http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/atlantic-hires-leni-riefenstahl-for.html

That phrase is right out of the Alinsky playbook, by the way…

But I’d love to hear a recording of all these journalists, at some Washington D.C. cocktail party where they think no one is listening, where they let their hair down and say what they really think. I suspect your opinion would prove correct.

After all, look at what Senator Obama did in San Francisco when he thought no one outside would here. Those small town America rubes, clinging to their guns, their God, their xenophobia!

Catch them in “private” saying what they really think, and you lose all respect for them.

It’s not bias. It’s vindictive, cheating, mofos.

That’s not bias. Bias is not inherently dishonorable or bad. We all have it. We all, however, aren’t vindictive, cheating, mofos.

The article identifies some of those performing the criticism of ABC:

“It was another step downward for network news and in particular ABC News … whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances,” Washington Post critic Tom Shales wrote in a blistering review that got wide Internet play.

Nearly 17,000 comments flooded ABC News’ Web site, many of them pouring scorn on the moderators

That’s the extent of the article identifying the critics.

Next I tried to construct the timeline:

- Clinton and Obama debate on 1/30/2008 This is the big pre-Super-Tuesday debate

- Clinton and Obama debate on 2/21/2008 This is the debate before the other big primary day, involving Texas, Ohio, Vermont, Rhode Island

- At this point criticism intensifies over the favorable treatment of Obama compared to Clinton. (Criticism had been building for awhile)

- On 2/23/2008, Saturday Night Live executed its famous skit where the media fawned over Barack Obama, asking if he’d like a pillow, sending vicious questions Clinton’s way

- No further debates for quite some time (seven weeks), especially since the next big primary would not be until late April (Pennsylvania). Or were there other debates? I can’t find a record of them.

- The criticism over this seven week period, and the fame of the SNL skit, ballooned. Consensus grew that Obama had received incredibly preferential treatment compared to Clinton.

- On 4/16/2008 the ABC debate moderated by George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson occurred, just prior to the Pennsylvania primary.

- The following day, Obama fans struck back, saying basically that ABC threw Obama to the wolves.

So I am left wondering, does Ozzie have a point?

Well, the critics cited in the Reuters post WERE in fact famously and slavishly (can I say that?) devoted to Obama. HuffPo and Kos are well known far-left blogs that are ardently pro-Obama, and were clearly anti-Clinton. The Washington Post was in the bag for Obama from early on. The fact that they, and 17,000 posters, inundated ABC with criticism is to be expected.

I remember George Stephanopoulos reacting badly to the tsunami of criticism over this debate.

My question is, what did ABC take away from the debate and its aftermath?
Another question is: If ABC was, in fact, pro-Clinton, does it matter? That would make ABC pro-Democrat. After Obama’s victory, they would be expected to promote Obama from then on.

Or is Ozzie claiming that ABC is neutral and does not carry a Democrat bias?
Ozzie doesn’t claim that. As with Dg on other posts I’ve questioned, he doesn’t quite come out and say that. He just says he “had a flashback”. No conclusion…

If you view Gibson’s Obama interview and compare it to the Palin interview, it just gets worse and worse the more you view it.

With Obama, Gibson takes off his glasses at one point and totally becomes empathetic. We later find the glasses far down his nose as he looks over them in a friendly manner. It’s so relaxed and so non-confrontational. Examining the Palin interview, the questions are *so much more pointed and challenging* that it actually is shocking.

Shocking, at least, if you believe that the tone and manner of questioning should have been approximately equal.

My conclusion is that there is no rational explanation for the difference beyond media bias. I can’t explain the exact reason behind the bias in this case. Were George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson so seared by the criticism from the far-left Obama supporters that they fell into line into the pro-Obama camp? Or is this simply longstanding anti-Republican bias?

Is this the bias of the establishment elite against “the outsider”, Governor Palin?
There’s an extremely interesting article out right now:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/552kbtvz.asp
It claims that the bias against Sarah Palin has even more to do with the fact that she is outside the “elite establishment”, that she is simply of the common people, than it is that she is a staunch Republican. Great article, I recommend it highly.

I can’t explain it, but just as with pornography, I know it when I see it: And what I see on display is outrageous media bias.

The link to the Obama Gibson interview, again, is:

I think if people read that post again and its comments, they might get a little nostalgia feeling in relation to this topic.

Rule 1. Don’t trust the media.

Rule 2. Get ready to be stabbed in the back.

Rule 3. Attack and obliterate the media before you are attacked.

Class doesn’t win wars; at least, that is what the Left would tell you.

They are the judge: of course they are impartial.

ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview

http://tinyurl.com/3nolj7

I understand the reason for the interview is greater exposure for Palin, but one would think that Gibson would have conducted the interview with a little class.