Just a reminder – this is what it looked like when the press asked hard questions of members of both political parties. The Obama campaign called the waahmbulance, calling Barbara West “unprofessional and combative.” I’d like to see how they’d stand up to having interviews chopped up to within an inch of their lives and being sandbagged with highly truncated, misleading quotes, and trick questions – daily.
They’re going to have to change the call letters of that station from WFTV to WTF?!-TV. It was that shocking. See for yourself:
I regret that she picked the questions that she did. I’d have skipped that last and instead followed up on how, exactly, that wealth-spreading scheme isn’t Marxist or the fact that Obama has, in fact, been a pretty big supporter of ACORN, but the interview is simply mind-blowing in that it exposes how little true journalism has been administered to the Democrats in… well… decades, at least. When’s the last time you saw a Democrat asked to defend his core philosophy? When’s the last time you saw one put on the spot like this?
It’s a pity she only had four minutes with him and couldn’t follow up, because Biden outright lied about ACORN. They have canvassed for Obama more than once, including this year. Michelle Malkin warns that Ms. West can expect the Joe the Plumber treatment now.
Although I don’t think that an Obama victory – while genuinely bad for the country – would be the apocalyptic event some of my fellow conservatives think it would be, I agree with The Anchoress when she writes,
At this point, I – like Bill Kristol – would be happy to see a McCain win just to watch the press’ reaction. I want to see the press defeated, and set right. Not victorious and forever destroyed.
Accorn is like a pimple on an elephant butt compared to the voter fraud utilized in 2004 and 2000 by the Republican party. Joe Biden was terrific in shutting up this idiot from WTF. Also, Laura or whatever your name is, you are a complete fool.
[Wow, we haven't had a member of the "You're a poopyhead!" troll club for some time! You're so incredibly persuasive that I'm guessing you're not just a member, you're the president. Well, I'm convinced. I'm voting Obama! Bravo, Howard. Well played! - Laura]
The fact that the Obama campaign immediately canceled the second interview they had scheduled with the station due to “unprofessional behavior” on the part of Barbara West only shows how the left is unwilling to answer straight questions. They said she was “rude”, which I find a total fabrication after watching this clip several times. What is rude and unprofessional is their assumption that they receive a pass on all hard questions and that anyone that dares to ask a hard question be blacklisted by the campaign.
I agree…. defeat the media if nothing else. I’m afraid I rarely believe anything I read in a mainstream publication anymore. I read everything through a lense coated with skepticism.
How dare she ask hard questions of the Obama campaign? That was totally out of bounds.
Laura, Thank you for the great interview with Joe Biden. I finally realized that jouralism is not dead yet. Not all the news is in the tank for Oboma. God Bless you. Doug brown California
Laura, when I listened to that interview, I immediately wrote to her TV station and told them she was the first to be able to ask hard questions of someone in the Obama camp. I told them she needed a big raise!! Good to see someone not afraid to stand up to them. And it shows how much that campaign thinks the media should be own ‘their side’. I guess they found one they couldn’t handle!
Those weren’t journalistic questions. They were basically GOP talking points spilling out bs stuff. Maybe even her republiCON husband wrote her questions.Compare blondie’s interview with McCain and her “soft ball” questions. Anyone with half a brain can see that her questions toward Biden were unfair, unprofessional, and one-sidedWest ended up looking more stupid.Whatever, who cares. Once Obama gets elected US President next week, I look forward to 2009 when he brings back the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE and we can get rid of the Fox Noise type spokespeople like West.
[Not much fun when that happens to your side, is it? The media has been abusing, sandbagging, and selectively editing Republicans for decades, and this election season has been the worst. Biden wasn't treated any worse than Palin has been. All journalists should treat all politicians this way all the time. As to your "Fairness Doctrine" and "getting rid" of journalists you don't like - be careful, your fascism is showing! - Laura]
By the way, “FunMe” – it’s interesting how sexist the left is – even women on the left! Barbara West is “blondie” and her husband wrote her questions? You can’t even give the woman credit for having views of her own. It’s disgraceful, how hypocritical you people are. And if I described Hillary Clinton as “blondie” and suggested that Bill Clinton told her how to vote as Senator and was entirely responsible for her campaign, you fascist poo-flinging monkeys would go ballistic.
Laura … you are an IDIOT with your fascism comic.
But THANKS for the comic relief!
Wish you can hear all the celebrating we’ll be having next week.
Your camp has destroyed our DEMOCRACY … but you go right ahead, keep drinking the KKKool.
LOL or is it WTF
FunMe, what’s not fascist about your plan to systematically and legally oppress a large group of your fellow citizens by limiting our free speech? Your problem is called “projection” and you can find it in the DSM-IV.
Added: and I noticed you didn’t deny or defend the sexism.
Great Question. A great TV station will give her a great job. She should be at the top of the News Dept. I spent 35 years in Radio & TV. Go Laura. Thanks, Jim
Great Question Barbara West. A great station will give you a great job. You should be at the top of the News Dept. I spent 35 years in Radio and TV. We need more Barbara’s in a Free America. Thanks, Jm
I thought about responding to your initial comments, but what’s the point?
Here’s why I cannot take you seriously.
Right here – “Not much fun when that happens to your side, is it? The media [*] has been abusing, sandbagging, and selectively editing Republicans for decades” – you admit that the woman is being unprofessional. There’s nothing wrong with the questions she asked, it’s HOW she asked them, and this should be obvious. It’s like asking McCain: “Aren’t you deeply ashamed that your VP pick is ignorant of what Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with beyond the one everyone knows?” I’m sure you’d find that unprofessional, which it would be.
And yet, instead of insisting that both sides be treated fairly, you go on to suggest – “All journalists should treat all politicians this way all the time” – that journalists should abuse, sandbag, and selectively edit EVERYONE. If you don’t see a problem with that, why would anyone bother reasoning with you?
*I assume you at least mean minus FOX, Washington Times, National Review, New York Post, The New York Sun, and so on, who frequently blatantly slander Democrats.
Nobody will disagree with you that media is biased, and this year it looks like liberals are doing better than conservatives. But stating that this type of stuff happens only to Republicans – and is consistent for 20 years – is mere political grandstanding… and not very convincing at that, though I have a feeling that all you’re trying to do is preach to the choir.
FunMe- Do you realize the Fairness Doctrine is anything BUT that?
“Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the “fairness doctrine.” The legislation, entitled the “Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993,” is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.” The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law.”
From http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm
I have the solution for you FunMe. If you don’t like it, change the channel. You will probably enjoy MSNBC or CNN for its so called “fairness”.
If you want it fair then we need to keep FOX news since you are in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. West is the opposite “fairness” of say Charles Gibson
One other point to make. In the wide world basic knowledge of journalism there is no such thing as a bad question. Only a bad answer.
Biden asked if West was joking because he didn’t know the answer or how to answer her question.
No need for insults here.
Alex, I’ll answer seriously, and you can take it as you please. My comment “Not much fun when that happens to your side, is it? The media [*] has been abusing, sandbagging, and selectively editing Republicans for decades” was not intended to be any kind of admission. The trouble with text communication is you can’t tell tone. I should have been more clear. “Not much fun when that happens to your side,” was very sarcastic, and it referenced the fact that it was an interview without the normal “Tiger Beat” questions normally asked of Democrats. I don’t believe there was anything wrong with either the questions she asked or how she asked them. David Gregory has always been a good deal more obnoxious than Barbara West was, to say nothing of Helen Thomas. (My gripe with them is that they asked fewer questions than they gave editorials.) And I’m fine with the tough questions – if you want to play in the bigs, you need to accept the risk of getting beaned with a fastball. I would much prefer all reporters take that tone with all politicians all the time. I wasn’t kidding about that. That would be fair. I want tough questions; the tougher the better, and the more enmity between politicians and media, the happier I’ll be.
The sandbagging and selective editing needs to stop, period. It hasn’t been done to Democrats by the MSM that I’ve observed; again, that Tiger Beat tone is omnipresent and half the time it seems like the reporter is “leading the witness” so to speak. If you expect that not to happen by commentators, however, you need to get over it; I’m talking about the media. I’ve cut down drastically on my news consumption the last few months – turned off cable TV and don’t bother with broadcast news because it’s too infuriating – so if things have changed recently I’ll be pleasantly surprised. But the coverage of Sarah Palin vs. that of Joe Biden pretty much says it all – it’s a disgrace, and when even the Russians are laughing at us for it, it’s clear the media hit bottom and started digging.
Yes, there are a handful of conservative news outlets. As for “blatantly slandering Democrats,” – uh, NO. Words mean things; if “slander” was occurring, as opposed to unfavorable media coverage, we’d be hearing about it ad infinitum. Media studies going back years show the leftward bias, so as for “this year” I think that’s quite disingenuous of you – and if you actually believe it, I find that worse!
