Monkeywrenching the political process

[unixronin]

With the popular vote in the just-past election so close, one could be forgiven for wondering how much the election may have been influenced by what amounts to an elaborate practical joke.

Of course, the article points out that the perpetrators observed that the news media could easily have exposed their hoax had they put the least effort into checking their facts.  But in this last election, by all appearances the media didn't WANT to check their facts, as long as the report involved something damaging to the McCain-Palin campaign.  Can you imagine the witch-hunt had Eitan Gorlin and Dan Mirvish chosen Barack Obama as their target?  Ah, but wait, we don't have to imagine — we have the persecution of Joe the Plumber as an example.

When I consider how one-sided the reporting of this past election campaign was, and yet how close the popular vote was, I find it hard to avoid speculating that in this Presidential election, the people of the United States did not elect Barack Obama; the news media did.

Comments

[rbos.livejournal.com]

I'm personally pretty sure that the media covered Obama more because he was popular, than vice versa. Coverage begets coverage.

The fact is that whenever I listened to McCain and Palin talked, I got headaches from the stupid-rays, and when I heard Obama talk, I heard someone who was actually willing to work hard to fix some of the fuckheadedness we've been seeing lately.

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

While there is some complaint about the amount of coverage, that's pretty easy to explain away by the contested democratic primary and the fact that Obama was The New Thing.

This isn't what people are complaining about. We had more in depth digging into Joe the Plumber during this 2 weeks on the scene than anyone bothered with about Obama. You can at least point out that the digging into Palin was justified by her being the VP candidate, but it's hard to figure why a similar effort into Obama wasn't in the works months ago.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It wasn't a question of the amount of coverage, it was the bias. Obama and Biden could do no wrong; McCain and Palin could do no right. Every mis-step McCain or Palin made was trumpeted to the rooftops, every action of theirs questioned, while Obama's mistakes were swept under the rug and ignored. The media crowed and cheered at this hoaxed report of Sarah Palin not knowing Africa was a continent; but they repeatedly overlooked the several occasions upon which Obama seemed unable to remember how many states the US has. (Apparently as many as 57. Does he have plans for Canada he hasn't told us about?) Any slam or smear against Sarah Palin was accepted as complete truth without any fact-checking; anyone who questioned the Messiah or threw doubt on His Holy Message got crucified. When a non-profit truthfully pointed out some of Obama's past associations, Obama's campaign said they ought to be thrown in jail, and the media smiled, nodded, and sighed in adoration of their hero. Meanwhile, questions to Sarah Palin in TV interviews were misquoted to make her answers look bad. It was the most one-sided coverage I've ever seen.

It remains to be seen whether any of Obama's campaign promises will turn out to be worth the paper they were written on. The talk about running a balanced budget via pay-as-you-go has already gone out the window, apparently because expecting him to be fiscally responsible would be "unfair", and his "support" of the Second Amendment seems to involve a whole bunch of new gun bans.

[ossuarian.livejournal.com]

Man, I was certain this was going to be something about voting. It's a monkey wrench in the press, but not in Democracy.

Can I imagine the witch hunt if this had been put on Obama? That's tough. How would the press react if people said Obama wasn't a U.S. citizen or that his name was Barry or that he was a Muslim? How would the press react if someone carved a 'B' in her face and said an Obama supporter did it?

Your comment implies that hoaxes didn't exist on the right. They did. The carved 'B' is the only one I saw reported by mainstream media (it was the police, not the media, that debunked that one), though I'd be surprised if none of the citizenship ones made Fox News or the New York Post.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Oh, the Moslem slurs got reported, sure. And they got debunked. Heck, McCain himself said — at campaign rallies — that they were complete rubbish.

[pernishus.livejournal.com]

The popular vote didn't seem all that close to me, compared with a number of presidential races in the past few decades.

Whatever may have been attributed to Governor Palin, what she said for all to hear and view was more than ample to raise a significant doubt or six in at least my mind as to her qualifications for the position... it was a question of competence rather than of party or position on individual issues that decided the matter for me.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

The popular vote didn't seem all that close to me, compared with a number of presidential races in the past few decades.

