MSM Obama Confession Time: WashPo, NewsWeek, MSNBC, LA Times

Bias on Record:
Washington Post
Chris Matthews
Newsweek
Los Angeles Times

---

Mainstream Media: Yes We Can!

Deborah Howell, the ombudsman at the Washington Post completely agrees [An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage]:

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

Human Gaffe Machine Joe Biden?

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.

John at Power Line wasn't surprised [Ho Hum] and offers a possible solution.

Howell finds that the Post's coverage of Sarah Palin was especially biased. To which my response is, tell us something we didn't already know. Anyone who can still be shocked by newspapers' liberal bias hasn't been paying attention for a long time. The Washington Post is a Democratic newspaper, and a good one, for the most part. As I've said before, the Post is the most respectable voice of the Democratic Party. But it would be foolish to expect objectivity from what is essentially an arm of the Democratic Party.

Conservatives should stop talking about media bias and start founding (or buying) some newspapers of our own. Of course, until that happens we'll probably still complain about bias from time to time.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air [Right on time!] sums up DBKP's position on the matter exactly.

Why didn’t the Post want to look at the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama’s only executive experience prior to his run for the presidency? The media never bothered to make a hundredth of the effort on Obama that they did with Palin, and they had two years to do it.

That’s the issue Howell should have addressed in her column. We already know that the Post gave imbalanced coverage of Obama and McCain, as did most of the rest of the media. And now Howell gives the mea culpa in her first column after Election Day, when it’s far too late to do anything about it. Where was Howell during the last three months? Why wait until the election is over to speak up? That’s an answer in itself.

Gateway Pundit has a video of MSNBC's Chris Matthews. [Now That the Election is Over... Media Admits Bias For Obama] Matthews declares that his job as a journalist is to continue his Grand Obama Pimp he perfected during his election coverage.

There will be no traditional press honeymoon between Chris Matthews and Barack Obama, Matthews already having been guilt of the press equivalent of premarital sex.

Journalists not only love new...
They love Democrats.
Sarah Palin was new but they raked her over the coals.
Such is the demise of our mainstream media.
The one thing that is clear after this election-- If you want to find the truth you will have to go elsewhere for your news.

Two words-- Rashid Khalidi.

Jammie Wearing Fool, WaPo Ombudsman: Yes, We Were Completely In the Tank for Obama :

They found plenty of space to go over McCain's health in agonizing detail but ignored Obama's drug use, shady connections and mysterious undergrad years.

I'm sure they'll make up for their grossly imbalanced coverage now that their guy is safely in office. And I have an oceanfront spread in Wyoming up for sale.

It's to the Washington Post's credit to admit that its coverage emanated from within the tank. We may see more stories like this.

More likely, we'll see the usual apologia from the MSM about how they were non-biased stalwarts looking out for the interests of the unwashed sheeple who remain as their customers.

---

NEW YORK Times



Since the NY Times ceased being a serious journalistic endeavor some time ago, we'll let its horrific coverage of Election 2008 pass without comment.

---

LA Times and the Khalidi Video

The Lost Angeles Times' refusal to release the video of the Obamas, Rashid Khalidi and Bill Ayers is well-documented. The LA Times previously had ordered its reporters not to write on their blogs about John Edwards getting caught leaving his mistress Rielle Hunter's room at the Beverly Hilton--even after it had been confirmed by Fox News.

* Obama, Khalidi Hidden Video: The Evolution of the LA Times Excuses
* LA Times Obama-Rashid Khalidi Video: $175,000 Reward Offered for Tape
* Obama-Khalidi Tape: Blogger Obtains Quotes from Hidden Video UPDATED
* John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Love Child: LA Times Censors Reporters on Story

As the LA Times mulls over further lay-offs, it might examine its refusal to provide its remaining customers with a product they seek: news.

---

NewsWeek Keeps its Obama Thoughts to Itself--until AFTER the Election

Mikes America, at Flopping Aces, tipped off a post election admission from Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas of Newsweek on Charlie Rose: Newsweek Editors: Obama a “Creepy,” “Deeply Manipulative,” “Creature”

Why didn’t they say this in their magazine BEFORE the election?

Yesterday I shared with you the audio of Tom Brokaw being interviewed by Charlie Rose where both men admit they don’t know who Obama really is or what he intends to do in office. Now, a post election admission from Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas of Newsweek; also interviewed by Charlie Rose. Audio is provided with commentary by Rush Limbaugh (transcript):

FA provides the Brokaw video, as well as a transcript, ending with the following observation by MA:

At what point will Meacham and Thomas, along with Brokaw and so many others face the fact that they committed journalistic malpractice by hiding the character concerns they are only now sharing about Obama? Were they just tooooo busy digging dirt on Sarah Palin’s children and Joe the Plumber to tell the American people what a “creepy,” “manipulative,” “creature” Obama is?

Yes, they kept all of this out of their publication before the election.

Again, we'll give Meachum and Thomas credit for admitting their bias.

As with the others, they get absolutely no credit for being journalists--their professed profession.

---

by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file

Unreleased Obama Records: Did Obama Attend Columbia?

Who is Barack Obama?
The Still Unreleased Obama Records
Why Won't the Press Ask?



Medical Records
Occidental College Records
Columbia University Records
Harvard University Records
Birth Records
University of Chicago Records
Khalidi Video

Did Obama Even Attend Columbia?

---

Three days before Election Day 2008 and much of Barack Obama's past remains shrouded in secrecy. The same press that can tell you how much Sarah Palin's shoes cost can't seem to muster any curiosity over large gaps in the Obama narrative.

Indeed, that same MSM press is as intent on hiding information as it is publishing it. [Obama, Khalidi Hidden Video: The Evolution of the LA Times Excuses]

The remaining customers of the LA Times have been treated to the spectacle of the Times making news by not reporting news--a familiar position for the paper.

In July, even though John Edwards was caught at the Beverly Hilton visiting his mistress by reporters from the National Enquirer--and it was confirmed a few days later by Fox News--the LA Times instructed its reporters NOT to write about it on their blogs. [John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Love Child: LA Times Censors Reporters on Story]

So, readers of the LA Times are used to being kept in the dark. The Obama-Khalidi video is just the latest instance of this happening.

---

ALSO at DBKP: LA TIMES Suppressing the Obama-Khalidi Video

* Obama, Khalidi Hidden Video: The Evolution of the LA Times Excuses
* LA Times Obama-Rashid Khalidi Video: $175,000 Reward Offered for Tape
* Obama-Khalidi Tape: Blogger Obtains Quotes from Hidden Video UPDATED

---

The Missing Obama Records:
Did Obama Attend Columbia?



An interesting article appeared yesterday at Unqualified Reservations, "Did Barack Obama Go to Columbia?".

Interesting because it speculates that the reason the Obama campaign has not released his Columbia records is--that Barack Obama didn't really attend Columbia.

Far-fetched?

Perhaps, but not as far-fetched as a candidate getting this far in the political process without the press issuing its normal calls to see records.

My question is: was Barack Obama ever a student at Columbia? Because here's how one scurrilous compendium of racist smears puts it:
Obama graduated from Columbia College in 1983, and after spending a year in New York, moved to Chicago.

Wayne Allyn Root says, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that knows him, and they all know me. I don't have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever! ... Nobody recalls him. I'm not exaggerating, I'm not kidding.

Questioner: Were you the exact same class?

Root: Class of '83 political science, pre-law Columbia University. You don't get more exact than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, 20th reunion, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! Who was he, and five years ago, nobody even knew who he was... the guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York, the macha who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him. Is that not strange? It's very strange...

When asked about his undergraduate training at Columbia University, The New Times states that Obama "declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years."

Many of his classmates don't remember Obama. He's not in the yearbook. Columbia couldn't find a picture of him at school.

What can be said with some certainty is that Mr. Obama lived off campus while at Columbia in 1981-83 and made few friends. Fox News contacted some 400 of his classmates and found no one who remembered him.

As the author, Mencius Moldbug, observes: "What is the chance that a budding young politician of undeniable talent and promise spends his junior and senior years at Columbia, and no one remembers him? What is the chance that my right ass cheek, through spontaneous quantum vibration, suddenly transmutes into a hemisphere of polished gold? Don't you feel these probabilities are at least roughly comparable?"

The normal minions of the Obama campaign descended upon the blog, filling the comments section with their usual spammery. But, this article points to one inescapable fact.

If Obama released his Columbia records, such speculation--well-reasoned as it is--simply would not be written. Moldbug could be writing about Obama's re-distributionary policies.

Moldbug asks a few questions that would have been answered already--if Barack Obama had released his Columbia records.

Barack or Barry - note that he is still Barry while at Occidental; at the next place we know he existed, Harvard Law, he has become Barack - spends two years at Columbia. He presumably receives two years worth of college credits. By taking two years worth of college courses.

Furthermore, in every other period of his life, he is known as the gregarious and charismatic young man he obviously was. Nor can his looks be described as ordinary. Nor is even his name ordinary. This man is a future president. And no one remembers him? No one?

The Columbia records are part of a pattern:

• no medical records released to the press;
• no Occidental records released to the press;
• no Harvard University records released to the press;
• no Columbia records released to the press;
• the fight to gain access to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge records;
• no original birth certificate released to the press

There's also another pattern: the press is perfectly satisfied to be kept in the dark. In 2004, CBS News had such a burning desire to see George Bush's service records, they foisted forged documents onto their viewers.

Perhaps that explains why CBS News has exhibited no curiosity to see the unreleased Obama records?

---

ALSO at DBKP: The Missing Records of Barack Obama

* Obama Records: Obama Medical, College, University, Other Records Still Hidden
* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Obama Medical Records: MSM’s Don’t Ask, Obama’s Don’t Tell Policy
* Obama Records: Obama Campaign Still Refuses to Release Medical, Other Records

---

Barack Obama certainly is a candidate for change. Consider:

• Barack Obama is the first candidate to opt out of public financing--after he promised on national TV he would not--since public financing started in 1976. That's quite a change.
  
• Barack Obama has not released his college, university or medical records. Obama has released more books (2) than he has records (0). That's also quite a charge.
  
• Barack Obama showed up in Joe the Plumber's neighborhood; Joe asked Obama a question and Obama's answer reveals an unpleasant fact: Obama wants to "spread (Joe's) wealth around". Obama partisans use state computers to look into Joe's supposedly private records and then leak the info to a lapdog press that publishes and broadcasts it. That's certainly a change.
  
• A Democrat attorney has to file suit in an attempt to see Barack Obama's birth certificate. The suit was dismissed over the issue of "standing". But the Obama legal team fought the suit instead of showing Obama's original birth certificate.

That's a lot of change.

---

It would be easy enough to dispel the speculation surrounding the past that shrouds Barack Obama: Obama could release his records from Columbia.

And Occidental College.

And Harvard University.

And his medical records.

And his original birth certificate.

But he won't--and the press won't ask him.

Absent any of these records--which Obama has refused to release--speculation is not only correct, it's to be expected.

Obama has chosen to be a "fill-in-the-blanks" candidate.

Until the Obama records see the light of day, we'll fill in a few of those blanks.

Anyone who disagrees?

They know nothing; they are merely speculating as well.


by Mondo Frazier
image: dbkp file

Obama, Rashid Khalidi Video: LA Times Evolution of Excuses

Rashid Khalidi and Obama:
The LA Times Hidden Video
The Evolving Excuse-Mongering of the LA Times

---

Why won't the LA Times release the video it has of Barack Obama attending, what one report called, a "Jew Bash" for former PLO spokesman and present Columbia professor, Rashid Khalidi?

The LA Times has had a week trying out a variety of excuses, before finally settling on one that--they hope--will take some of the heat off of them: "we promised our confidential source we wouldn't release it."

If what remained of the LA Times' readership didn't like the Times' reason for suppressing the video, no problem. They only had to wait a day or two and the Times gave a different excuse.

Let's take a look at how the LA Times tried out a variety of excuses for not releasing the video they had.

ALSO at DBKP:
* LA Times Obama-Rashid Khalidi Video: $175,000 Reward Offered for Tape
* Obama-Khalidi Tape: Blogger Obtains Quotes from Hidden Video UPDATED

---

The Evolution of Excuse-Mongering


#1: "...Through with the story."
October 25, 2008

Wallston said that the article was written after he watched video taken at the Khalidi going away party. When I asked him about the video he said that as far as he was concerned he was through with the story.
--Confirmed: MSM Holds Video Of Barack Obama Attending Jew-Bash & Toasting a Former PLO Operative... Refuse to Release the Video!



#2: "The Times did write about the tape"
October 27, 2008

The Times did write about the tape, so I’m not sure what you mean aboutsuppressing the video or information from the video. Here is a copy of the report about the video.
--LA Times Responds to Readers: Get Lost



#3: "We're not a video service"
October 27, 2008

“We’re not a video service,” Doyle McManus, the Times Washington bureau chief, tells me. “We’re not suppressing anything. We were the first to report on these facts.” He declines to say whether the paper considered posting the video.
--Journalists Name 44th President


#4:Assorted Excuses
October 28, 2008

Brit Hume opened his Fox News show with this story today, and reported that the Times is now saying “No comment.”

LA Times excuses so far:

* “We did report on it. Why aren’t you happy with that?”

* “There are ethical problems with releasing the tape.”

* “No comment.”
--McCain Demands That LA Times Release Hidden Tape

#5:Promise to the Source
October 28, 2008

“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.”

There you have it.

Pick an excuse, any excuse.

by Mondo Frazier
image: AP

Obama-Khalidi Video: $175,000 Bounty Raised on Internet for Tape

LA Times Obama-Rashid Khalidi Video:
LA Times Won't Release Video of
Obama and Wife at Jew-Bash
McCain accuses the Times of covering up the information
Blogger Doug Ross Gets Tip on Two Obama Quotes at 2003 Event




“We should know about their relationship including, apparently, information that is held by the Los Angeles Times concerning an event that Mr. Ayers attended with a PLO spokesman.”

“The Los Angeles Times refuses to make that videotape public. I’m not in the business about talking about media bias but what if there was a tape with John McCain with a neo-Nazi outfit being held by some media outlet, I think the treatment of the issue would be slightly different.”
--John McCain, to WAQI, also known as Radio Mambi

---

Other Obama Ties to Hamas Fund-Raiser Revealed by LGF
Bloggers Offering $175,000 For Copy of Video
McCain Campaign Calling LA Times to Release Video
An Eye-raising Guest List

DBKP reported earlier today that Doug Ross received a pair of quotes from a source who had seen the video the LA Times is holding, "Obama-Khalidi Tape: Blogger Obtains Quotes from Hidden Video UPDATED".

Ross' story "RED ALERT tip: Two Quotes from the Obama-Khalidi Videotape", cites a source "from a person who has provided useful, accurate and unique data from LA before (e.g., "All six of CNN's 'undecided voters' were Democratic operatives"). Take it for what it's worth, but I believe this person is on target.


The two quotes offered by Ross' source are certainly reason enough that the LA Times would want to suppress the video. Obama is supposedly congratulating the

"Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine."

and

"there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

The source said that Obama used the quotes to "rile the audience (largely pro-Palestinian) up".

---

Obama Campaign Has Still Refused
To Release Medical, College and University Records



The Wall Street Journal is reporting that McCain Accuses L.A. Times of Holding Back Obama Video.

John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, today accused the Los Angeles Times of withholding a videotape of an event that he asserted was attended by both Barack Obama and 1960s-era radical Bill Ayers. The campaign has repeatedly argued that Obama has not been straight about their relationship.

The videotape, described in an April L.A. Times story, was of a 2003 banquet honoring Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian activist and scholar. At the dinner, Obama spoke of their friendship and how much he had learned from him.

On Tuesday, a McCain spokesman first called on the newspaper to release the videotape, saying it would shed light on the relationship between Obama and Khalidi. Today, McCain repeated the call in an interview with a Cuban radio station, accusing the newspaper of bias and asserting that Ayers was at the event as well—a point that has not been reported anywhere. Palin made the same points from the stump.

The Times has provided four different excuses for not releasing the tape--finally settling on the latest, that "it was provided by a confidential source on condition that it not be released."

In a story published today, the newspaper said it did not publish the tape itself because it was provided by a confidential source on condition that it not be released. “The Times keeps its promises to sources,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton.

