Comments on: So much for press neutrality

By: so much for.... - UsingEnglish.com ESL Forum

so much for.... - UsingEnglish.com ESL Forum — Sun, 18 May 2008 01:43:29 +0000

[...] much for…. Hi, I came across a sentence: ‘So much for press neutrality.’ I understand that the sentence is deriding the press neutrality. But I am not sure how ’so much [...]

By: tom matrullo

tom matrullo — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 06:24:19 +0000

It would be refreshing if, instead of covering this matter as if it came down to personality points in a beauty contest, the platforms, support, active political history, likely future advisors, strategies for exiting the 100-Year-War, and approaches to the economy, among other ilk, were subjected to careful analysis in the complex context of where the US has been and where it is going. Instead we have moral midgets with press credentials hostage to gawking, leering, and (unamusing) inside joking.

By: Seth Gordon

Seth Gordon — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:35:31 +0000

Unfortunately, part of a politician’s job is to deal with the press–either by managing to obtain favorable press coverage, or by figuring out (as Bill Clinton did) how to win votes and influence despite UNfavorable press coverage.

By: limbo

limbo — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 01:49:49 +0000

The media must be taken by Barack as are we all. He is better for the camera, the country and the future. Hillary has the word liar in her name doesn’t that say it all.

By: Hanan Cohen

Hanan Cohen — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 09:32:54 +0000

An Israeli journalist, Yoav Karni, wrote that “Obama=Google, Hillary=Microsoft”

I think that there is much truth in this analogy regarding the popular view and press treatment each of them gets.

http://notes.co.il/karny/

By: David F.

David F. — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 04:37:22 +0000

There is always the chance that Andrea Mitchell is incorrect in her analysis. That is, the reason Sen. Clinton is getting hammered is because they would have hammered anyone who said and did the things the Clinton campaign has said and done.

“The press” is really just a bunch of people perceiving things and writing about them, not superheroes with special powers.

By: Zdenek

Zdenek — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:22:34 +0000

“People got it into their head that if you say something good about a candidate, you have to say something bad about him, and if you don’t, that’s not fair,” Mr. Alter said. “What the Clinton partisans wanted was for us to create a phony balance that was at odds with what our eyes were telling us. That’s not the job of a journalist.”

Amen to that.

By: lmme

lmme — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 02:17:57 +0000

I am a female and agree that she is getting more press. I however feel she is an experienced woman and knows what can happen in a campaign. She doesn’t seem like shes used her intelligence in the above said campaign. Woman have an obligation to change things but in a classy way not a whiny one. That just adds to the ammunition they use against her. If she is as experienced as she says why didn’t she know these things going in? She was just being arrogant in thinking she had it tied up. Obama has come on to the scene and is saying things we want to hear. We need something to work toward. We need someone to lead. All of us know experience doesn’t always help. There are studies that show sometimes your thoughts are clouded because you can over analyze the situation. I wouldn’t like falling asleep thinking she was taking the call. She has already shown her lack of judgement. It is time for change and Obama will help. But be ready to step up as a whole and help make our nation better. It takes more then a leader to turn things around. It takes people who can look past their differences and realize our children are heading for a very exciting time and need guidance to get there. All on the same footing.

By: AKMA

AKMA — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 01:27:24 +0000

Journalists, who constitute themselves as a “profession” on the basis of some degree of shared high standards, distinguish themselves by telling the truth as best they can regardless of how arrogant they think their subject has been. (Of course, part of “telling the truth” may involve citing their subject’s alleged arrogance.) On the other hand, human beings in general, who have not set for themselves a professional code of conduct, frequently respond to high-handedness with hostility. So I suppose that part of the problem Mitchell identifies involves the Clinton campaign’s assumption that journalists would continue to tell the truth (presumably, that Clinton was the front-runner and would inevitably be elected President?) regardless of how they were treated. Indeed, I can see some people imagining that acting the part of the inevitable President would engender a concomitant subservience on the press’s part, a tactic that almost worked.

I tend to agree that the press currently represents Sen. Clinton unfavorably, to an uneven degree.

But at least part of the problem is that Obama is more attractive, a more accomplished political performer, than is Clinton. I’m willing to entertain arguments that she’s the most qualified candidate as a matter of policy and political savvy, but she doesn’t match his capacity to present a winning persona. The media are affected by that, and report it, and both effects cast Clinton in an unfavorable light.

By: michelle

michelle — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 01:06:33 +0000

having Bill back in the white house is exactly what they were going for. I won’t vote for a candidate that can’t even manage her own house none the less the white house. He made the moralle come down in this country and now he wants to stand behind his wife. I call that a hipocrit. And quite frankly I don’t think he should have a chance to harrass another woman. Did he even pay for purgery. I bet not, isn’t that being sexist.
Obama at least has the integrity to have respect for his wife and children.