I think this trait began long before 9/11.

some explenations and history on that:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/390.html

out of
http://www.brasschecktv.com/

one of those clever rhetorical questions that wasn't designed to solicit an answer.

I don't remember your loud protestations when the media were picking Hillary apart.

Where you were then, enjoying the coverage?

The press collaborated with Republicans to attack Clinton, which culminated in the impeachment frenzy. Then, either drunk on their power or controlled by big-business marionette strings (probably both), they gleefully pilloried Gore and helped Bush to get "elected."

Now, it's unclear what they'll do with their power. McCain has cultivated them over the years and McCain/Palin is a good news story, so they've let it proceed. However, the fall of McCain/Palin is looking like a good story, so they're sniffing around it.

I think blog pressure--especially from TPM and Huffinton Post--is starting to have an effect. If only we'd had this outlet in 2000! It's depressing to think about what might have been . . .

Sorry, Vice President

It's simple-- Follow the money.

Major news organizations are part of the fabric of corporate America. They depend on corporate sponsors for their advertising revenue. Their owners and publishers and editors and star newscasters are high net-worth individuals. They are deeply invested in preserving and protecting the status quo. The last thing they want is a populist movement that has the potential to disrupt their way of life. Why is anyone surprised that they are happy to spin political narratives in support of the Republicans?

Clearly these folks are fighting hard to preserve their (and their bosses) Bush tax cut.

What's striking about the Washington Post article is that it does not cite a single example from the Post's own extensive archives where "the Bush Doctrine" had been used in a manner other than how Gibson defined it. I think that really gives the charade away.

Perhaps one of the reasons is because the press perceived Al Gore's "exaggerations" as self inflicted, and therefore much easier to attack & mock.

McCain is attacking his opponent, which is to be expected in a national campaign. Therefore the bar is naturally higher for reporters to call a candidate on their lies.

However, the Palin resume puffery is beginning to break through because it is similar to what the press accused Gore of. It's easier to mock someone's claims about themselves than it is to mock their attacks on an opponent.

I saw an ad recently - I'll try to find the link - that showed the video clip of Palin in her Bush Doctrine moose-in-the-headlights moment contrasted with an older video of McCain who was asked his opinion of the Bush Doctrine and who didn't hesitate to answer the question - because he KNEW what that doctrine was.

I couldn't agree with you more about the dangers of a lazy media: that Palin, for instance, isn't boned up on the federal scene and that this is a serious concern about her candidacy and must be kept in the headlines. I, too, worry that the bar seems set so low that our VPs and Ps are asked by some to only know what WE, "the people" -know. That's a freakin' scary thought! Folks who specialize in federal governmental administration are supposed to know more about federal administrative issues than we, who specialize in local real estate or bartending or whatever....hello!

In any case, the only answer I have to your rhetorical question about the overall ethics of media is that we can't win by sitting back and wringing hands. We must continue to lobby them with our letters to the editor and our phone calls to their desks and our diaries here on TPM and other sites. Thanks to this kind of lobbying, folks on "The View" have already taken issue to McCain himself and so have many other prominent news writers and columnists, despite this Washington Post story you cite.

The media is not an invisible translator of facts and figures...it's an interpreter and distributor of its own interpretations, and our task must be to keep influencing their outcomes. The sooner we resign ourselves to this, the less time we'll waste worrying - and the more effective we'll become.

There is, unfortunately, a double standard among the conservative media. Democrats, you see, are known to be smart, patriotic, and honorable, so when any crack appears, no matter how small, in their armor, the media piranhas pounce. Note John Edwards's and Bill Clinton's affairs and the media circuses around them. Now I'm not saying these weren't legitimate stories, but the media's OBSESSION with them was unhealthy for our country in both cases; particularly with Edwards's, since he wasn't even in the public eye anymore when his story broke.

Republicans, on the other hand, are known to be underhanded, flag-waving yet secretive veteran hating neocon warmongers, and liars. It takes a massive whopper to even appear as a blip on the conservative media's radar: even secret homosexual affairs and bungling an entire government agency won't start a feeding frenzy. Contrast Democratic affairs with McCain's two-timing filandering while he was still married to the first wife: can we even IMAGINE a world in which a Democrat with McCain's immoral relationship history could even appear on the national stage? I think not.

I seem to recall that the bogus reporting about Gore's "problem" with the truth came most intensively in and after the 2000 debates, or that's when the false meme really sunk in.

I am hopeful that in the debates this year, McCain will be unable to explain himself on this point, showcasing his dishonest campaign and his own, exposing him utterly to many voters. I'm hopeful he'll be nailed by Obama, who may be helped along by a moderator or citizen/questioner. This would be nice for a change!

A stunning number of journalists and media talking heads continue to proffer the misbegotten idea that John McCain has been "body snatched" or can't posibly know what his campaign is doing. Carville, Matthews, Mitchell, even Arianna are stunned by McCain's behavior. Remarkably, he has not depleted that reservoir of goodwill, despite shutting out the press from the "Straight Talk Express" since July. So now the "Kewl Kids on the Bus" are upset about Palin and having no "in" on McCain campaign, other than what the campaign tells them what to think. I'm not sure going after the lies will be persuasive to pudgy middle of undecideds.

From the producers that brought you the Iraq War, record deficits and domestic spying comes the sequel, John McCain. Americans didn't like the first movie, so the writers decided to spray-paint the old plot gold and stick a cocktail-sized american flag in it.

OldSarg loved the first movie and will be the first in line to buy a ticket for its sequel. I think it's gonna flop, but we wont know until opening day.

I think the press subservience to the GOP started much earlier. I remember when I first came to this country in 1981 being very surprised at how timid the press was. The reporters almost never challenged the interviewees with follow up questions, most of the press conf. were of one question-one answer format. They routinely allowed Reagan to pretend he didn't hear inconvenient questions thrown at him with the whirring helicopter in the background. However, I was told that in the previous year, Night Line opened every night with a count up of number of days the American hostages were held in Tehran.
Contrast that with the number of years that have elapsed without OBL being brought to justice.
Taling of 9/11, it happened under Bush's watch, how many reporters have ever pointed out that tiny fact? I just can't imagine a democrat being re-elected after an attack like that happened under his/her watch.
But the GOP keeps howling "liberal press" and the lap dog press obliges them by shutting out any criticisms of the GOP.
I read a lot of the commentors here and elsewhere say how Obama should respond to many lies of McCain, but if the press doesn't give it any air time, then what, it is really depressing to think about that.

Dear Friends,

You really are making me sad and pessimistic.

You show good spirit in pushing back at the obvious troll who spouts nonsense, yet I get the feeling in too many comments that we the people cannot have any effect on the almighty media, and we must wait for one of them to become "fair," and otherwise conduct ourselves as subjects who must accept whatever the almighty media give out.

They've made it really hard for us push back with the intensity we need to show, yet now is the time to show it, it's 50 days and counting !! The broadcasters have moved most of their facilities to suburbs, so it's harder to gather and deploy a crowd against them, they assiduously hide themselves from complaints, some states have laws against secondary boycotts.

Yet we absolutely need to be picketing their facilities, coming up to and, as people feel it necessary, beyond the edge of legality in our confrontations of their employees, and their advertisers. They shouldn't be able to send their mobile broadcast vans out without gathering an angry crowd.

They are almighty billion-$$ corporations that own lots of lawyers and politicians, but in the end they are businesses, and they will change IF WE CAN AFFECT THEIR REVENUES. Their revenues come from advertising. If we can only affect their revenues by 2 or 3%, they'll shrug it off, the ultimate payoff of ownign politicians is higher.

If we can affect their revenues by 7-9%, it'll be marginal, they'll fight us with every trick in the book to demonize our names with their audience.

But if we can make the business climate so toxic for their advertisers, that their revenues decline by 15%, and they understand that the decline is because a large minority of citizens regard their media corporations as only slightly less evil than the Devil himself, they will change.

If we understand that REALITY IS MALLEABLE, that our actions and inactions have consequences, that we are citizens who need to defend ourselves and not consumer slugs who have take whatever the businesses are handing out, if we understand that if we lose this election WE WILL PROBABLY LOSE FREE ELECTIONS AND FAIR JUDGES AND UN-EVIL POLITICIANS -- FOREVER -- if we can understand these things, we will find a way to stop wanking around the blogs and act !!

This is it kiddies, if we haven't already lost all our rights irrevocably, this election is the crux.
The absolute freaking end of the land of the brave and the home of the free. And yes, the lousy lazy Democrats are a big part of the problem too, let your elected D. congress-critters know.

Temporarily in the next 50 days, letters to your local print outlets demonizing the broadcasters and narrowcasters for their atrocious standards of 'coverage,' their attitudes, and nonsense over the last year, may be a very good tactic even if that print outlet is also generally piggish. They do tend to print letters in proportion to general feelings, so if we can make this a general feeling, while playing the tactic of enlisting the fear that the print media have of the video media and working on some of the fault lines within the "journalism" industry, it will get printed and out there.

Second that. It's a good distinction.

Anyway, the point of all this is not truth or fact checking or lies. The point is to suck all the media oxygen away from Obama, to deny him any space for getting his own message out except in reaction to whatever the McCain blitzkrieg is putting out that day.

In this situation it simply DOESN'T MATTER whether Palin or McCain is lying. All that matters is that they are setting the agenda, they are setting the battleground, and Obama is muscled off the stage. This is what Palin is for. It's just about impossible for her to screw up so massively that the GOP media spinners can't fuzz it up and soften it into meaninglessness. And so chasing after whatever lie or factoid about her past or whatever only serves to deprive Obama of any stage to get his message out. It's there game, and we're playing it. Sickening. Effective.