Ross responds to this latest reason for not the LA Times not publishing the news:

"How frickin' stupid do they think we are? Someone gave the Times a videotape so it wouldn't be released? And they can't publish a transcript?"

---

ALSO at DBKP:
Obama's Refusal to Release Medical, Other Records

* Obama Records: Obama Medical, College, University, Other Records Still Hidden
* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Obama Medical Records: MSM’s Don’t Ask, Obama’s Don’t Tell Policy
* Obama Records: Obama Campaign Still Refuses to Release Medical, Other Records

---

Michelle Obama "Friend" of Hamas Fund-Raiser
MO's Name Later Scrubbed from Website Page

The website, Little Green Footballs, has been reporting on the existence of the Obama-Khalidi video at the LA Times and has been keeping track of the excuses the Times has used since being called upon to release the tape. [The LA Times is Hiding an Incriminating Video of Barack Obama at a Party with Radical Palestinian Activists and Bill Ayers]

LGF today reprinted a story from April that was ignored by Big Media at the time: Another Disturbing Unreported Barack Obama Association: a Terrorist Fundraiser.

Back in April, we reported on a page at the Barack Obama website belonging to a fundraiser named Hatem Elhady, former chairman of the Hamas-linked Islamic charity “Kindhearts.” One of the friends listed on Elhady’s page was none other than Michelle Obama, and we have the screenshots to prove it. When this page was exposed at LGF, the Obama campaign first erased Michelle Obama’s name from the page, then shortly afterward, the entire page disappeared.

I’m reposting these LGF articles below, because they got virtually no attention at the time.

***

Another big Barack Obama supporter: Hatem El-Hady, former chairman of the Toledo-based Islamic charity Kindhearts, closed by the US government in 2006 for terrorist fundraising: Terrorist Fundraisers for Obama.

El-Hady has now devoted himself to raising money for Barack Obama; he has a page at the official Obama campaign web site, with three “friends” listed on it: “Rick,” “Fatima from Toledo, Ohio,” and ... Michelle Obama.

The story at LGF has the page screenshots, both before and after it was laundered.

---

What the LA Times will report is that Khalidi was often a spokesman for the PLO and that Khalidi and Obama, just like Bill Ayers, lived in the same neighborhood.

J-MAC ATTACK! CHARGES DAMNING BAM VID SUPRESSED:

In reporting on Obama's presence at the dinner for Khalidi, the article noted that some speakers expressed anger at Israel and at U.S. foreign policy, but that Obama in his comments called for finding common ground.

The Times reported today "Khalidi in the 1970s often spoke to reporters on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi later lived near Obama while teaching at the University of Chicago. He is now a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University in New York."

---

BLOGGER BOUNTY for Khalidi VIDEO



Signs that the capitalist spirit is not dead in the Right half of the blogosphere.

From Newsbusters' PJ Gladnick: Obama/Ayers/Dohrn/Khalidi Video: $175,000 Reward/Bribe Offered to Newsmen to Report News:

This is pretty funny. A $175,000 reward/bribe is now being offered for a Los Angeles Times reporter to actually report the news, namely to release the Khalidi video that the Times refuses to let the public see. It started out with a mere $25,000 offer made by Ace of Spades (emphasis mine):

Well, I don't know if one will step forward. I can guarantee, though, that if the goods are delivered the blogosphere can contribute $20,000. In a matter of hours.

Maybe more. More would depend on the tape.

This offer includes is particularly directed towards Los Angeles Times employees. Maybe ones that just got fired. Or will get fired in the next couple of weeks.

Guaranteed.

Anonymous.

That's how we roll.

Pretty pathetic that we have to try to bribe "newsmen" to release newsworthy tapes.

If your conscience is troubled, They should have released it anyway.

Plus that $25,000. You know what helps an aching conscience? Rubbing it with crisp hundred dollar bills, that's what.

Yeah it just went up five g's. If I can get $5 grand in a donation drive, I'm pretty damn sure I can get $25,000 for the tape.

And no, not a stunt. One little blog gets $5 k in a donation drive. Something like this, with every blogger linking the donation button, would easily get in excess of $25,000.

From Dirty Harry's Place, "$150,000 Offered for Obama/Khalidi/Ayers Tape"

I’ve also received another offer from a private donor for an added $25,000 that I’m currently working to verify.



If Jerry Lewis showed up, we might get the bounty up over a quarter mil.

---

THE GUESTS

Change and Experience Blog have done a lot of research and have compiled a lot of information including the guest list:(via Stop the ACLU, "$175,000 Reward Offered for Obama Khalidi Tape")

Those who attended (the guest list): 1. AAAN (Arab American Action Network) 2. Not In My Name 3. Ali Abunimah (a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, who met Obama in 2000) 4. Bernadine Dorhn and Bill Ayers 5. Barack Obama 6. Mayor of Chicago Richard Daley 7. Rashid Khalidi 8. Mona Khalidi 9. Gihad Ali, a Palestinian spoken word poet 10. NPR Worldview host Jerome McDonnell (not McDonald as written in the e-mail) 11. Camilia Odeh (director of SWYC Southwest Youth Collaborative) 12. Sanabel debka troupe (traditional Palestinian dance group) 13. Hatem Abudayyeh 14. Others - Up to 50 to 500, possibly 600 guests (based on Burbank Manor’s seating capacity capabilities)

Who knew?

Will the LA Times release its obviously newsworthy tape, in spite of the political fallout that could affect its chosen candidate?

Like the New York Times and AP, the LA Times makes more news when it suppresses the news than it does when it reports the news. This was true during the media blackout surrounding the John Edwards' scandal.

It's true in this case also.

Maybe the LA Times has hit upon a new business model. One that the editors feel will stop the layoffs, reverse the sagging ad revenues and lift circulation figures.

Or it could just be another sign of the Great American Media Putz-dom continuing--this time in the City of Angels.


by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file

Obama-Khalidi Tape: Blogger Obtains Quotes from Hidden Video

LA Times:
Won't Release Video of Obama-Khalidi

---

"Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine."

Remember when the LA Times circulated a memo telling its reporters not to write about John Edwards being caught with his mistress--in LA? [John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Love Child: LA Times Censors Reporters on Story]. The Times refused to inform its readers of the news until Edwards gave the struggling paper his okay by confessing on ABC's Nightline.

The LA Times is continuing its tradition of censoring news which doesn't fit its editorial room political views.

However, Doug Ross has a RED ALERT: Two Quotes from the Obama-Khalidi Video the LA Times won't release.

From a usually-reliable LA source:

Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

It would be really controversial if it got out. That's why they will not even let a transcript get out.

To which Ross replies: "Yep, I guess that would do it"

The LA Times can look no further than this latest episode of political censorship for reasons it's in a death spiral.

Who wants to spend hard-earned cash on a newspaper that won't print inconvenient poltical news?

At least LA sales of the National Enquirer should continue to climb at the expense of the LA Times.

by Mondo
image: dbkp file

MSM Death Watch: Polls, TV News and AP Rogue Newspapers

Mainstream Media:
Gatekeepers' Media Death Watch
October 29, 2008



* Why Polls Don't Work
* Why TV News Never Worked Out As Adversarial
* AP Papers Going Rogue
* Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) Wants "Fairness"
* Obama RedistributionMania
* LA Times: Arrogant Info Overseer

---

MSM Shake, Death Rattle and Roll


"Look! Up in the sky!
It's a Hawk!
It's over Iowa!
It's IowaHawk!"



We present for your edification:

The Short Course in Why You Should Mathematically and Statistically Distrust Polls 101;
or, in layman's language, "Balls and Urns".
Brought to you as a public service by IowaHawk Educational Services.
Hat tip: Little Green Footballs: IowaHawk on the Abuse of Statistics

---

The Future of TV News in the Post-Russert Era explains why TV network news will eventually go the way of the buggy whip.

This idea of a friendly news-government relationship is the opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted. They wanted an adversarial relationship between the press and the government. The country’s founding premise was that the public must continually protect itself from governments’ natural inclination to encroach on their individual rights. Jefferson wanted newspapers to serve as a “fence” to stop this encroachment and encouraged them to engage in a process of “attack and defense” with government. In fact, he established a newspaper with James Madison to bloody-up Alexander Hamilton’s Federalists during Washington’s administration.

You didn’t notice that network news deliberately tries to be friendly to politicians? Just compare network to cable news coverage. Cable TV requires no broadcast licenses from the federal government – there’s no need for these channels to keep FCC political appointees happy. Note how much hotter the political talk is on cable vs. broadcast news. On cable, you find politician-attackers like Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann. On broadcast, you find suck-ups like Brian Williams and Katie Couric.

The only TV stations engaging the Obama campaign in an adversarial relationship seem to be getting hit with the ban stick: first, in Florida, Obama Campaign Cuts Access for Florida TV Station Asking Unpleasant Questions UPDATED; then, in

---

* Democratic Senator Tells Conservative Radio Station He’d Re-impose Fairness Doctrine--on Them

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) told radio station 770 AM KKOB in Albuquerque, N.M., that he didn’t know if Democrats in Congress will try to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine next year – but he would certainly like them to.

AP and Rogue Newspapers

* Bob McCarty: Newspapers Turning Away From Associated Press?

AP = Associated Pap

* Brewing battle between AP and its member newspapers will make papers healthier and their readers happier

Lost Remote reports that there is growing interest around the country in Ohio newspapers’ plans to side-step the Associated Press and share statewide news only among themselves, ensuring that their papers are the exclusive sources for their original stories. Some papers feel they are simply being taken advantage of by the AP. The editor of the Columbus (OH) Dispatch said “What has happened is we’re becoming the wire service for the wire service,” as the AP lifts their statewide stories and distributes them to others.

---

Obama's tricks with your treats.

* Is Obama Planning to Redistribute Chocolate, Too?

Barack Obama shrugs off charges of socialism, but noted in his own memoir that he carefully chose Marxist professors as friends in college.

* Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days

The LA Times makes decision (again) to not inform their readers.

Remember when the LA Times circulated a memo telling its reporters not to write anything about John Edwards in their blogs? [John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Love Child: LA Times Censors Reporters on Story] Now the Times is formalizing its policy of Arrogant Info Overseer, Southern Cal Division, with its refusal to release a 2003 video tape it has obtained of Barack Obama yukking it up with--ready?--some questionable associates.

* McCain Campaign Demands LA Times Release Hidden Video Tape

The Times is working on its fourth or fifth different excuse for not releasing the tape. #6 is right around the corner...

by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file

John Edwards Scandal: LA Times Blogs Now Allowed to Report Scandal

LA Times Lifts Gag Order

* LA Times' Reports Denial Canard
* Writer Gives Readers a "Backdoor" to More Information?

GAG ORDER LIFTED

The embargo on John Edwards Scandal news at the LA Times Blogs has apparently been lifted. The embargo on supplying accurate information, however, may not be.

Don Fredrick's "Might a John Edwards Dem convention role be in jeopardy?" on the LA Times' website is Exhibit A.

UPDATES throughout the day, at end of story at DBKP.com.
John Edwards Scandal: LA Times Lifts Embargo on Edwards Scandal News

LA Times' readers, who might wonder how a prime VP candidate of only a few weeks ago might now be persona non grata in Denver, are brought up to speed by the story.

The story reports, "Edwards has continued to deny the affair allegations". However, Edwards has not denied the story since November 29, when the allegations were very general.

ALSO at DBKP: Click on banner to access over 70 DBKP stories and videos on the John Edwards scandal.

Three weeks later, the National Enquirer published the photos of a pregnant Rielle Hunter and named her as Edwards' mistress. Since that time, Edwards has issued no denials. Prior to July 23, Edwards was never asked about the allegations by reporters.

Edwards statements on the matter since that time have ranged from, "tabloid trash," to "tabloids full of lies," to "sorry, I can't talk now".

It's not known if Fredricks, whose on-line bio states "served as an editor helping guide coverage of every presidential election since 1984," was allowed to report that, however. The following paragraph did make it into the post:

Chris Lehane, a key Al Gore aide during the 2000 presidential campaign, added that "an appearance at the convention [by Edwards] would only highlight the unresolved story."

Unresolved, for those who know about it, that is.

The article is informative on how the LA Times will explain its previous participation in the media blackout on Edwards' scandal news.

"For the most part, mainstream media outlets have not pursued the matter, in part because Edwards no longer is a presidential candidate nor does he hold a public office."



INFORMATION BACKDOOR

Which may leave readers wondering, "What has changed about Edwards' status to now allow discussion of the scandal on August 8?"

The LA Times' story references Alan Mutter's Reflections of a Newsosaur blog, "Where’s the Edwards love-child story?", which directly contradicts the LAT's non-coverage thesis above--though the LAT's article, obviously, doesn't quote the contradictory material. Mutter observes,

"Even though his presidential campaign is over, John Edwards has sought to be a major public figure for a decade. As such, he long since has forfeited any claim to privacy for his family or himself."

Might this be an instance of guerrilla journalism? By directing LAT readers to Mutter, who is freer to speak on the subject, a backdoor to information on the scandal that the LAT doesn't feel comfortable discussing is opened. More Mutter:

The rest of the mainstream media need to start writing and talking about the story, too. If not, their silence will be viewed as complicity in a suspected cover-up and their already fragile credibility will slip still further.

Has Don Fredrick learned the Rule of Information in the Internet age?

When one door shuts, another opens.

EDWARDS SCANDAL THREATENS OBAMA?

"John Edwards love child rumours threaten the Barack Obama presidential campaign" is the headline of a story in yesterday's The Daily Mail (U.K.).

"Barack Obama's supporters yesterday tried to distance him from a potentially damaging sex scandal."

Annette Witheridge, the Daily Mail's reporter on the story, has a firm grip on how the U.S. Mainstream Media operates.

Rumours that Mr Edwards, whose wife Elizabeth is battling breast cancer, fathered the child were ignored by the mainstream media until yesterday when the National Enquirer printed a grainy photograph allegedly showing Mr Edwards cradling the baby in a Los Angeles hotel room last month.

Witheridge avoids the MSM urban legend of Edwards' denying an affair with Rielle Hunter and fathering her daughter, Frances Quinn Hunter.

Until the photograph emerged Mr Edwards, who was John Kerry’s running mate in the 2004 presidential election, had managed to avoid questions about the affair.

DID RIELLE HUNTER TIP THE ENQUIRER?

The Daily Mail's article also observes, "Last night it was not clear how the Enquirer had obtained a photo that appeared to have been taken inside the room when the curtains were closed."

The Enquirer's latest edition reports a "Blow Up with Mistress" and recounts a telephone conversation in which Edwards, "hurled angry accusations at Rielle for at least 10 minutes, demanding that she keep her mouth shut and not trust anyone, according to the source."

Once again, the question becomes, "Was John Edwards's meeting at the Beverly Hilton with his mistress and daughter tipped to the National Enquirer by Rielle Hunter?"

Which might answer questions of why the pictures, which are described as "grainy" and "blurred" by some news outlets, were not clearer. Hard to take an unnoticed, clear picture of the man holding your baby, when they're both only a few feet away.

by Mondoreb
image: Daily Mail; National Enquirer

John Edwards Affair News Roundup: LA Times Censors Blogs

* Editor Muzzles Reporters From Discussing
Edwards-Hunter Love Child on LA Times Blogs

* Rielle Hunter Speaks!
* MSM Congregated Just Doors Away from Edwards-Hunter Tryst



John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Love Child: Day #3

It's not enough for the MSM to ignore and protect John Edwards--a much different role for the press than the one envisioned by the Founding Fathers--now comes news that one member of the Mainstream Gatekeepers is instructing its writers NOT to address the John Edwards issue on the paper's blogs.

The on-line blogs of the MSM are one of the only places their shrinking readerships could go to obtain news that MSM editors routinely deny their customers.

Slate's Mickey Kaus: LAT Gags Blogs...Editors ban discussion of Edwards love-child charges.

In a move that has apparently stirred up some internal discontent, the Los Angeles Times has banned its bloggers , including political bloggers, from mentioning the Edwards/Rielle Hunter story. Even bloggers who want to mention the story in order to make a skeptical we-don't-trust-the-Enquirer point are forbidden from doing so. Kausfiles has obtained a copy of the email. [I've excised the recipient list to protect my source or sources, and omitted Pierce's email address]:


From: "Pierce, Tony"

Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT

To: [XXX]

Subject: john edwards

Hey bloggers,

There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.

