Copyright Protection: Another McCain Weak Point

Posted by on September 6, 2008 at 12:59 am. NO Comments :

During the course of John McCain’s campaign, he has had a little trouble selecting music to accompany his public events. It seems that whatever he selects he ends up offending the artist who then objects to the use of the song and requests that McCain cease and desist. It has become such a recurring problem that I thought it would be prudent to begin to document it. So far, the following artists have publicly called on McCain to refrain from employing their refrains [updated 10/17/08]:

  • Bon Jovi – Who Says You Can’t Go Home
  • Foo Fighters – My Hero
  • Heart – Barracuda
  • Jackson Browne – Running on Empty
  • Frankie Valli – Can’t Take My Eyes Off of You
  • Owners of the Rocky Theme
  • Van Halen – Right Now
  • Orleans – Still the One
  • Tom Petty – I Won’t Back Down
  • John Mellencamp – Pink House and Our Country
  • Chuck Berry – Johnny B. Goode

Mike Myers also complained when McCain used a clip of his character from Wayne’s World. But perhaps the most pathetic misappropriation occurred when McCain used a photograph as a backdrop for his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. The picture was of the Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California, whose administration was none too pleased at having their institution politicized. In all likelihood, McCain meant to use a picture of the Walter Reed Medical Center. For a candidate who is running on his military resume, he ought to know what the famous Army facility looks like.

In any case, the McCain camp may want to seek permission in advance the next time they hear a song they think will spice up one of their rallies. Maybe former senator John Ashcroft would let McCain use his signature tune: Let the Eagle Soar.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

McCain And Palin: Stars In Their Eyes

Posted by on September 4, 2008 at 4:03 pm. 5 Comments :

For months now, John McCain has been belittling Barack Obama as inexperienced and unprepared to be president. Much of the criticism has targeted his speech making prowess and charisma, which McCain characterizes as the hollow trappings of celebrity. There was even an ad that attacked Obama as the “biggest celebrity in the world,” and juxtaposed his image with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. McCain himself said that:

“The bottom line is that Sen. Obama’s words, for all their eloquence and passion, don’t mean all that much.”

But now, the day after Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the “pit bull in lipstick,” debuted at the Republican National Convention, the campaign, the Party, and the media have all adopted a new view of celebrity. While it was a pejorative when directed Obama, for Palin it elicits the sort of applause and acclaim that is ordinarily reserved for … well, celebrities. Consider this sampling of the press:

Chris Wallace – Fox News: “I don’t think it’s overstating it to say being right here on the floor that a star was born tonight. A new star in the political galaxy.”
Michael Barone – U.S. News & World Report: “Sarah Palin’s speech to the Republican National Convention last night was a home run. A star was born.”
Margaret Carlson – Bloomberg: “On Wednesday night, a political star was born.”
William Kristol – New York Times: “A star is born.”
Karen Breslau – Newsweek: “A populist star is born.”
Art Moore – WorldNetDaily: “A star is born. The country ‘fell in love with Sarah Palin tonight.'”
Rich Lowry – National Review: “After that, you feel like asking not: How did she rise so fast? but Where has she been so long?”

And that’s not all. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper, MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, and Fox News’ Brit Hume and Dick Morris, all used some variation of the “Star is Born” theme to describe Palin’s debut. And all it took was one speech for the GOP establishment, and the media at large, to succumb to the charms of a heretofore unknown political neophyte who, two years ago, was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 6,000. One speech to transform the perception of this newcomer into someone qualified to be a 72 year old heartbeat from the presidency. Just one extensively rehearsed, meticulously stage-crafted speech.

So now Republicans, who demeaned Obama for attracting positive attention and adoring fans, is boasting that they have their own idol at whom to stare glassy-eyed. Now the media is abuzz with glowing notices for Palin’s opening night. And yet the McCain/Palin camp is still bashing the press as biased, despite the unfiltered adulation that is being blasted at them from all sides. The press is being castigated for doing what any professional journalist would acknowledge is their job. Politico’s Roger Simon is one of the very few who see the irony in this. He penned a must-read column that sarcastically explains “Why the media should apologize.”

“We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? […] Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.”

In her address last night, Palin spoke of “dramatic speeches before devoted followers” and wondered what happens “when the cloud of rhetoric has passed… when the roar of the crowd fades away.” But no one in the press observed that she might as well have been talking about herself, even more than Obama. After all, Obama has been on the campaign trail for 19 months developing the devotion of his supporters, but Palin has achieved the task after a grand total of four days and one speech. Four days during which she has been sequestered from the public by the campaign which has not offered her up for a single press conference. Despite the many controversies swirling around her appointment, she has so far only sat for an interview with the hard-hitting People Magazine. There is talk that she will appear on a Sunday morning news program this weekend. Guess which one. Fox News Sunday!

The result of all of this is that the two arguments McCain has used most aggressively against Obama – his experience and his celebrity – have both been rendered inert. Palin has less experience and, contrary to Obama’s multitude of stirring public addresses, Palin still has – and, I repeat – just one speech. The fanatical fawning of faithful Republicans is bad enough, but not unexpected. From the media, however, it is just plain creepy. Is anyone paying attention?


Republicans Admit It’s Over For McCain

Posted by on September 3, 2008 at 5:28 pm. NO Comments :

Republican strategists Mike Murphy and Peggy Noonan were interviewed today by NBC’s Chuck Todd. At the conclusion of the segment a hot mic overheard them expressing a somewhat more pessimistic view of the election than is generally acknowledged. The conversation centered on the qualifications of McCain’s VP pick, Sarah Palin. [A rush transcript of is included below]

On substance, I couldn’t agree more with the comments of these loyal Republicans speaking honestly amongst themselves. However, I do have a problem with the manner in which this became public.

A couple of months ago, Jesse Jackson was caught making disparaging remarks about Barack Obama. He also was picked up by a hot mic in the studios of Fox News. I had some harsh criticism for the Fox insiders who released the tape:

“Television news studios are not places where recordings are made accidentally. It is, of course, what they are designed for. So people invited inside for appearances ought to be aware that tapes are rolling and mics are hot. But they should not be expected to keep their mouths shut from the time they enter the building until they drive off the lot. They ought to be permitted to have private conversations without fear that they will end up on the evening broadcast.”

I have the same complaint with the release of this video. If someone makes a speech wherein they say something embarrassing, it is fair game. But in-studio guests (or in this case, outdoor remote guests) need to be given extra leeway because they are micced the whole time they are there and the producers have total control of the environment and the product.

As much as I like to hear Republicans declaring McCain’s candidacy over, I cannot approve of those who brought it to light.
Contine reading →


Barack Obama To Do It Live With Bill O’Reilly

Posted by on September 2, 2008 at 10:29 pm. 1 Comments :

Earlier today Michael Wolff of Vanity Fair published his account of a meeting between Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and Barack Obama, wherein a peace accord was allegedly struck. Then, on tonight’s O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly announced that he will be interviewing Obama on his program this Thursday. That was fast.

As the author of Starve The Beast (and this follow up to it), an extended examination of why it is not only pointless, but harmful for Democrats to appear on Fox News, my first reaction was that Obama had capitulated once again to a network that is actively working for his defeat. Under ordinary circumstances, I couldn’t find a reasonable justification for Obama to subject himself to deliberate slander, or for permitting Fox News to leech respect from him that Fox has not earned nor deserves.

But these are not ordinary circumstances. At the close of the Democrats convention, Obama gave an acceptance speech that electrified 75,000+ people in attendance, as well as 38 million more on television. That is more viewers than watched the finale of American Idol. All of the media buzz was focused on that speech, the convention, and the inspirational glow emanating from Obama. The next day, however, McCain showed up, like the skunk at the party, to introduce his vice presidential candidate. That announcement, as intended, took a lot of the wind from the sails of Obama’s post-conventioneering, first because it was an unexpected choice, and later because the choice was so monumentally stupid it kept making more news every time a new blot leaked out.

Well, turnabout is fair play. The night that Obama has agreed to appear on the Factor is the same night that John McCain will be delivering his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. The potential for sparks to fly will surely boost viewership for the program, whether the sparks materialize or not. Obama will have the opportunity to present himself, not just to O’Reilly’s audience, who couldn’t care less, but to the broader audience that will learn of the appearance after the fact. The interview itself will be a front page story. If Obama manages it well, he can turn it into news event that could eclipse McCain’s star turn in St. Paul. Plus O’Reilly plans to serialize the interview over several nights, so the story is automatically extended over multiple news cycles. The Obama team has managed to come up with a stunt that may diminish any bounce that McCain might get from his convention, as McCain did to Obama with the VP affair.

The scope of this broadcast needs to be considered in the context of the television marketplace. The Factor is the most viewed program on the highest rated cable news network. Those ratings historically jump during Republican events like Bush’s State of the Union or Republican conventions. On the final night of the Republican Convention in 2004, Fox beat all broadcast and cable networks in total viewers.

But the beauty of this is not that a lot of Fox viewers will be watching. Fox’s audience is demonstrably unfriendly to Obama and Democrats. A Rasmussen poll found that nine out of ten Fox viewers say that they will vote for McCain. No, the real benefit is that the meeting of these minds (or one mind and one moldy loofah) will be the story itself. And that story will resonate for days. Obama’s courageous venture into the arena of a well known, antagonistic bully, will make for some riveting TV. And for this to occur as McCain has just announced that he is boycotting Larry King (that’s right, Scary Larry) makes it even easier to highlight the differences between these candidates.

Obama needs to go into this interview expecting O’Reilly to have a knife under his coat. He must remain calm, but be prepared to stand up for himself in an adult manner (that alone will throw O’Reilly off). O’Reilly will want this to devolve into a brawl. His questions will contain some substance because his ego will drive him to seek credibility, but he will also touch on minutiae like Rev. Wright, 60’s radicals, and Hillary voters. Obama is smart enough to avoid the traps, but he must stay aware and not let O’Reilly take control. He must be there to promote his agenda, not O’Reilly’s. And he must remember that this interview will be broadcast on McCain’s big night and take full advantage of the opportunity that represents.

If there were ever a time to use a hackneyed TV biz cliche, it’s now: Stay tuned!

Update: For anyone wondering why O’Reilly would book Obama on the same night as McCain’s acceptance speech, the Associated Press sheds some light and confirms that, in this negotiation, Obama dominated the Factor:

“Host Bill O’Reilly acknowledged he’s getting heat from his fans for the timing […] ‘I would have rather had him on next week,’ O’Reilly said. ‘I might not get another shot at this so I better take it.’“


Obama “Lit Into” Ailes At Secret Meeting With Murdoch

Posted by on September 2, 2008 at 3:27 pm. 1 Comments :

Michael Wolff, contributing editor at Vanity Fair, is preparing to release an authorized biography of News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch. The book, appropriately titled “The Man Who Owns The News,” will be out some time between December and February, depending on what source you believe, and the author was given significant access to his subject. In advance of publication Wolff has written an article describing his encounters with the Media Mephistopheles that includes an account of a secret meeting with a reluctant Barack Obama.

“Obama…was snubbing Murdoch. Every time he reached out (Murdoch executives tried to get the Kennedys to help smooth the way to an introduction), nothing. The Fox stain was on Murdoch.”

“It wasn’t until early in the summer that Obama relented and a secret courtesy meeting was arranged. The meeting began with Murdoch sitting down, knee to knee with Obama, at the Waldorf-Astoria.”

This version of events is somewhat curious in that Obama had begun appearing on Fox News as early as January of 2008, six months prior to this meeting. I was highly critical at the time of Obama’s guest shot on “Fox & Friends,” probably the second worst booking he could have made after “The O’Reilly Factor” (on which he has still, so far, declined to appear [Update below]). After an inconsequential chat with Murdoch, Roger Ailes took his place before Obama, and that’s when the fireworks began:

“Obama lit into Ailes. He said that he didn’t want to waste his time talking to Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign, fearsome – just short of a terrorist.”

Ailes, unruffled, said it might not have been this way if Obama had more willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand.

A tentative truce, which may or may not have vast historical significance, was at that moment agreed upon.

From the exchange as related here, Obama forthrightly expressed the precise reasons that he was disinclined to show Fox News any respect. But as I noted above, he was not uniformly able to maintain his will power to say “no” to Fox.

However, it is Ailes’ response that is striking in its arrogance. By suggesting that Obama’s standoffish position with regard to Fox resulted in the rancidly slanderous coverage, Ailes is in effect blaming Obama for the dirty work for which Ailes himself is responsible. He is also admitting that the coverage was as predominately negative as Obama contended. That, of course, validates Obama’s decision to stay away from the network in the first place. And perhaps worse than any of that, Ailes is implying that he orchestrated the bad press as revenge for Obama not accepting Fox’s invitations to be abused on their air. Ailes has thus confessed that he believes that it is appropriate for a journalist to bash public figures who don’t obey a demand to appear. This is a position that Bill O’Reilly himself articulated when he threatened Democrats that, “If you dodge us, it is at your peril.” Fox is to journalism what Capone was to the beverage industry.

Elsewhere in the article, Wolff offers some insight into what he believes is an evolving Murdoch who may not be as enamored with either Ailes or O’Reilly as he once was.

“Fox has been his alter ego. For a long time he was in love with the Fox chief, Roger Ailes, because he was even more Murdoch than Murdoch. And yet now the embarrassment can’t be missed-he mumbles even more than usual when called on to justify it; he barely pretends to hide the way he feels about Bill O’Reilly.”

This allegedly stormy forecast for these media titans echoes a report last June in Gawker that queried whether Murdoch was about to fire Ailes. I struck down that theory at the time, and I stand by my position. But perhaps things are not so rosy as I thought. Perhaps Murdoch is evolving in ways I cannot imagine. When Wolff asked Murdoch for advice on who to vote for in November, he elicited this response from Murdoch:

“He paused, considered, nodded his head slowly: ‘Obama – he’ll sell more papers.'”

I guess Murdoch is getting both softer and greedier with age.

Update: Just a few hours after this posting, O’Reilly announced that Obama will appear on his show this coming Thursday. Here is my analysis of this development.


Bill O’Reilly’s Favorite Outrageous Things

Posted by on September 1, 2008 at 3:56 pm. 4 Comments :

The bottomless fount of hilarity that is Bill O’Reilly has erupted once again. After MSNBC displayed humorous text on screen during a story about John McCain’s inability to remember how many houses he owns, Bill O’Reilly went nuts declaring that it was…

“…one of the most outrageous things that I’ve ever seen in my 35 years of journalism.”

Never mind that O’Reilly hasn’t spent 35 seconds in journalism, he still selectively ignores the much more offensive (and not humorously intended) examples of Fox News’ broadcasts:

A NewsCorpse.com Video:

As usual, O’Reilly injects a ridiculous measure of hyperbole to make a point that makes no sense, sets a new bar for hypocrisy, and reveals how deeply in denial this poor, sick man is. And he has never been one to shy away from hysterically overstating his demented viewpoints (see The O’Reilly Fear Factor: Collected Verses).

It’s not, of course, just O’Reilly. Fox News is famous for their utter lack of self awareness. A week ago they published an ad claiming that “CNN = Partisan Politics.” The ad misrepresented recent polling on viewer behavior in order to arrive at their false conclusion.

But it is O’Reilly who is the star of Fox News, and he certainly lives up to his billing. From his now famous “Do It Live” meltdown that was captured on tape, to his rude and physically assaultive “Don’t Block the Shot” tirade when he was desperate to attract Barack Obama’s attention, O’Reilly is plainly headed for an on air mental collapse that will make Howard Beale look like Katie Couric.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

America’s Barack

Posted by on August 29, 2008 at 3:57 pm. NO Comments :

America Is Back!

History was made on August 28, 2008, when Barack Obama accepted the nomination of the Democratic Party to run for President of the United States. On the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, the manifestation of that dream has come to pass. The fulfillment of this dream is a declaration that we can come back from the dark days of division that characterized the past eight years, and much of the past two hundred. And it is evidence that the people, when inspired, will rise up to take back their country. Barack Obama is merely the reflection of our own hopes and dreams. We are America, and…

America’s Barack

Get Your America’s Barack Stickers and T-Shirts today.

An excerpt from Obama’s acceptance speech:

“For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us – that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it – because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.”

With that declaration I was transformed from a contrarian bent primarily on defeating John McCain, to an affirmative supporter of Obama. My journey meandered through an attempt to draft Russ Feingold, to an advocate of John Edwards new found populism, to settling for an Obama candidacy that seemed at the time to be too conciliatory.

I dedicated myself to expressing my opposition to McCain via my art and words. (see McCain – NOPE). I have developed quite a collection of anti-McCain/Republican pieces. But, until now, I have not created a single piece that was “pro” anything.

That’s changed. I now have a candidate that I can forthrightly support. Someone who represents ideals that have driven my activism for years. My new work reflects that optimism. It’s a strange feeling for me. I know that a speech that articulates the views I cherish does not necessarily evolve into the actions and accomplishments I seek. But it is critical that the words be spoken. The goals cannot begin to be realized without the vocal intention to pursue them. And Obama is saying the right things.

Another speech by Martin Luther King included a phrase that shaped my life as an artist:

“We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible.”

I’m not sure that King meant the arts when he said “creative,” but that’s the way I chose to read it. And it’s one of the first recollections I have of perceiving art as an act of conscience and rebellion. Prior to that I drew a lot of superheroes and hot rods (I was twelve, at the time). I had become radicalized, and I knew that at least part of my work had to be devoted to making a better world.

If Obama continues to speak the sort of truths, and to address the sort of aspirations, that call people to unite for the high ideals illuminated in his acceptance speech, he will radicalize a new generation that will compel him, and his successors, to follow through on the dreams that he, and King, and millions of other compassionate citizens of the world have yearned for.

We ARE back. The people are back. Compassion is back. Justice is back.

America’s BAraCK


To Fox News Hurricane Gustav Is A Political Problem

Posted by on August 28, 2008 at 12:02 pm. 9 Comments :

Currently a top story for Fox News is one that is blaring this headline:

Gustav Threatens GOP Convention Plans

That’s right…The category 3 hurricane that is bearing down on the vulnerable population of New Orleans and the rest of the gulf coast, is identified by Fox News as merely a threat to the GOP. Never mind the millions of Americans in harm’s way who must be pretty anxious considering how awful this administration handled a similar threat a few years ago.

Giving Fox the benefit of a doubt, it may be entirely appropriate to report on the impact of a severe storm on what is one of the biggest events for the Republican presidential campaign. If the headline were simply an unfortunate phrasing that tipped the tone of the article toward an insensitivity that they didn’t intend, it could be forgiven. But the article contains some affirmation of the headline’s myopic self-centeredness. The constricted view is first expressed in a quote from Karl Rove, a FOX News analyst:

“The Republicans can’t seem to get a break when it comes to August and when it comes to the weather.”

According to Rove, it is the Republicans who are the victims of these dang storms. Why does God hate the GOP? Especially when they prayed so hard for him to smite the Democrats. White House press secretary Dana Perino also noticed the hardship that her party faces when she left open the possibility that Gustav could “rain on the Republicans’ plans.”

It really is all about the Republicans. At some point I may even summon up some sympathy for them. Not that they need my help. Fox News is always there to provide some positive reinforcement for the beleaguered Party who has to do battle with a political rock star:

“The Bush administration came under fire for appearing slow to react when Katrina struck New Orleans three years ago. Democratic speakers have reprised that criticism during their national convention in Denver, where so far no serious disruptions have occurred.”

Huh? In an article about a hurricane and its impact on GOP convention plans, Fox News finds a way to inject the totally unrelated notion of Democratic convention unrest. This has nothing to do with anything else in the column. It is purely an egregious attempt to sow some negativity, but with the promise of disruption that may yet occur – it just has not “so far.”

Can this get any more ridiculous? Sadly, yes.


Vote For John McCain For A Prison-Tested President

Posted by on August 27, 2008 at 4:37 pm. NO Comments :

Running for president requires great strength and stamina. The race is long and treacherous. John McCain has been forcefully pushing his argument that he is better qualified for the job than his opponent, Barack Obama. In fact, McCain contends that Obama is not qualified at all. The latest McCain ad says that Obama is “dangerously unprepared” to be president. So what makes McCain so ready to be Commander-in-Chief?

Purely from paying attention to McCain’s press releases and stump speeches, the primary qualification he possesses is his experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. He repeats the tale of his captivity with every opportunity that presents itself. Even when there is no opportunity, he labors to wedge the story in anyway. It’s the foundation of his policy positions and his excuse for any mistake he’s ever made. So I thought I’d help him out and produce a poster that features his best case for inhabiting the White House:

McCain is the only candidate who can claim to possess leadership forged by prison. While his comrades were fighting in the jungle, engaging the enemy, developing battle plans, and accumulating command skills, McCain was sitting in a musty cell, enduring interrogations (where he eventually divulged tactical information and confessed to war crimes), and generally following the orders of his captors. What better preparation is there for high office in Washington, DC?

McCain shares a legacy of Republican lawmakers who have run afoul of the law. His own brush with the American criminal justice system came via his association with convicted banker, Charles Keating. And his Navy pilot colleague, Duke Cunningham, is presently serving an eight year sentence for conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion. McCain’s more recent band of brothers range from criminal figures like Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy, to convicted obstructer of justice Oliver North, to pardoned perjurer Scooter Libby, to indicted bribery defendant and Senate pal Ted Stevens.

McCain’s own incarceration was not due to any stateside criminality. He was honorably serving his country at war and was shot out of the sky by the enemy. But since he has raised his captivity as evidence of his fitness to be president, then it’s only fair to place it in the context of others whose imprisonment may have enhanced their character and leadership ability as well.

McCain and his campaign staff have sought to grant immunity to McCain for any misdeeds he might perform. They assert that no one who has served his country the way McCain did could possibly ever do anything wrong. (Tell that to Duke Cunningham). But if that’s true, they better open up America’s prison gates and release the thousands of veterans who sadly went astray and committed acts of violence, greed, and drug abuse. Many of their lives were thrown off course as a direct result of their military service. They returned home to poverty and despair, and many were abandoned by their country when they were in need. But with the criteria that McCain has now introduced with which to measure leadership potential, perhaps we need to reexamine the cons and ex-cons whose incarceration has presumably transformed them into the same sort of leader that McCain is.

It’s not particularly surprising that McCain would chose to highlight this part of his resume, because the remainder of his public career was as a senator who was undistinguished other than as a rubber stamp for the Bush administration. That’s why he has to dig back 40 years to find something to recommend him to a new generation of American voters, many of whom weren’t even born when the Vietnam war was being fought. If residence in a prisoner of war camp 40 years ago qualifies one for the presidency, then how much better is it to have a more recent prison record?

To be clear, I am not comparing imprisonment by enemy captors to that of law breakers. One should evoke expressions of sympathy and gratitude, and the other punishment and, perhaps, mercy. But the actual activity engaged in by prisoners is not exactly a prerequisite for executive management. The solitary and monotonous experience of life in a cell may produce some profound lessons, but none of them relate to governing a country. If McCain wants to persuade people that he is more qualified to be president than Obama, he had better find a more persuasive argument.


US News Reporting On Glitches

Posted by on August 26, 2008 at 3:33 pm. NO Comments :

US News & World Report has an item on recent polling of the presidential race:

“One intriguing result from Sunday’s Washington Post/ABC poll (which showed Barack Obama maintaining a narrow, 4 percent lead among likely voters) was the Democratic candidate’s vault over John McCain on the question of leadership.”

Not satisfied to simply publish the results of the poll, US News commenced to spinning vigorously. The article carried the headline: “Obama Moves Past McCain on Leadership-A Polling Glitch or Genuine Trend”

This is the sort of bias that Democrats face throughout the Conventional Media world. When they trail in the polls, the press eagerly report the collapse of the Party. When they lead, it is the result of a “glitch.”

US News characterizes the shift in leadership preference as “dramatic.” But their own reporting seems to imply that it was a steady trend over time:

“In March, those surveyed chose McCain as the stronger leader by a 53-40 margin. In June, McCain had a 47-44 lead. But in the August poll, Obama beats McCain by five points, 49-44. That is an 18-point switch in four months.”

Four months is a good stretch, and plenty of time to observe significant changes in voter attitudes. But US News implies that the shift came too quickly and is thus suspect. And this implication is pushed even though other polls affirm the results seen in the WaPo/ABC poll.

This is the sort of dishonesty in journalism that we’re up against, folks.