August 28, 2008

Media Cheers Obama Speech

@ 11:00 pm by Andy Barr

Several members of the media were seen cheering and clapping for Barack Obama as the Illinois senator accepted the Democratic nomination Thursday.

Standing on the periphery of the football field serving as the Democratic convention floor, dozens of men and women wearing green media floor passes chanted along with the crowd.

Two members of the foreign press exchanged opportunities to take each other's pictue while wearing an Obama hat and waving a flag.

Several others nearby screamed "woo" during some of Obama's biggest applause lines.

Archived under: Campaigns, News, Presidential Campaigns

82 Comments »

1. Most of the media has been standing on the sidelines (rather than digging for truth) cheering their black boy (Jimmy Carter's words).
   Tinsel, spectacal, smart…..but not even close to great. Genetic democrat.
   So much for change.
   I mean really, Biden?

   Hate to say it. (not really) He's gonna lose.

   Comment by geo — August 28, 2008 @ 11:22 pm

2. Really?

   The media likes BHO?

   I never would have guessed.

   RonT

   Comment by RonT — August 28, 2008 @ 11:25 pm

3. Can you name some names?

   Comment by cakesecret — August 28, 2008 @ 11:28 pm

4. I'm sure they'll do exactly the same for McCain next week.

   Don't you think so?

   Comment by Steven Den Beste — August 28, 2008 @ 11:39 pm

5. the media are the most dangerous people in America, beginning with David Gregory, Matthews, Brokaw, Olbermann, etc

   and of course, no one from Fox was asked to moderate debates

   Comment by AJ — August 28, 2008 @ 11:40 pm

6. You don't have to name names. Name some media outlets. That's what journalistic integrity would require. Otherwise, don't paint a bunch of random journalists with this brush.

   Geo — great dialog. Thanks for moving the country forward.

   Comment by Myron Pitts — August 28, 2008 @ 11:58 pm

7. Names?

   Comment by Cory — August 29, 2008 @ 12:04 am

8. Did they swallow?

   Comment by Cletus_The_Fetus — August 29, 2008 @ 12:04 am

9. an amazing, historic speech that changed the old dynamics and of course you cowards instantly attack it, not for any substantive reason, but because you hate America. You no longer believe (apparently) in America's ability to reinvent and renew herself.

   It's sad in a way.

   what's your next act? to blog about how horrible a rainbow is?

   Comment by James — August 29, 2008 @ 12:05 am

10. Olbermann and Matthews do it every night on live TV. This is no surprise. The MSM is completely in the tank and have thrown out all hints of objectivity. They have become advocates for the democrat party. That's a fact.

    Comment by Ron in Acreage — August 29, 2008 @ 12:09 am

11. Wait…is this the same Andy Barr that was with the Franken campaign? (Not criticizing, just wanting to make sure I noticed the right person).

    The thing about the press is that we know they're in the tank for Obama. It's one of the reasons why Obama has been down in the polls. Tonight, he'll have brought himself back up.

    Gallup's 3-day polling has him at 6 points up. By tomorrow, I anticipate he's at 10 points up. Then, from there, it goes back down to somewhere around 2 or 3 points due to the GOP conference.

    I'm looking at this realistically, and it's just seeming to be the ebb and flow of the polls. It's going to be a fight, regardless.

    Comment by Kumiko G — August 29, 2008 @ 12:11 am

12. Olbermann and Matthew were gushing and fawning all over the speech as if it were the greatest speech in the history of mankind. MSNBC is a joke and these two hacks have no business "reporting" on politics. Charles Babington (AP writer) wrote a piece immediately after the speech expressing concerns with the message and Olbermann about lost his lid not understanding how someone could possibly see the speech differently than he.

    Comment by RW — August 29, 2008 @ 12:12 am

13. To summ: Waaaaa

    Comment by James — August 29, 2008 @ 12:17 am

14. PMSNBC strikes agian! the fawning would be embarassing if it wasnt so pathetic. Williams is just as bad. I try to watch different news channels, but my wife gets mad when I yell at the T.V.

    Comment by Trugunny — August 29, 2008 @ 12:20 am

15. James, saying it don't make it so. What was amazing about the speech? Same old, same old. But the media will not scrutinize. It is not that I think McCain will be better for America; it's that I realize that B.O. could be so much worse. Jimmy Carter played the rhetoric game of change, but once a man takes the office the days of giving good speeches goes out the door.

    The horrible thing about a rainbow is its false promise of a pot of gold. The rainbow fades long before any gold is found.

    Comment by Sam Harris — August 29, 2008 @ 12:23 am

16. Don't bloggers get media passes too? I wouldn't throw them into the same category as the MSM. Don't get me wrong, I'm no lover of the media, but I also think they've been in the tank for McCain just as much, if not more than they have for Obama. As for the claims made, how about some documentation? Photos perhaps?

    Comment by Randy — August 29, 2008 @ 12:30 am

17. I'm surprised some weren't having orgasms.

    Comment by Mark — August 29, 2008 @ 12:30 am

18. A veritable media daisy-chain, congo line,
    group hug…..from the "neutral" purveyors
    of news. Don't tell Chris Matthews that I'm
    voting McCain. He'll have me in front of
    a Union firing squad for crimes against humanity.
    How can so many newsrooms be filled with
    legions of liberal twits and still have any
    standing with the electorate? The answer must
    lie in our public school curricula….get'em
    when the're young.

    Comment by Trajan — August 29, 2008 @ 12:33 am

19. I have no idea what buzzwords like "changed the old dynamics" mean, but I see no significant change in Sen. Obama's plans, save perhaps for magnitude. His party and his ilk have played the same tired old class-warfare, class-envy tactics to sell collectivist policies to the permanently aggrieved professional victims that their forebears created for them.

    Indeed, the Bush administration was a failure in one area: standing up to a domestic enemy which has no claim to this nation's flag or the reins of power.

    The Left's willing propaganda ministry has convinced half the country that they have no Hope, that they must have some unspecified (though actually quite simply coded for those who pay attention) "Change," and wouldn't you know it, here comes the One who can deliver it.

    Comment by Dirt McGirt — August 29, 2008 @ 12:34 am

20. Yes, the media like Obama. And the public hates the media.

    Do the math.

    Comment by Mister Snitch — August 29, 2008 @ 12:35 am

21. James

    Get over yourself. Just because you can't see Obama is a phony doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

    Ask yourself what did he REALLY say? What SUBSTANTIVE ideas did he actually present? How is he going to pay for some of his grandiose "plans?" Do you really believe he can/will cure cancer, reverse the tides, cause the sun to rise in the west, eliminate poverty? The man is an empty suit full of the usual liberal plans to remake America in to a socialist state.

    Comment by John — August 29, 2008 @ 12:40 am

22. Members of the mainstream media cheered Obama's speech

    Yes, they did:
    Standing on the periphery of the football field serving as the Democratic convention floor, dozens of men and women wearing green media floor passes chanted along with the crowd.
    Two members of the foreign press exchanged opportunities t…

    Trackback by Sister Toldjah — August 29, 2008 @ 12:41 am

23. Name names.

    Comment by K. Bowen — August 29, 2008 @ 12:42 am

24. No doubt that in general, MSMers are lovers of Obama… however, this report is lacking, as several above have pointed out. I'm sure many people got media passes who are honest, partisan journalists working for, in this case, leftist organizations, or in some other way have a media identity while being honestly partisan…. so unless you can name which media organizations these applauders belong to and the list includes some putative "objective" fair and balanced ones such CBS, NYTimes, Peoria Times or whatever, this may be a simple non story… and in fact, without such detail, it really is a nonstory.
    And I'm not arguing that many in the MSM, especially cable TV talking heads with initials such as KO, are not in bed with Obama… just saying this story isn't really dispositive…..

    Comment by nodakboy — August 29, 2008 @ 12:45 am

25. Shuster was seen high fiving the Kos crew.

    Comment by Steve — August 29, 2008 @ 12:46 am

26. Just watch MSNBC any night to find out what the majority of the Washington Press Corp think about Obama. Sycophantic doesn't begin to sum it up.

    If member of the McCain campaign were given microphones and press credentials, they could not be more biased than the people who are out there on TV/print covering this week in Denver or the speech which was given tonight.

    If you hear any person on TV say that Obama got into 'specifics, you know they are just reading the talking points and also believing them. There was absolutely nothing remotely specific about this speech - which was easily the worst teleprompter speech Obama has given in the last four years. By far. Not even close.

    Comment by bpjam — August 29, 2008 @ 12:48 am

27. As a green card holder, I'm not allowed to vote but I'm simply amazed at how many American people are fooled by Obama and the Democratic Party. Here's a potential president with nothing on his resume. Even as a professor in all the years he was there(11 years?), he didn't write 1 paper. All professors write papers/discertations over the course of their career. Simply amazing how he's risen with nothing to support his rise.

    Comment by Howie — August 29, 2008 @ 12:50 am

28. unless you think:

    1. This was the greatest night in American history - MSNBC

    or

    2. This speech will go into American History books - MSNBC

    you must be a racist

    Comment by bpjam — August 29, 2008 @ 12:51 am

29. PS: actually, it's good that this was reported; always better to have reports than not.
    I'm just saying I'm not sure it illustrates general MSM bias for Obama, or just that many partisan journalists - fairly and honestly and openly partisan, like "Nation" columnists, and whatnot - got media passes….
    also, instead of saying they are " in bed with Obama," I really meant to imply, nay to say directly, that such as KO talkinggianthead are creaming their jeans……
    and I don't even know what that means.

    Comment by nodakboy — August 29, 2008 @ 12:51 am

30. The MSM is out of control. We need to find a way to get Fox to bounce O'Reilly, Hannity, Brit Hume and the rest of these alleged journalists who are in the bag for the extreme right wing. But first the MSM needs to get rid of Limbaugh. He's the worst of the lot. But they are all a danger to the greatness of America.

    Comment by Cody Jarrett — August 29, 2008 @ 12:53 am

31. PS2: plus, you can do it quietly sitting in your chair and no one notices unless you stand up.
    And I don't even know what that means.

    Comment by nodakboy — August 29, 2008 @ 12:54 am

32. The media spent 3 days talking about the Clintons and disunity, instead of how the Republican party is in shambles with a majority of America wanting change. Ask a RSCCC chair what he thinks about his parties chances in November for reference to their dismal political state.

    The media played Rev Wright videos on loop for weeks and airs false McCain ads, which are only targeted towards the national media, without rebuttal.

    The media gives McCain pass after pass for all of his "senior moments"(quoting that NON Partisan village member Brit Hume) but the media now loves Obama? please. The media allowed the right to attack Michelle Obama as unamerican even though she is a woman with 2 college degrees, a respected professional and a mother of 2 children.

    CNN has more conservatives and DLCers on its panel than anyone, MSNBC employs Buchanan and Scarborough, and Fox News is a mouth piece for the Republican party.

    Olberman and Maddow are the only liberals on TV compared to the cadre of Republicans.

    The NYTimes and Washington Post were highly influential in supporting the Iraq war and occupation, which is VERY liberal indeed.

    The Republican party reminds me of a basketball player who cries foul or travel after they get their ass beat.

    Comment by Mac G — August 29, 2008 @ 12:57 am

33. I remeber when they groaned audibly for Al Gore. Must be a whole new crew…BWA HAHAHA

    Comment by Mickey Finn — August 29, 2008 @ 12:58 am

34. #30 - I don't know why I'm bothering, but fine, here goes. There's no such thing as "extreme right wing." If you understand the political map at all, it's not even possible. But yeah, I know that's how it looks from your perspective, over there amongst the Chavistas with your fist in the air.

    Next, the names you mentioned, save for Hume, are not journalists, they are pundits and commentators. And ratings aside, they are arguably not part of the "MSM," as their opinions are in the extreme minority amongst others in their field.

    Lastly, I'm fairly certain the greatness America has achieved thus far was not built on totalitarian collectivism, wealth redistribution and laughably naive foreign policies. But hey, I could be wrong. Or maybe I live in the other of the "two Americas" your Alinkskiite buddies have created.

    Comment by Dirt McGirt — August 29, 2008 @ 1:04 am

35. I bet they are all in a bar somewhere right now comparing Obama autographs and giggling like school girls on how they got them. Tee hee

    Comment by Terri — August 29, 2008 @ 1:18 am

36. Obama just patched together previous speeches from given to him and Duval from Axelrod. And threw in a couple of lines from the West Wing.

    It's historic only in the amount of down right plagiarism and recycling that went on.

    Comment by p0s3r — August 29, 2008 @ 1:20 am

37. The greatness of America was built on the GI Bill, The Civil Rights Movement, the Labor Movement and the sweat of immigrants who worked on factory floors so their kids could go to college. It was built by the creation of Social Security. It was built by average people who grabbed their lunch bucket and headed off to work everyday and did a decent weeks work for a decent weeks pay.

    It sure as hell wasn't built by a bunch of schmucks whose political philosophy centers on the words "I got mine".

    Comment by Cody Jarrett — August 29, 2008 @ 1:24 am

38. I am a member of the press and I cheered too. Obama means progress, and I don't care if some Republican in his mom's basement gets butthurt over that.

    Comment by Jim — August 29, 2008 @ 1:27 am

39. "Olberman and Maddow are the only liberals on TV compared to the cadre of Republicans."

    roflmao…

    Comment by Stan — August 29, 2008 @ 1:31 am

40. ANYONE can makea speech that promises everything to anybody/everybody, which is what Obama did tonight.

    WHEN will the MSM call him to the carpet about who will pay these bills and how?

    Obama is the ultimate cotton candy candidate.

    Also getting REALLY tired of his head being permanently tilted up in a hokey "I've got VISION for the future". Gotta hand him and his "handlers" a nod for his coaching and polish, no matter disingenuous it may be.

    Quite frankly, this guy's classic socialist rhetoric and "economic justice" (his label, not mine) are downright frightening, especially when one lays his 'whip 'em up into a frenzy' template down next to those of, dare I say it…Hitler. Anyone that does objective research on Hitler's early tactics that he deployed…saying and promising EVERYTHING to the downtrodden masses, usually in front of HUGE crowds (can you say 'Invesco Field?) to get into power, only to show his true colors when finally in power.

    However, fear not. The great silent conservative majority will rise up…it already is…and it will be an overwhelming victory for McCain.

    But STOP! I'm not endorsing McCain as the best person for the job, I'm saying he isn't nearly as dangerous as Obama is, especially with a potentially filibuster proof democratic majority in the house and senate.

    Comment by Boiler20 — August 29, 2008 @ 1:32 am

41. "It sure as hell wasn't built by a bunch of schmucks whose political philosophy centers on the words "I got mine"."

    It sure as hell wasn't built by politician's selling the unsophisticated on the idea that "he has yours, and I'll go get it from him for you".

    If there's any "I got mine" going on it's wealthy politicians on the left who, after they've made their big bucks want to pull up the ladder to stop the rest of us from advancing while they pick our pockets to buy votes. Think Kennedy, Edwards and Kerry living like kings on trust funds and muni bonds babbling about how I, as a small business owner, creating jobs, don't fork over enough of my hard earned income.

    Comment by Stan — August 29, 2008 @ 1:35 am

42. Time will tell who is stupid!! Hope voters are smart. You and your loved ones lives depend of it.

    Comment by Jack — August 29, 2008 @ 1:38 am

43. I don't think Obama set a record for most meaningless words strung together by a politician for the longest period before the biggest crowd. I have to check, but I think Ceaucescu still has him beat.

    Comment by Dov — August 29, 2008 @ 1:43 am

44. I'm watching the replay of his speech right now on MSNBC.

    He just criticized Washington and McCain for not getting energy independent over the last 30 years.

    Too bad Congress was democratically controlled for 26 of those years. What a dimwit.

    He just promised basically free college degrees to anyone who 'servers their community or serves our country', and free health care.

    GEE, I wonder how he's going to pay for all of that?

    Oh, he just said he'll eliminate ineffective government programs!

    'oh, you mean ineffective programs like social welfare?'

    What a moron. I can't believe he basically just said he'd eliminate welfare!

    Comment by Boiler20 — August 29, 2008 @ 1:43 am

45. Stan-
    So the Bush method of piling up debt to pay for phony wars makes more sense to you? It's OK for your taxes to fund a 75 billion dollar surplus in Iraq, but you wouldn't want to pay for diaster relief in your own state?

    The Chinese will want their money back at some point. I'm sure you, as a small business owner understands that the bills will come due.

    Comment by Cody Jarrett — August 29, 2008 @ 1:44 am

46. I can't believe Obama had the nerve to claim tonight that he's his brother's keeper.

    HIS BROTHER LIVES IN A BOX ON $1 A MONTH!

    Which is exactly where we'll all end up if Obama gets elected.

    Comment by p0s3r — August 29, 2008 @ 2:07 am

47. Obviously, they did. About 300 bloggers had media passes, and yes, we clap and cheer our Democrats.

    Media passes ain't what they used to be.

    Comment by kos — August 29, 2008 @ 2:42 am

48. Bloggers had media passes, about 300 of them. And yes, we cheered for Obama.

    Media passes ain't what they used to be.

    Comment by kos — August 29, 2008 @ 2:43 am

49. I want to know why the same media that says we should ignore everything that visually defines a person continues to point out that "O" could be our first black President. Every President was the first something or other. George Washington was our first white President, but you don’t here much about that. My guess is if “O” becomes President he will want to be remembered for his leadership not his skin color. The next President will tread where only forty three others have gone before and it seems to me to cheapen the office to say anyone got there by anything other than shear determination.

    Comment by Russell Riley — August 29, 2008 @ 2:52 am

50. If anyone wants to actually do something about this, go to a BHO or McCain public appearance and ask them a real question on video and then upload it to Youtube. You need to do the job the MSM refuses to do. There are some questions here, or search for either of their names at my name's link to find many more.

    Comment by 24AheadDotCom — August 29, 2008 @ 2:57 am

51. This was a very interesting post I found.

    Obama's speech was a compilation of many of his speeches even lines borrowed from other Dems during primes. The speech was good as far as that goes but as for something new it did not go far enough. He did not explain the reasons behind not giving the job of VP to Hillary. He did not talk about sitting on his hands and allowing Hispanics being discriminated against and treated diffrently in his home state of Illinois.(Substantiated) He did not denounce or dispute his disturbing connection with Ayers being more than he first led us to believe. He spoke of You, We, Us, wanting change but not why he should be trusted to deliver it…

    Posted by: Denver Source | August 28, 2008 11:52 PM

    Comment by Moniker — August 29, 2008 @ 3:34 am

52. Why so much fuss and adulation over this candidate, if elected, will usher in a FULL-BLOWN ECONOMIC DEPRESSION!

    Obama will "fix the economy" in the same manner that gasoline extinguishes a fire!

    Comment by McMurdo Sound — August 29, 2008 @ 3:39 am

53. If he were reporting on any other group of people, Andy Barr would name names.

    But Andy Barr is protecting his own.

    Comment by Brian — August 29, 2008 @ 3:55 am

54. Comment by Cody Jarrett — August 29, 2008 @ 12:53 am

    Umm, why you do not 2 points of view.

    Comment by joe — August 29, 2008 @ 4:51 am

55. Lol at all the posts demanding names. As if you high-fivers were famous enough to be recognized. If the claim is not 100% true, somebody will have footage. If the claim is true, expect the footage to be 'mysteriously' lost.

    Comment by dusty — August 29, 2008 @ 6:37 am

56. Heres what it looked like to me:

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3186/2805496166_bc9539e016_o.jpg

    Comment by Steve — August 29, 2008 @ 7:19 am

57. Obama can give a great speech and I am willing to be turned but how is going to do these great ideas?I want a president that has plans. He has no substance. He needs to get some pronto or I will not be voting for him.

    Comment by jackerboy — August 29, 2008 @ 7:32 am

58. Names and affiliations of media seen cheering? If you don't have it; you're lying.

    Comment by Jerry — August 29, 2008 @ 7:34 am

59. Numerous Members of the Press Corp Seen Cheering Obama During Acceptance Speech

    Trackback by BLOGS FOR JOHN McCAIN — August 29, 2008 @ 7:38 am

60. I cheer when I read the about massive layoffs at newspapers and downsizing at network news divisions. What are reporters capable of doing other than spreading Obamaganda?

    Comment by Karen — August 29, 2008 @ 7:38 am

61. Like kos said, these were probably bloggers, not traditional media. Maybe they need to have a "bloggers pass" in the future, or require that they attend the campaign events wearing pajamas. Though, to be honest, I would prefer to see certain members of the media cheering, if that's how they are going to cover the election anyway. What I don't like is the pretense of neutrality. It's not even always malicious or deliberate - it's just difficult for somebody with strong ideological beliefs to see things from another perspective, and their base assumptions mean that issues are overlooked, and important questions never get asked.

    Comment by RJ — August 29, 2008 @ 7:42 am

62. I hate rainbows.

    Comment by Rainbow Hater — August 29, 2008 @ 8:48 am

63. I saw a writer from The Hill in a car with Jeff Gannon.

    I thought this fact important enough to write about it on the internets.

    Comment by Ed — August 29, 2008 @ 9:11 am

64. Fox News coverage sure was fair and accurate*.

    *well, except the time Rove was on.

    Comment by henhouse — August 29, 2008 @ 9:21 am

65. The media has been nothing more than a propaganda organ for the Democratic Party since the end of the Reagan Presidency. They are biased and control the national discourse to favor democrats as much as possible by what they cover and how it is presented. This is contemptible but not surprising.

    Their worst fault is that they are extremely inaccurate. The mainstream news organizations are merely groups of sloppy, lazy, stupid and ignorant reporters incapable of asking the right questions and getting almost every story profoundly wrong. You can get more accurate hard news from reading prominent columnists, such as George Will, than you can from the TV or print "news" sources.

    Comment by Doc — August 29, 2008 @ 9:26 am

66. What horse manure. As a reporter who was there covering the convention, I can tell you with certainty that THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. And if Andy Barr has any evidence that any journalists did do this, he should name names. But he can't. Because it JUST DID NOT HAPPEN, PERIOD.

    There was a lot of cheering — from the crowd, the delegates, etc., and from the partisan bloggers credentialed to cover the convention. There was none from any of the journalists who work for real journalistic entities.

    Andy, you need to get your facts straight before you go off half-cocked, and check out who the people really are. I did.

    Comment by Paul Carson — August 29, 2008 @ 9:41 am

67. As a former member of the MSM, I can attest to the fact that the MSM leans pretty hard to the left. I've seen it many times. When elections don't go the way they wanted, many reporters and editors in the newsroom appear dumbfounded, then they have to gird themselves up for 'objective' coverage of the conservative victor.

    Neutrality/objectivity is a big issue in major news outlets. Cheering in public for a candidate is unprofessional for any honest journalist. Unfortunately, it's not necessarily unfair to lump the MSM in with folks like Olbermann; the key difference is that Olbermann doesn't have anyone telling him he has to be objective. However, most journalists who would chafe at the suggestion that they aren't being objective fail to notice that they're already viewing the world through a liberal prism. Their editors encourage it even. They all understand that readers will respond more favorably to anecdotal tales of misery ('Smith family struggles with poverty') than the overarching truth (people respond to incentives; if you pay them not to work, they're not likely to work).

    Comment by crackatooey — August 29, 2008 @ 9:44 am

68. Yes, the speech did change the old dynamic. It was full of changey hopiness. Like a rainbow. Grumpy old codgers.

    Comment by Anon — August 29, 2008 @ 10:04 am

69. Were they not shamed by their peers immediately with such blatant displays of affection? They should have been. At the St. Pete (R) YouTube/CNN debate, having taken some years off from the live-eventing media trail to raise my kid, I was in the pressroom there when a friend of mine suddenly appeared on the giant screen in front of the room, asking a question via YouTube of the candidates. I was so stunned and surprised I blurted out, "Hey, there's Buzz!" There's nothing like the icy glare of hundreds of professional, geeked-out journalists giving you the evil eye for your amatuer outburst to make sure you'll never do THAT again. Then again, exciting and provocative new media times and situations DO make so exciting new responses. Live Twittering the speech last night, I know I treaded a fine old-to-new media line. And will continue to do so… up until the point I hurl myself completely over it… as Olbermann and others are busily doing every night of this entire election cycle. McNeil and Lerher it ain't out here in the get-real world.

    Comment by SpaceyG — August 29, 2008 @ 10:23 am

70. SpaceyG, you make a good point. 'Objectivity' and 'neutrality' among MSM members is defined by the MSM itself and they police it themselves, but without specifics (names of media outlets, if not names of specific media reps cheering during Obama's speech) or evidence (a videoclip on YouTube would have been nice), the allegations of partisanship are moot, and there will be no peer-to-peer shaming.

    Comment by crackatooey — August 29, 2008 @ 10:46 am

71. Been following presidential campaigns since 1956. I have NEVER seen a press anything like this one.

    Whatever happens, 2008 will be remembered as the year the media came out of the closet and became openly partisan.

    At least it's more honest.

    Comment by Increase Mather — August 29, 2008 @ 11:24 am

72. I agree with the commenters that said: name names (or organizations).

    I would hope that the heads of the MSM organizations would be asking the same thing as this type of activity hurts an organization's brand. Unless they care more about rainbows, butterflys and unicorns than their brand. Of course.

    Comment by Bel Aire — August 29, 2008 @ 11:47 am

73. Andy Barr is being either naive or disingenuous. Students, bloggers, spouses, all sorts of people end up with media passes, and he knows that or should know that. Plus there are a lot of legit media people from advocacy-type publications and whatnot.

    Without telling us who these cheering people were, this report is meaningless, except of course to those who will believe what they want to believe.

    Comment by Victor E. Rojo — August 29, 2008 @ 1:52 pm

74. This is really a weak post without names or further explanation.

    Comment by DanOregon — August 29, 2008 @ 2:01 pm

75. Victor, you beat me to it. At least 55 bloggers were given media floor passes and seated with the delegations from their states/territories. They're legitimately partisan and would have no reason not to cheer if they felt like it.

    I'm a conservative and not inclined to give the Olbermanns the benefit of the doubt, but not everyone with a media pass is impartial media.

    Comment by Francis — August 29, 2008 @ 3:34 pm

76. Name names. OK. Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Susanne Malveaux, anyone from the New York Times. I saw it on TV. The cheerleading and spin were blatantly obvious. They are idiots because usually when one whores themselves they get paid. I guess they were doing it for love.

    Comment by Sam Harris — August 29, 2008 @ 4:01 pm

77. um these folks should be fired.

    Comment by Harry Callahan — August 29, 2008 @ 11:58 pm

78. The American press has been in the bag for the Democrat Party since the election of 1860. What confuses me is why anyone is surprised and why the press has pretended for nearly 150 years that they are not the propaganda service for Democrats.

    Comment by Buckoux — August 30, 2008 @ 11:26 am

79. Andy Barr, YOU ARE SUCH AN IDIOT.

    The "green media floor passes" that your articles references were issued by the DNC ONLY to bloggers, who have no pretense to bias.

    Now if you saw someone in an orange media pass, which were issued to traditional media outlets, cheering openly for Obama, then you might have a story. Otherwise, a retraction is in order.

    Comment by Michael Mullaley — August 30, 2008 @ 2:50 pm

80. Why did no one videotaped this situation?

    Comment by Ragnell — August 31, 2008 @ 7:50 pm

81. How do you know that the folks with media credentials clapping during Obama's speech were working journalists? The networks distributed credentials to insiders, analysts and party operatives who aren't journalists but need credentials to get to the skyboxes, talkshow row and the blog lounge to be interviewed

    Comment by harryo — September 2, 2008 @ 1:14 pm

82. thank you

    Comment by mirc — September 2, 2008 @ 8:14 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment