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.

(Photo: Todd Heisler/The New York Times)

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.

Photo: Damon Winter/The New York Times.

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?

(REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton)

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.

Comments

[DietrichMoody]

Three words describe the Clinton campaign - Disenguous, Angry and Jaded. These photos can be taken out of context or put into context, ask any famous person out there. But what is happening, is natural - it's instinctual - but its not personal to Clinton, in a complete sense. Its called SURVIVAL. And the media are citizens too. The Clinton have BIG NAME RECOGNITION and "the most favored politicians" status for over a decade, years. Given this, she has lost over 23 states in the Presidential Primary. And in the process has judged to campaign negative, dark and stale. States, where Clinton was overwhelming leading 6 months prior are going to Obama or her lead has been erased. Can't blame the media for this.

Obama has managed to campaign harder, and erase her greatest and only assets, her name recognition and the good will she had established over the years as First Lady, and he in turn made her look like just another normal Presidential Candidate, they are getting to know her, and they are not liking what they see. So is the media and she is loosing ground. And by instinct. the press is following the winner. What is disingeous by her and her camp, is that when she had all the favorable press, and was the PERCEIVED nominee about 6 months prior - she did not question the favorable press, and say "oh there are other candidate in the race, this is a democracy". Go read the favorable press if you do not believe. This was favorable treatment. Now that the favored one is not favored my a movement and states across the Country, every one is trying to go further and be stronger. Its natural its instinctual its not personal. But for Clinton and her team, to now manipulate these natural aspects that she took advantage is disenguous. .

[jbit]

Boy, do you need some spelling, grammar, and composition lessons!

[indie17]

Great post, and I agree. My friends and I noted early on in the days leading up to the primaries that Clinton would get press every day over doing not-a-lotta, whilst the other candidates went uncovered.

Personally, I think this whole issue of 'bad press' is mostly the MSM eating up another Clinton talking point. She did it with her accusations of Obama's plagiarism -- the MSM ate it up and played it over and over. Same for Clinton's story that Obama is "all style no substance".

Clinton has been getting plenty of free press for her talking points, and 'bad press' is just another one.

[DietrichMoody]

Three words describe the Clinton campaign - Disenguous, Angry and Jaded. These photos can be taken out of context or put into context, ask any famous person out there. But what is happening, is natural - it's instinctual - but its not personal to Clinton, in a complete sense. Its called SURVIVAL. And the media are citizens too. The media sees that Clinton have had the BIG NAME RECOGNITION and "the most favored politicians" status for over a decade, years. Given this, this she has lost over 23 states in the Presidential Primary. And in the process betting on the side of negative campaigning, dark campaigning, stale campaigning. States, Clinton was overwhelming leading in 6 months prior are not going to Obama or her lead has been erased. Can't blame the media for this. Obama managed to campaign harder, and erase her greatest and only assets, her name recognition and the good will she had established over the years as First Lady, and he turn made her look like just another normal Presidential Candidate, this loosing ground. And by instinct. the press is following the winner. What is disingeous by her and her camp, a hallmark, is that when she had all the favorable press, and was the PERCEIVED winner 6 months prior - she did not question it. Go read the favorable press if you do not believe. Thus it is natural and the factors now, are analogous to, lets say, dumping extra weight in order to save gas and go further and be stronger. Its natural its instinctual its not personal. But for Clinton and her team, to now manipulate these natural aspects of of human nature and our society is basically being disenguous and instead of being the fighters that they claim, the sound jaded and disenguous. .

[schoolmaster]

When the media is blamed for its bias, the kind of reaction we see from media is natural. So much so , Hillay's reaction against media is natural as she is the victim. It is unfortunate that there is no neutral body which can oversee the media's stance in as important an issue as presidential election. No body denied the fact that there was media bias.

[SaveTheCrying]

Hey Hillary Lovers...

You should be so proud.....
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx

Check out your girl!
Amazing...­..

[57andfemale]

Obama says "claws" and the feminists are out in force. gets two days of a news cycle. Hillary takes money from a company with a horrendous sexual harrassment record, and the feminists are silent? No reports that I saw in the MSM yesterday except msnbc online.

This 57 year old feminist is horrified by the hypocrisy.

[chefrasta]

If the media really took their responsibilities seriously they would look at the records of the two candidates. T H E R E C O R D

Let's take a closer look at who's really qualified and or who's really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.

Records of these two candidates should be scrutinized in order to make an informed decision.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov , but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton 's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.
He's not just a talker.
He's a doer.

