halperin & friends.

The press did cover Obama more positively, but not because of any "bias." He got more positive coverage than his opponents did because he ran a more positive campaign. Clear, sunny days with gentle breezes also get more favorable coverage than hurricanes.

While McCain's staff dredged up trivia from Obama's past to present out of context, he outlined his plan for our future. I watched the polls closely and attempts to smear Obama generally backfired or did nothing, especially later in the general election.

If they were as diligent about telling the facts from their perspective as Obama was about *factually* refuting the smears against him but were still covered less positively, this might be a legitimate dispute. But they didn't, and it isn't.

http://www.fightthesmears.com/

The fact is that McCain and his surrogates didn't argue the facts when they had the chance. The Bush 2000 & 2004 campaign staff's dirty tricks didn't shake President Obama's confidence like they did John McCain's & John Kerry's, and they didn't make him look like an oddball like they did with Al Gore in 2000 [anybody else remember that "wooden personality" meme?] and they lost fair and square.

[sickofhypocrisy]

You are in complete denial. It's ok, though, because that's the running theme in Obamaland.

Obama was able to run a positive campaign because his supporters and the media were doing the dirty work for him. Halperin is absolutely right. The coverage during this election season was disgusting. I was a lifelong Democrat who never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. After watching the Dems' behavior at the RBC and the unbelievably biased coverage of Obama during both the primaries and the general, I voted for McCain and switched my registration to Republican as soon as I was able (my state only allows you to switch during certain timeframes.)

I am hopeful that Obama will live up to the ridiculous expectations that most of his supporters have set, though I don't know how anyone could. He is not a superhero. He is a politician as slimy, dishonest and self-serving as the rest.

[Aroura]

You voted for McCain because of media bias?? Roflmao. AND you switched parties??
Really???
And that proves whaat about he media bias again? That they talked you into switching parties and candidates. YES More PROOF of left wing media bias. not...

[elz]

Good riddance!!

[MSF31538]

Mark Halperin is the Manchurian Candidate, not Obama. He is a wolf wearing sheep's clothing. He is either a journalist or a pundit; he can't be both. However, under the guise of journalism, he pundits and takes one side against the other. In my opinion the bias was in favor of Clinton and McCain, not the other way around.

All three dealt from the bottom of the deck. However, Obama is above politics as usual. He has reached out to both McCain and Clinton and looks forward not backwards. Why is Halperin still trying to serve up "turdblossoms"? Is he really a "Rovian"?

Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.
www.freedompost.typepad.com

[azdirk]

I had seen the VP debate and heard Palin's "Barby in the beauty pageant," answers or her "I have no idea what you're talking about so I'll answer my own question" responses. When the viewer polls called Biden the winner it didn't surprise me. Sometime later I picked up an old copy of a newsmagazine (I think it was Time, but I can't be sure) that was published just after the VP candidates debate. To my astonishment that august newsmagazine called Palin the winner because she hadn't made a complete fool of herself. (No, it was not the National Review.)

[ChescoMom]

And if I remember CNN was doing that as well--or maybe considered it a draw. My jaw just dropped.

[BN2112]

And who can forget Pat Buchannan's knee-jerk declarations of GOP ticket victories after the VP and all three presidential debates? I'll swear if McCain or Palin had dropped their pants and shat right on the stage he and all the other right-wing reactionaries would have declared victory. At least most of the viewers were living in a reality based world.

[Clavis]

Obviously, there was no pro-McCain bias. If there were, then newsreaders would have constantly and unselfconsciously referred to McCain as a "maverick" over and over again...

Oh, wait a second...

[fitz213]

I generally don't comment but I need clarification. This is satire, right? It has to be.

[conned]

If there is one common thread linking all the neo-cons I know, its that they are incapable of admitting they are wrong. Underlying this is mental device they employ that re-writes the story, and reality, so as to conform to their desired opinion.

You can see it in the right wingers in the media. Instead of simply admitting that their ideology is radical, fringe, and repulsive to any fair minded interlocutor, they invent imaginary enemies and (yes, even) conspiracy theories.

The radical right is furious that the news media didn't go on an all-out smear and propaganda campaign like they did in 2004 when they Sen. Kerry into a lying, elitist, sissy. That the media didn't do more as a whole to destroy Obama's character is what they are angry about. The one thing they can't and never will admit is that there is a problem with them.

[conned]

And amazingly, the fact that they have been wrong about everything for the last eight years, while never admitting it, not even bothering to revisit or adjust their previous analysis, even when its plain to everyone how wrong they were, somehow is lost on them.

Iraq is still a justified cause, even though all of their justifications for it turned out to be false. Shipping the economy and going trillions in debt to China is still a good thing even though the entire Western economic systems is on the verge of collapse. Global warming is still a myth despite the documentaries and scientific experts showing it real.

Then again, that's why these "journalists" are all multi-millionaires; because the price for one's soul doesn't come cheap.

[emncaity]

You said it all, my man. Did I post this? Did I just use a different name? ;-)

[ladyv]

They are a Personality Disorder.

[neighborm]

In our local paper, during the campaign, writers to the editor often become exercised over picture placements, picture sizes, the wording of headlines, and whether a campaign event had been covered on page one or on page two. I'm sure that the decision-making that goes into composing a newspaper page is complex but it's hard to believe that a paper that wants to stay in business today is going to risk offending a significant portion of its readership all the time. But I guess in trying to be "balanced", the paper probably does do just that.

[DocWylie]

NOTHING I can think of could do a better job of marginalizing these hardline extremists than their heightened EXPOSURE at a time when the population is begining to closely question their own values during a dramatic economic downturn.

How exciting a time it is to be around to watch this flare of frantic rightwing fringe implode under the weight of it's own illogical dogma and denial.

History does not repeat itself. Historians repeat each other. - Arthur Balfour (1848-1930