And the Post’s national politics editor Steve Ginsberg:
We launched our own database of the White House visitor logs with a piece by Tim Farnam that explored the steady stream of lobbyist visitations to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We are the news organization that broke stories and aggressively followed the Solyndra loan controversy, courtesy of dogged reporting by Carol Leonnig and Joe Stephens. The first installment of our ongoing series, “Evolution of a President,” by Peter Wallsten, Lori Montgomery and Scott Wilson, dissected the debt deal in a way that it had not been done before. Today, Jerry Markon had a piece in the paper about Romney’s judicial appointments and his ill-fated effort to reform the system in Massachusetts. Last year, Markon wrote about the steady rise of federal judicial vacancies during the Obama administration.
All of this critical coverage of the President’s policies was apparently lost on Politico, who concluded that the papers had stopped critically covering Obama because they had stopped critically covering his personal life and background.
There are legitimate critiques to be made against the different coverage accorded Obama and Romney, but they have nothing to do with uneven scrutiny or their public versus private lives. Rather, as CJR’s Brendan Nyhan pointed out a few weeks ago, the narratives for the two candidates were depicted differently. Both Obama and Romney shifted positions on major issues, Nyhan argued, but the press described Obama’s shift as a natural “evolution” while treating Romney’s as a hypocritical “flip-flop.”
Politico could have done something similar, examining the different articles published about Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012 and critiquing them on their journalistic merits—were the facts inaccurate, the reporting thin, the narratives misleading? Instead, they reprinted false statements by Republican politicians and political operatives upset that media coverage of their candidate was hurting his campaign. That seems more like the work of a political consulting team, not media critics—and certainly not journalists.
- 1
- 2
A hit, sir. A palpable hit.
#1 Posted by Jim Concannon, CJR on Wed 6 Jun 2012 at 02:19 PM
Folks, everyone, Republicans included, knows that Romney is an egregious flip-flopper and that's been exhaustively demonstrated on issues ranging from health care to climate change to the auto industry bailout to abortion to Bin Laden, on and on and on. Of course Barack Obama has done some shifting, as does every politician. But that comes nowhere close to the magnitude of Romney's flopping. Let's not engage in further Brendan Nyhan-style false equivalence.
#2 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Wed 6 Jun 2012 at 02:37 PM
You have the unmitigated gall to bring up the Jeremiah Wright story as an example of the press' critical eye on Obama? You do recall that the story was blacked out by the Times, WaPo, etc. for weeks, and only released after the internet forced the MSM's hand?
One more reason never to trust anyone with a Columbia journalism degree.
#3 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 6 Jun 2012 at 07:19 PM
How about that whole john edwards thing huh guys? Where a well respected journal the National Enquirer scooped the NYT, (white)wash post and dozens of others for a run at the pulitzer prize... just saying when the national inquirer is out newsing the "experts" of the times, post etc one has to wonder why that is?
Clearly since evidence has come out that such papers purposedly killed the stories to protect him means nothing... because THEN AFTER THE FACT they covered it.
Wow kind of exactly like the pieces cited in this propaganda... WAY AFTER THE FACT reporting. Which ironically or not was solely run to help cover up and down play the issue.
#4 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Wed 6 Jun 2012 at 07:49 PM
More on politico.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/wisconsin-effect-on-presidential-race-9479178
Fishing for drudge links is sort of their business model.
http://gawker.com/5180451/the-politico+drudge-echo-chamber
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 6 Jun 2012 at 09:36 PM
esquire post is a joke with nothing expect sore loser BS. The leftwing nutters have been hyping this event up for months because they thought they were going to win. If they had won esquire would have 10 pages(along with CJR) about how this is great and blah blah blah blah blah(insert 1 billion X).
gawker post isn't much better.
Much like the complete coverup and blackout that groups like the NYT and (white)wash post have done they are doing it again...
All the hyping for months and yet zero coverage by the communist/socialist alliance because the results don't fit the party line.
I can't wait for all the voter fraud and so forth conducted by the democrats to come out. Already we have forged ballots seized and pictures of pro-democrat campaign posters inside voting areas. I can't wait for the CJR piece that says its ok for democrats to have full on campaign posters in the polling booths but voters weren't allow to wear scott walker stickers on their shirts.
This election will be the gift that keeps on giving and hopefully alot of dems will be going to jail for the massive amount of election fraud, tampering and voter suppression that they conducted during the vote.
#6 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Wed 6 Jun 2012 at 10:27 PM
Does CJR now allow obscenities in its posted comments? See Post #3 above. I have asked CJR editors to remove that comment but have gotten no response.
#7 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Thu 7 Jun 2012 at 01:24 PM
Yeah, robo - who is a nut job, employed some pretty yucky imagery there.
The report an error deal might be the trick here.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 7 Jun 2012 at 01:35 PM
In other news, we now know that Scott Walker outspent his opponent two to one and outside money dropped another 20 million making the Wisconsin recall a 50 to 15 million dollar race.
And we know that the influence of this outside money is spreading:
http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/politics/citizens-united-local-elections-9479327
And we know that democracies are driven by public opinion and public opinion is influenced by media and pr:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/06/06/lock-and-load-not-you-hippie/
And we know that media is influenced by the pressure of advertisers.
How long is it going to take, ya think, before the media starts getting influenced by these campaigners for billionaires, tossing their disposable cash at 3 to 1 levels for advertising? I mean the democrats are supposed to be the party of liberal values and they sold out during the eighties for campaign cash. How long do you think the media's got before citizen's united starts affecting their coverage decisions more than conservative ref playing has up to now?
It makes one very worried when the possibility of political solution fades away. It's a subject worth discussion.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 7 Jun 2012 at 02:14 PM
o thimbles propaganda pieces abound next you'll be crying about how the jews out spent hitler because hitler said so.
But hey lets not compare anything sane to anything else sane lets just run the propaganda because you can't debate as you have refused to due so every chance you get.
#10 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Thu 7 Jun 2012 at 04:10 PM