Barack Obama’s Campaign Add Agency – The MSM


I have followed politics for my entire adult life. In fact even as an older teen in the early seventies was somewhat of an oddity concerning politics. Not only was I conservative but as a teenager I actually was active in not only following politics but in campaigning for candidates that I was not yet old enough to vote for.

In my more than 30 year track record of following politics, I have NEVER watched such a blatant bias toward any candidate as I am now seeing with the MSM and Barack Obama. In fact this bias can almost be considered a partnership between the liberal candidate and the MSM.

The MSM has always leaned left of center with an extreme bias toward the liberal stance on issues but never have they made such an obvious blatant stand for any single candidate to the point of it looking as if they are a paid member of the Obama campaign.


This trip that Obama is making to Europe is a prime example of the obvious bias to the point of actively campaigning for the liberal Obama as the coverage of his trip is actually far more than a sitting President receives for a similar trip.

President Bush just returned from an overseas trip and not one of the MSM anchors followed him on the trip or even spent much time reporting what was taking place on the trip and Bush is a SITTING President whose trips have actual US policy ramifications.

Yet ABC, NBC and CBS are sending anchors Gibson, Williams and Couric to Europe with Obama to cover the, “Rock Stars,” visit with foreign heads of State. Thank God that one head of State Germanys Angela Merkel has stepped forward and put this trip into perspective by being extremely skeptical about Obama making a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate which is a symbol of the Cold War days and has been reserved for speeches from Heads of State like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan and not a campaign stump stop which is Obama’s purpose.

The hype that the MSM has placed on Obama’s trip becomes even more disgusting and a sign of the blatant bias toward the Democrat when one considers that John McCain recently made a similar trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and Europe as a candidate after he had gained the nomination and traveled with ONE reporter and his trip was only mentioned as an after thought by all of the networks during their , “in other political news,” segment.

Adding to this is the ridiculous move by the New York Times in their OPED section. Last week Barack Obama wrote an OPED article for the Times which was printed in its entirety without question or editing. The article out lined his position on Iraq and Afghanistan. John McCain submitted and OPED this past Sunday on the same subject out lining his policy.

Not only did the Times reject the article but informed the McCain campaign that they would only accept an article on this subject from him if it out lined a , “plan for victory,” which included a ,”timetable,” for withdrawal. A policy which is NOT in any plan that McCain has or will put forth because he is against any type of timetable. Yet the Times now sees it their responsibility to dictate policy to the GOP candidate while catering to the Democrat candidate.

With this form of blatant bias toward Obama why does he need to spend another dime for campaign advertising when he receives massive amounts of FREE advertising in coverage from the MSM ? The MSM was not even this biased over a politician when they came out ‘en mass against Richard Nixon during the Watergate fiasco.

Yet despite this massive media hype and bias in favor of Obama, he still is either tied with or has a slight lead over McCain and that lead in most polls is well within the margin of error. This also proves one other thing about Obama. The American people still do not trust him enough to back his candidacy even with the excessive media bias.

With the Obama hype that is taking place with the media he should be twenty points ahead of McCain especially since McCain almost can’t buy media coverage and his campaign has been relatively quiet in the midst of the Obamamessiahmania.

I was surprised this week when CNN actually broke the story concerning the misinformation that had hit the press over the media lie that Iraq Prime Minister Maliki agreed with Obama’s sixteen month withdrawal plan. Stating that Maliki’s words, “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.” Maliki agreed with 16 months as a possibility ONLY if security situations warranted that type of draw down and the situation on the ground was safe enough for the draw down to take place in that time period. Obama calls for a sixteen month withdrawal REGARDLESS of the situation or security.

Again a blatant media bias toward Obama trying to even twist the words of the Iraqi Prime Minister in order to make Obama look like he and only he knows how to handle the issue of Iraq. While the New York Times attempts to dictate to John McCain what his policy should be in order for this liberal rag to cover McCain’s plan.

With media bias as ridiculously blatant in favor of Obama as it is now I can already envision the headlines on November 5, 2008 after John McCain wins the Presidency. I’ll just give the headline for the New York Times which will cover the reaction by the rest of the biased MSM.
“BARACK OBAMA FIRST BLACK CANDIDATE TO LOSE THE PRESIDENCY” with the subheading for the story being, ” McCain President Elect” or “Democrat voters denied access to polls, reason McCain elected.” This my friends is our great American media!

Ken Taylor http://theliberalslies.blogspot.com


Category: , ,

RSS feed

1 Comment Leave a comment

Obama can pull this 18,000 pound tractor-trailer

Robert A. Hahn (Diary) Tuesday, July 22nd at 12:20PM EST (link)

This has been building for some time now. Your statement, “I have NEVER watched such a blatant bias toward any candidate as I am now seeing with the MSM and [insert name of current Democratic candidate]” has been said every four years for decades.

In 1992, television coverage of the campaign consisted of alternating views of Bill Clinton speaking before wildly applauding crowds, and a news anchor telling you what Bush did that day in front of a still photo of a scowling Bush.

By 2004, things had progressed to the point where a major news network used forged documents in an effort to scuttle the Republican campaign. They got caught because of the Internet and talk radio, but not so long ago the press would have circled the wagons around them and they might have succeeded in fooling the public with their forgeries.

Yes, it’s becoming more blatant every year, but as it does so it triggers Americans’ very highly developed Advertising Detectors. By the time the average American reaches adulthood, he or she has been exposed to literally millions of advertisements. Thousands more enter the brain every day. All are subjected to the most finely-honed crap detectors in the world.

In moving from fact-based reporting to political advocacy, the media have positioned themselves in most people’s heads as just another form of advertising. Their “reporting” is therefore scrutinized and filtered as if reporters were Billy Mays hawking Mighty Putty.

People will make small purchases — maybe try a new toothpaste — because they saw some advertising. But very few people will make a big-ticket purchase purely on the basis of advertising claims. Voting for a president is a big-ticket item. If President Carter doesn’t work out, you can’t just throw him in the trash and go back to Gerald Ford. You’re stuck with him through 19% inflation, 11% unemployment, and all 444 days of the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

Carter at least could point to some test drives: the U.S. Navy, the governorship of a State. With Obama, no one knows what will happen when you drive him off the curb. I don’t think advertising can overcome that.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you’re dead.