If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask

Keep rockin,

Tony

Proof positive--though one wonders how much more was needed--that consumers of MSM news are too stupid to decide the "validity" of a story when presented with facts.



The Enquirer's reporters weren't the only media represented at the Beverly Hilton Monday when the meeting between Edwards and Hunter occurred--just the only ones whose paper exhibited any curiosity about the Edwards-Hunter affair.

Philadelphia Daily News' Howard Gensler notes that the place was "crawling with reporters".

Yes, he'd still be an ass, but in a post-Clinton, post-Spitzer age, could he be such a stupid ass as to carry on with a political confidante who produced movies for his campaign? And could he be so monumentally moronic as to meet said mistress at a hotel as public as the Beverly Hilton?

As Daily News TV critic Ellen Gray informed us from the Television Critics Association summer press tour, what makes the Beverly Hilton choice even more bizarre is that the place was crawling with reporters Monday night for the TCA, including newspaper people from the New York Times, USA Today the New York Daily News, the Washington Post, and us.

But no one but the National Enquirer seemed to spot John Edwards.
--Tattle: 'Enquirer' links John Edwards, Rielle Hunter

Yet, the Enquirer got the story while the rest were presumably comparing notes on which candidate's press luncheon served the best appetizers.

Rielle Hunter has issued her standard denial, via ExtraTV:

"Completely unfounded and ridiculous" is how Hunter describes a National Enquirer story claiming she has a love child with Edwards -- and that she was recently visited by the married Edwards at a Los Angeles hotel.

In early 2007, Hunter opened up about her relationship with the former presidential candidate...

"Meeting John Edwards was interesting," she told us. "He was very real and authentic. He was inspirational to me." She added, "I was around him a lot. It was great. We went to Africa. The whole experience was life altering for me."
-- John Edwards' Alleged Mistress Speaks!

Even a few left-wing blogs are realistic enough to realize that 1) a preponderance of the facts nails Edwards and 2) running away and locking yourself in a men's room when confronted by the Enquirer's reporters/photographer isn't exactly the actions of someone wishing to be considered "presidential". They discuss other issues as well that the story raises.


the shame of John Edwards

There's a definite pattern here: Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer, and now John Edwards. Is there something inherently misogynistic about a white male lawyer who enters politics? Since all three have (to varying degrees of success) been considered presidential material, I speculate that they were seduced by a kind of celebrity syndrome. After all, this sort of behavior is usually reserved for the Hollywood scene (where it is practically the norm).

Let's note that the pattern extends backwards as well - Gary Hart, JFK. And it extends across the aisle - Newt Gingrich, and of course John McCain, who much like Edwards, ditched an ailing wife for a fresher model.

Still, the Republican dalliances are less of a concern to me than these Democratic icons, who are supposed to be progressive when it comes to women's issues and also who invoke moral values as one basis for their leadership acumen. Is there a deep flaw here, in progressive ideology, that makes it blind to morality and family values? Or are we just being played for fools?
--Daily KOS, azizhp's diary: The Shame of John Edwards

azizhp then had the thankless task of defending the view that having an affair is misogynistic to the KOShoards of "progressive" readers, "blinded by hero worship".

Of course, after having to defend DBKP's Debunking Larry Sinclair articles [Debunking Larry Sinclair: Obama Accuser Allegations Based on Time Travel & Debunking Larry Sinclair: Part II - The Limo Driver; Part 3 to be published later today] from the unthinking few on the right blinded by "hero hatred", we can sympathize.

When the reporters ambushed Edwards upon leaving the room, he ran into a basement bathroom and remained holed up there for 15 minutes until hotel security was summoned to escort out the reporters. Click here to read the details. In any instance, Edwards will now be eliminated from any serious VP consideration.
--ENQUIRER NAILS JOHN EDWARDS VISITING MISTRESS, BABY

The Mainstream Media's attempts to decide what's "right" for their readers to see may be on it's last legs. Ryan Tate of Gawker smacks the nail on the head and buries it.

...parse these three revealing sentences from Washington Post "gossip" columnist Roxanne Roberts, in response to one of many persistent questions about the scandal in an online chat yesterday:

The Enquirer is not going to sell papers with nuance or sensitivity. I need more reporting from a credible source before I'm prepared to pass judgment. I'm not sure Edwards is a real candidate for the VP job, but if so will have to address this one way or another.

It's important to keep in mind, when reading this odd answer, that traditional news media used to have something of a lock on the dissemination of information, and allowed themselves to be convinced that they had a bizarre duty to filter even accurate information of interest to their audiences, and to do so in the service of reinforcing various social institutions and norms, even though their jobs, their Constitutionally-protected jobs, were to do just the opposite, to disseminate information and challenge long-cherished moral codes.

---
But to the extent the silence is due to publishers, like [Washington Post "gossip" columnist Roxanne] Roberts, intent on dictating news interest to their readers, so much so that they will ignore certain hot topics, these news organizations are mortgaging their future, and in many cases ceding valuable ground to competitors already eating deep into their profit margins.

On the bright side, for the rest of us, this process does have a way of weeding out news outlets that are all-too-eager to suppress news stories rather than publish them.
--Ryan Tate, Gawker: What John Edwards Scandal?

The story may become too big for the gatekeepers to keep from their readers/viewers.

If the Mainstream Media ignores a story, their customers will look elsewhere. Many are the hand-wringing sessions of "why the major news organizations are doing badly" that could be answered by a timeline of the coverage in the Edwards-Hunter affair.

