Monday, May 07, 2012

Bias? What Bias?

Mark Halerpin shows us why the Obama Campaign is so confident.  Only not the way he think's he's showing it.  The real reason is that the Obama Administration still has most of the MSM in it's back pocket, as he shows so readily in the article.  It's a huge and largely free -- extension of his campaign staff.  It's what got him elected in 2008, and the Mark Halerpins of the world are doing their best to see that it happens again.

After you've read the article, your takeaways are --  Obama: "Hip", "casual", college-style ["dorm room"], and is "vibrant" and "stylish" has a campaign that "hums" for long hours and run by 20 somethings who have "uprooted" themselves from their lives in Washington to work on something "worthwhile".

Romney, on the other hand has Super PACS (but apparently Obama does not) filled with money from "conservative" "millionaires and billionaires" (while George Soros and Obama's other wealthy liberal donors and Wall Street tycoons ... not mentioned) that will be laundered through banks and such and "shuttled" through "balance sheets" and "targeted" to "battleground states" (words which, when they come out of the mouth of Sarah Palin et. al are "violent" rhetoric) and will have "right wing" "plutocrat" supporters. Obama's supporters, on the other hand, apparently bear no such lables, as it's just understood that they're reasonable centrists with no discernible political leanings. No "left-wing" supporters to deride.  (Does "left-wing" even exist in their vocabulary?  Probably not.  Relative to where they are, there is no "left" -- which tells you a lot about where they are.)

We get a laundry list of potential Romney controversies spelled out, but apparently there is nothing controversial about Obama's record and rhetoric worth mentioning.

Bias? There's no bias in the media. Why do you ask?

1 comment:

Severian said...

Relative to where they are, there is no "left" -- which tells you a lot about where they are

Just so. This is what drives me so absolutely ape-scat bonkers about discussions of media bias. I have a friend -- a sober, reasonable, intelligent, educated fellow in all other respects -- who seriously believes that the media is biased.... favor of the Right.

I simply cannot get him to see -- honest, smart fellow though he is -- that simply being to the right of him does not make something objectively right-wing. He just doesn't grok the concept. If it ain't the Daily Worker, it's a right-wing wingnut rag.

Which is fine for in-group conversation among those in the know -- Lord knows I think Mitt Romney's all but a Democrat, and I have no problem calling him a RINO (and other, far worse things) on a daily basis when talking politics with my friends.... but I'd never say "Romney, Obama, what's the diff? They're both Cloward-Piven socialists."

Such is the nature of leftist groupthink, though, that not only would this a facially absurd statement like this pass unnoticed among them, it'd get an amen.