Halperin is a serious moron when it comes to this sort of stuff. He's one of those people who thinks if one campaign has more good news than another, it by definition must be the result of bias and not reality.

Err, if one candidate is better then another, then why wouldn't there be a bias?

Yeah I never really thought about it, the drive by media did really beat the wardrums.

Fark them.

The problem with this sort of analysis is that some sort of mythical neutral media is socially desirable and that such a thing existed until this year.

1) The media has abandoned neutrality since Walter Cronkite threw in the towel on Vietnam

2) Rather than having outlets like the NY Times try to pretend they're neutral, we'd all be better off if everyone just admitted their bias/perspective and let the readers weigh things with that in mind. It works pretty well in Europe ...

how bout...

one candidate absolutely failed to control the media message while the other one did? in 2000, mccain was a media darling because he hung around with them, answered all their questions with more detail than they cared about and treated them with respect. in 2008, he shut out the media almost completely, so all they had to go on was a little bit of fact and a whole lot of speculation. you had a shiatty candidate. sorry about that. stfu.

Um, there was no media bias. One candidate was simply outstanding, whilst the other was complete horseshiat. I expect the media to report the truth, not distort it.

The media is biased toward making money, not toward any ideology.

If you think otherwise, you're a complete fool. It's money, dumbass. Just filthy lucre. There's no magic, no mystique, no "code of ethics", no rules.

Farking money. End of story. Now stop claiming the media's biased, because they're only biased toward making more farking money.

/money!

Hmmm, how did we know about Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Rezko, sekret mooselim, foreign birth, "bitter", etc, etc, etc, etc, etc?

Because MSM reported it, and not just Fox News, Lou Dobbs, Joe Scarborough, and the NY Post.

Yeah, real pro-Obama.

I guess they mean reporting on the utter and complete meltdown on the McCain campaign, and (GASP) noticing that Palin and Joe the Plumber wasn't vetted, so had fun doing it themselves. Give the media a good story, and they SHOULD follow it.

This is what the media has NOT done the previous 7 years. Instead they gave W a media blowjob. Suffer, right wingers.

and it was all for no reason whatsoever ! The Republicans basically just lost a coin toss and everyone in America decided to hate them because of that... and that alone.

Rest assured guys, you aren't in any way to blame for any of your misfortunes.

I've also noticed the media bias against train wrecks. Why the hell don't they give more negative coverage to trains running on time?

This is the only possible explanation for the failure of the truly brilliant and mavericky McCain and his beautiful intelligent running mate all backed by the endorsement of a loved and respected president;

Well, that's it! I'm switching my vote to McCain!

/I hope like hell the GOP continues to not figure it out. Self-neutralization has never been so delightfully, satisfyingly entertaining.

Tigger: This is the only possible explanation for the failure of the truly brilliant and mavericky McCain and his beautiful intelligent running mate all backed by the endorsement of a loved and respected president;

Are you ok? I would've passed out from giggling after getting that far.

Are you ok? I would've passed out from giggling after getting that far.

I'm scrubbing myself like a rape victim.

you know what, until the media goes back and reams themselves a new one for being asleep at the switch when Bush was presenting his case for the Iraq war, I don't want to hear anything about pro-obama bias.

PC LOAD LETTER: Hmmm, how did we know about Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Rezko, sekret mooselim, foreign birth, "bitter", etc, etc, etc, etc, etc?

Because MSM reported it, and not just Fox News, Lou Dobbs, Joe Scarborough, and the NY Post.

Yeah, real pro-Obama.

I guess they mean reporting on the utter and complete meltdown on the McCain campaign, and (GASP) noticing that Palin and Joe the Plumber wasn't vetted, so had fun doing it themselves. Give the media a good story, and they SHOULD follow it.

This is what the media has NOT done the previous 7 years. Instead they gave W a media blowjob. Suffer, right wingers.

Barack Obama just happened to walk down Joe's street. How could the McCain campaign have possibly "vetted" him?

And all those other scandals were reported in a OMG look at these yahoos spouting this crazy stuff abouut Obama tone. They might have covered them but they basically mocked legitimate criticisms of their messiah.

And all those other scandals were reported in a OMG look at these yahoos spouting this crazy stuff abouut Obama tone. They might have covered them but they basically mocked legitimate criticisms of their messiah.

Are you drunk?

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: Barack Obama just happened to walk down Joe's street. How could the McCain campaign have possibly "vetted" him?

Before they put him out on the campaign trail? They probably could've checked into the veracity of a few key facts about "Joe" the "Plumber"

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: Barack Obama just happened to walk down Joe's street. How could the McCain campaign have possibly "vetted" him?

Ummmm...by NOT USING HIM AS A CENTERPIECE OF HIS CAMPAIGN?!?!? I mean seriously, do you have issues with memory loss?


And all those other scandals were reported in a OMG look at these yahoos spouting this crazy stuff abouut Obama tone. They might have covered them but they basically mocked legitimate criticisms of their messiah.

Maybe you were thinking of a different planet.

And all those other scandals were reported in a OMG look at these yahoos spouting this crazy stuff abouut Obama tone. They might have covered them but they basically mocked legitimate criticisms of their messiah.

Hey all, I think he's serious !!

McCain didn't shut them out, they didn't come to him.

Candidates shouldn't be controlling the media message at all. The media should be reporting the truth and the facts. They shouldn't be hiding stuff about one side, while running to shout anything they can about the other.

You could tell on the faces of the anchors of the major networks how happy they were that Obama won. That is just sad, I felt that when the camera wasn't on them they were drinking champaign like they'd won something themselves.

Truth has a liberal bias

Tigger: And all those other scandals were reported in a OMG look at these yahoos spouting this crazy stuff abouut Obama tone. They might have covered them but they basically mocked legitimate criticisms of their messiah.

Are you drunk?

He's actually a bit more coherent than usual.

/me, on the other hand...

Anecdotal, but still worth mentioning.

Obama said that his energy policies would bankrupt coal and drive energy prices higher, on the radio, it was recorded, there is a record of it.

Did it get covered on the big three, nope.

Look at the big three networks, that is still where most voting Americans get their news. How did the 6:30 evening news look? How did the morning shows look?

They took every chance they could to show positive stories about Obama, and negative ones about McCain. I watched one night where they basically stated that McCain would be 4 more years of Bush.

king_nacho: Obama said that his energy policies would bankrupt coal and drive energy prices higher, on the radio, it was recorded, there is a record of it.

Did it get covered on the big three, nope.

No it didn't, because the "big three" know what "context" is and what Obama was, you know, actually talking about.

king_nacho: They took every chance they could to show positive stories about Obama, and negative ones about McCain. I watched one night where they basically stated that McCain would be 4 more years of Bush.

So...you admit that this would be a "negative" thing?

king_nacho: Obama said that his energy policies would bankrupt coal and drive energy prices higher, on the radio, it was recorded, there is a record of it.

That's because if you took the 5 seconds needed to actually listen to the interview...you'd realize that's not what Obama said nor is it what his policies would cause.

But, it's probably easier to repeat a talking point that someone else told you instead of learning the truth.

Step back a little bit and look at the two campaigns. Obama ran an effective campaign that stayed positive (most of the time). McCain ran a campaign centered around slandering Obama with ridiculously negative attacks and gimmicky last-minute decisions like Sarah Palin and suspending his campaign to go save the economy.

Objectively, there wasn't much nice to say about McCain. Should the media be forced to shoehorn in some positive stories about a complete trainwreck just to make things fair?

Well, the part where it is talking about new coal plants and not existing coal plants and the part where it isn't talking about the entire industry.

But, if you suck that bad at reading comprehension...I'm not really sure if my explanation is going to make any sense.

Hibno
I didn't think the campaigns were all the positive. the McCain ads here were more positive and the Obama ads, but Obama was loosing here.

Those who point out talking points without the context in which the point is made are on the same level as those who cherry pick verses out of the bible, both bible thumpers and bible haters.

Right.

One candidate ran a campaign that went AWOL for reason, and one campaign ran smarter and harder.

It's not Obama's fault that McCain couldn't keep on message, or that his message was often based on pure fiction. Had McCain run a better campaign, he might have won. As it was, he had cheerleaders supporting even his more bone headed moments. Secret Muslim. Tax policy. In the bag with terrorists.

It's not Obama's fault that McCain went entirely off the reservation with his campaign, and that he failed to vet his VP or even Joe the Plumber before picking him up like a chew toy.

The media reporting when a candidate makes false statements, or inflates their accomplishments, that's their job. It's not Obama's fault that McCain didn't seem to respect the media enough to tell something close to the truth for so long.

This is finger pointing and trying to drum up excuses for a campaign that did just damn poor. And it did damn poor because it tried to base the bulk of itself on fiction.

Here's an idea: next go 'round, why don't we try NOT lying and running a smear campaign?

How can the coal industry survive if it can't expand? If aging plants can't be decommissioned for new more efficient plants the coal industry eventually will die.

