Hillary and the Media
Have they been fair to her? Ever since Obama won the Iowa vote, the Press and full media went for him. I think the SuperDelegates went with the Media.
The States Clinton won were announced in the Media but alway followed by the number of SuperDelegates Obama has. When Obama won a State, it was followed by Hilary should drop out.
Wicked Yankee Girl
The media has been horrible, particularly MSNBC.
And yes, I agree Joe, that it even got slanted in the tone in which they reported the primary results
I agree. Though this phenomenon was even more striking 4 years ago, when many superdelegates pledged support for Dean before even Iowa! The question, though, is - should the media really be objective? They want a bigger story, and Obama is their darling - should we blame them? Or, should we have government-supported media a la BBC that would be more objective (BTW, I do not consider our NPR objective in any real way, even though that is the default station on my car radio).
Originally Posted by Joesitz
BTW, as I was re-reading Anna Karenina a few years ago, I was struck by something that was so similar to Iraq wound-up in the media, it made me gasp. It's toward the very end of the book, and Levin, his brother, and his father-in-law are discussing whether the Russian people are really truly so much in support of the Balkan war. Sergei Ivanovich (Levin's brother) is making an argument that there is "unanimity" is all segments of society regarding the Slavic brotherhood and the need to support the war. The old Shtcherbatsky responds cynically: "So it is with unanimity of the press ... As soon as there's war, their incomes are doubled. How can they help believing in the destinies of the people and the Slavonic races and all that?" Basically, nothing has changed since Tolstoy's times.
Actually, some other parts of that conversation are just so eerily familiar! You can go here - http://books.google.com/books?id=f5J...ZvnNvA#PPA1852 - and see for yourself.