2008 August 01 | Hanlon's Razor

Where’s my liberal media?

By Hanlon, on August 1st, 2008 at 06:33 PM

I found myself watching FOX again for some reason, in between checking out Media Matters for my latest round of things to make me angry enough to chew my hands off.

I got a little bored and went on over to NewsBusters, which claims it has all of the liberal media bias and seeks to expose it. Since this is the first watchdog site listed when you look for “liberal media” in the old Google, I figured it a good place to play a game of Compare ‘N’ Contrast. In one corner, NewsBusters, eager to prove the massive amount of liberal bias in the media. In the other, Media Matters, which proves the converse.

Scrolling through the first page of NewsBusters, I started combing around for the most inflammatory claims of media bias.

Giving myself the time frame of the last week or so, here’s the top five of each. I should note I spent more time at NewsBusters because each day has about 10 stories, most of which are incredibly benign including, no joke, a story indicting Wikipedia for locking John Edwards’ page from being edited and a lot of bile thrown at the fact that Ted Stevens is indicated as a republican in his latest scandal.

NewsBusters:

I noticed a few things. One is that the only real targets they have is Olbermann and the occasional somewhat mean-sounding allusion a pundit may make. Most of the stories involve guilt by omission or more stories for Obama than for McCain. They also looooove Brit Hume, as they quote him on a near daily basis.

Over on MM, staying within the past week or so:

Now it’s comparison time, and keep in mind I didn’t dig THAT deep on either. NB has a lot of guilty by omission stories (such as not enough reporting on McCain’s trip vs. Obama’s), two actual bona fide examples of name-calling, and one spot with a media outfit calling Gore awesome. MM has one guy likening bloggers to Nazis and the KKK, one guy saying Obama hates America, one likening Obama to Hitler, and two examples of consciously editing something out of an article/newscast in order to spin the reporting.

When the right talks about “media bias”, what they’re talking about is reporting that slightly spins in a way they don’t like or doesn’t report on a story they want reported. Or, sin of sins, they give a Democrat more coverage than a Republican. Ask yourself who the most liberal voices are in the media. Olbermann? That’s about all you have. Colmes maybe. While others may be Democrats by registration, they sure aren’t flaming libs.

When the left talks about “media bias”, we mean actual “reporters” and pundits who will say ridiculously unfair statements like claiming that liberals hate America or that liberal bloggers are terrorists, traitors, and Nazis. Not fringe people either, big-time names that tear into the left. I didn’t even mention Savage because the man is, frankly, a joke.

Here’s my challenge: find the most terrible anti-Republican statement you possibly can by a major media name. I don’t mean a Daily Kos diary or a guest on a radio show on Sirius that no one listens to. I mean someone on the big networks or a big-time radio host that has national syndication. I will guarantee it now, guaran-damn-teed for that matter, that it will never compare to the venemous statements made by the conservatives in the media.

We can talk about spin and omission, leanings and subtle suggestions, but one thing that cannot be denied is that in the media, there is no such thing as too right-wing.

Keith Olbermann is probably the most incredibly liberal voice the major media has today, and his skyrocketing ratings probably indicate how people respond to that. Popularity aside, it’s hard to come up with many similar voices, certainly none with his power. Cafferty and Dobbs over on CNN have their moments, but both are conservatives who in the recent past have been adored by conservatives for various reasons. Matthews? He hates Hillary Clinton so much he probably masturbates to her picture and doles out affection on Bush like he’s trying to impress the lifeguard at the pool. Colmes? Please. Rachel Maddow’s emerging, and Air America’s off to a good start, but that’s about all.

The right-wing media is coated with strong voices. Just picking one name from each of the networks, we have Hannity, Beck, and Scarborough. All three could best be described as “severely conservative”, showing nothing but pure hatred for any and all liberals (Beck famously asked a Muslim Congressman to prove he wasn’t with the enemy, for one). Another round of the big 3 gives us O’Reilly, Dobbs (listen to his immigration views, for example), and Tucker Carlson. Admittedly Carlson doesn’t have a show, but he’s still around and they keep trying. That’s six and I’m not playing the obvious game of just listing off the entire FOX evening lineup.

