The Hot Blog

Come on Dave, this shit is beneath you referencing. SNL takes a legitimate poke at the press for softballing Obama (something members of the press admit to), and you reference a wacked-out right-wing writer's conspiracy. SNL's joke was funny because it was true. Obama supporters who can't take the joke are so delusional, it's making that whole religious cult-seeming overtone to his campaign look scary.

Adam McKay, who worked with Jim Downey for years, would seem to have a reasonable knowledge of Jim's politics.

If anyone has had a cakewalk from the media in this election cycle, it's Hillary Clinton. And even today, we are beginning to see the media waking up from last week's spin.

Doesn't it surprise you to hear - if you listen - to the right and Clinton's camp saying the exact same things about Obama for weeks now?

Do you think, for a second, that there is anyone on the right would wouldn't prefer to race against HC?

SNL clearly went after Obama and for Hillary in the last two weeks. There are elements that ring true and are funny, yes. We'll see, I guess, whether there is any balance this week as the media sells "The Big Win" after Clinton lost over 15% of the vote in Texas that she had last month and more than 10% in Ohio. Will they tell the joke about Hillary attacking any potential vulnerability, real or imaginary, in order to win?

We'll see.

But this story... just the facts, man. Downey came back and is writing. Downey is Republican. The show told the story that Clinton and the right have been telling all week. You get to decide if that's a coincidence, but don't shoot at me for offering the info that Adam McKay had and I did not.

And btw, the press started "admitting" they were being soft after they were pilloried by the Clinton campaign. This is classic PR spin... just the way that critics find a crap summer movie to embrace within weeks of stories about us being out of touch start coming out... every single summer.

"If anyone has had a cakewalk from the media in this election cycle, it's Hillary Clinton."

Really? It seems to me that she's had a noticeably tougher time of things than either exciting-new-guy Obama or media darling McCain.

Dave, you're way off on this one. The media was invariably being tougher on Hillary. I don't even watch TV, and I could observe it just through online and print. I don't think that it was intentional -- I think a large portion of the press simply fell under his spell and that invariably influenced their coverage. But that is what was happening.

The media has been tougher on Hillary historically; as in, they've been tough on her since she was First Lady. But during this actual primary, how exactly has the media been tough on her? Obama has had to deal with Reszko, being "Muslim" and all sorts of ridiculous attacks and Hillary isn't even being scrutinized for not showing the world her tax returns. I happen to like both candidates with a preference for Obama, but it seems like from the jump, everyone has been ready to criticize Obama for having the audacity to run on a platform of hope and change. "Pshaw, hope and change? That's ludicrous!"

It seems to me that the media has been quick to challenge Obama on his "experience" while ignoring the fact that Hillary's "experience" consists of lying next to the guy who "answered the phone" for eight years.

There was just a general distortion I found. For instance, after Super Tuesday the media was making a big deal that Obama won more delegates -- and the way it was covered made you believe he was the front runner and Hillary was a has-been. When, in reality, Hillary was still the overall delegate leader -- and she remained such only until later in Feb. It wasn't that anything they said was false, it's just the way the information was being presented.

Oh, and I don't think the GOP is necessarily pro-Clinton and anti-Obama. I think they're yo-yo-ing and playing the Dems.

Early on, they were talking about what an awful candidate Hillary would be. What happened? People believed that and migrated to Obama. Then what? Obama gains the upper-hand and now it's: Vote Hillary! Their strategy is to confuse things and maintain the Democratic deadlock, because in their estimation it's bad for the party and whoever the ultimate nominee is.

Fiddle...fiddle...fiddle...

I think you're definitely right on that score, Mutiny. You know the GOP is loving that the Dems look indecisive right now, giving McCain ample time to get support from the base while the Hillary/Obama continues on forever. They're loving that by the time McCain takes on Obama (a probability considering the delegate totals), he won't have to say anything negative about the man because Hillary will have said it all by then. It's no surprise that the Governor or Florida is in favor of a redo of the primary, he's a Republican, so why not have the Dems bicker for another few months while McCain locks up the GOP vote. This is another instance of the Dems shooting themselves in the foot.

It is and it isn't: having Clinton and Obama in the headlines is beneficial to them and to the party in terms of keeping voters excited, registering new voters, etc. The downside is if they go negative, which is of course what Clinton has been doing. ˙

At the same time, every pre-Iowa debate was prefaced by almost unanimous "Hillary pretty much has this race in the bag" accolades by pundits and commentators. Then people voted and a different dynamic appeared and, frankly, the press found it to be a more interesting story ("an up-and-coming challenger taking on the seemingly unstoppable machine candidate). Is it fair? No, but neither are months of "Clinton has this sewed up" long before anyone cast a vote.

The press does what it does to draw attention. Jon Stewart summed it up by saying the press is like seven-year-olds playing soccer. They jumble around in a big mound and when the ball pops out and rolls somewhere else, they form a big mound over that.

Dead on, JS via LB

L.B. made the point I wanted to make. Why was no one complaining about coverage on Obama or Clinton during most of last year when the news media was crowning Clinton the nomination before a single primary happened? They were also saying Giuliani had the Republican nomination in the bag, while McCain was largely ignored.

Is this really a story about bias towards one candidate or more about how the news media spends more time cheerleading for presumed front-runners while forgetting to ask tough questions of any of candidates on either side?

Does anyone really believe SNL's silliness that Clinton has been grilled unfairly? Because I can certainly come up with a few questions for her the press hasn't bothered to ask.

I wish the "unbiased media," journalists who are tasked with presenting "just the facts" (or who claim to do so) wouldn't pick candidates to build up or tear down. It's really a terrible abuse of their First Amendment rights. Free speech should be just that, but it is an abuse when editors and reporters claim to shooting straight but are clearly injecting their bias. Crusade for the story--not the damn candidates!

The thing I find funny about all this SNL hullaballoo is....no one old enough to vote really cares about that show anymore. I watch the show every week and realize it's totally not made for my demographic anymore. You can tell by the Top 40 bands they book all the time.

Then again, Wilco was on last week and Vampire Weekend is on tomorrow so maybe SNL is getting back to it's roots. But that will never happen until Keenan Thompson is removed from the building. That dude sucks so bad.

To say Hillary has had a tougher time with the media is to state that you are misinformed at best, and disingenuous at worst. The media were thrown off from the Iowa results, and had little to report on in February as loss after loss rolled in. Eleven straight losses? Obama would've been out of the public eye by now if he were on the opposite side of that coin.

Then, March rolled around and the smearing began. Awakening to the fact that a horse race benefits them, the media has erroneously gone with the Clinton campaign's narrative for seven straight days now. It has been unrelenting, and transparent at all turns. New York, especially, has gone all out for her from Jon Stewart to SNL to the Letterman appearance from a month ago being repeated in numerous packages.

Keith Olbermann spent a full fifteen minutes last night exposing the hypocritical bizzarro land that her campaign has fallen into. It was brutal.

Math is the new momentum now. As Michigan turns to a caucus, her chances have all but been obliterated, where before they were simply improbable.

I think the thing about SNL is that by the time it lands there, it is institutionalized, much like the cover of EW or something like that. Somehow, that confirms it is real.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: