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

[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.)