Why the Media Are for Obama: Self-Interest

by on April 14, 2008 13

I remember my editor at the Philadelphia Daily News, Zach Stalberg, a legendary newsman, stunning me in ’79 when he said he was voting for Carter but prayin for Reagan. Why? "He’s just a lot better for news." I think this gets at why the media are so for Obama right now. Yes he’s exciting, he’s charismatic, and so on. But he’s new, too, in a lot of the ways Reagan was; and that’s better for news… P.S. Reagan won.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Beyondoweiss, US Politics

{ 13 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Ed*ard Teller says:
    April 14, 2008 at 4:47 pm

    Media for Obama? Could have fooled me. My bodyguard came over for dinner on Saturday. He had been watching how CNN and FOX had been handling clips from Obama's speech on how people feel right now. I played him the entire clip of Obama's remarks from YouTube.

    He was outraged, which is quite a sight! I haven't been watching CNN or FOX on this, but my bodyguard said that the difference between the complete remarks and network/cable TV coverage of this was 180 degeees.

  2. Michael Blaine says:
    April 14, 2008 at 5:23 pm

    "But he's new, too."

    Not really. I am so tired of reading and hearing about the remaining three major-party presidential candidates, that I am dying for a fresh face.

    I guess you could say that before Hillary, McCain or Obama has been able to serve a single day in office, I am ready for change.

  3. MM says:
    April 14, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    Michael, join the American majority: don't vote. The "two" party system does not count your vote anyway unless you are for it.

  4. Jim Haygood says:
    April 14, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    .

    Gosh, MM, I wish we could just keep the current occupants for awhile. Link to gag photo (adult content):

    http://www.humpjones.com/img/bush_fam.jpg

  5. Charles Keating says:
    April 14, 2008 at 8:52 pm

    Old peeps…. It's all a cartoon to them.

  6. Charles Keating says:
    April 14, 2008 at 9:09 pm

    White men can't jump. Blacks can't bowl. Females are females with their equal goals. So, what's new? What about the rest of us?

  7. Todd says:
    April 14, 2008 at 9:26 pm

    I can jump, but I can't bowl very well. I'm a fast runner, and I've got other attributes, too. I'm white, but I don't read or write so good. I been awful confuesd in a votin' booth a time or two.

  8. Michael Blaine says:
    April 14, 2008 at 9:56 pm

    'Michael, join the American majority: don't vote. The "two" party system does not count your vote anyway unless you are for it.

    Posted by: MM | April 14, 2008 at 03:50 PM'

    We need the "null" option on the ballot, like so many Latin American countries have.

  9. Jim Haygood says:
    April 15, 2008 at 7:52 am

    .

    Today the WaPo finally got around to covering the new 'liberal' Jewish lobby, J Street. Michael Abramowitz was assigned as stenographer. The article contains both an unsubstantiated slur, and a revealing admission.

    Steeling his courage, Abramowitz smashes the taboo and admits that the nonpersons Walt and Mearsheimer exist:

    "A controversial essay in 2006 by two eminent academics, Harvard's Stephen Walt and the University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer, argued that a powerful pro-Israel lobby that includes Jewish groups, evangelical Christians and others has actively served to steer U.S. policy in a pro-Israel direction, often against the U.S. national interest. The essay, a precursor to a 2007 book, triggered an angry debate among supporters of Israel and beyond, and *even those who have been critical of groups such as AIPAC, the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, said the thesis was either wrong or overdrawn.* "

    A quote follows from Jeremy Ben-Ami, which the reader expects will substantiate Abramowitz's claim that M&W's thesis (the title of which he stubbornly declines to name, per MSM policy) was "wrong or overdrawn." But no — Ben-Ami doesn't even mention M&W. So the slur on M&W's book apparently is just Abramowitz, expressing his personal opinion. Hey, this is the WaPo — what did you expect, PROFESSIONALISM? LOL!

    The revealing statement is this one:

    "Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said the group 'has a very steep hill to climb because peacemaking has acquired a bad reputation over the years in the Jewish community, and there is a widespread fear that U.S. intervention on behalf of peace will lead to pressure on Israel.'"

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402647.html?hpid%3Dsec-politics&sub=AR

    So Indyk admits it — many Jews don't want peace. And if they don't want the U.S. to pressure Israel, why don't they just ask the neutral Scandinavians to mediate?
    The ONLY reason for involving the U.S. is its ability to exert leverage on both parties.

    All in all, more of the same: slanted media; militant Lobby; America hijacked.

  10. the Sword of Gideon says:
    April 15, 2008 at 8:59 am

    And what leverage would you exert on the lads in Hamas, Haygood. happy go lucky types that they are?

  11. bondo says:
    April 15, 2008 at 9:42 am

    mr phil, today is the 15th. be sure to have a posting proving that gentiles were in the power positions and in the lead to assault and destroy iraq and wanting to move onward to syria and iran. that jews were along as equal partners but no more than that. that these assaults are not jewish wars.

    how many ways are there to warp the truth?

  12. bar_kochba132 says:
    April 15, 2008 at 11:10 am

    Well, Phil was telling us how Obama was going to get everyone to "transcend" racial and ethnic boundaries (and as a collateral, get us Jews to stop being what we are) and now we have him doing everything he can to exacerbate them. Get ready for a President McCain facing a large Democratic majority in Congress, thanks to "Saint Obama".

  13. Jim Haygood says:
    April 15, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    .

    "And what leverage would you exert on the lads in Hamas, Haygood. happy go lucky types that they are?"

    If Hamas has any sense, they will release Corporal Shalit to Jimmy Carter — thus proving that talking to them (instead of blackballing them) yields fruit.

    Not a prediction, but a tantalizing possibility.

    The leverage is that Hamas politicians want to be recognized as the legitimate incumbents of the offices they won in the January 2006 election.

Leave a Reply