Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Obama’s Plane Smells Bad! Now There’s Some Heavy Investigative Journalism.


From Dean Reynolds at CBS: Reporter's Notebook: Seeing How The Other Half Lives

“Obama is the big time orator, McCain is the guy who struggles with a teleprompter or even note cards strategically placed nearby. Obama's crowds are larger, more enthusiastic.”

“I would love to have someone from Obama's campaign explain why the entire press corps, the Secret Service, and the local police idled for two hours in a Miami hotel parking lot recently because there was nothing to do and nowhere to go. It was not an isolated case.”

“The McCain folks are more helpful and generally friendly. The schedules are printed on actual books you can hold in your hand, read, and then plan accordingly. The press aides are more knowledgeable and useful to us in the news media.”

“John McCain is friendly and loquacious. Obama holds news conferences, but seldom banters with the reporters who've been following him for thousands of miles around the country. Go figure.”

“The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama's, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated.”


Given Reynolds assessment, one wonders why CBS is so far in the tank for Obama. With the discrepancy of treatment of the press by Obama and McCain, why does the press continue to give Obama a pass on William Ayers and his embracing of Hugo Chavez’s “education reform?” Shouldn’t it be the press who quotes Ayers from the 2006 meet with Hugo Chavez when Ayers said,
“the political educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how . . . all of you continue to overcome the failures of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane,”
instead of Investors Business Daily?

Shouldn’t it be the press letting the country know that when Obama makes an empty promise of tax cuts to 95% of Americans only 76% is currently paying taxes?

Would the press remain silent if Republicans threw hints of riots should McCain lose?

Would the National Media sweep it under the rug if a close associate of McCain’s or Sarah Palins was accused of trying to kill someone’s family?

Would Mr. Reynolds ignore links of a Republican to a group like ACORN who has a long history of voter fraud that benefited only Democrat candidates?

Would the odor of Senator McCain’s campaign airplane take precedence over his campaign donations violating Federal Election Laws, including potential illegal foreign contributions?

All of the gaffes, the arrogance, the contradictions, the unbelievable promises, the lack of experience remain heavily under-reported in the National Media while a report of the smell of Obama’s plane seems to be the heaviest hitting report made by the media.

What else should we surmise but the media is in the tank for Obama?

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am sure I will rest much easier knowing that Dean Reynolds remains on top of such an important story as “McCain treats the press better” and his “plane smells better.”

Where was this deep hard hitting journalism when Nixon needed it?

10 comments:

allee said...

What I don't understand, is why the FEC isn't doing something about this?

Lew Waters said...

I wish I had an answer, Allee.

allee said...

BTW: Name's Angie. Nice to meet you, Lew!

Lew Waters said...

Very pleased to meet you too, Angie. I always appreciate comments from fellow conservatives, especially females. I say that because my wife is one of the few female conservatives I actually know.

She posts very infrequently, but when she does, she says a lot. ;-)

allee said...

I'd probably get kicked out from under the "conservative" umbrella with some of my weird ideas. Someone recently said I belong to the "Every Real Man's Dream Party," since I think the woman's place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Regardless, ideologically I am obviously far more conservative leaning than liberal. And that's not above my pay grade.

Maybe it's because I detest working my @$$ off in the face of disability, barely treading water, while others leech off my efforts and produce nothing but more human waste (literally and figuratively, of course).

Oh, and it probably has A LOT to do with the abuse my family and I have suffered at the hand of liberal (bacon) institutions like Child Protective Services. But who am I to say? I'm just a taxpayer, so my voice need not be heard. I don't even exist, except to be violated.

Lew Waters said...

I know what you mean. One thing many people don't understand about conservatives is that we do have varying ideas and values and accept each other. We aren't the ones who march lock-step following an empty suit.

I once had 3 step-monsters and know what you mean about CPS. I was hounded everytime one of the kids didn't like to do a chore or didn't get their way.

I ended the marriage and rid myself of the problem. One other way I got the CPS activist off my back was to present him with a copy of selected laws in Washington State, stating exactly what I could and could not do.

In the meantime, another family had the boyfriend drop kick a baby and kill it after a CPS visit. All my step-brats had to do was household chores and follow reasonable rules.

I have no use for CPS!

allee said...

Isn't that simply disgusting? Our problem revolves around my stepdaughters, too, but it's not them causing it, it's their so-called "mother." The one who had them taken away from her in another state for a reason. The one who says she will fight to the death to get them back (so she can abuse and neglect them some more and let her boyfriends beat, molest, and rape them while she covers for him, the girls only 6 and 7). The one who has called 16 malicious complaints against us--but CPS just can't be bothered to follow the LAW stating they need to turn documented malice complaints over to the DA for prosecution, since he's got "more important" things to do.

They have more important things to do, too. They have to waste their time coming out here every time she calls them (after telling them to their faces she was abusing the system for a custody battle) instead of going to see kids like...
RICKY HOLLAND
ROSE KELLY
ALLISON NEWMAN
and so many others.

Gary Fouse said...

Lew,

Speaking of investigating journalism....


Once again, the once-great New York Times has shown its ideological bias as well as its ability to disguise editorial opinion as straight news reporting with yesterday's hit piece on Cindy McCain.

The article, written by Jodi Kantor and David Halbfinger, may be found at the below web site:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html?bl&ex=1224475200&en=12299783805b8c72&ei=5087%0A

The general gist of the article is that Mrs McCain is a dishonest, politically ambitious woman, who would do anything to advance her husband's political aspirations.

For example,

"From the start, Mrs. McCain’s marriage has been defined by her husband’s ambitions, and despite her sometimes punishing ride in political life, she does whatever she must to help fulfill them."

Fact or opinion?

"Those close to Mrs. McCain say she aspires to be like another blonde, glamorous figure married to an older man: Diana, the Princess of Wales."

Who says that? Unnamed sources, that's who.

"Mrs. McCain expanded her childhood home, turning it into a 10,000-square-foot mansion that struck more than one visitor as a shrine to her husband."

And who are those visitors?

In addition, the article also contains implications that the McCain marriage is less than ideal citing their extended periods away from each other.

In researching the article, co-author, Jodi Kantor, even dug up a schoolmate of McCain's daughter through Facebook and wrote her this note:


Jodi Kantor

Add as Friend

September 29 at 7:21pm

Report Message

"I saw on facebook that you went to Xavier, and if you don't mind, I'd love to ask you some advice about a story. I'm a reporter at the New York Times, writing a profile of Cindy McCain, and we are trying to get a sense of what she is like as a mother. So I'm reaching out to fellow parents at her kids' schools. My understanding is that some of her older kids went to Brophy/Xavier, but I'm trying to figure out what school her 16 year old daughter Bridget attends-- and a few people said it was PCDS. Do you know if that's right? Again, we're not really reporting on the kids, just seeking some fellow parents who can talk about what Mrs. McCain is like.

Also, if you know anyone else who I should talk to-- basically anyone who has encountered Mrs. McCain and might be able to share impressions-- that would be great.

Thanks so much for any help you can give me."

Jodi Kantor
Political correspondent
New York Times


Nice, huh? If only the Times had shown that kind of investigative imagination in the John Edwards story-or the myriad of stories about Barack Obama's lifetime associations that the Times has poo-poohed.

Speaking of Obama, you might want to compare the Cindy McCain story with the Times' May 18, 2008 adoring profile of Michelle Obama, written by Ms Kantor and Jeff Zeleny:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/18/us/politics/18michelle.html

The article on Mrs McCain, compared to their previous piece on Michelle Obama, merely underlines the obvious bias of the New York Times and their mixing of opinion into the main news pages. It should be stated that the NYT is not the only paper guilty of this. You see it in newspaper, after newspaper, after newspaper. It is up to us, the readers, to read between the lines and ask ourselves this simple question:

"Is this fact or opinion?" If it is opinion, why isn't it in the editorial section?

It really makes one wonder if this is what is being taught in journalism schools.

I have my opinion.

gary fouse
fousesquawk

Lew Waters said...

Gary, add to that this little piece from yesterdays MSN Home Page,

If Barack Obama won the election, would Michelle Obama be the tallest first lady?

Not quite, but she's no slouch either. At 5 feet 11 inches, Michelle Obama stands just one inch shy of the tallest first lady on record: 6-foot-tall Eleanor Roosevelt.

The statuesque Obama is two inches shorter than her presidential candidate husband, four inches taller than his Republican opponent, John McCain, and an estimated six inches taller than her rival first-lady-wannabe, Cindy McCain. (emphasis added)

MSN Home

Nice, huh? Michelle Obama is "statuesque" while Cindy McCain is a "wannabe."

allee said...

I just ranted about that same issue the other day at STACLU. Problem is, if they separated out editorial from news, there'd be no "news" left.