« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Will the TPM staff reveal their primary preferences?
Here's a proposal for the TPM staff to each post (after all of this mess is over with) which candidate they were personally backing.
Let's make it more interesting and throw in who they were rooting for at the very beginning. Was it Biden? Richardson? Someone else?
(I've had Josh pegged as a Gravel man from the start!) {snark}
Then, who were they for when it got down to Obama vs. Clinton?
Note to the TPM staff: I know you folks have to retain a certain amount of objectivity as journalists, but, hey, you're people first, and we all have opinions. Plus, let's face it, this site is a different format than traditional journalism, so why not reveal after all is said and done?
Please recommend this post if you'd like to know, too!
Pig out.
Comments (24)
Edwards/Richardson
June 3, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You aren't honestly saying that you haven't noticed the obvious partiality at TPM during the primary, are you? Who is Josh supporting?! C'mon, now.
June 3, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I have my thoughts as to who each supports, but let's hear it from "The Horse's Mouth" so to speak. :-)
June 3, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck with this one. I tried to get TPM to endorse before Super Tuesday. Here is Josh's explanation for why he didn't make an endorsement:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/tpm-endorsement.php
June 3, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think no matter what they actually came out and said there would be those who screamed "AHAAAAAAAAAA! I KNEW YOU LOVED __________ THATS WHY YOU __________________________________"
Its better left unsaid.
I think it is obvious that Josh loves the Clintons but had a very big disappointment in the way they conducted themselves. He's said as much.
June 3, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No small feat when your pals at The Daily Blumenthal are telling you Obama is a gay, drug-dealing, Muslim terrorist whose wife hates America.
June 3, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
But we're not talking about an endorsement here, Genghis. We're talking about revealing past preferences. I don't see a conflict there.
And if I was to learn eg. that Greg Sargent had been an Obama supporter from the get go, that would be fascinating to know, don't you agree?
June 4, 2008 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would be fascinating too, but I don't see them doing it. I think that Josh's rationale applies to post facto revelations as well as pre facto endorsements.
June 4, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who needs a formal endorsement when TPM's Editor-in-Chief is as subtle as a freight train?
June 3, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reply from the TPM staff: we'll ask Mr. Blumenthal and get back to you tomorrow morning.
June 3, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's easy to figure out. Josh Marshall clearly leaned Obama while the uber-goobers Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefield were drowning in the tank for Hillary.
June 4, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I ran a political news web site or were a political reporter, I wouldn't be able to vote for a candidate. The second I chose someone to support, it would color my views and make any reach for objectivity impossible.
I respect people who can support a candidate yet maintain emotional distance to him or her, but I can't, and I suspect many other people can't as well. This is all a long way of saying that I didn't want anyone that TPM supporting a democratic candidate over another. I'm glad no one at TPM publicly declared support for one of the candidates.
June 4, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting that people have said "That's easy: they support _____" with both candidates' names inserted for the blank. I recommended this post initially, but in a way, I feel like it is better for it to remain unknown.
June 4, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was particularly disappointed with the headline tonight:
"OBAMA DECLARES HIMSELF THE NOMINEE"
As regular readers know, I think that TPM is pretty neutral... but that headline is not good journalism. In fact, it sounds like something Hillary might have told her supporters.
And every other news organization is calling him the presumptive nominee.
June 4, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
There have just been so many of these over the last weeks. It feels like Eric/Greg are pissed and really trying to stick it to the Obama supporters on the site. This has grown to the extent that it does not seem unfair to ask that TPM address the issue in general. How can so many different people all perceive the same bias?
The (non)coverage of this evening's Obama rally, the official launch of the democratic general election campaign, is inexcusable. Instead we get wall-to-wall coverage of the LOSER?!?!
Many of us have risen to defend the site and Greg personally, I don't think it's unfair to ask for an explanation that goes beyond Greg's patented "nope, no bias here".
Josh, if you ever read this stuff: why not just do an audit of the election coverage for the last three weeks. Does it seem stilted? Elaborate please.
June 4, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
These bias accusations have been going on from both sides since th primary began. Few of us have sufficient perspective to accurately assess reporter preferences from headline choices. Anyway, who cares? I came here for thoughtful and interesting reporting, whether or not I agree with it, not "fair and balanced" headlines.
June 4, 2008 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are a victim of FNC, Genghis. I don't want fair and balanced, I want neutral. There is a difference.
Once upon a time, editorializing was left for the op-ed page -- unless you wanted to be accused of Hearst' yellow journalism. And remember, this headline came from TPM's "news" portion of the site.
June 4, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you note, I never actually even speculated about motivation/preference. In fact, I don't care about bias - I visit Taylor Marsh & Co. and NRO.
However, this site has claimed to be unbiased and there are consistent patterns that don't match that claim. I simply pointed out the pattern, noted yet another inexplicable circumstance - and asked for clarification.
Personally, I think it's groveling for access to campaign insiders more than election preference. Let's face it - Hillary's campaign let Greg hobnob with a who's who of journalists last night. He sure wouldn't have gotten those ego strokes sitting at home blogging Obama's rally. It's the same attitude that the MSM adopted when they shilled for Bush's war - so I'm not particularly stoked to see it creep into "citizen journalism"
Any way it goes, I asked a question - didn't make any accusations.
June 4, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The headline was inexcusable, but typical of Blumenthal Points Memo.
June 4, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frickin' Hillbot!
June 4, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've got to be kidding!
June 4, 2008 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
For once I agree with Otto.
June 4, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really care about their primary preference anymore. I just care about their general election preference. And I care if they see this site as a Democratic site or as a nonpartisan site.
June 4, 2008 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
wow no coverage of obama's historic rally here in st.paul until 1:00 a.m., on this site. what were you covering an earthquake, a tsunami ? and then people are upset because Senator Obama's not given the respect due, when you win fairly everone knows youve won. How lame, I thought I would get some really good info surrounding the GE at this site but I guess not. Thats o.k. movin' on thrilled that I was witness to a historic event. take care all.
June 4, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment