Seriously, another one of these?
Like last year, maybe some of the reporters involved find it valuable for the people they cover to get to know them on a more personal level, away from all the tough questions and dogged investigations.
Peter Hart
Peter Hart was the activist director of FAIR for 15 years, as well as the co-host of FAIR's radio show CounterSpin. He is now the senior field communications officer for Food & Water Watch.
◄ Previous Post Newsweek’s Nostalgia for Arab Dictatorships
► Next Post Tea Party: Anti-Corporate Corruption Fighters?
Comments
No doubt the reporters gain access to these rich & powerful people by doing this – – – though it’s access merely to their facile side and not much more. But it’s OH so-o-o-o-o cute the way they play with all these important people “and they’re JUST like you and me!” he/she said!
Well, Biden is sending out emails calling himself the new sheriff in town, with such an infantile approach why wouldn’t he carry a “gun”. They played while Rome fell too, didn’t they?
I am finding this site’s positions and the responses to it are quite negative. You are down on PBS, while I find it still very worthwhile. Now you’re making fun of Joe Biden whose motivation for hosting a water fight party you don’t really know. You choose to see it negatively. I see people having fun. It’s all a choice, you know. Just because this nation is under siege by the ultra right whose anger hides their fear, we don’t all have to get scared and angry. If nobody came to the Biden’s party, then they don’t want to get to know Joe Biden better. Going or staying home is their prerogative.
There are few people in Washington that I’ve seen who are as natural as Joe Biden. What you see is what you get. Plus he has a sense of humor. This site and its followers could certainly lighten up.
And what do you think of Biden’s rootin tootin sheriff role where he says he is going to clean up this horrible spending mess in Washington, Linda? Biden is a nice guy who ought to be playing games with other jolly folks like him, but the very SERIOUS problem is that the press in a free society are not supposed to cozy up to those they are supposed to report on in an impartial manner. If you don’t like serious issues there are about 99+ cable channels out there for you on TV and the web will take you to pretty visions of corny things all you like.
@Linda
The press corp was also criticized for attending a bar-b-q hosted by John McCain. This isn’t about Biden, it’s about them.
Flashback to March 2008 where the Common Nonsense blog wrote: “The real issue is that the people who are supposed to cover McCain the candidate are the same people cavorting with McCain the friendly BBQer.
Does the term “professional distance” mean anything to our press corps? They are literally drinking and partying with the guy they are supposed to be reporting on.
The fact that this has to be explained at all is a terrible indictment of our press corps. If you want to fairly cover a candidate you don’t go to parties at his house. This is not difficult.
http://margalis.blogspot.com/2008/03/mccain-bbq-and-our-insipid-press-corps.html
Call me confused but what else do most VPs do with their day?I always figured super soakers and water balloon fights were on the list.Now can we all admit (in a bipartisan spirit) that we would rather of seen Sarah all super soaked up- than old Joe?Ok that was wrong.
I guess the serious question is should our free press be at home with our leaders or in a more confrontational spirit with them.As far as the Obama /Bidon team goes ,that question was answered during the election.They chose them as their favorite ,and supported them through thick and thin to the point of distraction.
Actually, that’s not true. Obama’s coverage started out negative and turned slightly positive. McCain’s coverage started out positive and turned negative.
The difference was driven by their respective responses to the economic collapse, which included McCain turning his campaign negative.
A 2008 study by The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found that Biden got far less coverage than Obama, McCain and Palin and found that the stories about him were â┚¬Ã…“far more negative than Palin’s, and nearly as negative as McCain’s.â┚¬Ã‚Â
Stories about Obama between the convention and the final debate were 36 percent positive in tone, 35 percent mixed, and 29 percent negative.
And 95% IGNORING ANYTHING TRUELY NEGATIVE ABOUT OBAMA LIKE THAT HE HAD NO QUALIFICATION FOR THE JOB AT ALL>>>>HAD HIDDEN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT HIMSELF>>>>ILLEGAL LAND DEALS>>>RADICAL TIES WITH RASCISTS AND MURDERERS.On and on and on.Everyday more and more was found out about him that was soft soaped aside.I dont blame them for their choice.It is a free country.I blame you for trying to lie about it.It is like the lie that FOX has all the pull.Really.?..measure NBC ABC CBS and their listeners to foxWhy don’t you look up how many reporters aligned themselves left or right at that time?Look up how many tenured profs in the top 10 journalism schools call themselves conservative.Out of hundreds what ya got? If memory serves…..EIGHT?????Go back and reread the articles when Obama sent 38 lawyers to alaska to find dirt on Sarah.Where was the outrage?Sarah just turned over 25 thousand e mails.Where is the demand for nancy Ps or Obamas.You dont even hear We are demanding a tit for tat.The press is not outraged?If you cant admit that only with a pocket press was this jello able to escape being nailed to a tree….And you throw a few twisted weak facts to prove the press was really never hard on sarah…you sir are(in all respect)a loon!
I didn’t say that the press wasn’t hard on Sarah. I didn’t mention Fox either.
If you don’t like the Results from Pew, complain to them.
“Go back and reread the articles when Obama sent 38 lawyers to alaska to find dirt on Sarah”
Never happened.
A Wall Street Journal opinion piece claimed that “a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers” has been “air-lifted” into the state rested on very flimsy sourcing. It was written by a conservative commentator John Fund and appeared on September 9. It has been flatly denied by both the Democratic National Committee and the Obama campaign. Fund has not produced any evidence to support his claim beyond his unnamed “sources.”
“We have zero people who have gone up to Alaska to research Sarah Palin,” said DNC research director Mike Gehrke. He adds that the DNC has used “local volunteers” to research Palin’s background as well as “help from people who have run against her in the past.” Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor says that the Obama campaign has not sent anybody to Alaska to research Palin’s background, and refuses to comment on the activities of campaign staffers and volunteers already in the state.
Contacted yesterday, Fund said he still believes his story to be true, but did not provide supporting evidence.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/spreading_dirt_on_palin–and_o.html
Brian Kilmeade of Fake Noise told an even bigger lie claiming that Democrats “air-drop[ped] 60 lawyers and investigators into Alaska” to investigate Gov. Sarah Palin.
So, the WSJ and Fake tell lies and you believe [and repeat] them. Good to know.
Pew
Coverage of Obama began in the negative after the conventions, but the tone switched with the changing direction of the polls. The most positive stories about him were those that were most politicalâ┚¬”Âthe ones focused on polling, the electoral map, and tactics.
For McCain, coverage began positively, but turned sharply negative with McCain’s reaction to the crisis in the financial markets. As he took increasingly bolder steps to try and reverse the direction of the polls, the coverage only worsened. Attempts to turn the dialogue away from the economy through attacks on Obama’s character did hurt Obama’s media coverage, but McCain’s was even more negative.
In short, the financial crisis and particularly Obama’s steadier reaction to it in relation to McCain’s were clearly a turning point in the media coverage. That more positive coverage was then reflected in the polls, which in turn were reinforced in the horse race coverage that played off those polls.
Coverage of Palin, in the end, was more negative than positive. In all, 39% of Palin stories carried a negative tone, while 28% were positive, and 33% were neutral. Contrary to what some suggested, little of the coverage was about Palin’s personal life (5%).
Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden was nearly the invisible man. His had just one large moment, the vice presidential debate, which also offered his only positive or neutral contribution. Aside from that week, the limited coverage he did receive was far more negative than Palin’s, and nearly as negative as McCain’s.
http://www.journalism.org/node/13307
Pew also noted that in Oct. 2008 :
62% said they had “heard a lot” about Rev. Wright’s speeches.
51% said they had “heard a lot” about Rev. Wright’s videos.
52% said they had “heard a lot” about Obama’s “bitter” statement.
50% said they had “heard a lot” about Obama’s relationship with William Ayers.
So no one vetted Sarah for Obama’s campain..In fact all those endless parade of folks flooding her little town in Alaska saying they worked for Obama asking and investigating were….not?and the press did a great job vetting Obama.There is a word that comes to mind………. counter intuitive.I have been in politics since I could walk due to my family of course.I never saw a worse job addressing any of the negatives on a candidate as I did on Obama.BUT….in his favor he had a well run campaign. Believe me he new Sarahs bra size and everything else.
I’m not positive where you’re getting your info, but good topic. I needs to spend some time finding out more or figuring out more. Thank you for fantastic information I used to be looking for this information for my mission.