It didn't? Even with just about every conceivable advantage in this election, with McCain indecisive, ineffective and tarred by association with George Bush, with Obama's unquestioned oratorical skills and dynamic campaign, with Obama outspending McCain more than seven to one, and almost the entire news media industry openly and unashamedly going to bat for him ... Obama still only managed about a 5.5% lead in the popular vote? That seems pretty close to me under the circumstances.

[guppiecat]

I agree with you that the media should have checked their sources, but I disagree that the media, as a unit, decided to support Obama over McCain.

Simply put, from the beginning of his campaign, Obama did a kickass job of branding. He built a persona (I think it's pretty close to who he actually is, which helps), built a story, and was consistently on message. He made it easy to talk about him and basically led the media and nation along the path he chose.

In contrast, McCain mostly tried to define himself as "not Obama". His message was fragmentary, self-conflicting and poorly executed. It's not surprising that the media didn't give him equal coverage, there wasn't as much to cover.

Regardless of the political leanings of the people and how good their planning is, Obama is clearly a better leader. I think he'll do a better job than McCain would have. It's not fair to extend this situation to the level of a media conspiracy. The media is made of people and they can be led just like the people of this nation.

It's much like the last election. Though I dislike GWB a lot, I must admit that he is decent at controlling people. Kerry and company were not good at combating the control (through conflict or leadership), and therefore lost. I don't think that the media deliberately did anything these either, Bush just made it very hard to report negatively on him, and Kerry made it far too easy.

[luke-jaywalker.livejournal.com]

Obama might be a better leader, but that's only good if he's leading the country in a good direction.

I get the impression that a lot of people would be willing, from Obama's charisma and oratory, to follow him into hell.

And from what I've seen about his socialist opinions, that might be exactly where he wants to take this country.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Well, for the current administration, the US people didn't elect Shrub, the Florida Secretary of State did . . .

(First time through, of course. Or the US Supreme Court, take your pick.)

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

You wouldn't have to, since our press was, rightly, all over those.

They didn't want to believe them, so they dug (often this wasn't even much work...) to find out what was going on. The 'B' was debunked before the story even got going. Heck, half the places I saw it mentioned reported from the get go as as 'but it seems pretty iffy if it's even true.' Less than 24 hours later, it was confirmed as a hoax and widely reported as such.

[lebo-superman.livejournal.com]

Don't forget how the media manipulated it into a McCain/Obama race in the first place. At the begining of the primary race, Dr. Ron Paul was out-raising McCain and had a major advantage at the grass-roots level - but the media wouldn't even mention him. Even locked him out of the debates.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yup. And the Republican Party went along with it by doing everything they could to block him from getting on the primary ballot. Can't have a small-government advocate running for the Party of Fiscal Responsibility and Small Government, can we? That just wouldn't do.

[http://users.livejournal.com/crossfire_/]

Somehow "Obama was elected by the media" has the same desperate I'm-so-upset-at-who-won-I-could-just-spit ring to it as "Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court."

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Yup.

[lonewolf545.livejournal.com]

When the media raises a fuss about Palin not releasing college transcripts, but ignores that Obama refused to release his, it's bias. When the media blindly accepts Obama's claims to support the Second Amendment, ignoring his long history of supporting anti-gun efforts, including, while he was at the Joyce Foundation, going so far as to buy out entire issues of law reviews (and placing a board member of an anti-gun group as editor) in order to influence Constitutional research in the country (and those law review articles WERE quoted by the four dissenting members of the US Supreme Court in _DC v. Heller_), that's bias. When the media downplays Obama's long-term relationships with admitted, unrepentant terrorists, that's an issue.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

There's a difference between screaming it from every rooftop, though, and saying "This question has to be asked."

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

...the people of the United States did not elect Barack Obama; the news media did

The people voted, but the media was so in the tank for Obama their air supply line was in danger of breaking under the strain. I definitely believe the blatant and, dare I say, shameful bias of the mainstream media did influence at least some of the people. I don't know if it was enough to affect the final outcome as there were plenty of other considerations as well.

It could also be argued that the media influenced the outcome of the Republican primary. They were praising McCain up one side and down the other, including the New York Times. My theory is that they did this for two reasons:

1) McCain was the candidate among the three most likely to be nominated (McCain, Giuliani, and Romney) that the Democrat nominee would have the easiest time defeating.

2) Should the Democrat candidate fail to defeat McCain, he was the least objectionable Republican of those running.

