In the voting booth on November 4, it’s likely that most members of the media will pull the lever for Barack Obama. Whether or not they put aside their professional standards and actively try to get him elected is another matter. But because conspiracy theories are fun, let’s assume for a moment that they do. Is there any way they could effectively accomplish it?
The magazine's writer, Matt Pressman, then portrays these pro-O scenarios:
1. Fawning coverage of Obama (the candidate with a halo-like glow around him on the covers of Newsweek, Time, and Rolling Stone; Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews gushing so embarrassingly that they had to be removed from MSNBC’s anchor desk)
2. Digging dirt on Obama’s opponents (The Times’s innuendo-laced piece about McCain’s ties to lobbyist Vicki Iseman; the poorly fact-checked stories about Palin’s supposed book-banning and secessionist proclivities)
3. Tough but fair investigations into McCain and Palin’s various lies, bad decisions, and questionable policies
But admits that
Those are pretty much the only weapons in the media’s arsenal, and so far none of them have really worked.
I guess he didn't think of listing suggesting Obama didn't really mean what he meant when he compared a politician to an animal.
Of course, the real question is:
why can't the media report the facts and express the views about the campaign and the candidates but just not mix the two together to creat bias?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment