Skip to comments.TUCKER CARLSON AND NEIL PATEL: Wave Goodbye to the Obama Media
Posted on 11/05/2012 6:35:10 PM PST by lbryce
By tomorrow night well likely know the name of the next president. But we already know the loser in this election cycle: political reporters. Theyve disgraced themselves. Conservatives have long complained about liberal bias in the media, and with some justification. But it has finally reached the tipping point. Not in our lifetimes have so many in the press dropped the pretense of objectivity in order to help a political candidate. The media are rooting for Barack Obama. Theyre not hiding it.
Consider Benghazi. An American consulate is destroyed and a US ambassador murdered at a time when the president is boasting at every campaign stop that he has crushed al-Qaida. In an effort not to disrupt this narrative, the White House and the Obama campaign spend weeks claiming the incident was merely a protest over a video, rather than a real terror attack. Then intelligence surfaces showing just the opposite: The killers in Benghazi were no street mob, and Obama knew as much from the beginning.
Imagine if George W. Bush, or even Bill Clinton, had tried something like this during a re-election campaign. The howls from journalists would have been deafening, and unceasing. Instead, Obama has enjoyed every benefit of every doubt from the press every step of the way. Candy Crowley even broke character in the middle of a presidential debate to defend him. From their retirement, former presidents must be looking on in envious bewilderment.
For Obama, treatment like this is standard. Remember his last press conference? On August 20, the president made a rare appearance in the White House briefing room. (Obama has held fewer press conferences even than George W. Bush.) The first question went to Jim Kuhnhenn of the Associated Press. Heres what Kuhnhenn asked, in full and unedited:
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for being here. Youre no doubt aware of the comments that the Missouri Senate candidate, Republican Todd Akin, made on rape and abortion. I wondered if you think those views represent the views of the Republican Party in general. Theyve been denounced by your own rival and other Republicans. Are they an outlier or are they representative?
In other words: Just how horrible are your opponents? Thats not a question. Thats an assist.
Most telling of all, nobody in the press corps seemed to find Kuhnhenns suck-up remarkable, much less objectionable. Reporters who push Obama for actual answers, meanwhile, find themselves scorned by their peers as we discovered the hard way when our White House reporter dared ask Obama an unapproved question during a presidential statement in the Rose Garden. Months later, longtime Newsweek correspondent Jonathan Alter confronted us on the street and became apoplectic, literally yelling and shaking and drawing a crowd, over the exchange. His complaint: our reporter was rude to Obama.
Yep. Good reporters occasionally are impolite, especially to people in power who refuse to answer legitimate questions about their own policies. We dont hire for table manners. We hire for persistence and toughness and the ability to spot a story among the fluff. Were traditional that way. Its the legacy media that have changed.
Earlier this year, we caught the left-wing nonprofit Media Matters coordinating with the White House to attack news organizations, among them Fox and The Daily Caller. We discovered internal Media Matters memos detailing plans to harass reporters, including at their homes. Youd think some in the media would recognize this for what it was an attempt by politicians to subvert the press and express outrage. Youd be mistaken.
Last month we found previously unseen video of then-Senator Barack Obama accusing the U.S. government of racism in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Even before our story appeared, liberal reporters tried to minimize and discredit it. Sam Feist, the Washington bureau chief at CNN, even boasted that his network had had possession of the tape for years, apparently unaware that some might wonder why they had never aired it.
We could go on. The point is that many in the press are every bit as corrupt as conservatives have accused them of being. The good news is, its almost over. The broadcast networks, the big daily newspapers, the newsweeklies theyre done. Its only a matter of time, and everyone who works there knows it. That may be why so many of them seem tapped out, lazy and enervated, unwilling to stray from the same tired story lines. Some days they seem engaged only on Twitter, where they spend hours preening for one another and sneering at outsiders.
By the next presidential cycle most of these people will be gone. Theyll have moved on to academia or think tanks or Democratic senate campaigns, or wherever aging hacks go when their union contracts finally, inevitably get voided. Theyll be replaced by a vibrant digital marketplace filled with hungry young reporters who care more about breaking stories than maintaining access to some politician or regulator.
All of this was probably inevitable, but it came faster than expected. Through their dishonesty the legacy media hastened their own end. Their moral authority has evaporated. So has their business model. Wave them goodbye on the way out.
I urge my fellow Americans to facilitate the process beginning at 5 am tomorrow morning that which the imagery below conveys;
This year, the Liberal Media went from mere bias to being full-fledged propagandists.
True. Today’s ‘reporters’ are repWHOREters for 0bama’s Marxist regime, not all that unlike PRAVDA in the old Soviet Union. Hugo Chavez is proud of 0bama for hijacking the media and endorses him too.
But we already know the loser in this election cycle: political reporters. Theyve disgraced themselves.
No more or no less than they did in 2008, really. The media has behaved shamefully in 2012, but it’s not like it is without precedent.
“Conservatives have long complained about liberal bias in the media, and with some justification. But it has finally reached the tipping point.”
I wish that were true, but I don’t believe it - at least in the sense that we will see any changes in how the MSM operates. Traditional old media will continue on with its corrupt ways after Romney wins tomorrow. The silver lining here is that traditional media is dying, and the internet has given us the tools to get to the truth. 20 years ago Dan Rather could not have been brought down for his ‘fake but accurate’ story.
TC, it doesn’t mean sh!t unless you name names and make them known to all...
WE know who they are but smear their names all over the country...
Ride them out of town on the donkey they rode in on.
I disagree. The MSM began to transition from bias to complicity in 2004 and was “all-in” for Baraq in 2008.
In 08 they spent their resources investigating the status of Joe the Plumber’s trade license and the DNA of Palin’s Down Syndrome child rather than Obama’s dubious past.
I don’t see this changing either, they’ll go down with the ship.
I agree....they will never change. If Romney wins, they will spend the next four years trashing him constantly.
I just turned on Maddow for about two minutes just to see what the mood was. She was basically saying if Obama wasn’t reelected it was because we are all racists.....unbelievable.
This Matt Bracken fable deals with journalists in a rather forthright way...
It is my understanding that Matt is a Freeper.
He is FReeper Travis McGee.
He doesn't need to "name names". He was addressing the Daily Caller audience and, as you put it, we know who they are.
Besides which, had he named names, the article would've turned into an essay-length piece. And risked missing somnebody...
It can’t come soon enough.
The media is a misleading formulation. While movies and fiction TV are liberal, there is no rational approach to modifying that while retaining the First Amendment. It is journalism which is supposed to be nonfiction, and it is broadcast journalism which has an obligation, theoretically, to make a good-faith effort to be objective.
However, it should not be enough for broadcast journalists to claim to be objective. In fact, it is an ironic fact that claiming objectivity should properly be seen as a disqualification for a broadcast journalist. You cannot know that you are objective, and you cannot even try to be objective without being open about any possible reasons why you might not be objective. And claiming to be objective is the very opposite of being open about possible reasons why you might not be objective. Thus, claiming to be objective is being boastful at a point where humility is the order of the day.
And if it is improper to claim objectivity for yourself, it is no less objectionable to join an organization which claims objectivity for its members. And on this point wire service journalists are guilty, guilty, guilty. If indeed Romney pulls this one out handily and with coattails to carry the median Senate seat, the relation between the FCC and the putative objectivity of broadcast journalism should be scrutinized with a view to keeping the FCC from putting the imprimatur of the federal government on tendentious reporting.
Because they believe -- the #journolists do -- that they're in a war, and Obama is their version of Reagan. And they're operating out in the open on Twitter. Every Freeper should read the tweets coming out of snarketerias like Politico, BuzzFeed, MediaMatters, DailyBeast. It's a horrid display of agitprop, done as diktat.
The only conservative on the planet doing any heavy lifting on this is Michelle Malkin.
Win or Lose, Obama has lost the solbering support of the MSM—Win or lose they will turn on him starting with the Benghazi scandal and others we hardly know about. He will fold like a house of cards. Even if he wins—he will never finish his term of office. He will become toxic.