The Right Side

Obama and media both one-sided, hypocritical

The media thinks his reign has begun already, but Sen. Obama's coronation will have to wait until the votes are counted and that has not started as of this writing.

The one clear loser in this election, even without a vote count, is the media, particularly the newspapers and television news operations.

Circulation figures released last week show that our local dailies have lost almost 8 percent in circulation, continuing a downward trend. That echoes circulation loss at the left's flagship newspaper, "The New York Times," as well as such institutions as

"The Washington Post" and the "LA Times." Audiences for the networks' news programs are dwindling too.

The "LA Times" is sitting on a video of Sen. Obama's warm remarks about his friend, Rashid Khalidi. The Times is among many letting the senator characterize one of his first mentors and political sponsors, terrorist Bill Ayers, as just a guy in the neighborhood. Khalidi, who lives in the same neighborhood, gets even less notice.

There was a time when a presidential candidate's friendship with a prominent American proponent of Hezbollah would have made the newspapers. That world of journalism seems to exist only in textbooks now - and among those reinvigorating the craft on the Internet.

Just days ago, we heard Sen. Obama's outline for destroying the coal mining industry in America. Until leaked a few days before the election, "The San Francisco Chronicle" had sequestered that news since last winter. We are at the point where news is leaked from the newspapers rather than to them.

Within hours of Gov. Palin's selection, reporters were in contact with every school she had ever attended. Sen. Obama's years at Columbia are skipped over in his biographies and have been voluntarily embargoed by the mainstream media. Contrast that with the several hundred interviews "The New York Times" had with people who claimed to have known G. W. Bush prior to his entrance into politics during his first campaign for the presidency.

The investigative reports done during this election can be found on the Internet - posted by those the network talking-heads disdain. That did not start with this election, but it has grown. A blog, Little Green Footballs, exposed Dan Rather's now infamous AWOL documents as forgeries just 20 minutes after they appeared on the Web.

Many newspapers have tried to launch Web versions but few have been successful in charging subscriptions for that. They seem to think the problem with declining readership is the medium and not the content.

A recent Pew research study shows that the number of people relying on the Internet for political coverage has tripled since 2004 and has now passed newspapers as a news source for those 50 and younger. The Drudge Report has begun to register more "hits" than "The New York Times" website.

Television, which continues as the most popular media, is coming under assault too. Pajamas TV, PJTV, recently began broadcasting via the Internet, relying primarily on subscriptions. If this or other models work, look for television news to go the way of the newspapers.

Even though it is easy to find blogs that are more fiction than fact, the top bloggers are clobbering the newspapers in content and in readership trends.

When the votes are counted, and with the Internet growing, will a new regime in the other Washington be erecting gates so only supporters will have access? When one of the candidates throws reporters off his plane if their papers endorse the opponent and cancels advertising when his running mate has a tough interview, it is a question worth considering.[[In-content Ad]]