In the Tank for Obama III: The Search for Media Objectivity - Jay Maynard

> Recent entries
> Calendar view
> Friends page
> User info
> Jay's web page

Thursday, 9 October 2008


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
1934 - In the Tank for Obama III: The Search for Media Objectivity

From Power Line:

Just over a month ago, it was falsely claimed that Sarah Palin had been a member of the Independence Party during the 1990s. Media outlets jumped on that false claim and reported it as fact. The New York Times, to take just one example, printed the report and subsequently had to run a correction.

There is now strong evidence that during the 1990s, Barack Obama was a member of the socialist New Party, an arm of the Democratic Socialist Party of America. So far, to my knowledge not a single "mainstream" news outlet has followed up on this report, let alone immediately report it as fact, as they did with Sarah Palin.

Why do you suppose that is?


I suspect it's because the media is going to see the Obamessiah elected or die trying.

location: 21236
current mood: [mood icon] pissed off

(11 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:quentincoyote
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Yeah, it was a mistake... It's her husband that was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party. ;)
[User Picture]
From:unspeakablevorn
Date: - 0000
(Link)
So, on the one hand, we have The New Party claiming Obama to be their own, on a long-dead website, and their members now say that Obama was never a member. This is considered "strong evidence" by Power Line.

On the other hand, we have Sarah Palin, known to have attended two conventions of the Alaskan Independence Party (in 1994 and 2002), and her husband Todd Palin, known to have actually been an AIP member (from 1995 to 2002), and one of Palin's co-campaign chairman during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign, Walter Hickel, a former governor of Alaska that ran on the AIP ticket to get there.

What does Power Line call this? Well, they don't say anything about it, so I don't know.

Why do you suppose that is?
[User Picture]
From:frijole
Date: - 0000
(Link)
So... officials of the New Party said that Obama was once a member of their party, by the one line in a newsletter?

That sounds strangely familiar...

"Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that Palin was once so independent, she and her husband were once member of their party, which, since the 1970s, has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United State."

(emphasis mine)

Where's your double standard now?

Maybe you'll find it when you stop copy and pasting random blogs, and start thinking for yourself.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I do think for myself. That's why I'm not buying into the deification of Barack Obama.
[User Picture]
From:corran22
Date: - 0000

Just so we have you on the record...

(Link)
Powerline Blog: valid source of unbiased information

New York Times: invalid source of unbiased information

Have I got that right?
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000

Re: Just so we have you on the record...

(Link)
Not quite. Power Line tells stories the mainstream media refuses to tell. They're not always right. They are, however, right more often than their detractors would like to admit. They're the ones who broke Rathergate, after all.

The NY Times is unashamedly and unabashedly leftist. They are not in any way unbiased.
[User Picture]
From:unix_jedi
Date: - 0000

Re: Just so we have you on the record...

(Link)
No so much that, but look at the vast difference in effort on these two accusations. That's what Powerline is seizing on.

One was immediately seized upon, and trumpeted from the front pages and news shows, and one was ignored in totality.

At best, they should be getting at least near-to-equal scrutiny, and they're obviously not.

Powerline's done a better job of sourcing their New Party claim than the NYT did on the AIP claim. Notice they've also updated with other, dissenting opinions.

The problem is that nobody would call Powerline "unbiased", but a lot of people consider the NYT to be unbiased, and use the NYT (and other media similarly biased) to shape their worldview, without understanding the bias.
From:mosch2000
Date: - 0000

Re: Just so we have you on the record...

(Link)
Endorsements != Membership. please see my other post.

Claiming they're equivalent is foolish at best.
From:sethb
Date: - 0000
(Link)
It's quite common for fringe parties to claim people as members who don't actually join. Maybe the media has learned that after getting it wrong once.

What was Obama's party registration? Consistently Democratic? Well, that proves he wasn't a member of the New Party exactly as strongly as Sarah Palin wasn't a member of the Independence Party.

(In New York, at least, it's quite common for candidates to be nominated by multiple parties, and appear on the ballot under each of them.)
[User Picture]
From:_ayn_
Date: - 0000
(Link)
There are a LOT of issues about Obama that the media is "over-looking".
From:mosch2000
Date: - 0000

Endorsement v. Membership

(Link)
It's true, the "New Party" endorse Barack Obama, but surely you recognize the difference between endorsement and membership. Conflating the two is idiotic to be polite.

Was George W. Bush a member of Rolling Thunder? Was he on the staff of the Houston Chronicle? Was he a Democrat?

No, of course not. But the first two organizations printed out formal ballots indicating that Rolling Thunder and the Houston Chronicle want George W. Bush as president, as did Zell Miller's "Democrats for Bush."

If you want people to take you seriously, you need to apply just a tiny bit of thought before you post. Endorsement != Membership.

> go to top
LiveJournal.com