Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Cross-posted from Blue News Tribune. I try to avoid writing diaries that say "The media sucks," because it's such a cliche and so easy. But sometimes ...
During their September 10 editions, the three evening network news programs cumulatively devoted more coverage to Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's September 9 joint address to Congress on health reform -- in which Wilson claimed President Obama lied when he said "our reform efforts" would not "insure illegal immigrants" -- than they allotted to the speech itself. Moreover, while ABC's Jake Tapper explicitly stated that "the president's reforms" would not "apply to illegal immigrants" and NBC's Kelly O'Donnell said that "the bill, as it's written now, is explicit saying that illegal immigrants will not get any health care benefits in reform," the CBS Evening News did not attempt to fact-check Wilson's interjection.
More at http://mediamatters.org/resear...
This is the sort of meta-item you can really make yourself crazy about. (Was this a deliberate strategy? Why did the media enable it? Etc., etc.)
I guess I'll just focus on the most basic questions:
1. Why would any news producer allow coverage of Wilson to be anything more than a footnote?
2. Would the coverage be the same if Bush was president and Wilson was a Democrat? (Dems say "It wouldn't have happened," and history favors us on that.)
But, I have to be honest: If Wilson were a Democrat, I'd be annoyed by the coverage and would say let's move on.
As is, I'm annoyed by the coverage. Let's move on.
