Annoyed

The media's October 17, 2004 headline:

Poll suggests Kerry has lead in swing states

Could a late Republican voter shift doom Obama like it buried Kerry?

Not if the fourth estate has its way--they're determined to prevent an '04 replay. Forget even the appearance of press balance--it's full-tilt boogie bias, choking coverage of Democrat scandals and digging for dirt on Cindy McCain while ignoring Obama's admitted unsavory connections. Examples:

Money: How much of Obama's huge bankroll is suspicious or outright illegal? Even Howard Kurtz noticed it, on CNN's Reliable Sources, aired Oct 19:

Mark Halperin, we learned this morning that Barack Obama in the month of September raised $150 million, the early estimates had been about $100 million. They always kind of leak a lower figure so they can exceed it.

If a Republican had not taken public financing and had raised all that money, and the Democrat was struggling financially, wouldn't we see a lot of stories about one candidate essentially trying to buy the election?

Apparently, the MSM's investigators are all combing Alaska dumpsters and the unable to dig into Barack. Note how few articles address Obama's fraudulent, foreign and terrorist-linked contributors. How many reporters bothered to mention Obama's funding from fictional addresses?

Further, Obama's website deliberately ignored fraud by disabling name, address and code security checks, allowing credit-card contributions to be credited to names other than the cardholder. As The Corner's Mark Steyn quips:

Who says there's a credit crunch? Not at Obama Central.

It's especially instructive to compare the number of Democrat donors with phony names ("John Galt," "Hbkjb, jkbkj," "Saddam Hussein," "Doodad Pro," "Fake Name") with the number of stories on same in the mainstream press. How many noticed that the McCain campaign rejected contributions using fake names? (Obama's campaign may have started rejecting fake-name contributions--it's not entirely clear--but only on Thursday, after the RNC complained.) I guess when Obama promised his campaign would be the first "truly funded by the people" he meant people violating Federal law designed to prevent avoiding individual contribution limits.

Pennsylvania Avenue soon to be "One America": Remember all that talk in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2006--when Republicans controlled Congress--about the merits of divided government? Democrats could control both Congress and the Executive branch next year, aided by a silence of scare stories--or even hints--today. Suddenly, liberals love a uniter, not a divider.

Biden gets the pass Palin doesn't: The pinnacle of press partisanship was the aftermath of Joe Biden's predicted foreign-affairs crisis in the Obama Administration. How did reporters cover the bungle? Kirsten Powers answers in Wednesday's NY Post:

[T]he media showed their incredible bias by giving scattered coverage of Biden's statements.

There were a few exceptions. On MSNBC's "Morning Joe," co-host Mika Brzezinski flipped incredulously through the papers, expressing shock at the lack of coverage of Biden's remarks. Guest Dan Rather admitted that if Palin had said it, the media would be going nuts.

So what gives?

The stock answer is: "It's just Biden being Biden." We all know how smart he is about foreign policy, so it's not the same as when Sarah Palin says something that seems off.

Yet, when Biden asserted incorrectly in the vice-presidential debate that the United States "drove Hezbollah out of Lebanon," nobody in the US media shrieked. (It was, however, covered with derision in the Middle East.) Or when he confused his history by claiming FDR calmed the nation during the Depression by going on TV, the press didn't take it as evidence that he's clueless.

And Biden is the foreign-policy gravitas on the Democratic ticket, so his comments are actually even more disconcerting. . .

Biden is telling us that, at a time when Americans need to feel confidence in their government, they will be going "Oh my God." Not a great message.

Needless to say, if Sarah Palin said this about a McCain administration, the media world would be exploding.

Whether you believe Biden is exaggerating, as he is known to do, or is providing real insight, the double standard in the media does even more damage to their lagging brand.

Can there be any doubt the press treats Palin and Biden differently?

Conclusion: As I recently noted:

In 1992, I taped a bumper-sticker to my car's back window because it summarized the best reason for my vote: "Annoy the media; re-elect Bush."

Of course, it didn't work then, and might not now. And this time it's not the most important reason. Still, especially after the press barbecued Palin, it feels right:




source: Cafe Press