Will a Contributor please take apart THIS Newsweek swoon over Obama?

By smagar Posted in Archived — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Hat tip to RealClearPolitics.

This article by Richard Wolffe and Evan Thomas on how Saint...er, Barack Obama plans to deal with the GOP Visigoths left me speechless.

Hey, we all loved that SNL skit on how much the media is in the tank for Obama...

But, that was over a month ago. And they're still writing pieces like THIS? The fawning tone of this piece, written by two of Newsweek's lead political reporters, made me wonder if I'd pulled up the Onion's website by mistake.

O...M...G

If there's a Contributor out there who's debating which MSM article to devote his/her time to fisking over this Mothers Day weekend, I hereby nominate this one.

This example of kissy-face media bias demands more than a diary.

Has Newsweek really given up on trying to keep up appearances that it's not in the tank for Barack?

Gosh!

Newsweek cannot even claim to be objective anymore. by St. Louis Conservative

A few quotes stood out at me:

The Republican Party has been successfully scaring voters since 1968.

Well, there's nothing subtle about that.

McCain's top aides include some veterans of past Republican attack campaigns....

Yeah, McCain is hiring all those evil mean-spirited attack dogs, as if the Democrats don't do the same thing.

Maybe so, but desperate times can call for desperate measures. With his huge Internet network of donors, Obama can raise much more money than McCain. The Republicans will need those independent expenditures to try to keep up, no matter how distasteful the attack ads they buy.

...expanding on the "swift-boating Republicans" theme.

The whole thing is a pure puff-piece on Obama that portrays him as "being above" such things, while also assuring Newsweek's liberal readers that his team is tough enough to withstand the GOP's "mean-spirited attacks".

It's no surprise that Newsweek's circulation is tanking.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Reply To This — User Info — #1

I take this article as evidence that Newsweek has chosen... by smagar

deliberately, to market itself to the BusHitler crowd.

Honestly and seriously, they can't expect conservatives---or many moderates, in fact---to pay for their magazine if they run stuff like this.

These folks are not stupid. Evan Thomas is no Markos Moulitsas. They must know that a tone like this will irritate and offend us.

They can't plead ignorance, look us in the eye and say, "Well, I can't understand why you'd be so upset."

They must have deliberately chosen that they no longer care if conservatives and Republicans feel that Newsweek treats them fairly.

Much as CNN must have chosen, when it ran the YouTube debate of "Republican" voters.

Much as the Washington Post must have chosen, when it allowed much of the political voice for its online verson to be expressed by the "thoughts" of Dan Froomkin.

They all knew precisely what they were doing. It's not as if they don't know they're offending conservatives, or being unfair to them.

They know full well. They simply don't care. They've written us off, as potential readers, and people whose opinions they value and trust they desire to win.

This Newsweek piece is one more bit of evidence.

OK, then. If we didn't know before now, we do know now.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Reply To This — User Info — #2

Rush knows these bad actors so well by pilgrim

from the NewsWeak article:

So if McCain's camp does try to exploit Obama's ties to the fiery Reverend Wright, the Obama-ites can question his sincerity—is he really the "Straight Talk" candidate? And if McCain can't stop others from the sort of innuendo and code that Republicans have learned to frighten voters, Obama can cast doubt on McCain's credentials as a commander in chief. ("In other words," says liberal political pundit Mark Shields, "they can say that McCain is either a hypocrite or impotent.")

Rush has been sayin for quite a while now that this is going to be their means of attacking McCain.

The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple

Reply To This — User Info — #4

Is he referring to us, or some other people? by Andysforsmalgovernment

"merchants of slime and sellers of hate who populate the Internet and fund the "independent expenditure" groups who exercise their freedom in ways that give a bad name to free speech."

I thought it sounded more like KOS. Could be wrong, I guess.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
A. Lincoln

Reply To This — User Info — #5

Redstate