The American Spectator

Rocco| 11.5.08 @ 7:23AM

Lisa, cara paesana. I agree. The media, in my eyes, has long been discredited, from the time they piled onto Nixon, through the Reagan years, up to the present. I refuse to watch network or cable TV news and now rely on the Internet for alternative and international sources of US news. The media has been nothing more than Obama's press office. A few uncles of mine who lived under Mussolini's regime used to have some choice words about the press in this country, which can't be said in mixed company. As I have gotten older, I tend to agree.

mnotaro| 11.5.08 @ 11:03AM

Wow, how sad...how incredibly sad...the MSM campaigned for Obama from the start...and why? They didn't know where he stood on the issues...they didn't know anything about his advisors...but they pushed and pushed for a change...so tired of W I guess?? The MSM won this election for the liberal illuminati!

Tom Paine| 11.5.08 @ 11:59AM

I can't think of anything more Un-American than the contempt for the press among conservatives.

What do you guys want? A country in which we just ask the government what the truth is and believe what they say?

The press asked questions of Sara Palin, and you people bawled and whined for weeks. At what? Katie Couric asking if Palin had any thoughts about the Supreme Court?

You people need to get it straight: when you run a candidate who knows how to speak and who is smart and who has good ideas (e.g. Ronald Reagan), you have a great shot at winning.

When you give in to the anti-intellectual dopes in your midst and nominate people who are inarticulate and not even curious about the world -- these arrogant ignoramuses you have afflicted the country with for the past 8 years -- people eventually figure it out and turn away from you.

Theodore Ts'o| 11.5.08 @ 1:03PM

To be fair, we didn't know much about what kind of President George W. Bush would be before he entered the White House, either. He sneered at Clinton and promised that we wouldn't waste our national treasure on "nation building". And yet, what did we end up doing in Iraq for the last five years? That's right, nation building!

The reality is there is much we don't know about any politian before they actually serve in the White House. All we know is the "Narrative" which their political consultants place on them. For example, with McCain, there was the attempt to package him as "the war hero". Then there is the packaging of him that was done by the Rolling Stones article, that is all based off of the same source material --- McCain's autobiography! Which is the "true McCain"? Probably a little of both.

Primary disgrace of the Republican party is that there was too much emphasis on party loyalty, and not enough "Country First". If Bush was leading the country into the ditch, why weren't more Republicans saying, "No, wait", or helping Bush make the case of why we were in Iraq, instead of questioning the patriotism of anyone who dared question the President, the leader of the Republican party? Indeed, it is the Democrats who are famous for assembling the circular firing squads, sometimes even while they are in power. If the Republican Congress and Republican punditry had spent more time emphasizing "what's best for the country", as opposed to "what's best for the Republican party", maybe it wouldn't be in as much of a mess the day after the Elections.

Anthony| 11.5.08 @ 3:07PM

Tom Paine is really becoming a condescending fool. But unlike you jack booted thugs, we tolerate diverse opinions. But talking to moron like you gets tedious. Tom, read the damn article. It's about 2 elite members of the media who have been Obama surrogates, sitting around and admitting to themselves they know NOTHING about the man who they just helped get elected president . Can you not comprehend our anger over the utter moral and ethical bankruptcy of these 2 media elites, who , for over a year, have lied for, covered up for, and campaigned for, now admitting, they don't know a damn thing about him? Does this not register with you? You call our criticism of this media behavior "Unamerican" You cannot be that stupid. And to compare what the media did to Gov. Palin by calling it "asking her questions", really borders on the delusional. Of course, you never responded to my post of yesterday asking what Obama has in mind with his National Civilian Security Force. Seems to me I answered my own question yesterday and your post today only confirms my thought. Obama has plans for drones like you, the only question is what size brown shirt and jack boots do you wear?

gregorbo| 11.5.08 @ 3:32PM

For accuracy's sake, I'd like to note that the conversation that Ms. Fabrizio used as evidence in her article is a montage from the Rush Limbaugh show. I don't think that changes the substance of the article (mainly because the montage includes unambiguous declarative sentences and simple questions). And I'm not accusing Ms. Fabrizio of misleading--just think it's important that folks know that the quoted material is not the entire conversation between Brokaw and Rose.

Tom Paine| 11.5.08 @ 3:33PM

Anthony,

I keep hearing it repeated over and over again that the media did some terrible thing to Sara Palin.

What exactly did any specific news agency do?

Give me an example of how the press treated Palin unfairly?

Other than some unfair questions at first about her daughter and general family situation (which were promptly smacked down, never to return), give me an example of her being treated unfairly.

At one point Palin actually tried to blame Gibson and Couric for her own inability to articulate answers.

You keep using this phrase "media elite."

What is so bad about an "elite"? What do you even mean when you say "elite."

The anti-intellectualism of the right is what's dragging it down.

William F Buckley used to play Bach on his harpsichord for his dinner guests. I suspect he'd make few friends against your ranks who can only foam and fume about the injustices done them by the "media elite."

Look at Reagan. Did you whine and moan about the "media elite"? No. He handled them. He answered them, and sometimes even out-smarted them.

If you don't have the ideas and the smarts on your ticket, you'll lose eventually. I think W's two wins gave you guys the wrong idea.

gregorbo| 11.5.08 @ 3:40PM

Okay--here's a link to a critique of Rush's use of the montage. It's a little confusing and some of the critique makes sense. But, it's incredible to me that these two journalists are even having this conversation because having it is a tacit admission of journalistic dereliction of duty.

The fact that "people are saying" to Brokaw and Rose "we don't know" Barack Obama is an accusation they ought to be able to defend themselves against. But they don't (because they cannot).

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811030015

Anthony| 11.5.08 @ 4:19PM

Tom; You are either deliberately obtuse or just plain obnoxious. If you cannot comprehend the complete media distain for Palin and their entire COLLECTIVE efforts to destory this woman by, distorting her comments, taking her comments completely out of context, concentrating on negative stories, (maunfactured by the same MSM) alluding constantly to her lack of qualifications for the VP, highlighting individuals that disagreed with her selection, scrutinizing her actions as Gov. of AK ( only the potentially embarassing & damaging ones, not say a story on AK's historic energy pipeline deal that she negotiated) without doing the same to Obama and Biden, then we just have nothing more to discuss. I saw the Gibson interview in its entirety; he was obnoxous, condescending, rude and asked loaded questions that nobody could have answered because you had to infer what he ment first, a la the "Bush Doctrine" question. Which Bush Doctrine? Even this moron(Gibson) asking the question didn't know. No, no softballs for Sarah. I'm suprised he didn't ask the leftist media's time honored gotcha questions like who is the vice -premier of Uganda? I did not see the Couric interview, I don't watch CBS, but the snipets I've seen side by side with her other fawning interviews with D's is all I need to see. I did see Dan Rather's sickening, groveling and unctious interview with Clinton, after his impeachment, where Rather just about did a Lewinsky on Clinton. Perhaps you might have seen it yourself? Want to compare the two approaches? And don't forget body language, you could see their distain and hatred, or weren't you watching? You still have not responded to my question as to why you don't find it sickening that 2 media elites ,who have shilled for and coverd up for Obama, are now asking themselves who and what this man is. Is this not the height of media malfeasence, or don't you care?

Tom Paine| 11.5.08 @ 6:15PM

Anthony,

I think you're a little overboard. Look at that paragraph you just posted. It's all over the place.

Let's just focus on the topic, which was Palin and the media "elites."

Gibson's demeanor seemed respectful to me. If you read something in his "body language," I'll accept that, I guess. But it's awfully difficult to prove.

The question about the Bush Doctrine was sloppy. I think he made a mistake. I do not believe he was trying to trick Palin. Nevertheless, Palin could have just said, "There is more than one policy sometimes referred to in that way." Instead, she rambled a little. But I'd say she broke even there.

The interview with Couric is another matter. Couric was polite, firm, and refused to be evaded. If you are offended by that, then I'd say you are simply not in touch with the greatest thing about American democracy, which is that politicians don't get to just worm out of answering fair, straightforward questions.

What do you think about the Supreme Court?

What newspapers do you read?

What issues do you think are really important when it comes to foreign policy?

These are OPEN QUESTIONS, Anthony. They are NOT gotcha questions. They invited Palin to share her thoughts and views with the American people, and given that opportunity, it turned out her thoughts and views were much more perceptive than the average man or woman's.

Which is fine, but it's a little embarrassing for a woman who claims she's ready to be president.

Anthony| 11.5.08 @ 8:39PM

Tom; O.K., My post was all over the place because responding to people like you requires that kind of effort. It's like hearding cats on an intellectual basis. I don't have hours to devote to you, nor am I inclined to do so , so my posts come fast and furious. I've invested enough of my time with you, so let's finish this discussion once and for all. I'm a lawyer, asking a question "What do you think about the Supreme Court" is an absurd, assinine and incomprehensibe question. What specifically about the Court; the number of justices, the age of the justices, the number of cases they hear a year, how much weight a justice should give to stare decisis, origional intent vs. a living Constitution? I'd be hard pressed to answer the question as posited. How does one begin to respond to a fool? "What issues are important to foreign policy"? Nationalism vs. Internationalism, the role of the UN, should NATO include the former Soviet republics, Congress' role in conjunction with the Commander In Chief? Where does one begin? If I was in Gov. Palin's shoes, I'd have looked Katie in the eye and said, my God, you're an elite member of the media and these are the best questions you can ask me? How big an idiot are you Katie? Let me ask you one, Katie? What do you think about the media? Of course, I'm not a politician which is why Gov. Palin didn't ask the questions. Finally, spare me your b.s. about how the media's not supposed to allow pols to squirm off the hook. What about Obama's famous comment about his "Muslin faith" that George S. corrected for Obama? How many times have leftist media elites let Dems get away with the most outrageous lies without a follow up? If anybody's not in touch, it's you Thomas. Now,when are you going to answer my question about Brokaw's and Rose's comments? Don't bother me with another reply absent an answer. And you still haven't told me what size brown shirt and jackboots you wear, either.

Tom Paine| 11.5.08 @ 10:54PM

DO I think that Rose and Brokaw are liberals?

Yes, I do. Does that mean they can't do quality journalism? No, it doesn't. Journalism isn't all ideology and opinion. It is true that sometimes ideology warps journalistic accuracy, and perhaps the case you cite is an example of this. I don't see what they point is.

Your point about the Supreme Court isn't quite to the point. Palin said she disagreed with RvW. Couric asked her if she disagreed with any other Supreme Court decisions. The point is that Palin could have talked about any decision she wanted, and she couldn't think of one.

Think about it. The WHOLE conservative movement is BASED on the idea that the courts have overstepped their bounds. She doesn't seem to understand the politics espoused here or elsewhere in the conservative movement. She could have talked about that decision in CT last year. Anything. Or, she could have mentioned -- oh, I don't know -- Dred Scott maybe? A case any 9th grader should know about. It was weird.

Frankly, I just reject your whole thesis about a "liberal elite media." Endless studies have been done on this matter, and none of them support the notion that there's some kind of liberal conspiracy against conservatives. In fact, there's evidence of quite contrary activities.

SO just chill out dude.

Steve| 11.5.08 @ 11:23PM

Tom Paine, you are right that there is no liberal media conspiracy. But that does NOT mean they are fair or unbiased. Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias" described it accurately I think. Dan and Brian and Katie (in the book it was Dan, Peter, and Tom) don't sit around thinking of ways to cook the news. It is more insidious than that. They have a world view that is liberal, the circles they run in are liberal, and they don't know anyone who isn't. They never have any contact with the cretins (us) in the flyover states. Dan Rather is quoted as saying the New York Times is "middle of the road" !!! They see the world through a liberal prism and it affects what stories they run and what to emphasize etc etc. For a journalist to recognize and admit he is biased is ok because he can be alert for it creeping into his stories but when one doesn't know he is biased, that's when it's a problem. You're right that studies have been done but the ones I know about say that 82% of the MSM is registered Democrat and/or voted that way in the past two elections. I bet it's even higher this time. Can you not admit that if Bush, McCain, or Palin had said there were 57 states (BHO), that Pres FDR went on TV in 1929 (Biden), or that their helicopter was forced down or took sniper fire (Biden and Hillary), they would have been ridiculed and it would have been replayed nonstop on TV? As it was these items received barely a mention in the MSM. None so blind as those who will not see...

Mike| 11.6.08 @ 12:00AM

Oh and by the way, Tom, you still haven't answered Anthony's original question. He didn't ask you whether or not you thought Rose or Brokaw were liberals. Nor did he ask you whether or not you thought their liberalism prevented them from doing "quality journalism". Rather, he asked you what you thought of the spectacle of two very senior American journalists saying repeatedly that they knew nothing about Sen. Obama's worldview yet seemed to have no problem with the idea of him becoming President of the United States. I believe you may have worn Anthony out with your perseverating so I'll ask you again for him - what do you think of the fact that neither Brokaw nor Rose knew anything about Sen. Obama's worldview yet appeared to be untroubled by his imminent rise to the highest office in the land? Oh, and while I've got your attention, as another example of mainstream media bias during the just completed campaign, how about that CNN reporter who quoted Byron York's National Review piece to Gov. Palin in which he made it seem as if York were calling her incompetent, stupid, unqualified, etc. by taking it out of context when what York was really saying was that if all he had done was to read, listen to, and watch the mainstream media, he couldn't help but to have these very negative impressions of Gov. Palin himself? How's that for journalistic cojones? York writes a piece lamenting the mainstream media's overwhelmingly negative coverage of Gov. Palin while simultaneously giving her opponents multiple passes in similar instances and a member of that very same mainstream media has the audacity to take it out of context in order to pile on with more negative coverage. Wow.

Bemused| 11.6.08 @ 11:01PM

Roc,

Your bitterness is gratifying. Oh, by the way- I have a few choice for you and your "paesans", but I'm afraid I can't say them in mixed company :)

PS-email me any time

ruth| 11.8.08 @ 2:03AM

Bemused, nice post. I have a few choice for you, too, moron.