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 the South's ugly racial history is haunting ObamaCare
- The real story behind Deliver Us From Evil
- 43 TV shows to watch in 2014
- If Democrats abandon immigration reform after Tuesday's likely loss, they will turn 2016 into a debacle
- How to be the most productive person in your office — and still get home by 5:30 p.m.
- What if Leo Strauss was right?
- 6 things the happiest families all have in common
- Beware of Splenda: The backlash against artificial sugars
- How science can help you survive scary movies
- Stop making fun of philosophy and read some philosophy
Subscribe to the Week