Is media bias against Obama causing them not to report objective facts?

As I talked about in my last post, Hillary’s done. Any objective analysis of the empirical facts proves this. Save for an act of God, there is now no way that her campaign can surmount the delegates that Obama has amassed. Given this fact, shouldn’t the media project Obama as the winner of the Democratic nomination? News networks use analysis of exit polls and raw voting data all the time to project who has won an election. Just last night, we were told — accurately — that Obama had won North Carolina before a single vote had been been counted there. So if they use empirical evidence to report to us who won a primary, why aren’t they using the empirical evidence now to say that this race is over?

Indeed, why does the media still claim there’s a race? Do they have a bias against Obama? Let’s ask USA Today.

I know many of you rolled your eyes when I mentioned USA Today — you want me to pick on a real newspaper, right? Like it or not, crappy as USA Today is, it’s one of the most read papers in the country. When I take road trips through this country and stop at motels in many small towns, there are always two papers available: the crappy local rag, and USA Today (the crappy national rag). This is not to say that USA Today is all powerful, but the story line they run with is generally what the tempo of the national media is. By looking at USA Today, you can get a good gauge of how screwed up the media’s thinking is on a certain day.

And it’s pretty screwy today. The lead editorial in today’s USA Today is (in the print edition) titled “The Democrats’ Race Goes On. And That’s Not A Bad Thing.” I got through about four paragraphs of it before screaming. Let me show you why:

Barack Obama’s big win in North Carolina and the cliffhanger in Indiana will intensify pressure on Hillary Clinton to end her race for the Democratic presidential nomination. That would no doubt cheer Democratic insiders who fear that a continuing contest would further damage the nominee and expose deep fissures in the party over race, class and age.

But whether it would be the best outcome from a non-partisan perspective is far less certain. An ongoing battle might even turn out to benefit the Democrats.

So a nomination battle that’s tearing apart the party and allowing John McCain to run a national campaign unopposed for months now is somehow good for the party? Are you kidding me? As for a nonpartisan perspective, what the hell is a “nonpartisan perspective” in a presidential race?

Of the many reasons for this, the foremost is that the process would allow more time for the belated vetting of Obama, one of the youngest and least experienced presidential candidates of the modern era.

Tuesday’s outcome reinforces Obama’s position as the prohibitive favorite. He has, however, never run for national office or even faced a tough electoral challenge.

So the media wants the primaries to go on so they can “vet” Obama some more. Well then, take all the time you want! This nomination process is normally over by February, but this year it’s gone into May and yet USA Today still thinks it hasn’t had enough time yet to “vet” Obama. You know, coming from somebody who waits until the very last minute to write papers for my classes, let me say that this is pretty ridiculous. The media, and the Clinton campaign, have had all the time in the world to “vet” and smear Obama. You don’t need another six weeks after the race is effectively over.

Furthermore, on the comment about Obama having “never run for national office or even faced a tough electoral challenge,” has USA Today even paid attention to this election? First of all, Obama is a United States Senator — a national office. Duurrr! Secondly, to say that Obama hasn’t faced a tough electoral challenge after this primary season is so ignorant I don’t even know where to begin. He’s running against a former president’s wife in an historically unprecedented primary that’s gone on for-freakin-ever. I take it USA Today thinks this is a piece of cake? Are you friggin kidding me?

And I love the oxymoron they belt out here:

Six more Democratic contests through June 3 would also force Obama to prove he can win more white, working-class votes and dispel the notion that he’s too intellectually aloof.

“Intellectually aloof.” Nice. Here we have a classic case of, “Well, this guy’s educated! Ain’t he a know-it-all going to fancy schools! We can’t have a thinking person like that dare to run the country!” It’s nice to know that USA Today is all too willing to whip out GOP talking points against Obama. Perhaps they forgot that Hillary’s been to law school, too. More important, perhaps these wonder journalists forgot what happened the last two times people were afraid to vote for a candidate who’s too “intellectually aloof.” Maybe USA Today likes the war in Iraq and a tanking economy.

I’m afraid I couldn’t plod through the rest of the editorial after this point. My BS meter, keeping a check for my sanity, just isn’t allowing it right now.

So there’s what the media thinks about this race. In the face of Hillary effectively losing last night no matter how you look at the empirical evidence, they not only refuse to project Obama as the winner, but they complain about not having time to “vet” him and peddle GOP talking point trash at him. Ridiculous… Absolutely ridiculous.

This race is over. Over, over, over. It’s about time the media dropped their bias and reported this fact.

There’s more discussion at Memeorandum, The Swamp, MoJoBlog, Rough Sketch, Slate, The Politico, The Huffington Post, Washington Post, Lynn Sweet, Betsy’s Page, The Reaction, Reason Magazine, QandO, Shadow of the Hegemon, Fausta’s blog, Outside The Beltway, marbury, Connecting.the.Dots,, The New Republic, The Page, MyDD, The Moderate Voice, ABCNEWS, AMERICAblog, American Power, The Daily Dish, The Field, Liberal Values, Marc Ambinder and CBS News.

— Edited by Kathy

2 Responses to “Is media bias against Obama causing them not to report objective facts?”

  1. You know why they can’t seem to move on? It is because her supporters, people like this, are saying ridiculous things like this…

    In what is rapidly becoming a cliché this campaign season, a primary win by Hillary Clinton is followed by calls by one douchebag or another for her to Take Her Boobs and Go Home. The latest entrant into the Douchebag Sweepstakes is none other than spectacularly failed presidential candidate George McGovern:

    That’s right, zuzu or whatever the hell her name is has decided that the defection of Hillary Clinton’s political muse and mentor George McGovern, rather than spelling the end of her campaign (reality) actually means he is a “douchebag” who also hates boobies.

    Bottom line, they are afraid of being labeled as sexist douchebags for pointing out the obvious.

    Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick will this never end?

  2. tas says:

    Zuzu is a feministe blogger.. And I hate to talk bad about feministe bloggers since I’ve also published on there too, back when Lauren was running the site, but… If zuzu is displaying an example of feminist thought in regards to people who oppose Hillary, then shame on her and the movement.

    The thing that really gets me is that the fact that Hillary’s campaign has no chance of winning the nomination is just that — a fact. This isn’t subjective opinion anymore. This isn’t, “Well, she’s down in the delegate count but let’s see what happens in a few more states” — it’s none of that. It’s a fact, based objectively on empirical data. There is no proving it wrong, there is no getting around it. Hillary’s chances of winning the nomination through the electoral process are over, no matter what zuzu (and her new benefactor ShakeSis, who went off the deep end a while ago), Taylor Marsh, or No Quarter think. All of their opinions are subjective, this isn’t. And it’s about damn time the media started reporting it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook