Three newspapers kicked off Obama plane
The AM dial in Dallas-Fort Worth is afire with news that three newspapers no longer get to fly on Obama's planes. (Don't ask me why I listen.) The papers?
The New York Post (makes sense)
The Washington Times (well, duh!)
The Dallas Morning News (Huh!?)
Although the DMN endorsed Obama during the primaries, on the 20th it endorsed McCain for the generals--this, our local bloviators believe, is the reason they're off the plane. Drudge passes on the rumor that they're making room for either (1) a documentary film crew or (2) people whom the right perceives as yes men, such as Maureen Dowd (I'm not making this up!). Also covering this story right now (you'll never guess who!) are Fox News and the Washington Times.
Just thought I'd pass this along before you hear the whines at the watercooler (especially fellow red-staters).












.
Ah yes ... Drudge.
He passes rumors quicker than he passes gas.
Buy that bozo some prune juice and a bran muffin.
~OGD~
*Cafe contributor since 2005*
October 31, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The liberal blogosphere used to scream bloody murder when Bush did flip side stuff like this. It think it's a silly game no matter who does it, and not only that, begets all kind of unintended bad results from blowback down the road from the dissed media people. Better off taking the guff from the opposing side from where you're in some control of it, then getting them resentful and with a more natural bent for payback.
October 31, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems awfully dumb to do right now for a candidate that is promoting a new tone in Washington and lessening partisan divisions. Why give a headline like this on the final weekend before the election?
October 31, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
People are shuffled on and off planes all the time, Dij. Look below for a link to my blog to find out why this particular shuffle is getting coverage.
Hint: it's not who has been kicked off... it's who's been put on.
October 31, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know Essence & Ebony. But the same uproar happened over the New Yorker being kicked off a flight for the satirical cover as punishment. The Obama campaign denied they choose which media stays home based on political disagreement. And now they claim it's a space issue, but only papers who didn't endorse Obama get the boot even though they have more readership than other media orgs? Even minus the racial angle, it's setting up an ideology angle and partisanship angle. These are not the headlines we want right now. It's freaking stupid. Full stop.
October 31, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to your wonderful future with President Obama!
October 31, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW...
Is this the first time you ever noticed that Obama is a miserable, vindictive ass-hole?
Welcome to your beautiful future with President Obama!
November 1, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Updated.
October 31, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I point out in a nearly recent blog, the "coverage" is somewhat interesting. And spiced with a bit of racism.
October 31, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It was confirmed" that he replaced them all with Jet? That's one I haven't heard yet. Thanks.
October 31, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can the Washington Times and the New York Post really be regarded as newspapers. I mean, sure, you can use them to line a bird cage or wrap fish from the market, but that is about where their similarity to newspapers ends. I think that it is regrettable that a quality publication like the DMN should be displaced, but the other two ought never to have been allowed in the press pool to begin with. Nobody is obliged to indulge my fancies that I am the Duke of Missouri by hereditary right, and similarly no one is obliged to indulge the Washington Times' and New York Post's pretensions of journalism.
October 31, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed on the Times and Post. Ben Smith observed--correctly, I think--that the DMN got cut on account of being in a solid red state. The other two papers are, as you pointed out, rags.
October 31, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama offered them a seat on Biden's plane, I believe. Did mccain offer Modo or Joe Klein a seat on Palin's plane?
But I have to agree with dijamo. It was not the best move Obama's ever made.
October 31, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
FDRDOG has it right - and using the term "kicked off" incorrectly implies that they were thrown off for something they wrote which is not the case.
Drudge yanked the link to the true story by
Ben Smith at Politico
but it wasn't salacious enough so he rewrote his own bit of BS and innuendo, all off the record and on the QT of course.
Maureen Dowd has already refuted one of Drudge's assertions.
______________
"Obama spokesman Bill Burton confirms Drudge's report that two right-leaning papers, the Washington Times and the New York Post, have lost their seats on the Obama plane, along with the Dallas Morning News.
"We're trying to reach as many swing voters that we can and unfortunately had to make some tough choices. but we are accommodating these folks in every way possible," he said.
The Post and the Morning News are both read primarily in states that aren't in play, but the Washington Times is read in Northern Virginia.
Burton said the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times had returned to the plane, and confirmed that Ebony and Jet magazines have seats on the plane. (The Tribune has had a reporter on the plane for most of the cycle, but recently added a photographer.)
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd said in an email that, contrary to Drudge's suggestion, she won't be on Obama's plane."
October 31, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I give a shit who Obama lets ride in his plane. More desperation from the short bus.
November 1, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times are back on the plane, along with the other Chicago-based media giant, Johnson Publications, who owns Ebony, Jet and a good portion of Essence.
Rather than seeing this dismissal as a ploy, maybe Chicago just wants a bigger slice of the pie. Not an unusual move, if you're familiar with the local politics.
November 1, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink