The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Over at ABC, Michael Malone's piece on biased election coverage is worth a read, and I especially found this part worth commenting on:

I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play....

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

The media has tried to create the narrative that John McCain has been running a more negative, nasty, campaign than Obama. But the important thing to remember is that campaigns go negative when they want to draw attention to something that isn't being covered. In Obama's case, the media has gone after McCain and Palin so aggressively, that there isn't any reason for him to get his own hands dirty. In McCain's case, however, he's been forced to take matters into his own hands -- just as Hillary did -- because the media refuses to seriously scrutinize Obama. It really struck me being in the spin room of the final debate at Hofstra earlier this month, how the media was overtly confrontational with the McCain surrogates, but when it came time to engage the Obama folks, the questions would be along the lines of, "Do you think that John McCain was too nasty tonight?" So really, it's a vicious circle. The media goes soft on Obama, so McCain sharpens his attacks, and then they criticize McCain for running a more negative campaign.