Reporters Kicked Off OBama’s Campaign Plane???
Matt Drudge is reporting that the Obama campaign has kicked reporters from the New York Post, Washington Times and Dallas Morning News off his campaign plane… All three papers have recently endorsed John McCain.
From Fox News:
Journalists from three major newspapers that endorsed John McCain — the Washington Times, the New York Post and the Dallas Morning News — have been booted from Barack Obama’s campaign plane for the final leg of the presidential race.
The Washington Times reported Friday that it was notified of the Obama campaign’s decision Thursday evening — even though the paper has covered Obama from the start.
Executive Editor John Solomon told FOXNews.com that the Obama campaign said it didn’t have enough seats on the plane, but “I don’t think the explanation makes sense to us.”
“We’ve been traveling since 2007 with him. … We’re a relevant newspaper — every day we break news,” Solomon said. “And to suddenly be kicked off the plane for people who haven’t covered it as aggressively or thoroughly as we are … it sort of feels unfair.”
He said the newspaper protested but was turned down again by the campaign.
“I can only hope that the candidate who describes himself as wanting to unite the nation doesn’t have some sort of litmus test for who he decides gets to cover the campaign,” Solomon said, noting that the Obama campaign’s decision came just two days after the paper endorsed McCain.
More from the Washington Times:
The Washington Times, N.Y. Post and Dallas Morning News — three newspapers that recently endorsed John McCain — won’t be flying on Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plane in the final days of his campaign — the papers have been told there is no room.
The Obama campaign informed The Washington Times Thursday evening of its decision, which came two days after The Times editorial page endorsed Senator John McCain over Mr. Obama. The Times editorial page runs completely independent of the news department.
“This feels like the journalistic equivalent of redistributing the wealth. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars covering Senator Obama’s campaign, traveling on his plane, and taking our turn in the reporter’s pool, only to have our seat given away to someone else in the last days of the campaign,” said Washington Times Executive Editor John Solomon. News organizations typically pay campaigns for the cost of traveling on the candidate’s planes.
“I hope the candidate that promises to unite America isn’t using a litmus test to determine who gets to cover his campaign,” Mr. Solomon said.
I guess Sen. Obama is tired of throwing his friends under the bus and is now tossing journalist off the plane. Alright seriously, normally I’d consider this a non-story but given the Obama campaign’s reaction to reporters like Barbara West who’ve asked tough questions this bit of news is troubling.
Update: Michelle Malkin sums things up nicely: If you don’t make me glow, you gotta go.
Media Biased? Michael Malone Thinks So
Just how bad has the media’s coverage of the presidential campaign been?
Bad enough that ABC News’s Silicon Insider Michael Malone says he’s “embarrassed to admit what I do for a living”.
The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game — with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.
The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.
But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer,” because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist.
You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I’m cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kan., during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian).
My hard-living — and when I knew her, scary — grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I’ve spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.
So, when I say I’m deeply ashamed right now to be called a “journalist,” you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.
Now, of course, there’s always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you 10 different ways to color variations of the word “said” — muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. — to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom.
But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against them.
But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible.
That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can’t achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty — especially in ourselves. Read the rest…
Note to the AP: You Can Stop Digging Now
Just when you think the Associated Press can’t sink any lower they do. The news analysis piece on Sarah Palin’s William Ayers remarks by the AP’s Douglass K. Daniel is real jaw-dropper: Analysis: Palin’s words carry racial tinge.
Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee “palling around” with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America?
In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers’ day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.
Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as “not like us” is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.
Most troubling, however, is how allowing racism to creep into the discussion serves McCain’s purpose so well. As the fallout from Wright’s sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America’s promise to treat all people equally.
John McCain occasionally looks back on decisions with regret. He has apologized for opposing a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. He has apologized for refusing to call for the removal of a Confederate flag from South Carolina’s Capitol.
When the 2008 campaign is over McCain might regret appeals such as Palin’s perhaps more so if he wins.
Wow… This really is the year journalism died.
Here’s the video of Palin’s remarks:
Here’s the New York Times story she’s refering to.
Allahpundit has more on the AP story at Hot Air and Dan Spencer has more on Obama’s radical connections at Red State… I’m going back to the Dolphins game, there’s 1:55 left and they’re winning for change!
Update: The Dolphins Win… They knocked off the San Diego Chargers 17-10. 
Updates (6:45 p.m.): Quin Hillyer at the American Spectator goes after the AP:
This might be the single most irresponsible piece the Associated Press has EVER run. Not only does it badly misstate (i.e. excuses, plays down, hides) the level of Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, but it goes to phenomenally bizarre lengths to claim that Sarah Palin’s repeated references to Ayers — who is white — somehow “carry a racially tinged subtext.” HUH????!!???? This is sick. Literally sick. Have things really reached the point where ANY criticism of Obama is racist? Next thing you know, criticism of Obama for having the most liberal voting record in the Senate will be called racist. Criticism of Obama for being against the surge will be called racist. Hell, next thing you know, criticism of Joe Biden will be called racist, because Biden is the running mate for a black man and, well, any criticism of him is code for racist opposition to Obama.
Jonah Goldberg calls the AP’s analysis Outrageously Asinine:
Douglass Daniel, an editor of the Associated Press, offers some absurd analysis of the race, trying to make the case that playing the Ayers’ card is “racially tinged,” journalistic code these days for flat out racist.
70 Million Viewers - Wow
Ok so it was really only 69,989,000 but last nights Vice Presidential debate was the most watched ever.
From the the Live Feed:
Thursday’s highly anticipated face-off between Alaska governor Sarah Palin and Delaware senator Joe Biden was the most-watched vp debate of all time.
Last night’s event was seen by nearly 70 million viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research.
That’s the most-viewed debate — presidential or vp — since the second round between Bill Clinton, Ross Perot and George Bush in 1992 (and possibly the most since 1980’s famed debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter).
Thursday’s event was 33% higher than Friday’s top-of-the-ticket debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. It’s 61% higher than the 2004 debate between Dick Cheney and John Edwards. And it ranks 23% higher than the former title-holder for the most-watched vp debate — the 1984 match between George Bush and Geraldine Ferrarro (56.7 million).
H/T: Flopping Aces.
The New York Sun
What a run… One of last true newspapers in America, the New York Sun, is closing it’s doors today.
I’ve been a reader and a fan of the Sun from the start… Over the last 6 and half years it’s front page has carried everything from photographs of works of art to exposes on corruption at the UN.
The Wall Street Journal writes in an editorial this morning:
How the Sun Shone
Read in precincts high and low, this New York paper has been a model for journalists.
It has been a newspaper whose front page carried photographs of great works of art, muckraking exposes, and not infrequently the paper’s confident editorials. In its six-and-a-half year run, the New York Sun achieved the status any newspaper seeks: It was read in precincts high and low, and it was read every day.
Today amid financial difficulties, the paper’s grand run is ending. Seth Lipsky, the newspaperman who was its founder and editor and also a long-time former Wall Street Journal colleague, knew from the start that New York’s media market was crowded, and that any new entrant faced a challenging future. He believed that a broadsheet that focused on local issues, such as political corruption and taxes, but also brought an erudite sensibility to its arts and books coverage (without political correctness), could fill a niche that the local competition tended to ignore. It might have worked had the daily not launched into the toughest headwinds that have ever faced the newspaper business. Read the rest…
More on the history of the New York Sun here and here.
The Democrats Credit Crisis…
The more I dig into the history behind our current crisis the more outraged I become… Commenter Veretax writes:
“I think the American people have had it with this situation where the middle-income people in our country are not protected from the ramifications of the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” Pelosi told MSNBC….
She blames bush and those risk takers. If MSNBC had any back bone (which I know they don’t) they should counter with “But Madam Speaker, is it not true that you own several million dollars worth of stock in AIG which the Federal Reserve just bailed out?”
Talk about hypocrisy.
If MSNBC, or anyone in the media for that matter, wanted to commit an act of journalism they’d ask her why Democrats opposed the Bush Administration’s reform attempts in 2003. Or why they blocked the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 that John McCain co-sponsored?
Hell if they were really interested in practicing journalism they ask Barack Obama how he managed to rack up $126,349 in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in only four years in the senate?
