« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Liberal journalist admits: The media threw its support on Obama
In a bold admission, renouned progressive journalist John Judis of The New Republic, who co-authored the book "The Emerging Democratic Majority (2002), has admitted the following in an article titled "The Autopsy Report" wednesday:
Race is the deepest and oldest and most bitter conflict in AmericanTo add insult to injury, Judis opined that it was ok for McC
history--the cause of our great Civil War and of the upheavals of the
1950s and '60s. And if some voters didn't appreciate the potential
breakthrough that Obama's candidacy represented, many in the Democratic
primaries and caucuses did--and so did the members of the media and
Obama's fellow politicians. And as Clinton began treating Obama as just
another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him.
ain to go negative on Mitt Romney, but it was not ok for Hillary Clinton to go negative on Obama, because he's the first black candidate to run for president, and being the first black is more important than being the first women to run for the same position.
The Daily Howler marveled at Judis boldness and could not believe it. Here's the Howler on Judis.
Here's Judis piece.
Advertisement
Comments (26)
McCain is the media golden boy so I really don't think you can use him as an example to show media bias in this case.
Also worth noting is that the MSM igored Biden, Richardson and Edwards as they were too caught up telling the Clinton vs Obama story.
May 23, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also remarkable that the portion you quote is all you took away from an article that does a fairly decent job outlining how Obama turned into a phenomenon, all issues of race or media bias aside.
May 23, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I'd bet I could find a liberal journalist who "admits" that the media threw its support on Clinton. How does that prove anything?
May 23, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. You won't find a journalists of the stature of John Judis, senior editor of The New Republic, saying such baseless thing. Nobody in his/her right mind has claimed media biased in favor of Clinton during these primaries.
May 23, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose Judis was following the story that the investigative journalists at SNL broke.
One thing Hillary has done right with her campaign is to manipulate the media into being biased in her favor by claiming repeatedly that it's biased against her. This strategy is based on the old adage that if you repeat a lie often enough, it sounds like the truth.
Whether you want to call it pro-Clinton bias or not, many reporters (who you will no doubt call hacks) have reported on the apparent bias in the media intent on keeping this horse race going. With Clinton clearly behind, that ends up being de facto pro-Clinton bias. When she was briefly ahead, you could've called that anti-Clinton bias.
May 23, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
For an entity that's supposedly anti-Clinton, they've given her leeway and let her dictates terms of election coverage.
I mean, really. The media really did discuss whether or not sexism is behind Clinton's failures, like sexism is the reason she lost 11 primaries/caucuses in a row.
They even bought her, "Why can't he close the deal?" line. The answer is simple: another candidate is still actively campaigning against him.
What's more, she had Pat Buchanan who is definitely racist, though NOT a Clinton-supporter. Paul Begala and James Carville are on CNN all the time. . . . Et and al.
May 23, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what about his stature. Your argument is that he is somehow revealing a literal conspiracy to hype Obama by the "media". One reporter from one magazine. Whooptie-damn-doo.
And if he's been 'renounced' as a progressive journalist doesn't that kind of undercut what just may be your point in there somewhere?
May 24, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought he said "renounced" at first, as well. Actually, he wrote "renouned", presumably meaning "renowned". Let it "reverberate" around in your head awhile. :)
May 24, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
File this under "O" as in "One Reporter's Opinion," cross-referenced "Opinion, One Reporter's". I'm a liberal freelance journalist and if TNR wants to ask me about it, I think John McCain has some serious PTSD and I don't trust him to run a volunteer carwash if you spotted him the hose, the cheerleaders, and the posterboard, much less the government of the United States.
So now you can put up another post...
"Liberal journalist calls McCain insane, unfit for charity carwash"
May 23, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just one reporter; the senior editor of a major progressive publication.
May 24, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This story is such B.S. It just standard Republican attacks on the media.
May 23, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Civil War wasn't fought over ending slavery but to preserve the Union, first and foremost. Slavery was just an aside.
Finally, I am not sure if this person understands that the the Civil Rights movement started in the 1860s after the Civil War and not the 1960s.
May 23, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slaves would disagree with your first paragraph. Abolitionists with the latter...
May 24, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the truth lies somewhere inbetween.
May 24, 2008 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why I'm wading into this, but . . .
I think the media did throw its support to Obama. I remember watching the South Carolina coverage on CNN and getting the *distinct* impression that the journalists were all glad to see the Clintons have their racial strategy cut off and handed to them on a platter.
And let's not even start talking about MSNBC.
Doesn't bother me a bit, because I think the Clinton racial strategy stank to high heaven, and I'm proud of mainstream journalists for (subtly) calling them on it.
But let's be candid. It's pretty well acknowledged that there are a lot of people in the media who can't stand the Clintons. This is not a huge surprise. And it doesn't hurt Obama to admit that this had an effect on the race. I think it did.
May 23, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC runs hot and cold. Depends on what side of the bed they get up on. They're equal opportunity unbiased biased, switching sides on a regular basis.
May 24, 2008 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, get real. Did you miss the tingle up Matthews' leg, Olberman's daily fawning over Obama, Shuster's and Matthews' apology and Rachel Maddow's pro-Obama comments?
May 24, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if we stipulate that the shite examples you cite as fact are accurate, that means "The Media" is pro-Obama?
Put the pipe down... There is no "The Media".
May 24, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute. I thought Richardson was Judis.
May 23, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this is the winner of the thread. :D
May 24, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
All coverage before Iowa was Pro-Clinton. If Barack didn't painstakingly win over individual Iowans to the surprise of the media, Ms. Inevitable, AND the nation, then there would have been no momentum to his side in the first place.
Thank you Iowans. We need you in November too. Keep it up! The nation loves ya!
June 3, 2008 is the new January 20, 2009. 11 more days until the Democrats are released from the Clinton wrath.
May 23, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really hate these blanket generalizations like: "the media is in the tank for Obama" or "the Main Stream Media is liberal". As Colbert would say: reality has a liberal bias.
The "media" is comprised of human beings, with bias', agenda's, baggage, etc., just like the rest of us. They strive for that much ballyhooed, but often misunderstood goal of objectivity. The fact is, the reason the "media" is drawn to Obama, and to McCain for that matter, is that they are both interesting people who are simply likable. These traits engender a certain sympathy amongst the fourth estate. No black magic here.
On the other hand, Hillary isn't particularly likable. Or as Obama would say, likable enough. She comes across as inauthentic, and the "media" picks up on it. Their coverage, while attempting objectivity, belays a certain antipathy, or perhaps a certain distance from its subject that is lacking in coverage of say, Obama. This trait is then interpreted by some as evidence of media bias for Obama. It's bias insofar as the media can relate to Obama more so than Clinton.
I think Eric Alterman sort of said it best when he declared that the media is more sensationalist than biased per se. To use a media phrase: Obama is good copy.
May 24, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew you cite one article in the New Republic by Judis who cites one article in the WaPo about one ad Clinton ran in SC the WaPo reporters said was dishonest. The insinuation in that ad, "Obama supported Republican policies" was factually incorrect. You're going to have to do a lot better than that.
Any candidate other than Hillary Clinton would have left the race months ago. She has been able to stay in by intimidating the media with charges of wholesale misogynism against them and the Democratic party. She has attacked the Dem presumptive nominee long after she had any realistic chance of winning to the detriment of the party's chances of winning in the fall.
May 24, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Mark, I thought you had heard of Howard Kurtz, Rick Lowry, SNL and every other media critic admitting media bias in favor of Obama.
Add TNR's senior editor to the list.
May 24, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if you don't see that these "admissions" can't also be seen as evidence of pro-Clinton bias, then you're accepting what these journalists/comedians say uncritically.
May 24, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
That makes no sense. Judis made the admission during an article where he ripped Hillary Clinton for being racist and said that Obama's candidacy is more important than Hillary because being the first viable black candidate is more important than being the first viable woman candidate.
Does that sound like pro-Clinton bias to you?
May 24, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment