WSJ echoed RNC attack ad, didn't report Obama's response
SUMMARY: A Wall Street Journal blog post reported on a Republican National Committee attack ad without noting the Obama campaign's response to it, which other news organizations had reported a day earlier.
More than 24 hours after Sen. Barack Obama's campaign responded to a Republican National Committee attack ad, Wall Street Journal correspondent Susan Davis reported on the content of the ad in a July 7 post on the Journal's Washington Wire blog, yet failed to report the Obama campaign's response. The post, which appeared at 11:23 a.m., provided a full transcript in addition to an embedded version of the ad. As Media Matters for America has noted, the Obama campaign reportedly responded to the ad more than 24 hours before the Washington Wire blog post.
In a post on the washingtonpost.com blog The Fix dated 10:08 a.m. ET on July 6, Chris Cillizza reported that Obama spokesperson Hari Sevugan responded to the ad with "[a] stunned skepticism," saying, "What we need to solve our energy crisis is an honest debate about the choices before us, not more attack ads that mislead voters about the facts."
The New York Times blog The Caucus reported Sevugan's full statement regarding the ad in a post dated 11:10 a.m. ET on July 6:
"What we need to solve our energy crisis is an honest debate about the choices before us, not more attack ads that mislead voters about the facts," said Hari Sevugan, a spokesman. "There's a real choice in this election between John McCain's promise to continue the Bush approach of trying to drill our way out of our energy crisis - which even he admits won't lower prices this summer - or Barack Obama's plan to provide meaningful short-term relief for our families and to make a historic investment in alternative energy development that will create millions of new jobs, keep the cost of energy affordable and secure our energy independence once and for all."
From Davis' Washington Wire blog post:
The Republican National Committee released their first television ad targeting Barack Obama on Sunday. The spot is running in four states -- Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin -- and will air for ten days. The 30 second ad, "Balance," features images of both candidates and both touts John McCain's record and criticizes Obama's on energy policy.
[Ad embed]
"Record gas prices, a climate in crisis. John McCain says solve it now. With a balanced plan -- alternative energy, conservation, suspending the gas tax, and more production here at home. He's pushing his own Party to face climate change," the ad states, "But Barack Obama? For conservation, but he just says no to lower gas taxes. No to nuclear. No to more production. No new solutions. Barack Obama: Just the party line."
McCain is discussing his energy goals today in a speech scheduled in Denver, Colo., on his broader economic plan. McCain's campaign is re-rolling out portions of their agenda in a new effort to sharpen their message. (For more on that read this Wall Street Journal story). Today in Denver, McCain will again highlight components of his energy plan- his campaign has dubbed it the Lexington Project -- which includes increasing domestic oil exploration as well as nuclear power resources and the development of more green technologies.
I took a look at yesterday's Wall Street Journal.
Now that Murdoch owns it the front page is not what it used to be, it is moving in the direction of the New York Post.
Now that Murdoch owns it the front page is not what it used to be, it is moving in the direction of the New York Post.
I'm waiting to see the following classic NY Post headline on the paes of the WSJ:
"HEADLESS BODY FOUND IN TOPLESS BAR" :-)
I'm not really sure why it is so difficult for the media...or a blogger to at least give a response from the other side if available. Which in this instance I'll assume it was.
I chalk it up to mostly lazy reporting, though I'm sure in some cases it's deliberately omitted .I'd probably lean towards the latter with the WSJ, a Conservative newspaper.
Jeter, I'd have to agree. There has always been a healthy difference between the WSJ's news side and its right-wingnut editorial page.
Sadly, it looks like that may be changing under Murdoch. Just what we need ... another right-mouthpiece.
That will never happen with privately owned media and/or in the absence of strict regulatory requirements. It is inevitable that in our current media market with major corporations owning pretty much every outlet we get only stories that fit their agenda. See the MMFA item about NBC's infomercial "Live from an oil rig" for a great example.
The situation is similar to expecting an industrial plant to voluntarily impose environmental and safety restrictions on itself. It never has happened and it never will happen.
I think if the Democrats want their side represented, they should take the initiative and go start their own media, just like the GOP did.
Or they should take the initiative to RESTORE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE to make sure ALL sides are covered equally.
i have no idea what obama wants to do about energy, except do nothing.
noobama, keep the change.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
then educate yourself and stop watching Republican attack ads.
Sands:
A test of your critical thinking skills: have you ever heard a Liberal idea that you liked, or do you dismiss them all out of hand?
Nobody can make you buy a new vehicle, but other people will still buy new vehicles. Eventually you'll buy one too. Whether or not renewable sources of energy reach everywhere, they would still reduce the use of finite resources.
If the best that can currently be done is to set these things in motion to make a noticeable difference in 25 years, then Obama would deserve credit for doing it.
It looks to me like there isn't much of anything that we can do to make any kind of difference in 4 years or less. Oil drilling would take at least that long to get online and producing, besides the fact that all of that oil goes on the free market and not directly to the US, so it won't affect prices at all once it is available. The gas tax holiday will do nothing. Increased mileage requirements will be years from making a difference. Increased refineries will also take years.
The only things that I can think of that would make a dent in the near term would be to put some serious restraints on the oil speculation market that has caused the dramatic rise in price lately.
There are some things that could be done in the short term to help with our oil usage, but that would not affect the price. We could reinstate the national speed limit or create some massive incentives or subsidies for the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles or engine add-ons or modifications. Again, I don't think that would affect the price of a barrel of oil, but it would help people to not buy as much.
then educate yourself and stop watching Republican attack ads....dbeden4153
==============================================
Ask a wingnut to do anything that involves the slightest bit of thinking or investigating for themselves?
Good luck with that :)