Election aftermath-media version-again

It may be time to stop yakking about the election, but this story is too good to pass up.  In the category of where were these guys two months ago comes Mark Halperin of Time Magazine.

Speaking at a Politico/USC conference Halperin discussed the media bias in favor of Barack Obama:

"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

And:  "I think it's incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we're being fair," he said. "The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I've ever covered, by far."

Some at the conference who disagreed blamed their favorable Obama coverage on his newness and smart campaign.  "We love things that are smart."  They also love defining smart, it seems.

One of Halperin's examples was the horribly negative New York Times story profiling Cindy McCain as contrast to the paper's later profile of Michelle Obama.  "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her..."  while the story on Michelle Obama was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is."

Comments

[Rand]

Gee, any chance those profiles accurately reflect who those women are? You assume they are not, but there is a possibility, totally dismissed by you and Halperin, that those profiles accurately reflect who the two women really are. Of course, that would destroy your MSM conspiracy theory. Maybe if you check with the Enquirer you'll find some dirt on Michelle. And then again (remember John Edwards) blame MSM for not following up on the Enquirer's always superb investigations.

[Diane]

You're kidding, right?

Who wants dirt on Michelle? The argument is that the NYT's went out of their way to portray Cindy McCain in a terrible light, even went so far as to try and get her daughter's classmates to tell them some gossip, sneaking around Facebook to locate those kids.

They should have told her story just like they did Michelle Obama's. And if you think that story was an accurate reflection of McCain, you haven't looked hard enough.

[Rand]

I didn't read the article. I know some in the audience disagreed with Halperin's opinion. I know I'[ve read some not-so-nice things about Cindy elsewhere. Why can't you accept the possibility that it was an honest portrayal? Do you know Cindy McCain personally? If so, how well? Were there fabrications in the article? Maybe she was portrayed in the light she deserves.

[Diane]

Why do you accept the bad about her without question?

The Times portrayal was vilified by even the most Obama partisan media and continues to this day.