08AMA goes to the gym: stop the presses!
After some great mockery of the AP's July 17 piece on Obama's gym habits (have they mentioned that McCain is old?), Beck writes:
Of course, anecdotal evidence that Obama probably polls somewhere around 95 percent with members of the media has been around for years, but now there are some actual statistics to back it up.
According to the Tyndall Report, a service that monitors the three network news broadcasts, ABC, NBC, and CBS have spent a total of 114 of their national airtime minutes covering Obama since June. They've spent 48 minutes on his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain.
And then you have the almost embarrassing way the media have gushed over Obama's trip to the Middle East. There were 200 requests for the 40 press seats available on Obama's plane, and all three top network anchors (Katie Couric, Charles Gibson and Brian Williams) made the trip and are broadcasting live from each country Obama visits.
You can't buy that kind of publicity. And neither could McCain.
McCain made a trip to the Middle East in March and didn't have to worry about finding seats for any network anchors, because none of them wanted to go. And while Obama was flying from country to country this week in a plane packed with celebrity reporters, McCain flew to an event in New Hampshire. After his Boeing 737 landed in Manchester, he stepped out onto the tarmac and glanced at the one reporter who'd bothered to show up. Yes, one.
And then you have the print media's fascination with Obama. He's been on the cover of U.S. News and World Report, GQ, Rolling Stone, Us Weekly (twice), Time and Newsweek (a combined 12 times) and will soon be on the cover of Men's Vogue for the second time. To be fair, Men's Vogue also did an in-depth story on John McCain but, strangely, a photo of McCain didn't make their cover.
Why the disparity? According to Men's Vogue deputy editor Ned Martel, there's a simple explanation: Obama "is what is called in the magazine world an 'interest driver.' " Translation: Obama sells magazines.
I don't criticize any individual for supporting Barackstar. There's a lot to like; there's a lot I like, as a matter of fact. I think he'd be a really interesting presidential candidate--in 2012 or 2016, when he actually has enough experience and knowledge of foreign policy to be qualified for the job. But anyone, anyone, who thinks the national news media isn't drowning in their own drool over him is either blind, completely partisan, or so in love with the Obamessiah themselves that both forest and trees are just a blur of green.
It's not just McCain supporters who see this; can I get an amen from the Hillary folks? Hope-ama captured the imagination and attention of influential media figures who have worked tirelessly (and for free) to appoint him the Democratic candidate, and who are now working just as hard to assign him the presidency. All this is happening despite a serious lack of experience and even greater dearth of specifics, all of which apparently doesn't stand for much if you can speak well and look presidential. Perhaps we should be voting for Kevin Kline, who played the president in Dave. Or Michael Douglas from The American President. Oh, wait, he has to be black. Fine, Morgan Freeman from Deep Impact. Any of those three gentlemen have, honestly, not much less foreign policy experience than Obama does.
A balanced view of Barack Obama's foreign policy statements, viewed in the context of the past half century of history, reveals a man who is either criminally naive, dangerously ignorant about the politics of the Middle East, or lying through his teeth about his plans in order to get your vote. In today's telepolitical climate, I'm pretty certain it's option three. In today's telepolitical climate, I'm pretty certain it won't matter a bit as long as the TV coverage remains as unbalanced as it has for the past year.