I go round and round with my extremely liberal brother on this one – we are so divided that we’re not even working from the same dataset anymore. And if we can’t agree what “up” and “down” are, there’s little use in discussing the effects of gravity. I don’t know how to get beyond this problem; when you say “why would anyone bother reasoning with you,” that’s *exactly* how I feel about your side. But no, I’m not grandstanding any more than I assume you are. I mean exactly what I say.
Laura,
I appreciate you writing a serious reply. I admit that I didn’t expect it (it seems you’re not expecting one either).
“I don’t know how to get beyond this problem; when you say “why would anyone bother reasoning with you,” that’s *exactly* how I feel about your side. But no, I’m not grandstanding any more than I assume you are.”
The way to go beyond this problem is to talk about it seriously, as we’re trying to do, and perhaps accept that there are middle grounds on issues and take it from there.
Now, you quoted Malkin in your original piece. She is someone I have a certain amount of sympathy for. She went to Oberlin College, a place full of spoiled hippie-wannabe kids. I might be more conservative if I went there (I lived in Cleveland for a long time, and I considered Oberlin). That said, I cannot take her any more seriously than Bill Maher, because they are both devoted primarily to radicalizing their base by insulting the other side. So – if you want to bother reasoning with people on my side (I’ll get back to “my side” later) – make it look like you actually want to reason with people on my side. Surely we can agree on some issues, and then move from there.
For example, we can both agree that the “sandbagging and selective editing needs to stop, period” even if we disagree about the details.
So, since we can talk, let me ask you: what are some examples of “media studies going back years [that] show the leftward bias”? I’m aware of very few genuine studies done on this. I am most familiar with studies by Tim Groeling, a political scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles. His group’s research showed a slight liberal bias (using U.S. political scale), where the majority of American media appears to be between the center and Senator Lieberman. If you can recommend any studies of similar quality that would support your argument, please do. I like to be well-informed.
That said, I cannot think of any study that will make me actually forget what happened in 2000 – when most journalists (liberal, conservative, didn’t matter) talked about Gore being a “fat, sweaty liar” and Bush being a “compassionate conservative.” These were the talking points for virtually all media commentators, and many of those hacks slandered – yes, slandered – Gore without blinking. Speaking of slander, how else would you characterize a 90-minute discussion that centered around Senator Obama being a trained terrorist?
I also take issue with this comment: “I don’t believe there was anything wrong with either the questions she asked or how she asked them.” Again, tough questions are fine. Again, what is inappropriate is asking questions in a manner that implies guilt: “Senator McCain, aren’t you deeply ashamed that your VP pick is ignorant of what Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with beyond the one everyone knows?” Implying guilt – using a QUESTION as an ATTACK – turns an interview into propaganda, especially when that question can be asked in a neutral manner. And I see enough propaganda, don’t you?
A final comment. You mentioned “your side” in your reply. This caught me a bit off guard. I’m certainly no Democrat. I’ve no respect for the two parties in charge. For elections, I just write in “Karl Marx – power to the people.” (Sorry, couldn’t resist.) Sides are relative, aren’t they? If, let’s say, China attacked, we’d be on the same side.
Alex – I’m going to respond in depth, I just have to be away from the computer for a while. But I don’t think I saw the same election you saw in 2000. Al Gore was called a fat, sweaty liar? (By the media, not a pundit.) ? And what 90 minute discussion about Obama being a trained terrorist? I completely missed that one, but again, I seldom watch TV these days.
For what it’s worth, although I cannot stand the man, I’ve defended him (or maybe it’s more fair to say attacked my own side) for the most egregious attacks like calling him the antichrist and that birth cert nonsense.
I’m not a Republican; I’ve been registered independent for years and likewise have no respect for either party. I dislike the Dems a whole lot more, though. Oddly enough, on political tests like Politiopia I usually test out as a classical liberal. These days having classical liberal tendencies makes me conservative, it seems.
As for whether China attacked we’d be on the same side… maybe not you personally, but some people were speculating on “root causes” and protesting by 9/13/2001. I call that not being on our side.
Okay, I’m back.
Alex, I’m continuing even though I’m convinced this will be fruitless because at the end of the day, I think we’re going to run into the brick wall I have run into each time I try to have these discussions. We are certainly capable of speaking/writing in a civil tone. But in the end I don’t think we’re going to find much middle ground because I believe we’re not working from the same set of facts. It goes beyond mere worldview. Of course we all tend to give more credence to things that support our worldview. But the source information is so partisan – what neutral, trustworthy sources are there, really, these days? The problem is pervasive.