Ed Morrissey has much more detailed analysis at Hot Air:
With the financial sector in turmoil today, the media and the politicians have started throwing around blame with the same recklessness as lenders threw around credit to create the problem. Politically, the pertinent question is this: Which candidate foresaw the credit crisis and tried to do something about it? As it turns out, John McCain did - and partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending three years ago, after an attempt by the Bush administration died in Congress two years earlier.
Gibson versus Palin - Round Two
Scroll for Updates
Over all Governor Palin did quite well last night, she was relaxed, confident and showed tremendous grace under pressure.
I was disappointed in her answers on the economy though. Frankly I think she blew it. She didn’t do anything to differentiate the McCain campaign from Bush administration. She could have easily done that by talking about getting back to common sense monetary policy that favors strong dollar and reversing what the Wall Street Journal calls “the Bush Administration’s malign neglect of the dollar.”
That said I think it’s fair to say this wasn’t an interview it was an interrogation. It’s clear to me that Charlie Gibson was out to embarrass Gov. Palin and show her presumed ignorance from the get go.
It’s particularly striking when you compare the Gibson’s confrontational and condescending tone with the velvet gloves George Stephanopoulos used on Sen. Barack Obama.
Martin Sieff has a good analysis at UPI.com:
Issue of the Day
ABC’s Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire
By MARTIN SIEFF
Published: Sept. 12, 2008 at 11:47 AMWASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (UPI) — There were no surprises, no knockout zingers, but also no bloopers Thursday night in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s first TV interview since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee.
Charles Gibson of ABC News was out for blood and inherently applied a double-standard compared with the kid gloves George Stephanopoulos used on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois on Sunday night.
Gibson was out to embarrass Palin and expose her presumed ignorance from the word go. By contrast, when Obama referred to his “Muslim faith” on Sunday and did not correct himself, Stephanopoulos rushed in at once to help him and emphasize that the senator had really meant to say his Christian faith.
Allahpundit wonders “What little matter of domestic policy did Gibson conspicuously neglect to ask about?”
As an aside… Which “Bush Doctrine” Charlie?
Update: Ed Morrissey has a great analysis of Gibson’s interview. Including a look at the questions Gibson asked Obama three months ago and a link to a transcript of Thursday’s interview.
I think it’s safe to say the media isn’t even trying to fake impartiality anymore.
Update #2: Glenn Harlan Reynolds offers some good advice for politicians or anyone dealing a potentially hostile media in the New York Post… Bring your own Camera.
CHARLIE Gibson’s ABC interview with Republican veep candidate Sarah Palin produced a lot of complaints from Palin fans. There’s not much anyone in the campaign can do about journalists like Gibson misstating candidates’ “exact words,” but there is something that candidates - and anyone else interviewed by a possibly hostile media - can do to make sure that things get played straight in the editing process.
You just have to break the camera monopoly. Luckily, that’s become easy.
Never Assume Malice…
Where incompetence will suffice…
Personally, I’m inclined to ascribe both to Washington Post reporter Anne Kornblut. In a page one news story, she accuses Sarah Palin of asserting “that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.”
There’s just one problem that’s not what Gov. Palin said… What she said was:
You’ll be there in service to the same cause of freedom from tyranny and from violence. You’ll be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned, carried out, and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.
Here’s the video Gov. Palin’s speech:
Interestingly enough the the Post’s editors seem to be walking back, at least partially, Kornblut’s distortion. The first two paragraphs of her story originally read:
FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 — Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”
The idea that Iraq shared responsibility with al-Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin’s statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday’s anniversary.”
They now read:
FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 — Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”
The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.
Exit question: Is it me or is the media so far in the tank for Obama that they should be wearing scuba gear?
As an aside… I don’t recall the Bush administration ever specifically linking Iraq under Saddam Hussein to 9-11. I do remember them correctly pointing out his support of terrorist activities/groups.
Disgusting
Disgusting is about the nicest thing I can say about the cover of the April 21st issue of Time Magazine. There are somethings that are sacred, that symbolize courage and selflessness Joe Rosenthal’s photograph of Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima is one of them. Time’s decision to alter that photograph by removing our flag and substituting a tree is an insult to the men who raised that flag and to everyone who has fought to defend the ideals it symbolizes.