Pass it on....It's impressive .
Now ask yourself who really is the most experience candidate

[ATLiberal]

I have seen this list as well and I think that it would be a great counter to all this "experience" and "solutions instead of speeches" baloney that HRC is so fond of saying.

Just come out during a campaign con-call they all have and say, "Look folks, check the record. Here is the Library off Congress website address. But if you are too lazy to go there, we have made copies of both Senators' legislative records for comparison purposes. The sheet on the left is Sen Clinton's The stack of papers on the right is Sen Obama's. Now, have at it."

[vanessa04]

Actually, if you really looked at the record, her's is more substantive than his. Plus, there's that little thing about him not doing his job on teh sub-committee because he was too busy running for President.

You can make the argument that he has more charisma. But you can't make the argument that she is the less substantive. So, no, you don't want to call her on this one.

[Jaundiced]

At last! Someone who understands what really motivates the media... I agree, there is a bias - that of a wolf pack separating the weakest from the herd. I've read about the right-wing conspiracy and about the left-wing conspiracy and doubt the existence of either. There is no conspiracy – there is only a tendency, a natural urge to attack the weakest. Thankfully, we also have redeeming tendencies that occasionally surface. Otherwise, it would be a sad world, indeed.

[IMustKnow]

Thanks for another biased article against Clinton. I am sure Obama has a place in his cabinet for you, if he makes it to the WH.

[ATLiberal]

he was pointing out that he thought the coverage was unfair to her. You attack people who agree with you now?

[elkabong]

I think it's reprehensible and outrageous that our corporate media have been showing such ingratitude toward Senator Clinton. After all, it was President Clinton who signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowing huge multinational corporations to own more and more of our media outlets, increasing their power to make Americans one of the least well-informed electorates in the industrialized world (read: suckers). That they collect hundreds of millions of dollars from candidates including Senator Clinton (and their donors) to run political ads on the PUBLIC airwaves given to them for next to nothing, just adds insult to the injury they've done to poor, poor Hillary.

Ingrates!

I denounce AND reject them.

[CTtransplant]

P.S. A short while ago, Clinton blamed the media for making a big deal about something (I forget what it was now, but it was maybe two weeks ago) - when it was Clinton herself that was to blame. So, my question is this...wou­ld anyone then blame the media if they were to give her a lack of attention then? And, as per one editorialist stated the other day, is she simply making this claim so that the media focuses MORE attention on her, rather than Obama? In light of her campaign's financial difficulties, I would not put it past Clinton to use the media for some free advertising - isn't that what she's been doing for the past week, by the way? Cooking up stories for free advertising?

[verlaine]

Mark Halperin of Time Magazine is one of the mosted biased political journalists in the country. He bends over backwards in favor of Hillary and is vicious against Obama. This idiot Halperin suggested in one of his posts that McCain use Obama's middle name against him in the generl campaign.

Halperin appeared on Barbara Walters' satellite radio show and said that John Edwards considers Obama a p--sy. Later on his blog, he offered, a lame, half-hearted, insincere apology for his language. Of course, the damage was already done, Halperin used this vulgarity to describe Obama and cleverly attributed the derogatory term to Edwards.

On a daily basis, people call into CSPAN's Washington Journal program saying that Obama is Muslim. If the press were so biased in favor of Obama, why are so many ignorant voters still laboring under the misconception that he is a Muslim. If the press really favored Obama, they'd do a more effective job of debunking this right wing smear job.

[vanessa04]

The only ignorant voters laboring under the perception that Obama is Muslim are voters who aren't voting for him, or any other Democrat.

This is a BS straw man argument. If he's as strong a candidate as you say, and his appeal is so irresistable, nobody is going to be swayed by something that lame. Unless they're looking for a reason not to vote for him.

[CTtransplant]

I really do not see the media bias against her. When I look at msnbc, abc, cbs, nyt, huffington post - a majority of the pictures I see are of Clinton. When I read the articles, a majority of what I see on the above as well as washington post, are articles about Clinton. If anything, I think the media is biased in FAVOR of her...anyt­hing she does seems to make news...eve­n the absolutely dumb and unflattering things!

[DepartmentalAsset]

The MSM cannot be allowed to pick the Democratic Nominee. The Superdelegates will have correct this problem.

[ATLiberal]

If you think the superd's are going to vote against a candidate with a clear lead in pledged delegates, you are delusional. They aren't that stupid and the party is not suicidal. Anybody who ends up with a 100+ delegate majority will win the nomination.

[JohnCP]

The trouble with your theory, is that media "gave" Obama the lead, having taken it away from Hillary. In fact, more preciselly, media, having worked their asses off to steal the lead from Hillary, the energy and support media stole from Hillary, had to go somewhere, and by this time, Obama was the only one of the minor candidates standing. The support had no where else to go. Obama, had nothing to do with the lead that fnally came his way. Media have skillfully managed to convince you and all the rest of the Obamagoons, that Obama "did somethng" that suddenly made the lead go his way. Nonsense. It was handed to him. Kind of the way the presidency was handed to Bush by a baised and disgraced U. S. Supreme Court.

[zull2]

Well, if you listen to left-wing talk radio, you'd hear pretty much the same story. They feel that every time they present something even remotely critical of Hillary Clinton, an entire mob of emails and insults comes rolling in from folks (and many, if this weren't an election year, would mean half of the crap that they say!). The hosts dread it, and when you're scared to talk out about a candidate, you get back at those that attack you in a more passive way.

Now with the mainstream, it's all about who is generating the most excitement and drawing the most viewers. Mainstream media is very simple to understand, it's all about getting eyeballs. There are folks who make a career out of figuring out which shows and channels are pulling the most views at any time, and consulting with marketing companies and corporations. The employees of mainstream media simply have to keep the eyeballs glued, but they also have to walk a fine line of "respectability". But the top brass are the ones that engineer the shows in a competitive manner against other mainstream channels in an attempt to gain ad revenue. Heck, even your local left and right wing radio stations do this as well...jus­t not as effectively.

THAT is why Hillary is losing media points, IMHO. Hillary isn't selling an exciting enough game to make the mainstream media give her kudos. To her credit, though, the only excitement left in her campaign is the notion of "first woman president". Other than that, she doesn't bring anything really new to the table, and Obama is.

[PioneerKing]

Sen. Clinton stated that she felt picked on at the debates. This is clearly a fabrication to get more free media at a time when she has been out spent by Sen. Obama.
All of the campaigns have debate committees that work with the media to determine everything from the order that they will be seated or standing on the stage to the order in which the candidates will be called upon. They agree in advance as to who will get call on first and who will be allowed to have the final closing comments. Sen. Clinton's comments were just plain disingenuous.
Tim Russert even made a comment at the end of the debate on MSNBC while doing the recap that there weren't any surprise questions "I had given them the questions in advance."

[IMustKnow]

Obamabots cannot or refuse to see the forest for the trees. If this was going the other way, you would be screaming foul to the ends of the earth. Playing the victim is what Obama does best.
Lord knows he doesn't have a record to stand on.

[ATLiberal]

I haven't seen Obama standing in a press conference shout "shame on you!" with faux rage about flyers that have been out for weeks.

Obama isn't the one saying, " I find it curious that I am getting the first question" and mimicking an SNL skit asking if he'd like a pilow.

I haven't seen Obama mocking HRC's stump speech.

All of these are actions are easily interpreted as someone who is upset they aren't getting through as well as the person they are attacking and, thus, they attack. It isn't difficult to figure out.

[Shantee]

It cuts both ways....I'­ve seen great photos of HRC at both MSNBC and CNN websites, where there was no Obama photo.

Why isn't the media pressing Hillary on her tax returns?

Her latest 3am telephone ad was all over the TV last nite----she gots enormous free coverage from that.

After all is said and done Obama has trememdous integrity, something the Clintons have never had....the­ir relationship has always been about their lust for power.....­they certainly don't lust after each other.

Obama is the best thing that ever happened to this country in a long time.

The Clintons gave us eight years of scandals; Her incessant whinning, bullying and attacking is dispicable. The Clinton machine has been brilliant at exploiting the dumbing down of Americans. Obama is a class act with immense diplomatic skills, who can inspire people to be part of the process.

'THE PRESIDENCY OF THE U.S. IS A POWERFUL BULLY PULPIT. THE OCCUPANT OF THE WHITE HOUSE MUST NOT ONLY ISSUE ORDERS, BUT ALSO INSPIRE AND ADVOCATE FOR ALL AMERICANS.­'

'YES WE KNOW HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY. BUT IT CAN GET PEOPLE WORKING TOGETHER TO FIND ONE'.

THE MEDIA IS AS SICK OF THE CLINTONS AS MANY OF US ARE...WHO CAN BLAME THEM.