The Politico would have us believe that they are not in the tank for Obama, rather the coverage of McCain sucking is a reflection of the McCain campaign.
The McCain campaign may suck, but the Politico is in the tank for Obama.
The problem is that the Politico has a habit of being lazy and running whatever is fed to them on silver spoons. And the Obama campaign is in the driver’s seat feeding them premium dog food for their regurgitation. The Politico’s instinct, like any in the media pack, is to go to its master before going to a stranger, so it feeds from the left more than the right. Likewise, the Politico would rather be first than be accurate. After all, they can correct the story later.
They ran the “Fred Thompson to drop out story” the day before the Iowa Caucus, which was not true.
Posited that Hillary had no lock on Pennsylvania in the primary when the data in their own article showed otherwise.
Claimed the Thompson campaign had few people show up at rallies despite video evidence proving the opposite.
Attacked Jed Babbin of Human Events while screwing up his biography and then not correcting it for days, even though multiple attempts were made to get the error corrected.
Mischaracterized Craig Shirley’s relationship to the McCain campaign to psensationalize his departure therefrom.
Pushed the “Is John McCain old and senile” line against McCain, mimicking Obama’s talking points.
Attacked Sarah Palin pretty openly and unapologetically.
Mischaracterized Sarah Palin’s statements for shock value.
Let’s not forget John Edwards dropping out.
etc, etc, etc.
Daniel Horowitz
Neil Stevens
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Jake Walker
yeah, i wrote them a nasty-gram, sorry i'm not helping the cause...
Michael Parrish (Diary) Tuesday, October 28th at 4:40PM EST (link)Mike’s Nasty Gram To Politico
My name is Mike Parrish and I approve of this message!
[Pocket Change - Now Lint Free!](http://www.mikeparrish.org)
Media endorsements mapped
Woodywoodchopper Tuesday, October 28th at 5:42PM EST (link)The various newspaper endorsements have been mapped in a very pretty map that can be found here.
They do though suggest one reason for bias. The major newspapers are located in cities. And people that vote Democrat tend to be located in cities. So most of the newspapers are just giving their readers what they want to read.
Their exception was cities where there was two newspapers. There it made sense for one to market its self to Republicans.
That certainly seems plausible to me. The newspapers are out to make a profit, and if running lots of pro-Obama stories helps them do than then they will.
But I doubt that this will last. In 10 years time no one will read paper any more. And online it doesn’t matter where you are.
The Politico will continue its coverage for as long as its editors and board believe it will make money.
Politico sucks ...
HadaAbeche Tuesday, October 28th at 5:42PM EST (link)Used to enjoy them. Have since removed them from my RSS and dont go there anymore.
I really liked Politico when they started up,
septembergurl (Diary) Tuesday, October 28th at 11:15PM EST (link)the coverage in 2007 and the primaries was really good — a lot of variety and good reporting.
However, since the conventions they have been in the tank for Obama in a really obvious, boring way. The refusal to explore any areas that might be detrimental to Obama, the level of snark, the attacks on Palin…not, as they no doubt think, daring cutting edge journalism, but boring, stupid knee-jerk left-wing sycophancy..if I wanted that I could read the NY Slimes or Washington Compost.
Very disappointing. But not surprising.
Another disappointment is RCP. I loved them in 2004 and used to go there all the time. Now it’s rare for me to go to RCP or politico. They’re so in the tank for obama it’s embarrassing. except for Jay Cost, RCP is not worth reading.
I do like the Politico election night coverage, though, I will probably go there a lot on 11/4. But for political coverage, no.