Wash. Post cropped Obama's "we've got a righteous wind at our backs" remark to exclude "but we're going to have to work"
SUMMARY: The Washington Post stated that Sen. Barack Obama "promised to deliver" Virginia "in the Democratic column for the first time since 1964" and then quoted Obama stating: "I feel like we've got a righteous wind at our backs." But as the rest of his remarks, which were omitted from the Post article, made clear, Obama was making a different point from the "promise to deliver" claim the Post made: that victory will come only if he and his supporters "fight for every one of the 13 days to move this country in a new direction."
In an October 23 article, The Washington Post's Robert Barnes and Anne E. Kornblut wrote that at two campaign events in Virginia on October 22, Sen. Barack Obama "promised to deliver the Commonwealth in the Democratic column for the first time since 1964" and then quoted Obama stating: "I feel like we've got a righteous wind at our backs." Barnes and Kornblut's citation of the quotation immediately after their assertion that Obama "promised to deliver" Virginia made it appear as though Obama was indeed suggesting that victory in Virginia was inevitable. But, as is clear from the rest of sentence and the two immediately following, which were part of a speech he gave in Leesburg, Virginia, and which were left out of Barnes and Kornblut's article, Obama was making a different point: that victory will come only if he and his supporters "fight for every one of the 13 days to move this country in a new direction."
Here is what the Post printed in its October 23 edition:
With an ear-splitting rally in the Richmond coliseum and a late-afternoon speech at a chilly park in Leesburg, Obama promised to deliver the Commonwealth in the Democratic column for the first time since 1964.
"I feel like we've got a righteous wind at our backs," Obama told tens of thousands gathered on the rolling hills of Ida Lee Park. It was his eighth day of campaigning in the state since securing the Democratic nomination in June.
Here is what Obama actually said (compiled from a Breitbart.tv video clip of the first part of Obama's remarks and an MSNBC video clip of the second part):
And in 13 days, if you'll stand with me, then I know that we can win Virginia and we can win this election and we can finally bring the change we need to Washington. Now, that's the good news. I feel like we got a righteous wind at our backs here, but we're going to have to work. We're going to have to struggle. We're going to have to fight for every single one of those 13 days to move this country in a new direction.
Oh, look, WaPo left the comma. How thoughtful.
Here is yet another textbook case of a fawning article about Obama ("With an ear-splitting rally in the Richmond coliseum ...") from which MM cherrypicks something they don't like.
This article is actually another great example of liberal media bias, not "conservative misinformation." The article makes no mention at all of the fact that Obama has already began construction in Grant Park for his victory celebration! If McCain were in Obama's position, and it were McCain doing the construction, you can guarantee the media would be all over this.
If the media were so liberal, I would have expected more reporting on McCain's transition team president and his lobbying work for Saddam. Think it would have gotten more play if Obama had been dumb enough to appoint a Saddam supporter to transition him into the Oval Office?
So much for your conservative media myth, at least lately......
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1001/campaign-media
Are you blaming the media for McCain's negativity?
Read the study Victor, it would help you to understand it.
Oh I understand the study, thanks. I wanted to know if YOU blame the media for McCain's negativity.
I blame McCain for McCain's negativity.
How do you figure , Tommy?
For McCain, by comparison, nearly six-in-ten stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two-in-ten (14%) were positive.
14% positive? I don't think McCain's mom could come up with 14% positive things to say about her son Grampy. The media's really bending over backward.
Doesn't necessarily prove anything. For it to prove what you imply, one would have to assume that McCain and Obama's campaigns have performed equally. It could be that McCain has done more to illicit negative coverage. There is no question that the tone of his campaign has been markedly more negative than Obama's.
Given that, it is logical that even handed coverage of the two campaigns would show McCain's in a more negative light.
What is shows me Nerzog is what I have long suspected. That media bias ebbs and flows with the "hot" story of the day, the press cozies up to a rising candidate, and then if they get too big for their britches, they like to see them knocked down a bit. It's about the story more than the ideology, it's about personalities and soundbites more than issues.
One day the "media" is left, the next day right - all depends on who is up, who is down, and who is generating buzz.
Which is why I maintain it all negates itself, and is given way to much importance from both sides.
One day the "media" is left, the next day right - all depends on who is up, who is down, and who is generating buzz. Which is why I maintain it all negates itself, and is given way to much importance from both sides.
