Wash Post: oopsy daisy! We WERE biased for Obama after all!

[Crowish]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html?nav=hcmodule)

:rolleyes:

[Crowish]

1333 comments now LOL.

[SnappleLlama]

I actually applaud the fact that they admitted to it. Usually, nobody says a word. Of course, it's much easier to be so generous about it now...

[Roxi]

just an attempt to drum up the rush limbaugh crowd against the 'liberal media'. the article makes no real mention of the lack of coverage for ideas outside the 2 headed monster that were the major party candidates.

[devil21]

Can someone post the text? It keeps asking me to register and I won't do that.

[WRellim]

Right at the beginning of the article:


The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

Gee, you think it might have been more useful for them to end the surveys and analyze them BEFORE it was too late to make a difference?

This is like having the Fire Department present you with a report that says:

"Oops, a lot of people told us your house was on fire... and it looks like they were right. Sorry we didn't DO anything about it."

And I note that there doesn't seem to be anything really "substantive" that they plan on doing in the future to prevent the same thing... ergo this is just a bunch of journalistic masturbation.

[Cleaner44]

I always find this crap funny because who in the hell reads newspapers anymore anyway. Newspapers are dying and their demographics, the baby boomers are the only people that care.

Keep your fishwrap and whatever biased bullshit you print, I ain't buyin!

[A. Havnes]

I always find this crap funny because who in the hell reads newspapers anymore anyway. Newspapers are dying and their demographics, the baby boomers are the only people that care.

Keep your fishwrap and whatever biased bullshit you print, I ain't buyin!

There's a lot of baby boomers, and most of them vote!

[Theocrat]

I guess the Washington Post felt they had to blackout any other candidates in hope that their readers wouldn't feel like the minority being overwhelmed with so much information about this dark election. The color of this Presidential race was bright and glorious in the beginning when the Primaries were full of multitudes of voters excited about the hope their candidate would win in the end.

One candidate stood out like a sore thumb, and he didn't have to brown-nose the media in order to receive adequate coverage. He was like a black sheep in a room full of pale donkeys, and the networks immediately picked up on this. He was treasured like refined oil in a murky well, and they carried him on a platform as if he was a king. This was no deserted panther, but a regal lion they saw. He was as lush as Africa, and bigger than the world, as far as the media was concerned. His dark past was bypassed for the chance to make him a token of Americana.

Thus, this candidate was pushed to the forefront almost as quickly as Rosa Parks was to be shoved in the back of the bus in the days of anti-Afrocentricism. What led months later would be deemed a victory for an "oppressed" community, and most assuredly, racism had nothing to do with the coverage of his Presidential race. ;)