by D. Cupples (photo from IowaPolitics.com) | Bias is hard to prove without a functional mind-reading machine, but evidence does suggest that some MSNBC personalities have a pro-Obama or anti-Clinton bias. I first noticed it just after the Iowa Caucus, when MSNBC kept hyping the notion that Barack Obama was somehow "the change candidate," essentially helping Obama create a new campaign slogan, despite the fact that all Democratic candidates were pushing for major change: Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel.... TPM also noticed it.
Yesterday, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster made an out-of-left-field comment about Hillary Clinton's daughter Chelsea (an adult who is helping her mother's campaign). The Washington Post reports:
"Using a prostitution metaphor for the daughter of a presidential candidate is a surefire way for a journalist to get into trouble.
"On MSNBC yesterday, correspondent David Shuster went there, amazingly enough, while interviewing two guests about Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother's campaign. 'Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way? he asked."
Pimped out? This reminds me of when Rush Limbaugh insulted a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton.
How would we respond if a journalist had said that Mrs. Obama had been "pimped out" after she delivered the weighty message on ABC's Good Morning America that Barack might not support Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination?
Would anyone have even thought to say that Mitt Romney's sons -- who traveled the nation to stump for their father, instead of fighting the war in Iraq that their father so staunchly supported -- were being "pimped out"?
Remember last month's bizarre fervor over Hillary Clinton's statement that referenced Martin Luther King? Like most Democrats, Clinton has repeatedly praised Dr. King's work. Still, if Congress and President Johnson had ignored him, we wouldn't have the laws that Dr. King had fought for. Period.
Hillary Clinton was merely saying that she would be the kind of president who helps such reformers -- as did Johnson and the Congress of that time. It was a pretty nice statement.
When certain Obama surrogates or supporters decided to twist Clinton's words into a degrading remark about Dr. King, MSNBC was right there, contributing to the emotional fervor.
I don't begrudge any journalist his or her constitutional right to personally support or oppose political candidates -- but using their media outlets to play with their audience's emotions is a bit much. We already have one Fox "News": does our nation really need another?
As Shakesville points out, it couldn't hurt to let MSNBC know how you feel (politely, of course): the email address is [email protected]
Memeorandum has other bloggers' reactions: Shakespeare's Sister, Feministe, Taylor Marsh, Spin Cycle, The Page, Anne Schroeder's Blogs, Tom Watson, Wonkette, MyDD, Feminist Law Professors, TalkLeft, Feministing, FishBowlDC, Open Left and Liberty Pundit
Other BN-Politics Posts:
* Approval Ratings Low for Bush & Congress
* Congress Passes Stimulus Package: Taxpayers to get Rebates
I agree with your report on MSNBC, they are so busy beating up the Whole Clinton Famly. There is another story here that no one seems to have noticed. One of Obama's most aggressive and involved supporter is Oprah. Who has at least one school in Africa. Obamba, who's father, and his father's family is from Kenya, both have such strong ties to that part of the World. Has anyone elese been reading the World News? Everyday in the News, we read about the unrest and all the problems that aare going on in Kenya. How do we know that we won't end up in the middle of that mess, having to send troops in there, or that we won't end up in another war, This time in Africa. This feels like another bush situation..........and it really scares me, BIG TIME. You know MSNBC would never do a story that would would put Obama in a NEGATIVE LIGHT!
Posted by: Bakingfool | February 08, 2008 at 06:06 PM
It's nice to know that I'm not the only one noticing MSNBC's pro-Obama/anti-Clinton leanings. Thanks for dropping by.
Posted by: Buck Naked Politics | February 08, 2008 at 06:10 PM
I agree 100% with your article and I'm greatly appreciative. As a longer time watcher of MSNBC I have been extremely disappointed with their biased views and subliminal messaging supporting Obama. I have been waiting patiently for someone in the news media to shine some light “truth not opinion” on Obama’s voting record, http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490, in the Senate. Why did he vote 96 times-NV, Not Voting, Excused, Absent, or Present, on such items as Abortion, Agriculture, and Budget/Spending/Taxes. I believe this act was intentional, as he didn’t want his vote to be used against him in his run for the Presidency. Why do we want a President who doesn’t stand up and fight for his beliefs? He is all talk but very little action. He must answer these and many more hard questions to get my vote. Like his dealings, real estate/fundraising, with Tony Rezko, who is now under federal investigation for extortion, racketeering, etc. Obama made over $900K+ on his home purchase with Mr. Rezko ($300K on his home that was sold under market value and around $580K on the land purchased from Rezko while he was under federal investigation).
Now, I know Hillary Clinton has her own imperfections but at least in all her faults she has a long-standing proven track record of her success. Is it sexist that know matter what Hillary does or says she is looked at and portrayed negatively by the media? Why aren’t we praising at these the act of the very first women Presidential candidate? Yes, I get Obama could be the first African-America President but there have been many others who have tried before for him.
Posted by: Champion | February 08, 2008 at 08:04 PM
That horrible word "pimp" has lost its impact in recent years, sadly. To pimp is to exploit. That's the wrong verb here.
The anti-Clinton stuff is cheap and dispiriting. He has made remarks that have been sexist and demeaning and very disappointing.
Thanks for bringing this to the fore.
Posted by: SandyCarlson | February 08, 2008 at 09:42 PM
And thank you for commenting!
Posted by: D. Cupples | February 08, 2008 at 11:14 PM
David Shuster should be fired. I will no longer watch MSNBC. Their bias is offensive and disgusting.
Ellen
Posted by: Ellen Fedak | February 10, 2008 at 02:24 PM
Ellen,
After traveling the blogosphere I think that many people agree with you!
Posted by: D. Cupples | February 10, 2008 at 03:43 PM
I thought I was losing my mind and not quite understanding what I was hearing. The pro Obama/anti Clinton bias on MSNBC is the most blatant thing I've seen in my life. I thought the FOX neocons were psycho. Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough should change the names of thier shows to "Obamaball" and "Morning Obama" respectively. It is stunning how blatantly biased these two are, but it doesn't end there. Russert and Olberman are almost as bad. I'm thoroughly disappointed at Russert's bias, I could care less about Olberman, he's as far left as it gets. Has anyone else noticed that during the primary coverage specials, when they wheel Brokaw out, and he tries to inject some sense of candor to the fact that journalists must allow the voter's to cast their ballots, and that journalists should keep thier cheerleader panties pulled up. Then suddenly, everything goes quiet for about 5 seconds, like they are all thinking, "oh yeah, we're journalists". Finally, Matthews pipes up with more of his Obama love fest comments. How can this kind ob bias possibly excused for journalism?
Posted by: Kevin | February 15, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Kevin, you're not losing your mind. The pundits at MSNBC have made it pretty clear that they dislike Hillary and like Obama -- and it's not the only media outlet that seems besotted with Sen. Obama.
You make a good point: it's not journalism, because such pundits aren't acting as journalists. They're acting as editorialists -- which Fox has done for years.
I have no problem with people editorializing (I do it, too). What bothers me is that MSNBC has followed Fox's lead in the sense that neither network's pundits bother to regularly remind viewers that their "reports" are often "editorials."
Posted by: D. Cupples | February 15, 2008 at 01:18 PM
I will NO longer watch anything on MSNBC.
Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Tim Russert, David Shuster and, yes, even the formerly somewhat decent Keith Olbermann are all now PIMPING for Barack Obama.
I have abandoned MSNBC entirely and suggest the best way to "learn them something" is NOT to watch anything on that channel.
When their ratings decline, they'll get their manners back quickly; but right now their crudeness is not costing MSNBC any loss of revenue.
Just don't watch MSNBC until they all reform and mend their ways -- and get back to truth-telling, instead of swooning over Wonder Boy Barack Obama
Posted by: Dream | February 15, 2008 at 03:37 PM
Dream,
You're so right. I just can't help but look at some of those Olbermann commentaries on the web. At least he apologized for Shuster.
Posted by: D. Cupples | February 15, 2008 at 07:06 PM
YES MSNBC IS VERY OBAMA WHICH STINKS AND YES CHRIS MATTHEWS NEEDS TO FIRED ALSO ABOUT HIS SMART ASS REMARK HE MADE. EVERYBODY NEEDS TO BOYCOTT MSNBC.
Posted by: Retta McArthur | February 16, 2008 at 08:15 AM
Good Morning, Retta. I'm a little hazy about where you stand. LOL.
Posted by: D. Cupples | February 16, 2008 at 10:54 AM
the whole media is against Clinton. It's so disgusting how they make Obama the victim of everything. When Obama questions Hillary's records, the media displays it and put a negative spin to it. If Hillary says something against Obama, she is attacking him, or she is feeling desperate, or she is an angry woman. Also, on CBS, that 60 minute interview was sick. Obama was asked about policies and America's future, Hillary was asked about being tired, what food she eats, does she worry about losing, and how high school boys teased her. Another thing is the race vs gender thing. If 55% of women vote for hillary, she is "being saved by the women and better thank them." However, when Obama gets 90% of the Black vote, the media doesn't say anything like "oh he's winning because of the black vote, etc." They just shrug it off as inevitable.
(btw I know not all black people are voting for barack base on his race alone)
Posted by: mae | February 21, 2008 at 03:06 PM
Mae, I hadn't even thought of some of your points. Thanks for sharing them.
Posted by: Buck Naked Politics | February 21, 2008 at 03:48 PM
I am so tired of how most media is swinging this campaign...I am tired of stories about how Hilary dresses or that she cries...why not treat her like the serious candidates that she is? I think the pimped out statement was in bad taste...and I don't know why there wasn't more coverage on Michelle Obama's statement on how for the first time as an adult she is proud ton be American (something that I think is appalling for a prospective first lady if she really meant it the way it came out)
Posted by: marie | February 22, 2008 at 01:50 AM
A lot of people are tired of the media's swinging political campaigns (and issues). Today (the 25th), I blogged about a Newsweek editorialist who advised Hillary to simply drop out of the race -- NOW, even before Texas and Ohio.
Posted by: D. Cupples | February 25, 2008 at 06:03 PM
Remember people that the Newspapers are in the business of making money, and with resources like the internet, less and less people are buying papers, so they see a way to target these Obama supporters to buy their papers. They like to have Obama in the news, because when his dirt eventually surfaces, they will make so much money, and try to keep it going forever. They could care less about this country. War makes news, death makes news, trouble makes news. tragedy makes news.
Posted by: Joan | February 25, 2008 at 08:02 PM
I have been following Hillary's political career since the early 90's, and she has always inspired me. I remember telling everyone back then, that I believed Hillary could actually be the first female president if she ever decided to run, and most people thought that I was crazy. A woman president? I was interested in the Universal Health Care Plan she had created back in 1993, but it was brought down by the Insurance Industry and small businesses who did not want to cover their employees. She has a great deal of experience. Her attendance record is great, and she has done really well in the senate.
I see the position of Commander and Chief as a job. A huge job, and I know that whenever you apply for a job, the person with the most experience, and the best track record usually gets the job. This country is in a complete mess and cannot afford for someone to learn on the job. We are at war and our economy is on the brink of recession. The foreclosure situation is terrible.
On the other hand, Barack Hussein Obama, is a newcomer, with very little experience, and a horrible attendance record. I think the whole media secrecy surrounding Barack Obama and his radical muslim and anti-American ties is pretty scary.
One of Senator Obama's books "The Audacity of Hope" is based on the preaching of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, whose close ties with Louis Farrakhan, whom he honored as a "Great Man" is unnerving. He had a 17 year relationship with Tony Rezko, a Syrian slumlord (now in jail), who caused poor people to live in squalor on the south side of Chicago, without heat in the dead of winter. Then there is the campaign funding he received and ties to Nadhmi Auchi, a billionaire Iraqi terrorist funder and Rashid Khalid, a Pakistani terrorist, and the Kenyan terrorist, Raila Odinga. I also don't want to leave out the Weathermen, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Were they Timothy McVey's inspiration?
Then there is the Exelon Corporation nuclear plant in Illinois that had not disclosed radioactive leaks that contaminated the drinking water at one of their plants. Senator Obama lied about how he did something about preventing this situation from happening again.
Now down to his Elmer Gantry character.
He is not truthful, and he tells the American people just what they want to hear, but he doesn't really say anything about how he will "Change" things. I watched the debate, and the hard questions were asked of Hillary first, then his answer would be "I agree". Hillary really did shine in the end.
Saturday Night Live really did a good impression of the whole Obamamania thing.
PT Barnum said it best "You will never go broke underestimating the American Public." It seems that Senator Obama is bulletproof from the media really revealing any of his dirt. But then again the media does not care about anything but their bottom line I also believe is a Republican ploy, in part, to gain a running mate for McCain. They knew that McCain was in the bag, in the primaries, so why not vote for his running mate? The question will come down to the general election, and who will come out to vote, and for whom.
In the end, who really knows what will happen?
I hope this explains why I support Hillary, and why I think it would be in the best interest of this country for her to win. If she doesn't win the nomination, then who else is there to vote for? Ralph Nader
Posted by: Joan | February 25, 2008 at 08:04 PM
I have been following Hillary's political career since the early 90's, and she has always inspired me. I remember telling everyone back then, that I believed Hillary could actually be the first female president if she ever decided to run, and most people thought that I was crazy. A woman president? I was interested in the Universal Health Care Plan she had created back in 1993, but it was brought down by the Insurance Industry and small businesses who did not want to cover their employees. She has a great deal of experience. Her attendance record is great, and she has done really well in the senate.
I see the position of Commander and Chief as a job. A huge job, and I know that whenever you apply for a job, the person with the most experience, and the best track record usually gets the job. This country is in a complete mess and cannot afford for someone to learn on the job. We are at war and our economy is on the brink of recession. The foreclosure situation is terrible.
On the other hand, Barack Hussein Obama, is a newcomer, with very little experience, and a horrible attendance record. I think the whole media secrecy surrounding Barack Obama and his radical muslim and anti-American ties is pretty scary.
One of Senator Obama's books "The Audacity of Hope" is based on the preaching of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, whose close ties with Louis Farrakhan, whom he honored as a "Great Man" is unnerving. He had a 17 year relationship with Tony Rezko, a Syrian slumlord (now in jail), who caused poor people to live in squalor on the south side of Chicago, without heat in the dead of winter. Then there is the campaign funding he received and ties to Nadhmi Auchi, a billionaire Iraqi terrorist funder and Rashid Khalid, a Pakistani terrorist, and the Kenyan terrorist, Raila Odinga. I also don't want to leave out the Weathermen, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Were they Timothy McVey's inspiration?
Then there is the Exelon Corporation nuclear plant in Illinois that had not disclosed radioactive leaks that contaminated the drinking water at one of their plants. Senator Obama lied about how he did something about preventing this situation from happening again.
Now down to his Elmer Gantry character.
He is not truthful, and he tells the American people just what they want to hear, but he doesn't really say anything about how he will "Change" things. I watched the debate, and the hard questions were asked of Hillary first, then his answer would be "I agree". Hillary really did shine in the end.
Saturday Night Live really did a good impression of the whole Obamamania thing.
PT Barnum said it best "You will never go broke underestimating the American Public." It seems that Senator Obama is bulletproof from the media really revealing any of his dirt. But then again the media does not care about anything but their bottom line I also believe is a Republican ploy, in part, to gain a running mate for McCain. They knew that McCain was in the bag, in the primaries, so why not vote for his running mate? The question will come down to the general election, and who will come out to vote, and for whom.
In the end, who really knows what will happen?
I hope this explains why I support Hillary, and why I think it would be in the best interest of this country for her to win. If she doesn't win the nomination, then who else is there to vote for? Ralph Nader
Posted by: Joan | February 25, 2008 at 08:04 PM
Remember people that the Newspapers are in the business of making money, and with resources like the internet, less and less people are buying papers, so they see a way to target these Obama supporters to buy their papers. They like to have Obama in the news, because when his dirt eventually surfaces, they will make so much money, and try to keep it going forever. They could care less about this country. War makes news, death makes news, trouble makes news. tragedy makes news.
Posted by: Joan | February 25, 2008 at 08:04 PM
Joan,
You bring up a good point about media $.
Posted by: D. Cupples | February 25, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Joan,
I hate to rip off a line from a movie, but we really do have serious problems, and we need serious people to solve them -- or at least people with serious substance behind their images.
Watching major media outlets campaign for a candidate isn't surprising coming from Fox or EIB. I'm still a bit surprised that CNN and MSNBC are doing it. And disappointed... and disgusted.
Posted by: D. Cupples | February 25, 2008 at 10:49 PM
It's not just CNN and MSNBC slanting the coverage; it's virtually every televison, radio and newspaper. I have never seen such blind obsession surrounding a political candidate. This alone should cause people to pause and question Obama. The country has lost perspective. What could have been a great moment for the democratic party is turning into a "reality like TV nightmare" we live in dangerous times and I'm more than a little uncomfortable turning the job over to a virtual unknown. I agree with the others, don't watch MSNBC or CNN. Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews have taken news coverage down to the same level as National Enquirer.
Posted by: Bren | February 26, 2008 at 02:18 PM
Did anyone see the debate on MSNBC last night? I have never seen such blatant bias in my life... The tone that Tim Russert used with Hillary Clinton was so rough and aggressive. I turned the situation around and I am positive that he NEVER would have used that kind of style with Obama. It makes me really, deeply sad that Hillary is losing this election because she is less "charming" than Obama. I like Obama but I just think Hillary is not getting a fair shake and it really saddens me.... Especially from supposed male liberals. I take Hillary's personality and put it on a man and I don't think anyone would have a problem with it... We have a ways to go in this country.
Posted by: Julie | February 27, 2008 at 10:03 PM