You could almost admire it, if it didn't mean the ruination of our country.

1. The media's bosses are conservative. These are huge corporations that depend on advertising dollars from other huge corporations. Duh.
2. Most of the media individuals are conservative. I have read that 90% of reporters identified themselves as liberal. I might believe that if it was 1976 but not now.
3. The Republicans cry foul all the time. I have heard this referred to as working the refs. It works. The media bends over backward for them.
4. Republicans are mean and vindictive. The media is afraid of them.
5. Republicans are organized and armed for war. They stay on message no matter what. They can flood media outlets with phone calls, letters, emails on command. We can see their influence as trolls on the blogs.
6. POW! Maverick!

That's just off the top of my head.

Let's not forget to take a moment to recognize one of the wingnuts' main 'facts' that Al Gore was a 'serial liar':

"Doncha know he claimed to invent teh Internet, haw, haw!"

Like 99% of the rest of wingnut bloviation, this talking point was proven to be smoke and b.s., and the point was driven through by Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn, who are, in fact, two of the chief architects of the modern-day Internet, and they recognized Gore for his contributions in pushing through legislation that brought about the Internet as we know it today.

http://www.politechbot.com/p-01394.html

With respect to the MSM, it is very important to be aware of:

Who Owns What

The president of Viacom once said, in response to the question of whether he was voting for the Republican or the Democrat, that he was voting for Viacom--and that their interests would be best served by having the Republicans manage the FCC.

As long as everyone keeps on bowing to John McCain..."I respect him for his service..." he is going to keep right on lying, secure in the knowledge no one will ever call him on it. After all, he's a POW! He must not be touched!

Thank you to all the ladies of "The View" who won't tolerate this BS.

Republicans campaign aggressively and with complete confidence. They intimidate the press. Democrats seem to believe they are unpopular and project insecurity, lack of confidence, and uncertainty. The press picks up on this weakness and reflects it.

Until the Democrats learn to stand up aggressively for their positions and demand their "rights" from the press as Republicans do they will continue to falter.

The Democrats are the party of weaklings and they project that weakness. This is what happens when you don't stand on principle and instead keep trying to triangulate in a desperate attempt to win votes. The MSM isn't at fault. The Democrats are simply paying the bill for having failed to articulate a strong, consistent vision for the country.

The Republicans have articulated that vision. It's the wrong vision. It's a disaster for the nation. But they articulate it with force and consistency.

The Democrats meanwhile are against the FISA bill and then for it . . . against drilling then for it . . . against faith-based intitiative then for them . . .

McCain is either a liar and hypocrite or else senile and ignorant ---maybe all of the above .God help our country and the world if he and the self-described "lipstick-wearing pitbull" ( aka "Sarah Barracuda" ---and they're proud of this nickname!?!?!? ) are elected....that would constitute a triumph of ignorance, arrogance and hypocrisy unparalleled in our history....

Explain to me how obama is allowed to lie everytime he opens his mouth and his media darlings don't point it out? How about obama's mentors, friends, etc...? McCain has told truths and you can't handle it Reed Hundt. You're just another leftist liberal who is in the corner of obama and you're not capable of writing anything that is not biased toward your friend, obama. America sees how you treat obama and how you treat McCain, and guess what-we're tired of it. You wouldn't know journalism if it came up and bit you in the butt!
Explain to me how NBC, CBS and others should even be allowed to report anything in regard to elections when they are working on obama's campaign? Ever heard of conflict of interests? This is a bold one if you ask me.
Obama took the second highest amount from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and he did that being in office in only 2 years. The highest, Chris Dodd, was taking for 9 years. So if you go by the years in office, obama actually took the most of anybody from those two government run mortgage companies. What you got to say about that? NOTHING!!! McCain told the Senate in 2005 that something must be done or what happened will happen. What did the Democrats do, NOTHING!! Becasuse they were pocketing money from those 2 groups. What do you have to say about that? NOTHING!!
All you lefist liberal media hacks are the liars and when this election is over and McCain is in the White House, America will drop all you idiots like a bad habit!!

You're a pathetic leftist moron! Democrats have destroyed the economy by pushing for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to insure that minorities own homes they couldn't afford. Now guess who is paying for those homes while they still live in them? I am, you are and the rest of the American tax payers. You need to do some research before you open your uninformed, uneducated mouth! Democrats caused this, obama was part of taking all that money from those groups and then hiring the heads of those organizations to help run his campaign when those guys took millions from FM and FM. Wake the hell up. You must like socialism and marxism since you're obviously are pulling for THE most liberal person in Congress. Too bad obama wasn't in the room while you were being born because you wouldn't be here.