Absolutely agree with you Tommy. I've been saying something similar to this for years here.
The media is not some monolithic group of like thinkers, & do they do not share the same bias. Hell they shouldn't be showing any bias, but they do.
Obviously this site only highlights the Conservative bias, but to pretend there isn't media out there furthering a Liberal bias is ridiculous.
You have the hard core Left bias media, & the hard core Right bias media...the rest of the media does just as you suggested, they follow whichever story gets their interest & gets on & off whichever bias bandwagon the story generates when it suits them.
Well said Jeter, and where the h*** have you been? You have been missed, next time you take a leave of absence I NEED TO KNOW :)
Stay put!
Hey Tommy,
Every now & then I just get sick of politics & have to take a break & clear my head. I'll give you a heads up next time I take a hike. But I'll be around here from time to time if the threads are interesting or entertaining enough...
I've been having a good time elsewhere, no politics involved ;-)
Obviously this site only highlights the Conservative bias, but to pretend there isn't media out there furthering a Liberal bias is ridiculous.
Are you referring to notions not yet stated in this discussion thread? If so, allow me to help with your pre-emptive point:
There is no media out there furthering a liberal bias.
Jeter, my home slice, :-), I guess you won't have any difficulty coughing up several stories of liberal media bias that rival the threads here everyday, right? I mean after you factor out the so called hard left (?) and hard right elements of the media. Go ahead, make my day :-0)
Miz Julia my sweet darlin,
You know I could give you a litany of examples of Liberal media bias...heck just go watch MSNBC for starters. But you know as well as I do if I started leaving posts with examples, folks here will accuse me of being off topic. or suggesting it's all...a strawman. A favorite Lib accusation when they don't want to listen ;-)
Now darlin, I could always tell you in private :-)
Well, that was a non answer if ever there was one. Come on. You can do better than that. But you are very charming. I'll give you points for that, but I doubt anyone else will :-0) It's just my Jeter bias showing.
Miz Julia,
I told you I'd tell you in private. Geez what does a guy have to do to get you alone? Ha! ;-)
I don't think the media is either left or right, they are simply incompetent a lot of the time. When the media was all over the Lewinski scandal, I didn't blame them. That's there job. However, too often they cede their responsiblity by not attempting to determine truth, but instead let both sides spin and then call it a day.
I don't see what this study proves. McCain has turned out to be a complete sleazebag and Palin is a twit and they are running one of the nastiest campaigns in recent memory. The fact that they have gotten any positive press is mind-boggling.
I don't know why it's so hard for some here to comprehend. McCain is getting more negative press than Obama, take it for what it's worth. But it's essentially worthless for those that have already decided that the media is lopsidedly rightwing and that's that. Stubborn facts and credible studies to show otherwise are just dismissed, I got it.
I'm not questioning the study (I think it's completely valid) but Pew came to the wrong conclusion. A sleazeball like McCain should not be getting any positive press but somehow he is. The fact that he's getting any positive coverage tells me that the media has a right wing bias.
I think the cable news channels and network news reflect a Washington D.C. insider press corps. They seem to view the midwest, for example, as a monolithic place where everyone is sort of the same. That's why Chris Matthews pontificates about people in diners.
If they cover events outside the U.S., rarely are people interviewed except in 10 second clips. This isn't "leftist", it's insular. They don't have insight into how people think outside of their own spin, so that's what they report. They have panels to discuss events, but mostly everyone in their panels are professional insiders.
They all pile on one story, and there's no differentiation between trivial and important; cover it constantly until they run to the next thing. And they're very susceptible to the framing that the right wing has very carefully created and installed in their talking heads and the media that they own.
Good point Shoes. Of course MMFA overlooks the "ear splitting" editorializing of the WaPo writer. It looks as though MMFA is being "uncritical" in their assessment of that, but shift right back into "critical" mode when necessary.
How is that editorializing? Have you ever been in a large crowd of people screaming in unison? It's ear splitting. It's called fact reporting, folks.
If "ear splitting" is unacceptable, what superlative should that have used instead?
No superlative, "large" would be fine.
Exactly, Tommy. There's no need for that colorful language. I have the same contempt for McCain and that "Grand" Canyon in his state. Large Canyon seems just fine to me.
Some other ones I'd like toned down;
The NFL more-important -than-average Bowl
The Noticeable Depression of 1929
The Large Statue of Rhodes
Exactly. As for this organization and its somewhat superlative name; I think "Media Goings-On" or "Media Stuffs" would be more reserved and honest. Oh, and what's the deal with a name like "The Fountainhead"? Why not call the book "The Information" or "The Spout Arch"?
"Large" wouldn't work. Large implies size, ear-splitting implies loudness.
Good point. Gosh, this is hard. "Non-Maverickly boisterous"?
I like your optimism! Especially when you declare it the scene of a victory celebration, instead of mentioning that it could also be the scene of a concession speech.
The article makes no mention at all of the fact that Obama has already began construction in Grant Park for his victory celebration! If McCain were in Obama's position, and it were McCain doing the construction, you can guarantee the media would be all over this.
Really? Do you have any basis to say that the media would be all over it? Were they all over President Bush when he did it in 2004? Or in 2000 when his campaign stole the election and held a late night party in Austin?
The following preview is rated (R)
In a world where "ear-splitting" is considered pleasant;
Where a leading presidential candidate being prepared for victory is "hubris-y";
Where wild hallucinations about what the media would be doing under different circumstances is considered reasonable argument;
Shoes89 is Queen, and nothing is as it seems!
And here's yet another textbook case of Shoes wasting bandwidth with yet another useless post.
UPDATE: John McCain has put a deposit down to rent an Elk's Lodge hall in Tempe, AZ on election night. A source at the local Subway reports that two six-foot sandwiches have been ordered to be delivered to that same hall.
TWO six-foot sandwiches????
Talk about hubris! Has he measured the White House drapes yet?
Absolutely right. Media Matters is getting really ridiculous here. Who CARES if Obama added "but we have to work hard" after saying something so vainglorious as "we have a righteous wind at our backs?" Stupid, stupid.
I thought Media Matters was thin-skinned before; that skin must be pretty much transparent now.
I agree, he should have said something less 'vainglorious', such as:
"I know at the end of the day putting this in God's hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4."
That would have been waaaaaay less vainglorious.
Hmmm, that sounds so familiar. Could you be plagiarizing that statement from a christian candidate for VP?
It's misinformation because it furthers the meme that Obama is being presumptuous. The clause they left out shows that he isn't being presumptuous.
The only ones thin-skinned here are the repugs.
Aww, somebody's got a case of the gwumpies!
I can agree with that. They've tried to accuse Obama of hubris for holding a speech in a large venue and for making early preparations for his administration, but those talking points seemed to fizzle out before they ever caught on.
But consider, shaggles, "upitty" didn't help, either.
Shaggles..... exactly!
So Obama says all this:
"And in 13 days, if you'll stand with me, then I know that we can win Virginia and we can win this election and we can finally bring the change we need to Washington. Now, that's the good news. I feel like we got a righteous wind at our backs here, but we're going to have to work. We're going to have to struggle. We're going to have to fight for every single one of those 13 days to move this country in a new direction."
But from the Washington Post all we get is: "I feel like we got a righteous wind at our backs here," Context..... I never took a journalism course but even I know that they teach context in 101!
And is anyone surpised by shoes89 and tommy coming in here and claiming that this is simply another example of 'liberal media bias'.....
Come on shoes89 and tommy.... if this really was liberal bias, as you two seem to think everything is around here.... wouldn't they have at least quoted the entire context?.... I mean... if this is somehow a pro-Obama article.... then I'd hate to see what you would consider anti-Obama?
This is mis-information simply because the entire context is not written. This is not cherry-picking... this is exposing another example of sloppy reporting with a bias.
I haven't heard much about Obama's "hubris" from the usual Talk Radio Screechmonkies.... they're too busy casting him as a Sixties Radical Marxist who likes Terrorists.
Maybe even professional GOP liars realize that anyone who ever hears an Obama speech knows that he has bent over backwards to keep his supporters from assuming victory.
Or.... maybe they're saving the "Uppity Hubris" accusation for the final days, after their phony Joe the "Plumber" Bullsh*t Express finally fizzles.
Great, we are war with radical muslims and Obama is using God words like "righteous".
That will produce even more terrorists.
Leather, that's a stretch.
I almost flagged your comment for its overt stupidity.
At least he didn't say that our excursion in Iraq was a "crusade" like W did.
leather, speaking of "righteous", you've lost that coherent feeling. or perhaps that righteous wind from the back was o'reilly after lunch at taco bell.