Project Wonderful Banner

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

That damned plane

What's Mallard raving about today?

Washington Post, Washington Times. Barack Obama

There can be no other possible explanation...

For example, it's not possible that "Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic."

Because that would be just silly.

That said, this revelation proves that since Sarah Palin got more coverage than Joe Biden, there was clear Media bias in favor of Republicans. So I think we're even.


exanonymous said...


Conservatives, make a choice.

Either the reporters in question were fair and non-partisan, which makes the decision to replace them with other reporters simply a matter of seat reshuffling, or they're victims of liberal conspiracy to deny conservatives the right to fly with the candidate on the final days on the campaign trail, which makes sense because liberals were footing the bill and conservatives could pay to fly their own special reporters to the destinations of the plane.

But this BS of fair tough journalists with integrity being kicked off because libruls are evul and hateful towards conservatives is downright nonsensical.

Not to mention Obama wasn't the first to do it, nor the last.

Nick said...

Panel 1: Duck reporting "Fox News has not admitted that its coverage of the 2008 election was ferociously biased in favor of McCain/Palin." In background, Fox News website alleging Obama is an Kenyan-born Muslim.

Panel 2: Duck with one eyebrow raised, looking at watch.

Panel 3: "Sorry. I was waiting for the howls of infuriation from the media."

Anthony said...

Wasn't McCain throwing reporters off his plane? People with glass planes...

Randall said...

Shall we read what the ombudsman actually wrote?

The omsbudsman says that for the whole campaign, (starting Nov 11, 2007) there were 946 Obama stories and 786 McCain stories. Do the math; Obama got 20% more stories.

The difference is mostly explained by one simple fact: McCain clinched the nomination early, whereas Obama battled nearly to the convention.

This is not a matter of bias; it merely reporting news. The omsbudsman fails to note that the Post was running Hillary stories at the same time; if the total of McCain+ Hillary stories did not outnumber Obama stories, then it would be a very bad paper indeed.

The numbers after June 4, 20: 626 Obama/ 584 McCain. Doing the math, Obama gets 7% more stories than Mccain.


Keeping in mind that Palin sucked up a lot of coverage that otherwise would have gone to McCain ... and that this was BY MCCAIN'S OWN PLAN ... it's clear that there is little evidence of actual newsreporting "bias".

Butthe Ombudsman gives McCain a fat sloppy kiss in her own piece "Leahy's first piece on McCain's father and grandfather, both admirals, told me where McCain got his maverick ways". She loves that "Maverick" kool-aid.

In any event, most of the coverage was about the horse race, not about the issues. That's not bias one way or the other.

Now there was one clear tilt: the editorial page preferred the smart young guy to the grouchy old crank. I can't see an honest cartoonist complaining about that, unless of course Tinkley is willing to analyze the bias in his own opinion pieces.

Anonymous said...

Good point about Palin getting far more coverage than Biden. Of course, that coverage consisted almost entirely of wholly incorrect but juicy claims that she was forbidding evolution from being taught, banning books, etc. Biden's almost daily, moronic gaffes got virtually no MSM attention. Had Palin stated that FDR took to the television in 1929 to explain the Depression, such stupidity would have been the lead news story on every network, along with the demand she step down. Biden got a pass, just as Obama is getting a pass for his ties to the corrupt Illinois political machine.
(PS, I didn't vote for the idiotic McCain/Palin ticket either, but wish you'd accept the fact that both parties are full of corruption and bad for common Americans.)

Randall said...

P.S. why does Mallard say "now admits" in referring to something the omsbudsman wrote in early November?

GeoX said...

So not only does Tinsley imagine, hilariously, that the Washington Times represents tough, unbiased reporting, he is also apparently A-okay with the fact that it belongs to a crazy, Messianic Korean cult leader who openly hates America. I'm trying to imagine the reaction if such an individual ran a LEFT-wing propaganda organ.

dlauthor said...

We know, Tinzanonymous. You're a "independent," not a Republican.


Michael said...

Oh god Mallard. After 7 years of Bush, now you're concerned about a president who limits the access of reporters who ask tough questions? In your next cartoon, will you complain that Obama might get rid of habeus corpus or spy on our citizens without wiretaps?

Good news: Duck and Cover has its first concern troll!

Factinista said...

Anon: Biden got a free pass because he's been in the public spotlight for decades, and the public is well aware that he actually knows better. Not the case with Palin.

Kyle said...

You have to credit Tinsley, he illustrates six-week-old stuff poorly and the checks come rolling in. This is hypocritical as pointed out because of McCain, who initially was hosting BBQs for reporters, later throwing the press off his Straight Talk Express.

Anonymous said...

Hey Ducky.

Google "John McCain, Dunkin' Donuts" and "John McCain, BBQ"

Then shut then hell up.

Kaitlyn said...

Who could say Biden was ignored if his gaffes were mentioned on the Daily Show?

But yeah, what factinista said, Palin was new and shiny. Biden's been around forever, he's boring, even though he says cringe-worthy things.

Not that saying cringe-worthy things has ever stopped someone from holding office in this country.