Really?
That's why they are pressing Obama on his shutting out of the media by not holding White House Press Conferences and taking questions from the press, except very sporadically and briefly?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/1 ... 97811.html Did that make the nightly news? Did that hit the mainstream media?
On Friday, Obama's deputy press secretary parried a series of volleys from the White House press corps, all of whom wanted to know when the president would break his over-two-month streak of not formally answering their questions.
Imagine the cacophony from the press if Bush did that.
And, has anyone before gotten away with setting "ground rules" for local television interviews?
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/0 ... nterviews/
How much criticism has Obama gotten from the media for his golf habits, and compare that to when Bush was President and we had the media railing against Bush for golfing a few times. Bush stopped golfing and he was ridiculed for STOPPING playing golf, as it was a blue blood nonsense "sacrifice" on his part (a la Kieth Olbermann's rant on the subject...).
Examples of biased mainstream media reporting:
Romney hates the disabled and children, according to the Associated Press:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_ ... er_butter/
The media fawned over Obama's inauguration -- giving it approximately 35 times the attention of his predecessor:
http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/medi ... uguration/
Have you heard the mainstream media railing against Obama for pre-picking journalists who may answer him questions?
According to Sun-Times columnist and long-time Chicago journalist, Carol Marin, journalists at Barack Obama news conferences have come to realize that Obama has pre-picked those journalists whom he will allow to ask him questions at the conference and many of them now "don't even bother raising" their hands to be called upon.
Read more:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-tod ... z2AcYJVQSI Would that kind of thing be allowed to continue under the Bush Administration?
Have you heard the mainstream media ask whether the most transparent administration would "prepick" journalists?
As ferociously as we march like villagers with torches against Blagojevich, we have been, in the true spirit of the Bizarro universe, the polar opposite with the president-elect. Deferential, eager to please, prepared to keep a careful distance.
The Obama news conferences tell that story, making one yearn for the return of the always-irritating Sam Donaldson to awaken the slumbering press to the notion that decorum isn't all it's cracked up to be.
The press corps, most of us, don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day.
That is right, folks -- a member of the media there ADMITTING that the media was "deferential" and "eager to please." Are you folks kidding me? You want to pretend the media isn't in his camp?
FFS -- your mantra should change from "Reality has a liberal bias" nonsense to "Reality has an Obama bias."
Third, Obama is the object of unprecedented media adoration. Part of it, of course, is because he is the first black man to be elected president, which is an extraordinary and authentically moving achievement in American history. But ideology is also at work. If, say, Clarence Thomas had been elected president, the media attention would not be anything like what we have witnessed.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic ... president/
Here is another example:
When George Bush's people put on a $42-million inaugural program four years ago, many editorial writers and columnists around America came unglued.
A St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times commentator said the president needed to prove that his call for sacrifice "is more than just empty words." A Washington Post columnist suggested Bush & Co. should be ashamed of staging lavish parties in the face of their debacle in Iraq. A columnist at the New York Observer evoked images of Louis XIV.
It would have been nice, for the sake of consistency and fairness, if the commentariat had leveled a measure of that same attitude at last week's Obamapalooza, which cost roughly the same but drew a fraction of the blow-back.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/25 ... themedia25
He hasn’t taken the oath of office yet, but Barack Obama is expected to Do Great Things. What this expectation is based on is anybody’s guess, unless you count promising all things to all people on the campaign trail. He is, for many, a new Messiah who can do no wrong. To see the media coverage, one would think his election is the greatest thing this nation has seen since its very inception.
http://www.aim.org/guest-column/the-imm ... erception/
The media didn't give a shit at all that most of Obama's senior staff were subpoenaed in the Blagojovich corruption matter.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... bpoen.html Do you think the media would have been so silent if it was the Bush administration, or do you think there would be headlines about how the Bush administration was involved in the corruption?
Time Magazine has employed a photographer named Callie Shell that has apparently been doing double duty as both a "journalist" AND a member of team Obama, taking pictures subsequently sent out as official White House photos.
How is it that we can have someone thinking that bias cannot be presumed when that same person is working for both a news agency and at the same time for the subject of that news? Is the love that the press has for The One so blurred that they cannot see a difference between covering Obama and working for Obama?
Read more:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-tod ... z2Acc0V5cq