Of course, once it came to the general election, all that praise was forgotten and they vilified McCain and especially Palin with a will. Anything negative about them was trumpeted, no matter how dubious the provenance. Anything negative about Obama or Biden was conveniently ignored, brushed off, or reported just enough to avoid charges of outright dereliction.

That's not to say Obama didn't run the better campaign. I think he did. But it didn't matter to the media. Hell, even Dan "Fake but Accurate" Rather admitted that the media was openly biased.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, he unquestionably ran the better campaign. (Not to mention the better-funded campaign.) McCain's campaign never seemed to have a clear direction from day one. (But see your speculation #1 above.)

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Bottom line: The Democrats put up their best candidate. The Republicans did not. GOK why McCain did not run as a gracious and reasonable politician. Huge blunder. The results were forecast plainly when the Republicans were successfully painted as the cause of the financial sector meltdown. Most presidential elections are about the economy.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Well, there are radarrider's speculations above as to why the media fell in line so heavily behind McCain in the Republican primary (and, as noted elsewhere, panned Ron Paul).

[smandal.livejournal.com]

What did the Obama-Biden camp say/do comparable in stupidity or malevolence to the McCain-Palin campaign?

This is not a rhetorical question -- I didn't follow the election that closely from over here ....

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Well, for one example offhand, there's the debate after which everyone was sneering at Sarah Palin for her abysmal lack of anything resembling comprehension of the duties and responsibilities of the Vice President ... in which, unfortunately, she answered correctly, and it was actually Joe Biden who didn't have a clue. Or compare the several times Obama didn't seem able to correctly say how many US states there were, which the media never saw fit to mention; but they took and ran with an unchecked andm as it turned out, completely fabricated story about Sarah Palin not knowing Africa was a continent. They didn't bother to even research Obama's background or past, but they put Sarah Palin's entire family under the microscope; and when "Joe the Plumber" threw doubt on Obama's tax plan (after Obama picked *him* as a random person to stop and talk to), the press went after him and crucified him, ending up with (if memory serves) the city where he lived and worked revoking his license to work as a plumber.

[msa.livejournal.com]

Under the circumstances, it is very close.

It's amazing, the absolutely glowing press BHO received... the Fourth Estate has definitely proved they can manipulate elections (note, if anyone else did it, it would be called election fraud, and they'd be jailed for it.)

On the bright side, this sword cuts both ways...now that Obama isn't just Obama, but the OBAMESSIAH... he'll either wind up having to moderate in his second term, as Clinton did when the pendulum swung back the other way, or he'll be Cartered, tossed out after one term and far more effective as an ex-president than in office.

Meanwhile, now that I live in a free state, I'm considering waiting a couple of months for the run on the gun stores to abate, then purchasing some implements of freedom.

[luke-jaywalker.livejournal.com]

What second term?

I hope the SOB gets two years, and another two with a Congress stacked so hard against him that he'll wish he were Clinton in `95-`96.

[yndy.livejournal.com]

I'm a little stunned this hasn't been pointed out in your comments yet...
Per the article:

The pranksters behind Eisenstadt acknowledge that he was not, through them, the anonymous source of the Palin leak. He just claimed falsely that he was the leaker--and they say they have no reason to cast doubt on the original story.

So, Eisenstadt may have been their hoax, but there's no reason to believe that someone on staff didn't leak that story.

That said? Yeah, um, anyone thinking that the media had no impact is deluding themselves because they want to.
And I say that having voted for Obama.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Point. I missed that detail somehow.

All I can say is that I hope the reality of Obama lives up to the spin ... but with the near-messianic cult of personality that's been built around him, that's going to be difficult. He could turn out to be a far better president than Bush (let's face it, it wouldn't be hard) and still not get a second term if he fails to live up to the Second Coming level hype that's been built up.

[bratling.livejournal.com]

When I consider how one-sided the reporting of this past election campaign was, and yet how close the popular vote was, I find it hard to avoid speculating that in this Presidential election, the people of the United States did not elect Barack Obama; the news media did.

i find it ironic that i had the same reaction to the 2000 and 2004 elections.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I don't think Bush would have won either of those if he hadn't managed to convince the religious right he was the Hidden Imam er, a near-Messiah on a personal mission from God.