Barack Obama had a crucial advantage over his rivals this year: the support of the national media, especially the three broadcast networks. At every step of his national political career, network reporters showered the Illinois Senator with glowing media coverage

It was the closest nomination contest in a generation, with just one-tenth of a percentage point — 41,622 votes out of more than 35 million cast — separating Barack Obama from Hillary Clinton when the Democratic primaries ended in June. Obama’s margin among elected delegates was almost as thin, just 51 to 48 percent.

But Barack Obama had a crucial advantage over his rivals this year: the support of the national media, especially the three broadcast networks. At every step of his national political career, network reporters showered the Illinois Senator with glowing media coverage, building him up as a political celebrity and exhibiting little interest in investigating his past associations or exploring the controversies that could have threatened his campaign.

These are the key findings of the Media Research Center’s exhaustive analysis of ABC, CBS and NBC evening news coverage of Barack Obama — every story, every soundbite, every mention — from his first appearance on a network broadcast in May 2000 through the end of the Democratic primaries in June 2008, a total of 1,365 stories. MRC analysts found that the networks’ coverage — particularly prior to the formal start of Obama’s presidential campaign — bordered on giddy celebration of a political “rock star” rather than objective newsgathering.

Key Findings

:

# The three broadcast networks treated Obama to nearly seven times more good press than bad — 462 positive stories (34% of the total), compared with only 70 stories (just 5%) that were critical. 

# NBC Nightly News was the most lopsided, with 179 pro-Obama reports (37%), more than ten times the number of anti-Obama stories (17, or 3%). The CBS Evening News was nearly as skewed, with 156 stories spun in favor of Obama (38%), compared to a mere 21 anti-Obama reports (5%). ABC’s World News was the least slanted, but still tilted roughly four-to-one in Obama’s favor (127 stories to 32, or 27% to 7%). 

# Barack Obama received his best press when it mattered most, as he debuted on the national scene. All of the networks lavished him with praise when he was keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and did not produce a single negative story about Obama (out of 81 total reports) prior to the start of his presidential campaign in early 2007. 

# The networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama’s relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other stories. CBS and NBC also initially downplayed controversial statements from Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, but heavily praised Obama’s March 18 speech on race relations. 

# While Obama’s worst media coverage came during the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, even then the networks offered two positive stories for every one that carried a negative spin (21% to 9%). Obama’s best press of the year came after he won the North Carolina primary on May 6 — after that, 43 percent of stories were favorable to Obama, compared to just one percent that were critical. 

# The networks minimized Obama’s liberal ideology, only referring to him as a “liberal” 14 times in four years. In contrast, reporters found twice as many occasions (29) to refer to Obama as either a “rock star,” “rising star” or “superstar” during the same period. 

# In covering the campaign, network reporters highlighted voters who offered favorable opinions about Obama. Of 147 average citizens who expressed an on-camera opinion about Obama, 114 (78%) were pro-Obama, compared to just 28 (19%) that had a negative view, with the remaining five offering a mixed opinion.Perhaps if he had faced serious journalistic scrutiny instead of media cheerleading, Barack Obama might still have won his party’s nomination. But the tremendously positive coverage that the networks bestowed upon his campaign was of incalculable value. The early celebrity coverage helped make Obama a nationally-known figure with a near-perfect media image. The protectiveness that reporters showed during the early primaries made it difficult for his rivals to effectively criticize him. And when it came to controversies such as the Wright affair, network reporters acted more as defenders than as journalists in an adversarial relationship. If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made it a whole lot easier.

Why can’t we fight the Taliban at home?

 


Why can’t we fight the Taliban at home?
TheSpec.com – Opinions – Why can’t we fight the Taliban at home?

<!– PUBLISH DATE TimeSincePublished(“2008-08-21-04:30:00″,”2008-08-21″,”Aug. 21, 2008”);–>
The Hamilton Spectator

(Aug 21, 2008)”We are looking for a solution from people who are a cause of this problem.” Such were the remarks delivered by Tarek Fatah, a progressive Muslim activist, in a recent Muslim community outreach event organized by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in co-operation with Peel Regional Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The event was aimed at addressing the radicalization of Muslim youth. Some prominent imams and Muslim student leaders commented on the situation, and a group of progressive Muslims from Canadian Muslim Congress was also there to counter the radical thoughts.

Questions come to mind at times like this, such as: Do such events help in eradicating radicalization? I don’t think so, because we don’t have clear laws to handle Islamists’ extremist ideologies.

That’s why we haven’t taken any action against a man and his fellows who suggested that Muslims should attack Canadian soldiers on Canadian soil. We haven’t taken any action against many Islamists in Canada who openly support the Taliban and, despite being Canadians themselves, show their hatred to Canada because of its western values.

Is it not an irony that we are fighting the Taliban thousands of miles away in Afghanistan, but are unable to fight them and their ideology here at home? Now the Taliban even dare to write an open letter to us, threatening Canada to stay away from the conflict.

Is it too much work for our politicians to work on potential legislation that could challenge the hatred ideologies spread by Islamists every day? Unfortunately, I haven’t heard anything like that from our political circles.

On the other hand, Islamists in Canada seem pretty smart. They have infiltrated political parties, they are taking shelter from our feel-good media and human rights groups. They are taking positions in government offices, intelligence institutions and campuses.

And they are trying to distract a vast silent majority of Muslims who too often fall prey to their agenda.

So the question remains, how could our intelligence resources and law enforcement agencies bring radicals to justice without proper legislation? They can’t, of course.

CSIS chief Andy Ellis and RCMP Inspector Jamie Jagoe analyzed very well in their presentations about the evolutionary process of radicalization, but seem helpless to execute adequate measures against it.

They apparently seek help even from those circles which, in Tarek Fatah’s words, are “a cause of the problem.”

If we were able to send back to their homelands some of the Islamists who openly hate Canada, there would be a clear message sent to rest of the group.

Hasan Mahmud, a Bengali-Canadian author of a book on Islam and sharia, pointed out another challenge during his talk to the officers: The Muslim community and Canadian society both need a modern interpretation of Islam in order to combat radical interpretation of Islam.

He is right. Unfortunately our media, national, provincial and local institutes, government bodies, political parties and society in general consider Muslim groups who appear most fundamentalist and radical as the representatives of Islam.

So far the Canadian government hasn’t taken any steps to press Islamists to tolerate the values of a free society. Rather, Islamists are pushing Canadians to tolerate their extreme hateful ideologies.

Without recognizing and encouraging progressive Muslims’ roles and participation, our government and its intelligence resources won’t be able to fight Islamic radicalization.

Tahir Aslam Gora is a Pakistani-Canadian writer living in Burlington. goratahir@yahoo.ca

 

 

British Submission

British Submission

By Douglas Stone
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/21/2008

Foot baths for Muslim students at Michigan universities?  Muslim cabbies in the Twin Cities who refuse to carry seeing-eye dogs?  The FBI and other government agencies taking sensitivity training from radical Muslim organizations?  You think we’ve lost the plot over here?  Take a look at British submission to Islamofascist demands and threats, as that once great nation succumbs to creeping dhimmitude.

It has reached the point that in mid-April, the British Foreign Office instructed the Royal Navy not to return pirates to jurisdictions sporting sharia law (such as Somalia) for fear that their human rights will be violated.  They have even been discouraged from capturing pirates, because the freebooters might ask to be granted asylum in Britain, a request with which the UK might have to comply under international and European Union human rights law.

This for a Navy that almost singlehandedly defeated piracy in the early 19th century, and a nation that retained the death penalty for this scourge of the high seas until the late 20th century.

Welcome to Britain today.

Another recent outrage involves special handling of a traffic violation. Seems that a Muslim driver was stopped by police while speeding between two homes in the north of England.  When he appeared in court, he explained his high speed – over twice the speed limit – was necessary to accommodate his two wives.  His explanation was accepted, and he was allowed to keep his license.

That comes fast – very fast – on the heels of a decision by the British government to grant full spousal benefits to multiple wives.  It won’t affect more than an estimated 1,000 individuals.  And it mercifully won’t affect the indigenous Christian, Hindu or Jewish population, as traditional bigamy laws apply.  Britons may rest easy, as it will only cover multiple wives married in a jurisdiction that practices Sharia law, such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

These are not isolated instances; there are a myriad more: Swimming periods at pools restricted to Muslims only; the establishment of a BBC Arabic language station staffed by Arab broadcasters and managers with track records of being anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Western; the refusal of female Muslim medical students to wash their arms as that practice might reveal the forbidden flesh between wrist and elbow; an attempt by a national union of university lecturers to call for a boycott of Israeli academics; and, a local Council ban on pig-themed toys, porcelain figures and calendars on workers’ desks because it might offend Muslims.

No comment from the Home Office or No. 10 Downing Street. No comment from the government, because it has been their policy to appease Britain’s large Muslim population in response to menacing behavior up to and including the bomb outrages of July 7, 2005.

It’s no coincidence that Muslims constitute a substantial portion of the Labour Party’s electoral support in London and in much of its heartland in northern England.  In the expected close election for Parliament that will be held by mid-2010, an increasing Muslim population may be the difference between victory and defeat for the Labourites.

But Labour’s bien pensant hardly needs convincing.  Like most on the left today, they fancy themselves champions of the underdog and the oppressed, and sympathy for Islam, and Arab and Muslim causes fits neatly into their intellectual program.  Along with America and Israel-bashing, it goes to the very heart of how liberals view themselves and, more important, how they wish to be viewed by others.  It supplies them with the appearance of a self-abnegation that is supposed to relieve their Western, middle-class guilt with a cleansing humility but is nothing but moral exhibitionism; and, as always, involves other people’s money, other people’s freedom, and other people’s comfort – never or very rarely their own.

A classic of political correctness run amok, wonderful as a burlesque if it weren’t slowly undermining Britain’s way of life and its will to oppose extreme Islamism. 

Worse is that acceding to this nonsense gives Islamofascists confidence that they are on the winning side of history. That if they just shout a little louder and push a little harder, they may expect more of the same that becomes increasingly normative until it convinces the longer-settled among the UK’s population that they have no power to stop, let alone reverse, the process.

One might have become inured to the gutless behavior of France or Italy, but many in the U.S. are still under the impression that, like other countries in the Anglosphere, the British remain clear-eyed, realistic and most importantly resolute about the threats with which the West is confronted.  But they aren’t; and while these cultural changes are in the realm of the comical right now, they are beginning to affect British public policy, domestic as well as foreign. 

Why is this important to us?  Because the ZaNuLabour Party’s tendency to pacifism and appeasement, and its devotion to political correctness, victim ideology, cultural relativism and liberal guilt is shared by our own Democrats.

Look for more of it in Britain, and don’t be surprised when it arrives full force here in America.


Sinking In The Polls, Hussein Releases Series Of Attack Ads – Video Of All Ads

The Plagues That May Visit The Messiah’s Speech On Mount Denver

Leak: Hussein Literally Can’t Speak Without Teleprompters

“Ominous Sign”: Hussein Just Keeps Plummeting In Polls

Ignoring Hussein’s Demand For Retraction, McCain Repeats Attack

Obama’s Denver Speech ‘An Underground Sellout’

Obama’s Denver Speech ‘An Underground Sellout’

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/20/video-obamas-invesco-sell-out-an-underground-fundraiser/

Rick Moran

A Denver TV station ferreted out this story of how Obama’s “free” Invesco Field acceptance speech is being used as a fundraiser – without the knowledge of most of his supporters.

Via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, we find that the Obama campaign was using a hidden website to sell tickets to the event – in effect, cashing in on the fact that 75,000 people will show up to hear his mantra of hope and change:

The CBS affiliate in Denver discovered a hidden website that sold tickets to the Invesco Field acceptance speech by Barack Obama on August 29th, while Team Obama continued to deny that tickets were anything but free. Democratic activists complained to the reporters about Obama’s sell-out:

Oddly enough, when CBS started asking questions, the site suddenly stopped offering tickets. What a coincidence!

If anyone wonders why Obama has gone into free fall this summer, this provides an easy explanation. Obama had no executive or military experience and no legislative track record in his three brief years in the US Senate. He sold Democrats on the notion that his New Politics would transform Washington. Since welching on his promise to remain in the public financing system, Obama has repeatedly proven that he’s nothing more than a Chicago machine pol with no particular qualifications to run a state, let alone a nation.

Follow the link to Hot Air where Ed has posted a video of the story from the CBS affiliate in Denver.

A few months ago, I had an exchange of emails with Brad Smith, former FEC Commissioner, who told me that Obama would be crazy to reject federal financing. Brad said that Obama will now have to continue his fundraising activities all the way through to November, taking precious time and hours raising cash that could be better spent on the hustings.

McCain, meanwhile, gets $85 million the day after the GOP convention ends and won’t have to worry about raising any more money for the rest of the contest. (Any money McCain has left from his fundraising before the convention cannot be used in the general election campaign.)

It shouldn’t surprise us that Obama would lie to his own supporters about his “free” speech. If things continue to fall off, he may very well rue the day he refused public financing.

Buyer’s remorse

Buyer’s remorse

Jerome J. Schmitt
This AP headlines says it all: “Democrats to review nominating process”

“They [Democratic Party leaders] want to review the caucus system, which presumed nominee Barack Obama used so successfully this year.”