Higher demand for power will require more power production and additional sources. If we can't burn more coal, then energy prices will go up.

This isn't an issue of reading comprehension, its understanding how the coal industry, and well, supply and demand work.

So...it would be "unbiased" if they treated a well-run campaign exactly the same as a fkn motley circus of fools?

What a joke

hubiestubert: Right.

One candidate ran a campaign that went AWOL for reason, and one campaign ran smarter and harder.

It's not Obama's fault that McCain couldn't keep on message, or that his message was often based on pure fiction. Had McCain run a better campaign, he might have won. As it was, he had cheerleaders supporting even his more bone headed moments. Secret Muslim. Tax policy. In the bag with terrorists.

It's not Obama's fault that McCain went entirely off the reservation with his campaign, and that he failed to vet his VP or even Joe the Plumber before picking him up like a chew toy.

The media reporting when a candidate makes false statements, or inflates their accomplishments, that's their job. It's not Obama's fault that McCain didn't seem to respect the media enough to tell something close to the truth for so long.

This is finger pointing and trying to drum up excuses for a campaign that did just damn poor. And it did damn poor because it tried to base the bulk of itself on fiction.

Here's an idea: next go 'round, why don't we try NOT lying and running a smear campaign?

This-y this this.

If McCain had stood up, shown some sack, refused to kiss the ass of the religious right, and picked Lieberman as his running mate, things would probably have been different in a lot of ways. I would have campaigned for a McCain who was fiscally conservative, strong on national defense, pro-choice, and pro-science. The Republican base would have voted for him regardless, because they wouldn't have wanted the Secret Muslin Negro to be President under any circumstances. The Veep debate would have been a bloodbath instead of a cakewalk.

Most of the pro-choice PUMAs would have voted McCain with a clean conscience. Lots of moderates would have as well, if he had courted the middle rather than the thumpers.

McCain would have probably won. And I would have probably helped.

What??

An Anti-Bush administration / Pro-"Anti war" and Pro-Democrat agenda, in _MY_ US media??

... It's more likely than you think!

The entire answer:

"I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I'm a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.

"But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can't, then we're gonna still be working on alternatives.

"But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I've said with respect to coal -- I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don't know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don't know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it's wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.

"The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we're picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right."

What you say he is saying is not what he is actually saying.

Of course, it is really funny that you are attacking Obama over his cap-and-trade policy and how it would affect the coal industry. I do wonder if you know why it is funny.

dahmers love zombie: I would have campaigned for a McCain who was fiscally conservative, strong on national defense, pro-choice, and pro-science.

When has John McCain ever been pro-choice?

DamnYankees: When has John McCain ever been pro-choice?

In 1999, he said that he would not support the repeal of Roe vs Wade.

DamnYankees: When has John McCain ever been pro-choice?

McCain flip floped on every single issue of this election. At one point in the past, he was pro-choice then he was pro-life, he was in favor of disproportionately taxing the wealthy with a higher tax because "they have a more comfortable life style". Then he was against higher taxes for the wealthy. First he was against the Bush tax cuts then he was for them, then he claimed he was always against them then he claimed he was always for them. First he claimed the Iraq war would be over quickly and with few casualties then he claimed he new it was going to be a long bloody war. Then he claimed no one could have known what we were getting into.

He couldn't tell the truth if he was water boarded and forced to do so.

McCain Flip Flop (new window)

I'm not an Obama fan, but John McCain sucked. If you voted for him you are a fool.

Time magazine's Mark Halperin said

Stopped reading right there. He thinks the illusion of baseless, media-generated "balance" equals objective reporting.

Journalism FAIL.

If anything, the media this cycle had a bit of an anti-Obama bent, in the interest of selling a horse race that didn't exist. They weren't slandering him or intentionally painting him in an untruthful light, but they did everything they could to pretend that Hillary had him cold, then that McCain was giving him a run for his money. The polling (and the eventual voting) in no way supported this.

McCain lost for one MAJOR reason: Palin. End of story. She is a farking moran. So much so that other morans knew she was a moran, and didn't vote for her. No media bias, no racism. Just one huge moran.

/moran

bulldg4life: The entire answer:

"I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I'm a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.

"But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can't, then we're gonna still be working on alternatives.

"But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I've said with respect to coal -- I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don't know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don't know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it's wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.

"The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we're picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right."

What you say he is saying is not what he is actually saying.

Of course, it is really funny that you are attacking Obama over his cap-and-trade policy and how it would affect the coal industry. I do wonder if you know why it is funny.

Say, didn't John McCain propose a cap and trade policy, too?