Posted on 07/27/2008 2:45:16 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
On Sunday, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz continued his mission of exposing the absurd amount of coverage the media are giving to Barack Obama as compared to John McCain.
On CNN's "Reliable Sources," Kurtz amazingly asked his guests, "Where does journalism get off saying it's OK to give one candidate twice as much coverage -- this week, I would say four times as much coverage -- as the other candidate running for president?"
This followed last Sunday's warning by Kurtz that "there could be a big backlash against news organizations if this trend continues":
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: Mark Halperin, many smart journalists are telling me that it's OK, that it's justified to lavish all this coverage on Obama, not just this week, although this week is the sort of classic example of it, because he's such a fascinating figure and people are just more curious about him than they are about John McCain.
Do you buy that?
MARK HALPERIN, SR. POLITICAL ANALYST, "TIME": No, I don't think that's OK. I think, look, talking about this past week is interesting and important, talking about the campaign to date. What I'm interested in is going forward.
Historically, Republicans have felt there's a bias in the coverage towards the Democrats. It's clear in this case that Senator Obama is a news story, he is interesting, and we'll have to grapple with how to balance our coverage taking that into account. But we have to be focused on, again, going forward, making this equal, having the coverage be seen as equal and actually be equal in as many ways, as often as we can. This trip though was an exception.
KURTZ: Well, here's a magazine cover that's not equal. "People" magazine has got Obama up on the cover with his family, "The Obamas at Home." This follows the "US Weekly" cover on Obama, and the "Rolling Stone" cover -- covers on Obama.
Where does journalism get off saying it's OK to give one candidate twice as much coverage -- this week, I would say four times as much coverage -- as the other candidate running for president?
STEVE ROBERTS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, I do think there is an imbalance. As Mark says, look, the essential word in news is "new." And Obama is new.
Barack Obama and his family are still -- people are learning about them, so there is a certain justification for the imbalance. But I do think it's gone overboard.
I think Hillary Clinton felt the same way, that a lot of reporters had fallen in love with Barack Obama and the gushing coverage. Now, we're starting to see some jokes about it. Jon Stewart says Barack Obama made a side trip to Bethlehem to visit the manger he was born in. You're starting to see, I think in a healthy way, people starting to make fun of this.
KURTZ: Candy Crowley, I do have to point out that when John McCain in March went to many of these same countries in Europe, CNN did not send a correspondent, a lot of news organizations didn't send a correspondent. That is part of the imbalance in my view.
Yes it is, Howard. If only a lot more of your colleagues agreed, and, as a result, began acting like journalists instead of Obama supporters.
**[Howard]Kurtz: Is Journalism Giving One Candidate Twice the Coverage?**
Absolutely.
Jesus Christ IS the Messiah.
Obamanation just THINKS he is the Messiah.
I’m not an admin and glad of it :)
If you wanna post, go read this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460152/posts
And welcome to FR.
According to Jeffrey Toobin it is perfectly justified that the media is giving Obama much more coverage.
His excuse is that in past years McCain got lots of coverage from the media.
Obama forgot to mention that he was followed by 200 reporters where McCain had a big fat 0.
Twice as much? Not even close. Try three or four times as much. If we just look at positive or neutral coverage, try five or ten times as much...
Hey! Be careful what you say! Some old guy, eh? I'm older than this old guy and possibly a bit smarter.
I thought networks were required to give equal time - whatever happened to that?
Is it just that the media want their guy to win?
Or are the media trying to show their relevancy by influencing the election?
Or both?
Sounded okay a more than a few months ago.. .now this comment only speaks to a pathetic, salivating, Obama gushing, MSM who refuse to report the truth of Obama. A Media, who the entire world, knows by now; are more than happy to be carried in the pocket of the empty suit that people imagine - make that believe - they see a Leader in.
Add this to Howard's question here re Obama's coverage and can only wonder if Howard has just returned from a secret space misson.
If these Journalists were doing even half the job they all called to; we would now be well past the learning curve.
I guess being raised in a Military Family, becoming a Navy Fighter Pilot in wartime, being captured and tortured by our enemy and coming back to the States and having a long successful career in the Senate is just so much fluff.
I certainly hope this country isn't that stupid. Then again, we are the land of Britney, Paris and John Edwards.
Certainly his race; his 'youth'; his inexperience; his background. . .his friends and his Muslim heritage; all this and more, of course - are 'underdog challenges'. . .and enough to discourage any ordinary man.
And of course, Obama is not just an 'underdog'; but rather, an 'historical underdog'. . .
Rest not. . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.