Wall Street Journal newsroom spins for GOP
January 30, 2010 11:24 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Just the latest example of how once neutral (and once deeply respected) WSJ newsroom now openly leans right in the wake of its Rupert Murdoch purchase.
In Saturday's newspaper, the Journal reported on Obama's 90-minute sparring session with House Republicans which was covered on national TV. The near universal, chattering class consensus was that Obama came out out the winner. In fact, GOP aides privately conceded they never should have allowed TV cameras to broadcast the event, because of how well Obama performed. (How well? So well Fox News had to cut away from it.)
But take a look at how the Journal "reported" the event:
Privately, Republicans welcomed the exchanges, many of which turned on policy nitty-gritty. The meeting elevated members of the House minority to Mr. Obama's footing and neutralized the Democratic line that the GOP is "the party of 'No,' " said one Republican strategist.
Surprise! According to an anonymous GOP strategist, the session was a success for the GOP.
A couple things. Why on earth would the Journal grant anonymity to a GOP strategist who's simply pushing obvious talking points? (i.e. Our side did great.) Is that really such coveted information that the Journal should allow the source to go un-named?
But secondly, and more importantly, what did Democrats "privately" think of the session? Oops, the Journal forgot to find out. Murdoch's daily only quotes a GOP strategist to find out how the session went.
It's funny how liberal media critics are always proven right.
dezmembrari autoauto second hand
Ummm "Who Dat"
Mr. News
A freshman congressman had perhaps the best argument put to the President, but for the most part, Obamam owned that session.
My favorite quote of the night...
1. By going into the lions' den, he effectively destroyed the notion that he was avoiding Fox "News", because he supposedly could not handle "tough questions". How could Fox "News" be tougher than the acknowledged opposition.
2. The forum was actually very favorable to the President in many ways. His microphone could not be shut off, the cameras effectively leashed the Republicans and the President in their interaction - apparently the Republicans are not very good under that situation. The President is not really elevating the stature of the opposition or lowering his own stature as he should be talking with Congress. Unlike on Fox "News" he does not have the host cutting him off, and talking about him the next day without a chance for rebuttal.
3. The unedited tape of the event on CSPAN is available for everyone to see and is not subject to editing by dishonest partisans. It is obvious how well the President argued his points. The President answered in detail nearly every point that was raised and gave examples to back up nearly everything he said. He readily admitted his faults (like a grownup) and corrected falsehoods with actual citations and relevant facts. This was a superb performance.
Not sure anyone else in the country could have done such a good job from either side.
whatever
And then spin it on Fox that Obama won't debate with them, no doubt...
I don't think there was a coherent post in any of the comments.
A lot of them obviously are just pasting the same comment in, over and over and over, every time they post.
Stay warm.
Stay informed.
If this is true, why did the republicans in the Senate vote NO en masse on PAY GO, even those like Sen. Snowe who had supported it in the past? There is no other possible explanation except that they are the party of NO.
Take out "media critics" and substitute "s."
...Who were ran out of the party for voting with democrats.