Media's Treatment of Obama

I watch a lot of news and the common theme the past week or so has been the discussion of the media's treatment of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. After Hillary Clinton's whining, it has finally become a story. I do understand the basis of the Clinton campaign's argument, but has the media really been giving Obama a free ride?

I believe things have been pretty fair up to this point. Clinton has been rightfully scrutinized and so has Obama. Once the Clinton campaign leaked a photo of Obama wearing traditional garb during a visit to Africa, it was all over the news solidly for days, and is still commonly brought up. The idea that Obama should be scrutinized over the photo is nothing short of ridiculous, seeing as how there wasn't anything wrong with it to begin with. The media made an issue out of a non-issue, something they are very good at.

The biased right-wing media that always claims the media is so liberal, has many of talking heads such as Bill Cunningham and Rush Limbaugh that are leading the "conservative movement" by bashing Obama for his Muslim middle-name every single day. Their voices carry a lot of weight in the world of conservative loons and are heard loudly and clearly every single day. I wouldn't call this a free ride by any means.

For all of the fair and balanced news coverage, there is an equally powerful source of conservative propaganda. The existence of Fox News proves this. The negative tone introduced to the Democratic primary process by Hillary Clinton has also had its own influence on the media. Dan Abrams cries foul in Clinton's defense every single weeknight on his MSNBC show. Shots have been taken at Obama from both the right-wing fanatics and the bitterly pathetic Clinton campaign.

I expect tough shots from McCain at Obama in the general election, many of them are going to be similar to the tactics of the Clintons. The argument that he is inexperienced, and attempts to embarrass him by using his middle-name with a negative tone, and bringing up his teenage drug-use (that Obama already talked about in detail in his books), all of these things will get plenty of play until November by the "Obama-crazed" media. The media is loyal to no one, not Obama, not anybody. They are loyal only to ratings and profits from selling stories to the American masses.

One of my favorite items of news from this past week was how the media was so quick to slam Obama for not strongly rejecting Louis Farrakhan's positive comments of him, even when Farrakhan has given no money to the Obama campaign, or even officially endorsed the Illinois senator. Obama denounced and rejected Farrakhan in a nationally televised debate with Clinton. But, on the other side of the fence, apparently it's perfectly acceptable for Republicans to be endorsed by fanatical maniacs, as in the case of John McCain being endorsed by John Hagee, a Catholic-hating, homophobic televangelist based in San Antonio. Hagee has called the Catholic church "a great whore and a false cult" and has been recorded saying that the devastation of Hurricane Katrina was a result of God's wrath because New Orleans was so thick in sin. I would question why isn't McCain been slammed by the same right-wing nuts for accepting Hagee's endorsement the way they have been bashing Obama for reasons without substance.

There has been no free ride, Obama's story is the stuff of legend, and the reason Clinton seems to be getting hit harder is because she has given the media more targets to hit.