If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politicker)   Obama gives his big speech in Ohio, and the glowing press reviews are in: Politico wishes it was 20 minutes shorter, ABC dismisses it as just another lecture,and MSNBC rates it "one of the worst speeches I've ever heard"   (politicker.com) divider line 40
    More: Amusing, President Obama, ABC News, MSNBC, politicos, Ohio, stump speeches, Mike O'Brien, Jonathan Alter  
•       •       •

2065 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jun 2012 at 12:21 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-14 09:28:57 PM
8 votes:
Well, there's your liberal media.
2012-06-15 05:05:13 AM
3 votes:
I figured the liberal lamestream media was going to be critical of Obama's speech when CNN cut away after 10 minutes, saying "we gave Romney 10 minutes, so..."

I watched the whole thing online though, and to me it didn't seem lecture-y at all, especially in contrast to Romney. It was positive, fairly detailed, well cited, and had a good balance of gravitas and humor. Part of the reason it was so long was due to the long pauses while Obama waited for the applause and cheering to simmer down. There were a couple minutes near the end that could have been cut, but still fell solidly within the "tell them what you're going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you told them" rule of speechifying.

I think part of the problem, aside from the media wanting a horserace, is that the bar is set so much higher for Obama. He's shown that he is such a good speaker that anything that falls short of "I have a dream" or "Ask not what your country can do for you" is seen as a failure, where any Romney speech in which he doesn't insult the audience is seen as a success.
2012-06-14 10:45:00 PM
3 votes:
I actually watched the speech. It was very good - packed with facts, a little partisan snark here and there, but mostly good. He makes a good case, and I'm picking up what he's putting down.
2012-06-15 09:17:46 AM
2 votes:
The right-wing noise machine -

1. Make up shiat about Democrats.
2. Blast them into the right-wing derposphere.
3. MSM media reports "on the controversy", doesn't find evidence, abandons story.
4. Right-wing complains that the MSM won't report bad things about Democrats.

It's really pretty brilliant if you think about it, the bigger the lie, the more likely wingnuts will believe there is a conspiracy against wingnuts in the media.
2012-06-15 06:34:17 AM
2 votes:
MaudlinMutantMollusk
2012-06-14 10:36:57 PM
In before some f*cktard claims Obama gets a pass from the media


Actually he does get a pass. Do you ever hear about Fast and Furious? Solyndra? his early participation in a college communist group? his cocaine use? the leaks of classified info from the WH to help O's election champaign? No, didn't think so. But you DO hear about Romney's high school jinks 30 years ago or Nixon forty years ago, yeah. Why don't Woodword and Bernstein do some REAL reporting and go after the Obama administration--the most corrupt administration in history, with Eric "I will not prosecute MY people" Holder.
2012-06-15 03:49:30 AM
2 votes:

Sabyen91: Kevin72: Hobodeluxe: I swear I just saw an ABC news piece by Jake Tapper on both men's speeches today and Fox News couldn't have done a better job for Romney. Totally negative to Obama and totally positive for Romney.

The MSM bias is pro-horserace, anti-runaway. To stay "relevant" even when they are not. It's a more subtle kind of attention-trolling than outright attention-whoring.

Fox is interested in a horserace? I agree with most outlets but Fox is a major part of the MSM.


No. Fox News is not interested in a horserace. And Fox News is NOT mainstream news. It is a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. Notice that the geniuses who call the MSM the "Lamestream Media" DO NOT consider Fox News to be "lamestream".
2012-06-15 12:41:15 AM
2 votes:
lack of new material

He's not farking radiohead. You expected him to say something different from what he's been saying for the last six months? If they're jaded already, the press are going to hate the next 6 months of their lives.
2012-06-15 12:40:04 AM
2 votes:
On the air, MSNBC's Jonathan Alter said it was "one of the worst speeches I've ever heard Barack Obama make."

"one of the worst speeches I've ever heard Barack Obama make" =/= "one of the worst speeches I've ever heard." Nice edit, derpmitter.
2012-06-15 12:38:50 AM
2 votes:

MyRandomName: God you are dumb. Let me put this simply... THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT. They are responsible for more, they have more policy to criticize. Stop with your idiocy. Compare Obama coverage to 04 bush. Seriously you are dumb. The media didn't even investigate Obama dedicating his yearbook page to his dealer as a candidate, yet we all know how evil Ann romney is for riding horses. Grow up.


That was derptastic, even for you. Two "dumb"s means someone really got under your skin. And "the president always receives harsher treatment" followed by "The media didn't even investigate Obama" really pulls the shiatheap together.
2012-06-15 12:33:42 AM
2 votes:
The GOP had better be careful, or the Democrats will steal the biased media talking point just like they have been grabbing the sane planks from the Republican platform since Clinton ran in '92
2012-06-15 12:27:59 AM
2 votes:

GAT_00: violentsalvation: cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.

He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.

They all came across with the same basic statement, and it has nothing to do with Romney. The speech was too long, it had little or no new material, it was not good for soundbites or invigorating anyone, it was only good background noise during a cat-nap.

I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

Except that every single network has been statistically shown to be harsher on the President than any Republican.

Start here and advance. Every single Republican candidate had at least one period where the media was more positive than negative in regards to them. Obama never has.


God you are dumb. Let me put this simply... THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT. They are responsible for more, they have more policy to criticize. Stop with your idiocy. Compare Obama coverage to 04 bush. Seriously you are dumb. The media didn't even investigate Obama dedicating his yearbook page to his dealer as a candidate, yet we all know how evil Ann romney is for riding horses. Grow up.
2012-06-14 10:53:11 PM
2 votes:

LasersHurt: He makes a good case


This.

It's not his job to entertain the press corps. It's not their job to tell us what we should like.
2012-06-14 09:56:20 PM
2 votes:
I dunno. I liked the speech. It definitely didn't have any quick sound bites that the news could use to ramp up the ULTIMATE BATTLE AGAINST OBAMA AND ROMNEY though, so that's probably why they thought it sucked.
2012-06-17 03:09:03 AM
1 votes:

fublius: The problem is that he thinks he can fix problems and make an impact with a "big", "important" speech - even after three years of being in office


Citation please.

Difficulty: the fact that he made a speech doesn't imply that he thinks said speech will fix problems.


The rest of your post was pretty much whargarble.
2012-06-15 11:59:37 AM
1 votes:

Lost Thought 00: Biological Ali: Information can only be compressed so much before vital content starts getting lost. If you put the sentiment you outlined under some scrutiny, you may find that you're really speaking to a problem with the audience, not the speech itself.

This may be true, but you can't change the audience. If the speech doesn't fit the audience, that's a problem with the speaker.


The president just outlined his record, and therefore his campaign strategy, to the farking press. And the presses reaction is that his record is too long and complicated and can't you just tell the American people that Romney's mormonism is a problem or something so we can write a quicky article and get paaaaid.

You don't make the press think. That's just something you don't do.
2012-06-15 10:55:37 AM
1 votes:

Lost Thought 00: Maybe Obama actually didn't give a great speech? Perhaps Romney actually did give a good one? And perhaps reporting it as such is actually the truth and not a sign of bias?

Can't be. Must be a Media Conspiracy meant to take down my favorite candidate.


Holding Obama to a standard of "great" and Romney to a standard of "good" is a sign of bias.
2012-06-15 10:38:59 AM
1 votes:

Mikey1969: We also noticed that it wasn't "MSNBC" that made your claim, just one guy


"I was going to vote for Obama, but then Jonathan Alter criticized that one speech so I changed my mind" -all Democrats

- Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) June 14, 2012
2012-06-15 10:37:55 AM
1 votes:

Lost Thought 00: Maybe Obama actually didn't give a great speech? Perhaps Romney actually did give a good one? And perhaps reporting it as such is actually the truth and not a sign of bias?


Except that when you watch the speeches you realize that no, this isn't true. The media just does not like when you give long, fact-heavy speeches with no big soundbites.
2012-06-15 08:09:55 AM
1 votes:

djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.


Anyone who hasn't realized the media are completely in the tank for Romney this time around is blind.
2012-06-15 07:17:20 AM
1 votes:

tony41454: Actually he does get a pass. Do you ever hear about Fast and Furious? Solyndra? his early participation in a college communist group? his cocaine use? the leaks of classified info from the WH to help O's election champaign? No, didn't think so.


You're joking, right? I've heard every single one of these stories (except the college communist group, which is surely something fake you picked up from Free Republic) and I'm sure that everyone else has, too. Did you dig them out yourself? Of course not. Maybe you've been drinking too much of that champaign to remember where you got these stories.
2012-06-15 03:59:06 AM
1 votes:

Sabyen91: IlGreven: They only keep Maddow on because of the huge discrimination lawsuit they'd get if they fire her.

What does this mean?


It means that somehow IlGreven either never noticed how cute, clever, hard-hitting without it being noticed, and on and on about how wonderful Rachel Maddow is. Or he demonstrated Poe's Law to us.
2012-06-15 03:25:33 AM
1 votes:

Hobodeluxe: I swear I just saw an ABC news piece by Jake Tapper on both men's speeches today and Fox News couldn't have done a better job for Romney. Totally negative to Obama and totally positive for Romney.


The MSM bias is pro-horserace, anti-runaway. To stay "relevant" even when they are not. It's a more subtle kind of attention-trolling than outright attention-whoring.
2012-06-15 03:17:37 AM
1 votes:
Actually, if he DID sing "My Girl" at campaign appearances, his numbers would skyrocket. Democrats vote with their hearts. If he did a stunt singing a verse or two to Michelle while acting totally in love, the only women that would vote against him would be rock-ribbed Republican Ladies-Against-Women.
2012-06-15 03:09:20 AM
1 votes:

Pincy: If he ain't singing Mammy and juggling watermelons then he's not entertaining.


You are so 1930s. Ever heard of the Temptations? Singing "My Girl"? Update your music, and change the watermelon juggling to dancing FTW.
2012-06-15 03:03:01 AM
1 votes:
It's Ohio. If it was boring, straightforward, just the facts, honest, no flowery bs, no clever allusions or symbolism, just saying what he meant, then he gave an excellent speech.
2012-06-15 02:04:52 AM
1 votes:

Sabyen91: These news outlets must have been expecting...what, Demosthenes? And he didn't live up to their expectations...so it is automatically a negative article.


The cable news networks want blood. The bulk of them (I parse out some scattered individuals from the pack, like Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow, that continue to actually do their job) all but abdicated their role as journalists in favor of treating this not as a decision to decide who will lead this country, but as the ultimate reality show with the ultimate reality-show prize. And anything that doesn't make for good reality television is frowned upon.

I mean, really, how much time do any of the three networks spend in any given day covering non-political news or attempting to railroad news into political discussions? Like, say, covering an earthquake and letting it stay simply earthquake coverage as opposed to 'how will this earthquake affect the next election'?
2012-06-15 01:34:41 AM
1 votes:

Mentat: violentsalvation: I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

That's the joke.



Well played sir, well played.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: O'Donnell said something like, "Both candidates gave speeches today but if you wanted to hear Romney's policy proposals you had to listen to Obama's speech."


NPR summed the two speeches up with Romney basically saying "if you don't think the economy is awesome, vote for me" and Obama saying "Look at the things I do on the economy. Look at the things Romney will do. Pick the one you think will be better".

One of those two makes sense to me, and the other seems more like a deflection.
2012-06-15 01:15:37 AM
1 votes:

Sabyen91: You ignore that they don't use the "Some people say" tactic.


Fox was first. They made a conscious decision to lean right - hell to plant a flag there. But then NBC made a business decision that MSNBC would counter Fox and be liberal. (It also decided CNBC would be almost fascist, for that matter, or at least decidedly "pro-capitalist" so as not to offend its viewers.) It's an audience building strategy where they all claim to be fair and balanced, but spend all day and night reinforcing stupid opinions about shallow, petty left/right battles that usually amount to nothing significant.
2012-06-15 01:15:05 AM
1 votes:
O'Donnell said something like, "Both candidates gave speeches today but if you wanted to hear Romney's policy proposals you had to listen to Obama's speech."
2012-06-15 12:42:24 AM
1 votes:

Triumph: djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.

You're right. MSNBC isn't liberal at all.


I haven't really seen evidence that the hard news section is particularly liberal, outside of the fact that Fox News says it so often that it magically becomes the truth. Now, I'm not talking about their commentators, I'm talking hard news. Jon Stewart did a piece showing Fox News' hard news reporters making very editorial comments clearly favoring the right and using their own commentators as a 'some people say' source. But has anyone done the same to MSNBC? If they are as liberal as everyone says they are, then surely its either been done or is going to sooner or later.
2012-06-15 12:41:29 AM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT.

Prove it.

Hey farkhead. You remember my policy. Until you start citing your own posts you can go fark yourself. You cite nothing. Don't expect me to do your work. You can easily go Google 2008 media studies for the candidate or 2004 or 96 studies for the incumbent coverage.


I thought your policy was to shiat out disgusting diarrhea for as long as you are allowed.

/I guess I was wrong.
2012-06-15 12:39:41 AM
1 votes:

violentsalvation: I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.


Huh. Well...
2012-06-15 12:36:27 AM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT.

Prove it.

Hey farkhead. You remember my policy. Until you start citing your own posts you can go fark yourself. You cite nothing. Don't expect me to do your work. You can easily go Google 2008 media studies for the candidate or 2004 or 96 studies for the incumbent coverage.


i cite my posts all the time. Don't get pissy just because you can't. And it's not MY work if you are the one making the assertion. Come on.
2012-06-15 12:29:10 AM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT.


Prove it.
2012-06-15 12:27:36 AM
1 votes:

meat0918: cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: . I mean, you are a Sunday political show host and you have to have Newt, Santorum, or Bachmann on your program. Other than point and laugh at them, what do you do?

Not be needlessly negative?

That's an option, right?

Not a chance.

Negativity = $$$$$


Precisely why I wish we had a BBC-like option here in the US. NPR is great, but even they had to come out and ask their audience if they wanted more fact-checking in articles.
2012-06-14 11:06:26 PM
1 votes:
Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.
2012-06-14 11:03:57 PM
1 votes:
What do you expect from the conservatively biased media?
2012-06-14 10:36:57 PM
1 votes:
In before some f*cktard claims Obama gets a pass from the media
2012-06-14 09:45:08 PM
1 votes:
Wow, never knew how much racism these networks would show. This racist bullshiat must end.
2012-06-14 09:42:03 PM
1 votes:
If the goldfish media hate it, it was probably very informative.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report