Perverted sense of objectivity prompts media to cover for Republican obstructionism

Don’t hold your breath waiting for stuff like THIS to trigger any soul-searching among the mainstream media:

Against overwhelming evidence that Republicans have plotted to obstruct everything President Obama does, even the things they agree with, the mainstream media has stubbornly insisted that “both sides” are the problem, that there’s just a “polarization” problem in DC. In an interview on Current TV’s “The War Room with Jennifer Granholm,” Politico’s Joe Williams says that the press has been cowed into this perversion of “objectivity” by a right-wing that specializes in working the ref (I’m paraphrasing, of course).

The Republicans’ obstruction of President Obama at every turn, aside from being more obvious than the evacuation habits of ursine mammals, has been traced to the very day Obama took office, when Republicans made a pact to block anything and everything he would ever try to do to fix the economy, even those things they agreed with. That pact remains in effect today, enforced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Despite this plain reality, the Beltway press has continued to act as though the DC gridlock is a two-way problem.


“[S]ooner or later, it becomes pretty obvious,” Williams continued, “especially when the President points out that some of the things he’s proposing that will fix the economy in years past have been universally loved by Republicans. They voted for transportation packages, they voted for infrastructure spending in the past–these were not controversial proposals until President Obama seemed to put his name on it. Then, all of a sudden, it became something that was untouchable–something the republicans didn’t even want to consider, much less hold a vote on.”


The press needs to realize that when conservatives whine about “liberal bias,” what they’re really complaining about is an absence of conservative bias. Until they do, things like the plainly obvious GOP sabotage of the economy will continue unchecked.



  1. expdoc

    Perverted sense of objectivity from the point of view of the left no doubt.

    The left wing is so used to having a complicit press that any sense of true balance in reporting is like a slap in the face to the lefties.

  2. Poor doc! He says the left is “used to having a complicit press.”

    Of course, this ignores certain inconvenient facts:

    The biggest selling daily newspaper in the country has a right-wing editorial policy.

    The most-watched (by far) of the cable news outlets is relentlessly right-wing.

    The top-rated talk shows on radio (Limbaugh, Hannity, et al) are relentlessly right-wing.

    But doc wants us to believe that the media are all conspiring against him and his wingnut heroes.

  3. expdoc

    Ah but Pat, I said “used to”.

    I totally agree with you that the situation is changed and that is my exact point. All of the main stream media outlets are businesses (in fact, evil mega-corporations).

    The traditionally left wing media saw that the news stations and newspapers garnering sales were right of center or at least balanced. Despite the inherent personal biases of most of those who populate news rooms. they have adapted and have also become more centered in their presentation. This general shift toward a middle of the road editorial policy of course excludes MSNBC, the home of the most hilariously entertaining troupe of left wing pundits you will ever find.

    This iritates lefties such as yourself, no?

  4. Chuck Sweeny

    Everybody is welcome to start their own blogs with the news from their own points of view. Or, as Doug Aurand says, their “bogs.”

  5. Luke Fredrickson

    Where is the “left-leaning” media outcry when Teddy Biondo refuses to comply with state law? Oh…they’re saying it is ok for Teddy beacuse he’s an old, trusted friend.

  6. expdoc

    Oh no. It looks like Pat was right, the media is out to get the President. Some of the comments listed in the link are pretty harsh.


    Prior to President Barack Obama’s marathon 54 minute speech in Ohio today, the Obama campaign sent our several statements promising the speech would be a major address framing the campaign going forward. Despite the hype, the speech was mainly a rehash of themes and ideas from the president’s recent stump speeches and his remarks were widely panned as overly long by the political press corps.
    In the speech, President Obama outlined his view that this election is a choice between “two fundamentally different views of which direction America should take.” He characterized Mitt Romney’s vision as being the same as the “policies of the last decade,” specifically deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy while he described his own “vision for America” as boiling down to five things: “Education. Energy. Innovation. Infrastructure. And a tax code focused on American job creation and balanced deficit reduction.” President Obama also stressed that the economic crisis began during the Bush administration and that is “started growing again” after he took office and has since “continued to grow.”

    All of these points have already been featured in the president’s other recent speeches. Between the pre-speech hype from the campaign, the lack of new material and the overall length of the speech reporters were clearly dissatisfied with end result. Read on for a sampling of Tweets from the political press slamming the president’s speech.

  7. doc: That crap is totally irrelevant to the point of this post.

  8. expdoc

    That crap seems to be quotes from the press corp that are members of the press that you featured in this post.

    Your sense of connectivity is skewed.

  9. Doc is right in one regard; the press (now right-wing) certainly saw the writing on the wall, and now, being profit-driven, panders to the majority – who tend to sit on the left side of the bellcurve.


  10. expdoc

    Peter’s response is so classic that I just have to presume that he is a liberal. You know, call the people you disagree with stupid or racist and hope they go away.

    Because statistical analysis is complicated and so that Peter doesn’t get confused, there is this from his link.

    “Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren’t implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

    “There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals,” Hodson said.

    Nosek gave another example to illustrate the dangers of taking the findings too literally.

    “We can say definitively men are taller than women on average,” he said. “But you can’t say if you take a random man and you take a random woman that the man is going to be taller. There’s plenty of overlap.””

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *