The “ugly shadow of ‘media bias’ is darkening” politics yet again, said David Harsanyi in The Denver Post. The New York Times’ rejection of John McCain’s op-ed piece—followed by “sycophantic coverage of Obamania in Europe and the Middle East”—outraged Republicans. But some observers claim TV networks have beaten up on Obama more than on McCain. Whose side is the press really on?
Are you kidding? said Paul Weyrich at Townhall.com. The media are treating Obama as if he were already president. Judging by the fawning attention paid to the presumptive nominee on his world tour, journalists have voted, and they see the election as “a sort of tolerated nuisance.”
If journalists are helping anyone, it’s McCain, said Steve Chapman in a Chicago Tribune blog. Obama got blanket coverage on his trip, but that was because his inexperience, especially in world affairs, made it newsworthy. If you look at instances where reporters expressed an opinion, 72 percent of the comments about Obama were negative, compared to just 57 percent for McCain.
And so what if some reporters are now swooning over Obama? said Tom Teepen in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. He’s the “slayer of Hillary the Inevitable,” and “journalists are grateful for the drama.” But McCain has no reason to complain—he is the media’s “first love,” and the “glow” of that relationship is not gone forever.
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- How academia's liberal bias is killing social science
- How to be the most productive person in your office — and still get home by 5:30 p.m.
- 43 TV shows to watch in 2014
- Why torture doesn't work: A definitive guide
- Why the Sony hack changes everything
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- You should be furious about Hollywood's gutless retreat on The Interview
- Hey, bosses: Stop giving bonuses to your employees
- 10 things you need to know today: December 18, 2014
- Capitalism isn't a cure-all for Cuba
Subscribe to the Week