Blankley likens media to Nazi propagandists

In a loathsome Washington Times column attacking reporters' treatment of Barack Obama, Tony Blankley likens the mainstream media to the official Nazi newspaper Völkischer Beobachter and to "Goebbels' disciples":

The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight out propagandists for the Obama campaign. While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08 for the first time, the major media are consciously covering for one candidate for president and consciously knifing the other. This is no longer journalism — it is simply propaganda. (The American left-wing version of the Volkischer Beobachter cannot be far behind.) And as a result, we are less than seven weeks away from possibly electing a president who has not been thoroughly and even half way honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs — the press.

...The mainstream media ruthlessly and endlessly repeats any McCain gaffes, while ignoring Obama gaffes. You have to go to weird little Internet sites to see all the stammering and stuttering that Mr. Obama needs before getting out a sentence fragment or two. But all you see on the networks is an eventual one or two clear sentences from Mr. Obama. Nor do you see Mr. Obama's ludicrous gaffe that Iran is a tiny country and no threat to us. Nor his 57 American states gaffe. Nor his forgetting, if he ever knew, that Russia has a veto in the United Nations. Nor his whining and puerile "come on" when he is being challenged. This is the kind of editing one would expect from Goebbels' disciples, not Cronkite's.

Blankley also engages in one of the most bizarre attempts at guilt by association that I've ever seen:

But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting, is the shocking gaps in Mr. Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply has not reported on Mr. Obama's two years at Columbia University in New York, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers— after which they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Mr. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Mr. Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks the media has focused on all the colleges Mrs. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago and the close criticism of Mrs. Palin's mayoral political opponents. But in two years they haven't bothered to see how close Mr. Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.

Bill Ayers lived "a mere quarter mile" away when Obama was at Columbia? So did tens of thousands of other people -- it's Manhattan!

Comments

[David]

Yes, Blankley's reference to Nazis is disgusting. And, his comment about Obama and Ayers living 1/4 mile away from each other is ludicrous.

However, Blankley's thesis is correct. The media have gone after Sarah Palin as if she's Public Enemy #1. They've sent dozens of investigative reporters, who have dredged up trivialities and false accusations. Since Palin had no national reputation, the mud sticks to her. Many Americans think she's weird.

Meanwhile, Obama has been coddled by the media. He also had little national reputation, so he could have been presented as weird; instead the media have presented him like the second coming of Superman.

In particular, Obama's relationship with terrorist Ayers hasn't been fully reported. Mostly it's the handful of conservative newspapers who have looked into this, e.g.,

CHICAGO - While Barack Obama has long downplayed his connection to Bill Ayers, a co-founder of the violent Weather Underground radical group, new documents show the two worked much more closely together in starting an educational foundation than has been previously known.

[Jay Livingston]

I just blogged this to the effect that Godwin's law applies to media outside of Usenet too. And it seems that the right is more drawn to Nazi comparisons than is the left.

[Howard Craft]

The stuff Blankley thinks should get reported in the MSM are the wacky non-MSM "outrage items" on Obama.

Conversely, the wacky non-MSM "outrage items" on Palin are somehow part of the MSM, in his view.

His idea of what the mainstream media is tends to expand or contract depending on what content he wants included or excluded.

But his thesis isn't that the coverage is uneven or preferential. His thesis is that there is a media conspiracy designed to hide the truth.

The evidence for the more moderate thesis is generally weak or subjective.

Is the media "out to get Palin"? That's debatable, but I can see where there is a strong interest to know more. Are one set of gaffs reported more prominently than another? Hard to say, but all gaffs aren't created equal.

The evidence for the more extreme thesis has the charm of being a circular argument. That is, there is a hidden Obama (the real person) and the proof is the media conspiracy to hide the truth.

[David]

One way to see that the media is out to get Palin is to consider that her popularity rating in Alaska is stupendous -- 75% to 80%. Nevertheless, the MSM reporters sent to Alaska wrote mostly negative stories about her. They managed that feat by talking to her political enemies rather than her supporters.

BTW I didn't mean to say that there's a "conspiracy." It's just that a mostly liberal media have made a similar decision to oppose Palin. (Similarly, there's no need for Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to conspire in opposing Obama. They oppose all liberals.) Palin encouraged the enmity by more-or-less declaring war on the media in her Convention speech.

Cindy Sheehan provides an example of liberal media pack mentality. When she was demonstrating against Bush and the Iraq war the media made her front-page news. It's not clear why her opinion mattered more than any other parent who had lost a child in the war -- the majority of whom supported the war. Furthermore, when Sheehan decided to run against Nancy Pelosi, she was no longer newsworthy.

[David]

From Instapundit:

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: "Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working." I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.

[Howard Craft]

On Palin, I didn't find that the MSM went to Alaska and only reported back negative stories. The only negative story I saw was the pattern of dismissing a number of "opposition" staff (at the city and state level). I think that got noted but wasn't played up as though it were a scandal or outrageous.

Her conduct as a mayor in this regard was a public issue in her race for governor - it is not as though these individuals were sought out - they had come forward years ago.

The "book-banning" story came from outside the MSM but the MSM was consistent in dismissing and clarifying it. I though they went out of their way to correct that misconception.

The ethics investigation got coverage. That was a given. The changing stance taken by Palin in terms of the investigation (to co-operate or not to co-operate) even seemed under-played.

I don't doubt that she is popular in Alaska but should that predispose the media to praise her?

*

On the second matter, you may see a uniform bias in the MSM but Blankley sees a conspiracy.

*

Regarding Cindy Sheehan, she was remarkable (newsworthy) because she spoke publicly and repeatedly and passionately. She became more note-worthy when the President wouldn't meet or speak with her privately.

No, I don't think her opinion mattered more than any other parents'. But I think she shared, with many Americans, a desire to know if the war was ever justified.

Her story was one of an individual (a concerned parent, suffering a loss) seeking an answer and eventually concluding that she needed to take a stand.

Her persistence made her remarkable and every time she persisted again it was possible to remark on her current attempt.

These components are absent in her run for office. As a political candidate she doesn't command special attention. As a citizen she was a bit audacious. As a candidate running for office she is a different type of figure.

In some ways, of course, she was a human interest story. The MSM often gives extra attention to "distinct individuals acting in the public eye". Running for Congress doesn't carry much human interest weight.

[Mike]

I believe the following is the most damaging:

The major media simply has not reported on Mr. Obama's two years at Columbia University in New York, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers— after which they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago.

Not that he lived within a quarter mile, but that they were associates. That is the damaging statement. There are lots of people within a quarter mile I don't agree with, but I am not their ally or associate.

Regards,

[Jack Davis]

I like this blog, but I think Mr.Nyhan does Blankley a great injustice. He doesn't show the entire sentence where Blankley talks about Obama's connection w/Ayers— the sentence ends with "after which they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago." Brendan doesn't show that and tries to make it look like Blankley is saying Ayers and Obama were close friends simply because they lived a 1/4 mile away.

Look, the liberal bias of the mainstream media is pretty obvious. Noam Chomsky, who will not be on Fox News anytime soon, has said the press is liberal. The basic theme of Blankley's article—that the MSM loves Obama and is favoring him—is absolutely correct. Yes, I found the Nazi analogy offensive and superfluous, but the basic point is correct.

[Howard Carft]

Jack - you make a good general point, that the existence of a liberal bias in the media can be a point of discussion. I would not concur with that statement myself without a lot of discussion of the particulars - who is included and what actually constitutes a "liberal bias".

I could even make a case that a "conservative bias" exits. Not just with some specific commentators or news outlets, but across the MSM with respect to a number of specific issues.

You may agree with what you consider to be a weaker case than the one Blankley makes but I think the difference between yours and is more than a matter of degree. In any case, it is important to consider what he actually wrote.