They're pounding the hell out of Hillary this afternoon. I've never seen such blatant editorializing about a candidate, even on Fox News--someone just said "she thinks she can get away with whatever she wants" in re the Michigan delegates. They also display very visible regret when forced to mention that she's catching up in the delegate count. If the station really does have secret Republican Mind Control Rays over the independents, Obama just got a five point bump.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Odd. Watching Fox & Friends in the morngings, I had sensed more of an anti-Obama, pro-Hilary leaning.
OTOH, I'm an independent who only recently committed to Hillary precisely because of the outrageously unbalanced treatment she receives. The more I witness coverage like that, the more I move from "merely voted for her" to "write big, fat checks" territory.
I prefer "blatant editorializing" to the selective presentation of only certain facts that one gets from, say, National Public Radio. At Fox you get both sides and many more of the relevant details ('we report, you decide'). Any biases are generally in the open and focused in the editorializing rather than in carefully weeding out facts that don't support the reporters' views, as at other news sources.
In what universe has Fox been pro-Obama and anti-Hillary? Did you see her O'Reilly Factor appearance? In general, they're pro-Clinton because in reality her positions on many issues are closer to theirs.
And since when was Clinton catching up in delegates?
I haven't been watching Fox today, but I don't think the channel has been particularly unkind to Hillary over the last couple of years. Rupert Murdoch even held a fund raiser for her not long ago. And some of her loyalists (eg Terry McAuliffe and Ed Rendell) have been praising Fox for treating her more fairly than the other networks--especially MSNBC, which is more or less an arm of the Obama campaign these days... much like a certain purportedly libertarian blog.
It makes me wonder if they weren't being nice at first just to toy with her.
Anyone interested in seeing what sort of coverage Obama has been getting from MSNBC should look at what Chris Matthews said about Obama's speech on Reverend Wright here:
Of course, the clip from Matthews is not far from what the aforementioned libertarian blogger (with a taste for arugula and Veuve Clicquot) wrote:
As an aside, one wonders whether those who praised Obama's speech so effusively are embarassed now that it's clear that it was little more than a clever evasion, that it failed to do the one thing that was really necessary--to condemn the buffoonish and bigoted Reverend without equivocation.
"It makes me wonder if they weren't being nice at first just to toy with her."
Well, that would explain the bucket of pig's blood poised in the rafters during the O'Reilly interview.
Nope, I for one feel pretty much the same about the Wright speech. I still think its necessary to engage people and issues more substantially than as caricatures.
Yes, because that speech was all about denouncing Wright... not illuminating the horrible issues about race that still exist in this country.