A Liberal Entrée of Media Dish

Thomas F. Roeser is the chairman of the editorial board of The Chicago Daily Observer, and a regular columnist there of some considerable talent.

He has served up a generous course of media dish with his latest column, "How the Liberal Media Stonewalled the Edwards Story." (h.t., Newsalert, here).

Roeser simply left no large stones undisturbed. None.

Addressing the general and perennial accusation of "progressive" bias in the media, as manifested by to the failure to pursue this story, Roeser pegged that right off with two equally harsh and unequivocal diagnoses, each one having spilled, scent and all, right from an offending source:

Two journalistic liberals now attest to the fact. Howard Kurtz, media critic for The Washington Post last week blasted his mainline journalistic colleagues for trying to snuff out the truth because Edwards is a fellow liberal. He wrote, "the widespread allegations…were an open secret that was debated in every newsroom and reported by almost none." He was joined by Clark Hoyt, ombudsman for The New York Times whose job is to determine how impartial his newspaper is. He wrote, "The John Edwards 'love child' story finally made the national news media and made the front page of yesterday’s Times. For weeks, Jay Leno joked about it, the internet was abuzz and readers wondered why The Times and most of the mainstream media seemed to be studiously ignoring a story of sex and betrayal involving a former Democratic presidential candidate who remains prominent on the political stage."

Hoyt harshly condemned his employer: "Before Edwards' admission, The Times never made a serious effort to investigate the story, even as [The National Enquirer] wrote one sensational report after another."

Whence, "The Only Serious Book . . . ?" *

John McCain had a great opening line, which he delivered at a Lance Armstrong Livestrong Foundation event for cancer survivors yesterday, held at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. The occasion was billed as a Presidential Townhall meeting. Both candidates had been invited. Multi-year Tour de France champion, Lance Armstrong is a cancer survivor, as is John McCain, who has had a few bouts with skin melanoma.

Said McCain, after being warmly introduced by Lance Armstrong:

My opponent, of course, is traveling in Europe, and tomorrow his tour takes him to France. In a scene that Lance would recognize, a throng of adoring fans awaits Senator Obama in Paris -- and that's just the American press.

According to Jonathan Martin on Politico, however, he said he heard the delivery was followed by an awkward laugh. Well, having seen it on NECN video, I'm not so sure awkward is correct. It was a pretty full laugh, to be sure. But the audience laughed and applauded as well. That's not awkward.

The point McCain made is certainly well taken. If Barack Obama has suffered any lasting damage by exposure at all on this whirlwind tour of Europe, it seems quite clear that it has been entirely self-induced -- such as, by abruptly cancelling a planned visit to wounded American troops at a hospital in Germany, and offering an inexcusable and lame explanation for doing so.

Many commentators have correctly noted that McCain used to enjoy excellent press coverage himself, even joking that the press was his "base." But more recently, he has found himself out in the cold.

Now comes word from The New Republic reporter Gabriel Sherman, who strongly suggests that the American press affair with Barack Obama is officially yesterday's news.

End of the Affair details several recent incidents that suggest that the heart of the matter from the press perspective is the Obama campaign's defensiveness over reporters queries regarding two primary issues: the Barack Obama biography, and problems that he has with certain groups of voters.

Reporters who have covered Obama's biography or his problems with certain voter blocs have been challenged the most aggressively. "They're terrified of people poking around Obama's life," one reporter says. "The whole Obama narrative is built around this narrative that Obama and David Axelrod built, and, like all stories, it's not entirely true. So they have to be protective of the crown jewels." Another reporter notes that, during the last year, Obama's old friends and Harvard classmates were requested not to talk to the press without permission.

If it true, as Sherman claims in this TNR piece, that the affair is indeed over, one immediate question comes to mind -- who will be the one to say, "Look, I think it would be best if we both began seeing other people."

And, Bob Barr hardly fits the bill as anyone's likely "rebounder" candidate!

For those who has been around since Neil Sedaka was burning up the pop charts, back in the mid-sixties, let's just remember that indeed Breakin' Up Is Hard to Do. Ed Morrissey at HotAir quite appropriately plucked that song title as the header for his take on the subject of the TNR piece. There is simply a basic truth to that sentiment, which probably explains why few songs in pop history have been more recorded (or parodied), and by a broader array of artists.

So, both Ed and Allapundit at Hot Air are taking the cynics view of the likelihood this TNR article portends any sort final break, or even much more than a temporary a cold shoulder from the media. Agreed.

Says Ed:

However, as as Allahpundit said last night, I’d doubt that the media will suddenly send a Dear Barack letter to the campaign and rediscover their amorous passion for McCain, and for a simple reason — Obama’s younger and better looking, and has better sound bites. Obama sells, and the media’s passion will follow both the money and their own progressive biases. Besides, they have to compete with their European counterparts, who clearly haven’t become jaded with the Obamessiah yet:

He's got that right! Just read the clip he quoted from the article by German magazine reporter for Bild, Judith Bonesky! Matt Drudge has posted the original today!

No, I am not kidding -- that is the name of the reporter, who quite openly flirted in a touchy-feely sort of way with Senator Obama during a workout in a German gym, and who then actually concluded her piece breathlessly following his workout . . . "What a man!" Some people -- and not just reporters -- cannot get anywhere near a person with perceived power without literally losing their minds. Glenn Beck correctly anticipated that one, as he was noting the depth of media fascination with everything Obama!

And, there is one more important reason to treat the TNR article with a grain of salt.

The public itself is currently focusing with a gimlet eye on the obvious political bias in the news media.

That is clearly reflected in a recent Rasmussen poll indicating that an increasing percentage of Americans believe that reporters are actively trying to help Obama win election; in stories about lopsided political contributions by new media figures going to Democrats; by the sheer magnitude of the "major media extravaganza" response to Senator Obama's trip; and by the specific New York Times refusal to print an Op-Ed on the subject of Iraq written by Senator McCain, though they had just fully printed one written by Senator Obama.

Today's Drudge Report is rife with links to media bias stories. For example, Howard Kurtz's "Obama Abroad: We Get the Picture," in the Washington Post.

To the extent that that the public recognizes and sees through the mainstream media bias, including, in some very recent instances, actual censoring filters, it is in the strong interest of those whose bias leans left to at least try to counteract that perception, or to at least try and throw up some sort of smokescreen.

What better than a story formally announcing that the Obama flirtation by the media is now officially over? Let's not forget that in the relatively recent past, TNR, a left-leaning publication, was certainly not above enabling the wholesale manufacture of a story in order to press an agenda -- remember Scott Thomas Beauchamp -- and even sticking with it when they got caught.

No, the media affair with Barack does not appear to be done with. As I recall, Hud Bannon once contradicted Homer, saying, "Well . . . it may be over. But it's not done with, not by a long shot!"


*Walter Lippman once said that that newspapers were the "Bible of democracy," and, further that a newspaper, "is the only serious book most people read."

Why Mitt?

Many folks have endorsed Mitt Romney for President, and for a variety of reasons.

My reasons really can be reduced to a connection. Few agree 100% with the positions on issues of a candidate they support, so I am sure I'm no exception. But, having evaluated the views and the approach of the candidates, for some time now I have felt a solid connection to his approach. Mitt Romney's real world career successes, both in business and in the public sector, are far and away the most impressive of any of the candidates. And the manner in which he and his family have lived their lives is notable as well. But it was his approach, the way he talked about how he would govern, that won my support and my vote.

To me, the best Presidents have a few solid qualities, ones which can oddly seem somewhat contradictory on occasion. But the Presidency demands several qualities because a President fills several roles. And the best Presidents do so in a relatively seamless manner.

Constitutionally, a President is our nation's chief executive and the military Commander in Chief. A President is also the head of state. All three roles demand unique qualities, and for me Mitt Romney would best fill all three. In fact, his grounding in the business world is a particularly significant factor now in dealing with economic turbulence, including avoiding an over-reaction that would hamstring us on the back end.

Here in New Jersey, I am reminded that a few successive Democrat administrations have literally destroyed the economic viability of our State government -- not of our economy quite yet -- but certainly of our State Government. At the same time they have bloated the size of government all out of proportion. New Jersey has become a certifiably obese state Government. The current governor's "solution," however, is to mortgage the future with enormous toll road increases, which will simultaneously ruin whatever remains of our quality of life by driving traffic off onto local arteries. And he'll be long gone before the piper even begins to tune up!

In short, New Jersey has permanently adopted the J. Wellington Wimpy model of governance, "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." So, I want a president who will not continually be knocking on Democrats' doors looking for ways to compromise and grow the government, all while enabling personal dependence and diminishing our individuality, just so he can prove he is an independent.

A president must have extraordinarily strong convictions to successfully pursue a political agenda, but those should be coupled with an inherent modesty of purpose, an understanding that in promoting and protecting and ultimately preserving our representative democratic polity and our free society, the framework for pursual of a political agenda is, and should be, limited indeed. He or she leads, but not without being fully connected, and not without understanding that at the end of the day, our core values of freedom and liberty not only remain intact, they should ideally be enhanced.

Just because of the nature of the game, many candidates this year seem to exude much of that first quality -- strong convictions -- but too little of the latter, that inherent modesty of purpose.

Anyone who truly values and cherishes freedom and liberty knows that they both inform our national soul, and can be mighty messy as well! Nothing good usually comes out of the kitchen without a sink full of pans and dishes!

Good leadership, therefore, ought to arise out of energetic engagement in public debate, and succeed only through persuasion. Good politics is the fight for the right tomorrow, employing the means that preserve our political inheritence. Finding ways to tamp down or cut off politically motivated speech and debate, therefore, is inherently wrong. McCain/Feingold was and is an abomination. And when I hear a politician opine -- as several leading Democrats have threatened since eeking out a bare majority in Congress nearly two years ago -- that talk radio may need to somehow be reigned in, that is it for them. Where was the classic liberal who stood up and said "no" to that rubbish?

I often suspect that progressives -- that's what they like to be called these days --really believe that free speech and expression are merely means to the imposition of their ends, and that once their ends are being achieved, those means can just "whither away." "Political correctness" is a demonstrable current precurser of that end game. Just think of the perfectly legitimate things you're no longer "allowed" to say, and the new euphemisms you are now expected to employ! Nuts to that!

Some "progressive leaders" even exhibit a tendency to equate, or should I say conflate their own power-seeking ambitions, with our national zeitgeist. Hillary Clinton is a prime example. It is, and always has been all about her. Well, I say, "go garnish your own wage, lady!" And she really ought to lay off the bogus tears, too!

Finally, I like the idea of a President who, like Mitt, proved he could win and govern in a blue state, in some ways, the bluest state of all -- at least then! And this year, I was impressed by his ability to go into what will undoubtedly be a battleground state of Michigan, and win as well.

Lest anyone point to current polls, however, to suggest that only McCain scores against Democrats, I'm not impressed. As at other times in the past, John McCain has gotten a free primary-length pass from the main stream media outlets, including being endorsed for the primary by both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. But that honeymoon will not last for one single second, should he secure the Republican nomination. If he does win, the media-wide spigot will be abruptly turned off.

Then there will be a lot of cheerleading for Clinton or Obama. And, as in the past few cycles, there will be some significant breaking through that filter here on the internet. I predict, more and better.

So, HERE, as with some other notable locations elsewhere on the internet, I'm for Mitt Romney for President.

Now I think I'll go vote!