******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Spitting Into The Mainstream Media Wind

Josh Gerstein asks a question a lot of people have been asking: What if George W. Bush had done that?

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.
I understand why the question is being asked. But it is spitting into the mainstream media wind.

The mainstream media still supports Obama, just slightly less openly than before. They still are in the tank, just not as deep. Their emotional and professional investment in Obama is too big to fail.

There is a double-standard when it comes to mainstream media coverage of liberals and the rest of us. Always has been, always will be.

So keep asking the question, but duck!

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook


  1. Most people don’t mind their own gas. It’s only when the other person cuts one that we’re repelled.

    The Dear Leader is perfect and therefore there is no stink in His house. But, the neighbors? Ah now, that’s a different story. In this country, there are two different camps each repelled by the other. And each side has its own media outlets. Been that way for quite a while now.

    The problem of course is that it is supremely convenient for both sides to continue to refer to the Liberal media as the ‘mainstream media.’ The Liberal media believes it needs Americans to consider their reporting to be mainstream. That provides cover and legitimacy for their point of view. The Conservatives need to continue the ‘mainstream media’ charade so they have a convenient foil against which to cast their outrage and consternation at the Liberal world view.

    However, as CNN’s new low in prime-time ratings attest, the Liberal point of view is not attracting new adherents, but continues to lose Americans to a more balanced and even Conservative viewpoint. There’s nothing mainstream about that. So, the gig is up on the tired old term, ‘mainstream media.’

    ‘Mainstream media’ is a rhetorical fallacy.

  2. Great comment 2470144 even though it will put you on a watch list!!
    It will have me chuckling all day.

  3. I - very respectfully - disagree.

    "..just slightly less openly than before."


    I see NO evidence of any lessening whatsoever, nor any reluctance on their part to display their openly sycophantic behavior in dispensing Obama's lies.

  4. It's a shame if you want to get your news from a newspaper, you have to go to the U.K. to find anything even remotely critical of the president.

    The Telegraph and Times Online pull no punches. Gerald Warner of the Telegraph has at times referred to him as President Pantywaist and another time he called him the new surrender monkey because of his proclivity to appease the thugs we have traditionally viewed as unfriendly to the west.

  5. Better yet, you can just lie.

    A meme that arose over the weekend is that Dubya froze out the New York Times, so Obama freezing out FoxNews is no different. The claim was that "Dubya never gave the NYT an interview."

    Never mind whether that is the same as denying FoxNews a chance to interview czars and Cabinet secretaries. The reality is that Dubya DID give the NYT at least one interview.

    But the meme is now out---Obama is no different from Dubya. (Of course, that doesn't quite jibe w/ "Change," but, hey, the One doesn't need to be consistent.)

  6. Add 'spending in entire multiples of all preceding presidents combined.' And that he's beyond chickenhawk into a stand-alone category labeled chickshit.

    As to your point about the failure to metaphorize Obama, one is surely being constructed as we watch and it is just as certainly racist. Obama will be, by his and his supporter's choice, the prototypical Black President.

    And what does a Black President do to/for the USA? Append your list and others.

    The real question: "Will there be a second black candidate for President who does not expect to lose by a landslide?"