Friday, September 12, 2008

Oh give me a break!

I'm getting really sick of reading about the "liberal media."

Do you know why I think people bitch about the media? Because the media is supposed to tell both sides of the story. Denouncing the press has become the surest way to whip up the crowd, on both sides (but the Republicans are best at it).

Read this, from Walter R. Mears, who has been reporting on national politics for the AP since 1960, according to the Seattle Times online.

Steve Schmidt, McCain's senior strategist, used the ploy with a reverse twist at the Republican convention to accuse the news media of dealing in gossip, innuendo and personal matters about Palin, Alaska's governor.

In the process, the McCain camp has promoted rumors which, in another era, would not have made print or serious TV reporting. Standard procedure then was for the campaign involved to ignore such stuff, knowing that to address or deny it would only draw unwanted attention. But when a supermarket tabloid produced a vague and undocumented story that Palin once had an affair, Schmidt issued a news release threatening to sue - and guaranteeing that there would be at least brief mention of the story in mainstream media. Then he attacked them.

It was not the news media that first reported that Palin's unmarried, 17-year-old daughter was pregnant. It was the McCain campaign, blaming its own disclosure on Internet rumors that Palin's youngest child actually was her daughter's baby. The timing of that news release, on opening day of the Republican convention, made certain that it would draw maximum coverage.

So it did, and Schmidt then denounced all the personal matters as a "faux media scandal."

Furthermore (switching gears slightly), Barack Obama, little experience or not, was nominated fair and square (well, more or less, depending on how you feel about the caucuses) by Democrats, through their votes, to be their nominee for president.

Sarah Palin was hand picked by the Republican nominee. She was not chosen by voters - her selection is on McCain's head alone, for good or bad.

The fact is, most of the media is giving Palin a lot of publicity. You know that old saw, any press is good press.

The fact is, the so-called liberal media has given George Bush pretty much a free pass for 8 years, on some of his more "creative" initiatives.

As Mears says at the end of his piece, There'll be more of this (what he talks about, not my rant), on both sides. And if it inhibits questioning reporters, the media bashers will have done their work.


X said...

Obama may have been nominated fair and square, but he lost, what, the last 11 primaries?

The difference between Obama's inexperience and Palin's is that only one of them is running for President, something neither are qualified for.

Gillian Swart said...

So, because he lost some, his nomination is tainted? That doesn't even make sense. McCain won his nomination because everyone else dropped out. That says more than what you're implying.

I don't know who really is "experienced" enough to be president, except someone who already has been president. There is no level of experience that is equal to the task, which is why there is a VP, a Cabinet, advisors, etc. (and why it's important who the candidate picks to fill these positions).

Palin is on record as saying she didn't even know what the veep does - but yet the job was offered to her, and she accepted the job.

This is what the problem is, X. Obama chose someone who is more experienced. McCain picked someone who didn't even know what would be expected of her.

Dick Monahan said...

Let us not forget that Obama has proven his executive chops by managing a campaign that beat what most regarded as the best in the business. And, don't forget, win or lose, he and Clinton each drew almost 20 million votes.

X said...

Running for president doesn't make you qualified to be president, dick. Managing a campaign is nothing like running a city, state, or country.

No honest person can say that Obama is experienced enough to be president, just as no honest person can say Palin is experienced enough to be president.

Also Gillian, Obama picked someone who admitted himself publicly that he wasn't the best choice for VP. And the difference between McCain's choice and Obama's is that Obama needs someone with that experience, McCain needs someone who will get him votes.

Gillian Swart said...

Really, X? I think Biden was being gracious and humble. I hear that kind of stuff all the time. If he really thought he wasn't the best choice, he would hardly have accepted.

And getting votes is an acceptable criterion for selecting a VP? What happened to "country first?"

I think Obama's choice says "country first" while McCain's says "votes first." Selecting Sen. Clinton would have said "votes first."

No matter who he chose, people would have found some reason to criticize it.

On the other hand, McCain, whose POW experience probably took years off his life, was most likely pushed into selecting Palin over Lieberman by the same Washington insiders he rails against.

You know, the same people who were scornful about Gov. Tim Kaine when he was on Obama's short list for VP.

X said...

he was quoted as saying, "she might have been a better pick than me."

and honestly Gillian, the VP pick has always and will always be about getting extra votes, which is why Obama picked Biden and McCain picked Palin.

Gillian Swart said...

X, again - everyone says stuff like that when defending someone, especially a friend, which Clinton is to Biden.

I can't argue with you about the VP pick, in general. But McCain is touting himself as the maverick who goes against the conventional "wisdom."

You can't have it both ways.

X said...

going against conventional wisdom doesn't mean making foolish decisions for the sake of being different. the conventional wisdom was to pick Romney, instead he nominated the first republican woman VP. Seems like a change of pace to me...