Posts
The pro-Clinton bias during the last Democratic debate was rather extreme. I'm sure many viewers were wondering if the hosts were paid off by the Clinton campaign. They weren't.
Pro-Clinton favoritism is hardly limited to the far-right ABC's agenda while hosting one debate. The corporate media have consistently favored Ms. Clinton, repeating her campaign's talking points as if they were facts, especially when the Clinton campaign has attacked Obama from not being 100% pure white.
The bias is hardly limited to that. Point of view is important in writing and is tremendously important in slanting articles. The vast majority of print media articles and TV coverage have been from the point of view of Ms. Clinton and her campaign. They focused on her strategy, her chances of winning, and her feelings about the campaign. Far less ink and time have been given to items with the points of view of her opponents.
Why?
If you have followed the Clintons will have noticed that the Clintons campaign from the political center, but they govern from the right. There is very little difference from the actual agendas of the Clintons and the GOP, despite rhetoric from both parties to the contrary. The feud between the Republican Party and the Clintons is as fake as anything in pro wrestling.
The corporate media's owners are greedy, rightist Republicans. The owners of most of the companies advertising are greedy, rightist Republicans. It should surprise nobody that these media outlets would want a de facto Republican like Hillary Clinton chosen as the Democratic nominee.
When anything in the corporate media seems unfair or bizarre, it helps to think about that behavior in the context of corporate interests and the ideology of the very wealthy. It is an extremely useful analytical tool
Psycho Woman Throws Knives At Children
13 years ago
I agree completely.
It's very telling that Scaife backs Clinton, corporatists do indeed correctly ascertain the plane upon which their bakery product is condimented.
Good rule of thumb 99% of the time in all things political: Follow the money. The Clintons are good cops; the Bushies are bad cops; I'll bet we've all watched enough TV shows and movies to know if either is in power, the non-elites in America are going to be in extreme danger of getting screwed over.
Zzzzz. 23 debates, 22 skewer Clinton and the 23rd debate sends the Obama Llamas into a tizzy. He has ridden a wave of adoring press coverage and finally gets some tough questions. Oh, and that Scaife Mellon connection is stupid, The NY Post and Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama, so right wingers Murdoch and the "greedy corporatists" at Tribune love Obama, too, right? Poor Barwack ....
anonymous: You are aware that Rupert Murdoch and other Faux News executives have given a lot of money to the Clinton campaign.
More importantly, if you have become such a blind follower of Clinton that you haven't seen the pervasive pro-Clinton bias in the corporate media for over two years, then you need to start questioning more and believing less.
You also are missing the most important issue: the corporate media has an institutional right-wing bias. That bias is helping a conservative like Hillary Clinton now just as it has helped the Bush regime and many other right-wingers in the past.
joec: Your good cop, bad cop analogy is quite good.
rickb: The Scaife connection is particularly interesting. It's as if he has tutored the Clintons in the same smear techniques that he used against them in the past.