|
||
Hillary Clinton May Have a Point About Media Bias
Hillary Clinton may have a point about the media bias against her: compare these two pictures from the NY Times Pictures of the Day section.
This one comes Feb 28. Long shot, the Senator leading her entourage down (was the photographer not there when she was going up?) The symbolism is too too clear.
This comes from the day before.
Again the message could not be clearer. This is a beloved man whom the masses adore. For these two days these were the only two pictures of the campaign that ran.
But what can you make of this?
While she may have reasons to complain about bias Hilary does herself no favours by allowing pictures like this to be taken. After eight years in the White House you think she and her people would know better than to play into the hands of their enemies like this. Did no one notice this imagery behind her? This is a tight long shot, but I'd love to see the wide angle of what the rest of the stage looked like. Was this a Satanist Rally in Clairsville Ohio? Were they sacrificing backstage?
Of course there is bias, but it's only the natural bias of the wolf pack wanting to tear apart the weakest candidate. It's unfortunate that Hillary, with all her experience, can't seem but to help them.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Sadly, Sen. Clinton is not very photogenic.
hillary is treated too kindly by the press. Here's a candidate who has lost 11 CONSECUTIVE ELECTIONS. Why is she considered a serious contender after that sorry record? No other candidate has ever been, is now or ever will be treated so kindly with that kind of win-loss record. You want proof? Go as Mike Huckabee. Or John Edwards. Or Joe Biden. Ordinarily, you lose, you're out. But for some reason, not hillary.
The media does not like the establishment. It is that simple. For every anti-Clinton story, there's an adjacent anti-Bush article. The Bush and Clinton families epitomize the Washington establishment. Get over it, Hillary. We don't need a president that "cries wolf" when the going gets tough.
Senator Clinton has had nothing but glowing press and praise from the MSM for the last 8 years.
At the beginning of this campaign, Clinton was far ahead in the national polls. Clinton had the Democratic machinery behind her. Clinton had raised more money than any other candidate. Clinton had been positioning herself for this run since she first entered the Senate. Clinton had the highest name recognition of any Presidential candidate. Clinton had the advantage of a much loved ex-President campaigning on her behalf. Clinton had more press coverage than any candidate, Republicans included.
However, when Clinton lost Iowa everything changed. We saw tears in NH. The spurious and questionable attacks against Obama, from Clinton, her husband and her surrogates came next. This was a mistake. From her position as the front runner, Clinton had resorted to attacking her opponent instead of focusing on the issues and attacking the incompetent and corrupt administration. The Bush administration has a very low approval rating, and that's where the Democratic base wanted to focus their anger and frustration. Bill Clinton turned off black voters. Watching Clinton steal Obama’s campaign slogans, use parts of his stump speech, and accuse Obama of being a plagiarist backfired. Senator Clinton became more desperate as her losses mounted, and now she’s using fear mongering. Americans are wise to this tactic, and have mostly become inured to that strategy courtesy of the fake terror alert system. Democrats are tired of the divisiveness, in-fighting and fear mongering. Senator Clinton's perceived desperation, multiple personality changes, her feelings of entitlement coupled with an underlying arrogance, has turned voters off. I am more than ready for the Clintons to finally step off the national political stage.
The New York Times endorsed Hillary.
The New York Times performed the poll
which supposedly showed the media was
biased against Hillary.
Talk about being duped!
This "media bias" issue is now at the core of Hillary's sympathy
strategy to get out the womans vote, and it will probably work.
If the phone rings at 3AM, how will she use the sympathy card to get
her out of that one?
You can see the narrative shift already. Obama and his cult are starting to be vilified and they will all be pilloried if he gets the nomination. The reason the corporate media and Karl Rove don't want Hillary is there is no new dirt they can dig up with which to make the mud they want to sling at the Democrats. Obama on the other hand has plenty of new and unused dirt just waiting to get shoveled.
If Obama wins the nomination, the media love-fest will be over, the Rezko trial with go into full force and McCain will relish in the moment. All of the principles on which Obama campaigns: different politics, changing Washington and working together, will be beaten down by the media and the Repugs. The media and in turn, the sheep who are the people, will slowly realize that Obama is just involved in special interests as everyone, does not have the intellect to change Washington and has never worked substantially across party lines in his short political life. The media will tear him down as easily and as swiftly as they propped him up. All of the Repugs who voted for him in the open primaries to knock HRC out (because the Repugs fear nothing more than a smart and competent female Commander-in-Cheif) will vote McCain in November and we will have four more years of Repugs. Say McCain is corrupt all you want, when a Repug is corrupt no one is surprised. When Obama's true colors fly and the press no longer chooses to ignore his massive negatives, the public disillusionment will being. Personally, I will vote for whatever Dem is nominated, but I would prefer ANYONE to Obama, except McCain. However, why McCain wins and the Dems want to blame the media or a Rovian conspiracy, I will have sympathy for no one.
Sure. So tell me, how will Hillary be able to run against McCain on the experience card? Or will she suddenly be the change candidate again? Good luck, your going to need it.
Obama and other candidates accept money from EVEN WORSE DONORS. Who's checking up on THEM? Media [pund-idiots] is a pack of LIARS who represent the CORPORATE NANNY STATE FOR THE RICH.
Right now such Media is "in love" with Obama . They'll escort him to his eventual execution by
the Republican media smear campaign that they've planned to smash Obama and put in yet another
rightwing nut as president of their nanny state for CORPORATE WELFARE QUEENS.
Sounds like the argument against women who are raped. Why did they allow the rapist to do it.Why did she allow the pictures to be taken? Instead ask why were they taken and why were they in print?It is the victims fault ; right?
I'm sorry, as a feminist, I've seen all kinds of media bias against Hillary.
But then I am an AOL user. And I refer you to there main news page. Today they ran an extremely slanted poll, with one of the answers being "the country is tired of Billary." That is straight out of the Republican play book. Again and again they have linked to blog pages that are pro-Obama, and anti-Hillary. The last three days they have left up a story about Obama battling Muslim innuedos just to show they are fair and to show he isn't, but before that it's been all pro-Obama.
Although when he was 100 delegates behind in the race no one told HIM to drop out. Although it was written weeks ago that Hillary wouldn't do that well again until Texas and Ohio.
But the minute she dropped down 22 delegates all these, "Hillary's last stand, the last debate, when will people tell her to stop" articles started appearing.
In actuality the primary is still a dead heat.
That's bias that is trying to convince voters it is over.
And I've watched google for weeks, if you google Hillary, anti-Hillary stories come up. Okay, not all the time, but 80-90% of the time. And the manipulated Apple ad (on YouTube) comes up. While if you google Obama the stories have been 80-90% positive the last three weeks. And the YouTube videos that come up for him are FOR him, not AGAINST him, the "Yes I Can" song and the Obama girl.
So what is that? A reflection of the biased news out there, or google's own internal policy? I don't know.
But considering how many AOL users there still are, and how many google to get their news, that covers a LOT of people. Realize a lot of people don't read blogs normally, lots google.
Reporters and bloggers all over the place have been calling the race over, way before it is over. They want Hillary out. Why? Were the Clinton years so bad? No. Bill ended the deficit, there was peace and prosperity.
I, personally, don't buy that Obama can change the culture of Washington, the only ones buying it are hopeful Democrats. The Republicans have yet to sign in on that, and it takes TWO sides. And most Republicans will vote for McCain anyway, Republicans stick harder to party lines than Demcrats do.
So, yes, it HAS definitely been biased. I would say a lot has been sexist, expecting her to be all polite and lady-like, when she is in fact, a strong woman running for the highest office in the land. There are other reasons too, but that is a big one.
Also Obama, who we cannot use un-PC language with, has done NOTHING to silence the Hillary bashers in his group of supporters. (Just go to YouTube and look.) I mean BASHING, when he could have taken the high road a long time ago and spoken out if he is a man of such high prinicples. So at this point in time, I don't think it's incumbent on Hillary to take the high road either and squelch people bashing him.
I won't even go into the debates. Well, except for this, again and again the pundits have asked questions urging her to attack him. Based on the parameter, that OBAMA PRESENTED, and continues to present, that Hillary is an attacker. (Let's just ignore his constant attacks.)
Biased for sure.
For a year the media was calling her the front-runner. For all that time she had no problem with the media, but now that she's lost 11 in row its the media's fault?!? LOL stop whining you don't hear McCain, Obama, Huckabee, Romney, Dodd, Edwards, Bidden, Richardson, Paul, etc etc whining.
Your no longer the front-runner so deal with it.
This just mite be a look into the next 4 years!
Exactly.
This is so predictable. The news media is doing what they always do: not shilling for one candidate, so much as constantly looking for a new phenom, the next wave, another "narrative," to keep viewers interested and watching.
Obama's stock was high for a while, because his campaign caught fire in a way no one anticipated, he's got a very differen bio than any other presidential prospect, he's photogenic and eloquent.
ABut all last year Clinton benefited from a virtual anoinment by the press, who consistently covered her as though she had no serious rivals and had won the nomination already.
Now it's time to knock Obama off his pedestal, and shift the narrative around to poor Hillary Clinton, so maligned by the press, so unfairly characterized, so much more experienced and seasoned etc. than this cocky Illinois upstart.
Hello?? Clinton is still despised by half the national electorate, she's still beholden to lobbyists and PACs, she's still likely to make her husband (who pushed through NAFTA, the terrible media de-regulation bill, who pardoned rich felons, who blew much of his presidency on an affair with an intern) her co-president,. She is still the person who not only voted to let George Bush invade Iraq but supported the war for years afterward. who last year fudged her pro-choice stance to woo voters, who kissed up to right-wing media magnate Rupert Murdoch.
Obama ain't perfect either. But his message has been remarkably intelligent and consistent, he's inspired young and old, run a disciplined campaign, and has not been bloodied by the Clinton camp's ugly attempts to villify him.
Are we gullible slaves to the constant gyrations of our Info-tainment sector? Or are we able to dispassionately assess who can bring this country together, win against McCain in November and forge a new path for the US? I'm not so sure.....
They tend to go with the winner like the rest of us do.
They go with whatever story will keep the race going and the ratings higher....they are going easy on Hillary now to keep her viable....they don't dig up stuff on Obama because there is nothing there no matter how many times they chant the magic word- REZKO REZKO REZKO--it amounts to nothing...meanwhile ole HRC gets a free pass not just on her secret White House records and her secret tax returns...she gets a pass on her out and out LYING about releasing those tax returns on NATIONAL TV in the debates when she has and had no intention of releasing those records as confirmed the following day....Shame on the Media for letting her get away with lie after lie.
The media's responsibility to objectivity doesn't mean portraying all candidates as they want to be portrayed; it means portraying them as they ARE. In other words, objectivity is what they owe their audience, not the pols they're covering.
Yes, I'm sure the Hillary campaign would want her always to be photographed as the object of mass adulation, as Obama is. However, she's NOT the object of mass adulation, so that would be a lie, and a betrayal of the viewers. THe reality, is that she's one rung above being mathematically eliminated from the contest and the polls are on the ebb. CLearly, the responsible position for the media is to depict THAT reality, as much as she fails to like it.
Put another way, which photographer is being more objective: one who takes the (hypothetical) shot that some campaign organizes, of the politician speaking to a crowd of supporters, or the photographers who shoots the scene from farther back, where the fact that most of the hall is empty and the that the candidate's handlers have crowded people around the pol for the sake of the visual?
There is one person - only - who has done the most to bring Hillary down. That is Hillary. The media is reflecting her own bad job. I see nothing wrong with that. It reflects reality. Is it a bias to represent one candidate as weaker, when in FACT, one candidate IS weaker? The media is always sensationalizing, and I do think the media sucks. I also think Hillarity has done an inferior job in her campaign. That is what is reflected in the media. Instead of continually whining about it, maybe she should admit defeat and go away. Instead she is up to cheating, and lying - Obama is not perfect, but she is far worse. So what is the problem? Now it is the media's fault she is losing? It is always someone's fault - strangely never Hillary's.
I can't wait 'till this is over and she goes away. She is making the dems look dirty.
Could it be the press are following the fresh story? I didn't hear Obama whining the year leading up to this win Clinton was the presumptive nominee and getting the majority of the face time. Talk about double standard....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
