copied word for word (so Jim and Jay don't get upset)
You could sense the revelry as the Los Angeles Times featured Sen. Barack Obama's announcement on the top of its front page (Wednesday, January 17, 2007). (See the image.) Along with the 1469-word article is a color photo of Barack and a colored box highlighting his "Background," "Experience," and "Education." Inside, with the continuation of the article, is another generous photo of Barack, this one covering over 30 square inches. The article gushes that Obama is a "charismatic speaker" who "has been enthusiastically received by audiences around the country."
Contrast the Times' glowing front-page reception of Obama with the way the paper reported the exact same announcement from Sen. Sam Brownback last month (December 5, 2006). Front-page treatment? An additional text box in color featuring Brownback's "Background," "Experience," and "Education"? A couple of nice photos? Not even close. The Times stuffed the moderately-sized, 833-word article on Brownback on page A20. And the title? "Conservative Sen. Brownback explores presidential run." The article begins, "Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a favorite of social conservatives ...," and the word "conservative" is sprinkled throughout the piece.
Meanwhile, while Obama enjoyed a perfect rating of 100 from liberal groups Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and NARAL in 2005, the Times does not use the word "liberal" to describe Obama until the closing paragraphs of the article when it finally reports, "He has a traditionally liberal voting history - supporting gay rights, abortion rights and gun control. The only vote in 2006 with which he opposed the liberal Americans for Democratic Action was in supporting a free-trade agreement with Oman."
Mind you, Obama did not even formally announce his candidacy for President. (The Times says that announcement is expected February 10 in Illinois.) Rather, he announced he had formed an exploratory committee, just as Sen. Brownback did last month. And this is a big front-page story at the Los Angeles Times? Yup.
Disparate treatment and bias? Of course.
[Funny P.S.: I've never considered myself much of a fortune teller, but check out the article I penned back in Jan. 2005 called, "Los Angeles Times Launching 2008 Obama Campaign??" The Times has been fawning over this guy since (before) Day One.]
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Disparate Treatment As LA Times Toasts Obama's Announcement
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
With the one fall back line that he's from this state, he's all over at least two Chicago area papers, the Sun-Times and the Daily Herald. And no, I don't recall any similar spread for Brownback. It's a cause of great nausea considering he's done so little. His Illinois Senate voting record doesn't get too many rasberries in this state, so he's basically getting pub cuz he's Obama and that's all he needs to do here. Excuse me, I have to throw up again.
I have to believe that once people look into him, they will see how damn liberal he is...maybe number one...and the morons who come here can say "you think everyone is liberal"..well, liberal groups give him a 100% rating, so I guess they agree with me
"The morons who come here"? Very nice.
Maybe it's because Obama is all over the newspapers and the tube. Even on Fox News. I'm sure he's mentioned on Fox News every day on most shows.
How often do you hear Brownback's name anywhere INCLUDING Fox? He is not well known outside the most conservative circles. Anybody who reads a paper or watches FOX News knows who Obama is.
And I don't care how liberal you think he is or isn't. He's fresh, he's interesting, he's charismatic. Can you say that about Brownback?
He’s charismatic and that’s sooo important, and key, because with libs, charisma trumps substance every time.
Jim, why do you think Obama’s “been all over the news”? He’s been all over the news since he was “discovered” (i.e. media-created). And of course Brownback hasn’t been all over the news because the Libedia can’t find anything about him they consider “controversial”, you see that’s about the only time you’ll find a conservative “all over the news” – in a negative light – or when the Libedia just can’t ignore the story any longer.
Remember Pat Buchanan? There’s a textbook example of how the lefty-puppet media treats a conservative aspiring to higher office.
Jim,
Obama, like Hillary, are going to have to divulge what they did, not speeches and photo ops.
Sunlight usually chases liberal politicians back into the arms of their handlers and from there under a rock.
Jim, obama is all the things you said, and that is why the liberal media is drooling all over itself.
He's a minority but doesn't talk like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson...you can admit it or not, but that matters.
HOWEVER, the point is that ANYONE who calls him a moderate and hides the fact he is a party line liberal is slanting the news and biased...I could even go as far as call them a liar
Scorpion says---
As I said the other day---Obama???
OH!!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
Morons? Ok – thanks! :)
I found your comparison of Brownback to Obama quite absurd. Then I saw Jim’s comments – Couldn’t agree more! On the popularity index, I don’t even know where Brownback stands! So, no wonder the media is giving Obama more coverage. Why just LA times? All media (including FOX News) have spent more time on Obama than Brownback. So you are going to write on how even Fox News is biased too ? :)
Well, I really hope the best candidate wins in 2008 – I don’t care if he/she is a liberal or conservative.
I believe the point of the thread is that Obama is getting attention for reasons no one can decipher outside of absolutely meaningless points such as "fresh" (what the fuck does THAT mean?), "charisma" (because the Islamic radicals won't be able to avert their gaze, the war will end?), "interesting" (it's indeed interesting that by doing nothing but showing up, he's considered a front runner). Brownback's been around for awhile, and gets no attention. So, for the libs and media (yeah, Fox too, but are they reporting on the hype or doing just as the rest are? Don't know, haven't been wathcing them.) they are popping boners over the fact that, well, I'm not really sure. That's the point.
Could be that Brownback has nothing to say that interests people.
And again, The Republic Party nominated George W. Bush who had a rather dismal record before attaining the relatively powerless office of Texas governor.
Game, this isn't new news. Newsweek's cover story a few weeks ago was on Hillary and Barack, and he was even further from announcing anything then.
And yes, I'm hoping "that once people look into him, they will see how damn liberal he is." That's the whole freaking point.
ME
Jim,
Just what does Obama say that is so damned interesting? All I've heard is the same tired platitudes trotted out by every Dem for as far back as I can remember. Am I to believe that Brownback hasn't his own to spew, just like any politician running for office? No sir. It's complete superficiality on the part of the media and not a little bit of political bias. Happy talk is not basis for political selection. But we're going to be inundated with such as Obama continues his quest. It will take serious questioning by media (like THAT'S gonna happen) and opponents to expose his true nature and beliefs.
damn...I can't keep a thread going more than a day and a half...
Post a Comment