I’ll try to cut to the heart of it with this example: it’s an article of faith on the left that George Bush has been the worst. President. EVAR!1!! Evidence cited for this includes the useless, unwinnable Iraq war and the terrible economy.
But from my perspective, the Iraq war was and is a good idea. WMD aside (and I do think he had them and sent them to Syria in that infamous pre-war truck convoy, and further, even the NYT reported on his extensive nuke program; they just did so in the context of an attack on Bush) because the legislation authorizing the war included many other reasons, I think it’s an excellent idea to have troops on the ground in Iraq because of Iran and primarily because of Saudi Arabia, who is certainly no friend of ours. I think it’s very good strategically and goes far toward applying pressure where it will do the most good. I also think it was well worth it to liberate millions of people from Saddam Hussein. I’m especially pleased that we drew al Qaeda to Iraq and soundly defeated them there – it was a lot easier than fighting them in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which, now that we’re probably going to have to do it there also, is going to really suck – conditions will be much harder, and on ground they control, not us. But they are substantially weakened, and so Iraq was very beneficial for that reason.
I believe before it’s all over we’re going to have open war with both Iran and Saudi Arabia because adherents of Wahabism and Salafism must be stamped out the way the Nazis were. And by stamped out I mean killed, if necessary, but preferably convinced to give up on the idea of Sharia law and the supremacy of Islam worldwide. I generally agree with Robert Spencer on the topic of Islam (although I haven’t seen him express conclusions like mine.) Further, I think that our government ought to have been a lot more forthcoming on a number of issues that would have the terror supporters at CAIR screaming “Islamophobia!” I think the UK is in grave danger because of their ridiculous kowtowing to radical Islamists living there on the dole and demanding – and getting – more and more concessions in the name of political correctness. I think we ought to be recruiting for our military much more aggressively. Finally, I think the Iraq war IS winnable; that we ARE winning, and if we don’t yank the troops out, we WILL win. Violence rates are next to nothing these days, and the Iraq military is “standing up” and we are gradually standing down and increasingly focusing on a training role. Considering how many years we were in Germany after the war, I think things are going just fine.
With regard to the economy I think things have been going a lot better than the media has purposely tried to portray it – in many respects it has been comparable to the much lauded Clinton economy, and Clinton didn’t have a 9/11 or Katrina to deal with. Unemployment has been quite low, tax revenues, thanks to tax cuts & the Laffer curve, have been up, lifestyles have improved a great deal for people at all income levels. Things are not perfect, but they are by far not the tragedy they’ve been portrayed to be, and now that we are on the verge (or in the beginning stages) of an actual recession, it shows what liars the media have been for screaming “Recession!” the last 6 years. Not that anyone will notice… except people like me, who are already convinced. While the war has been expensive, it’s nothing next to what entitlements cost and they are the real drag on the economy. I think the recent 700 billion bailout was a forced crisis and essentially an October surprise. While there are serious financial issues, they could have been addressed calmly and rationally – and weren’t, in order to benefit the government generally and the Democrats specifically.
Now, I don’t know what you personally think on those topics but I think you’ll agree that people on the left generally would quickly conclude I’m a wingnut with no grasp on reality whatsoever. Links, stats, and arguments I could provide would quickly be countered by “facts” that directly contradict my “facts” and we’d be at a standoff.
Take media bias for example. I can list anecdote after anecdote from MRC. A lefty would typically counter with anecdotes from Media Matters. Each of us thinks the other’s examples are ridiculously inflated or made up of whole cloth. I’ve seen studies over the years from CJR, Stanford and other orgs that indicate a strong left tilt, and I’ll try to dig them up for you but I believe that sort of thing is pretty much besides the point now. Consider the list of beliefs and views I just listed. What would it take to convince you I’m right? Is it possible?
Thought ah come hear an’ CELEBRATE wif all yer losers!Gotta go, write whutevah yo’ want, th’ IGNORE button on all yo’ GOP fascists who co’rupped our govment will be on fo’evah! Fry mah hide!Oh an’ Mary Jane yer still an IDIOT an’ loser! Fry mah hide!Likker ennyone?:-)
[Troll comment converted to Redneck with the Dialectizer - Laura.]