Since the advent of the Alternate "New" Media, people have a choice. Cable, tabloids and, especially the Internet--the favorite whipping boy of the MSM--give readers/viewers somewhere else to go. For years, the supply of news has been artificially limited by the Gatekeepers. The Mainstream Media is exempt no longer from the laws of supply and demand.

If they won't supply news, consumers will find someone who will.

by Mondoreb
images: National Enquirer; ExtraTV

Mainstream Media: New Cutbacks in Jobs, Bureaus, Stock Prices, Advertising, Ratings

Cutbacks in Everything
--Except Left Wing Rhetoric



When you're Selling What No One's Buying

The big story of the Mainstream Media in the last week is cuts.

Cuts in jobs, in advertising revenue, in circulation, in ratings: in short, cuts in every meaningful indicator of how successful the Mainstream Media is.

Which is to say, they're not.

Not doing their job, not successful.

What the MSM is selling--liberal viewpoints, solutions, hand-wringing, harangues and advice--is the one area news consumers aren't buying.

Some news blurbs from the last week amplify this point.

NBC is closing their Chicago and Dallas bureaus.

NBC: Atlanta, which has managed Miami and New Orleans assignments, will add Dallas. Chicago will report in through the Northeast bureau.

The Liberal Lady, the New York Times is cutting newsroom jobs.

After years of resisting the newsroom cuts that have hit most of the industry, The New York Times will bow to growing financial strain and eliminate about 100 newsroom jobs this year, the executive editor said Thursday.

The Washington Post is closing a printing plant and offering buyouts to all employees.

Washington Post Co. will offer buyouts to employees at its flagship newspaper to cut costs as revenue and readership decline.

Buyouts will be offered to all newspaper employees. The newspaper employs 2,400 people, including 800 in news, she added. Revenue at the publishing division, which includes the newspaper, fell 8 percent to $657.2 million in the first nine months of 2007.

At the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times, 100-150 jobs are being cut at each.

Tribune Co. employees were notified Wednesday that hundreds of jobs will be cut at the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and other publications — the first cutbacks since billionaire Sam Zell took the media company private last year.

In separate memos, Tribune Publisher Scott Smith said 100 jobs would be cut and his counterpart at the Times, David Hiller, said 100-150 jobs would be eliminated.

Last fall, CNN dropped Reuters--but said the move wasn't about falling ratings and cutting costs.

Honest.

But in a twist, the cable news network CNN asserted that a decision to drop the Reuters news service after 27 years was not done to cut costs.

Newsweek is cutting the amount of copies it is guaranteeing advertisers by a half million.

Newsweek magazine plans to cut its guaranteed paid circulation by 500,000 copies, according to industry magazine Advertising Age.

The 16 percent reduction would lower the number of paid subscribers Newsweek promises advertisers from 3.1 million to 2.6 million, Advertising Age reported, citing people with knowledge of the move.

About a year ago, Time announced cuts in its news operations staff. It said at the time that there was no timetable as to future cuts.

As anyone who follows news closely, the nine MSM companies above are all flagship liberal operations. Whether it's big government, Blame America First, Global Warming, more taxes and regulations or endorsement of Democrat candidates and their programs, the MSM is all liberal, all the time.

In most cases, the MSM "news" shows and editorial staffs operate as a wing of the Democrat National Committee.

Don't expect the continuing MSM death spiral to change the outlook of either the reporting or the personnel responsible for the slide.

All nine of the above MSM mouthpieces staunchly maintain that they are unbiased "news" operations.

Their viewers and readers and in many cases, their stockholders, beg to differ.

And have been for some time now.

NBC denied that they were even scaling back their operations, labeling the cutbacks as streamlining in an "effort to achieve more journalism and less bureaucracy in the newsgathering operation."

They could achieve all of the above aims by simply requiring their newsrooms to drop their liberal viewpoints by hiring a few conservatives and losing the liberal herd mentality that infects their news operations.

When the National Enquirer reported on the John Edwards Love Child Scandal in November, not one--not a single, solitary, lonely--reporter from a MSM outlet asked Edwards one, single, solitary question about it.

NOT ONE ever asked the candidate if he had been in telephone contact with Rielle Hunter--the woman the Enquirer kept under tabs for months after the campaign spirited her out of sight within 5 miles of Edwards' campaign headquarters from New York--since Hunter had found out she was pregnant.

NOT ONE.

In the meantime, their viewers and readers were buying up Enquirers by the millions and Googling "Rielle Hunter" at such a pace that the woman's name became the most-searched for term on the Internet for awhile.

The news public was buying "Rielle Hunter"--and the Mainstream press wasn't selling any. They were selling anything and everything else that they were interested in, not their potential consumers.

[DBKP John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library of 25 stories on John Edwards, Rielle Hunter, the National Enquirer and the MSM news blackout on the story.]

The MSM tries to put the blame for their decline on the medium and hopes to counter it by creating blogs on the Internet. One suspects that they won't be selling anything different on their MSM blogs--and the public won't be doing any buying of their news there, either.

The Mainstream Media should borrow a page from the playbook of one of their heroes, Bill Clinton and have signs printed up:

ITMS

It's the message, stupid.



So, our advice to the Mainstream Media, as a member of the right wing blogosphere:

"Stay just the way you are, baby. Never change, we love you just the way you are!"

by Mondoreb
image: spittleandink
Sources:
* NBC News Streamlines News Bureaus
* New York Times Plans to Cut 100 NewsRoom Jobs
* Washington Post Cuts
* Post's Newsweek Cuts Circulation by 500,000
* CNN Cuts a Wire to invest in itself
* Tribune Company announces hundreds of jobs cut



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.