Severity is the big thing here. Olbermann has his tirades, I admit, and is indeed supremely lib. But outside of him, where? Has Wolf Blitzer called conservatives anti-American? Did Katie Couric say Bush is the modern-day equivalent of Joseph Stalin? When was the last time Alan Colmes said Christian conservatives want to torch synagogues and force the country to worship Jesus or be sent to jail? The plain truth is that it doesn’t happen, while conservatives feel free to spill bile all over Democrats on a daily basis.

Go ahead, though. Prove me wrong. Get quotes by Matthews that top O’Reilly’s. Show me that Glenn Beck isn’t more flamingly partisan than Brian Williams. I’ll wait.

WSJ: Is John McCain stupid?

By Hanlon, on August 1st, 2008 at 03:04 PM

Well, my head just blew up. The Wall Street Journal is pretty much renowned to have one of the most right-wing editorial pages, although I think their standard reporting is pretty solid. So to have an editorial titled, no shit, “Is John McCain stupid?” is just unbelievable.

This isn’t some left-wing screed where a guy like me rattles off example after example of how McCain is going senile and giving a bunch of examples of him saying stupid stuff. Daniel Henninger isn’t listing off liberal talking points, and his piece isn’t draped in an attitude of “this is why McCain is a terrible candidate”. Here’s a good example:

Then this week in San Francisco, in an interview with the Chronicle, Sen. McCain called Nancy Pelosi an “inspiration to millions of Americans.” Notwithstanding his promises to “work with the other side,” this is a politically obtuse thing to say in the middle of a campaign. Would Bill Clinton, running for president in 1996 after losing control of the House, have called Newt Gingrich an “inspiration”? House Minority Leader John Boehner, facing a 10-to-20 seat loss in November, must be gagging.

This isn’t the kind of thing a liberal would give a damn about except to briefly say “okay he’s trying too hard,” but Henninger places a lot of weight on why it’s a political wrong move to “let her off the hook before the election.” That’s Republican strategy there, not Democratic mudslinging.

It’s sad that it took the Wall Street Journal editorial page to finally call John McCain out on the fact that for all his lofty promises, he’s neither delivered on the ones pertaining to the campaign nor given any indication he’ll deliver on the ones pertaining to his presidency. Straight talk express? No. Clean, high-minded politics? Hell no. Anything resembling a plan for how he’ll accomplish the goals he listed? Oddly missing. All we’re left with is a candidate that changes what he says almost on a daily basis, and makes promises for what he’ll do in office that he’s given no outline for how

The sad thing is, his straight-talk image and his war hero status are all he’s got. The only way he can win the election is to convince people that he’s got strength where Obama doesn’t, and he’s not a shift-in-the-wind politician. He cannot compete with Obama in a debate, he can’t fight him on policy grounds, he’ll never convince people he’s an above-the-fray leader. But as Henninger astutely points out, he’s losing what little he’s got.

In this sports-crazed country, everyone has learned a lot about what it takes to win. They’ve heard and seen it proven repeatedly that to achieve greatness, to win the big one, an athlete has to be ready to “put in the work.”

John McCain isn’t doing that, yet. He’s competing as if he expects the other side to lose it for him. Sen. McCain is a famously undisciplined politician. Someone in the McCain circle had better do some straight talking to the candidate. He’s not some 19-year-old tennis player who’s going to win the U.S. presidential Open on raw talent and the other guy’s errors. He’s not that good.

There is a reason the American people the past 100 years elevated only two sitting senators into the White House — JFK and Warren Harding. It’s because they believe most senators, adept at compulsive compromise, have no political compass and will sell them out. Now voters have to do what they prefer not to. Yes, Sen. McCain has honor and country. Another month of illogical, impolitic remarks and Sen. McCain will erase even that. Absent a coherent message for voters, he will be one-on-one with Barack Obama in the fall. He will lose.

Good luck, McCain. Yer gonna need it.