Disasters aren't easy...are they barak...

[billc]

Well, they all piled on Bush for hurricane Katrina...let's see how they handle Sandy...not well so far...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-anger-grows-outer-ny-boroughs-nj-over-sluggi

With just four days to go before the elections, and Obama's media doing everything within their power to ignore the subject of Benghazi, Libya, you would think they'd also be turning a blind eye to disaster relief problems in areas hardest hit by Hurricane Sandy.
That's why I was shocked to see this headline at the Huffington Post a few hours ago: "Anger Grows In Outer NY Boroughs, NJ Over Sluggish Response To Sandy."

​

As you can see, the top of the Post's front page listed article after article of bad news from the region.
Not what you would expect from a publication devoted to the re-election of Barack Obama.
Far more surprisingly, the Post is covering Sandy's aftermath somewhat similarly to the more right-leaning Drudge Report:

At least obama got the photo op in before Tuesday...cause it may get pretty grim next week on the east coast...

And from the Drudge report...

Drivers Waiting 6 Hours For Gas in NYC...
Tempers Rise in Wake of Storm...
'Finding bodies left and right'...
Restaurant, hotel prices skyrocket...
CHUCK SCHUMER CONFRONTED: 'We Are Gonna Die!'
CRAIGSLIST: $15 a gallon...
Utility workers pelted with eggs...
Misery...
'We have nothing'...
Residents Furious RED CROSS Offering Cookies & Hot Chocolate, Not Blankets Or Clothes...
Jet Fuel Supply Fast Becoming Concern At Airports...
Staten Islanders Plead for Help: 'We Need Food'...
'Please don't leave us'...
VIDEO: Stranded New Yorkers Defecating in Apartment Buildings...
DIRE...
NJ counties enact 70s style gas rationing... Developing...

Imagine if Bush was in office...how different this coverage would be...

 

[Makalakumu]

You know, this disaster could actually tip the election to Romney. The Northeast is solidly democratic and if millions of people don't turn out to vote there, especially in urban areas affected by the hurricane, those states could go Red.

The disaster could also tip the election to Romney simply because the Federal Government is so incapable of handling any crisis. Yeah, lets switch the figureheads on the old broken down POS! That's going to fix it!

 

[arnisador]

It wasn't all fixed immediately? Where is the Minister of Magic! Get him on the job!

 

[Tgace]

It wasn't all fixed immediately? Where is the Minister of Magic! Get him on the job!

The point is that the media treats this administration vastly different to the previous one. On many issues.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[WC_lun]

The point is that the media treats this administration vastly different to the previous one. On many issues.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

Sorry, no. The media let George Bush get away with a lot without questoning him. I've seen the story above on NBC, CNN, and Yahoo. So how exactly are they ignoring it?

 

[Sukerkin]

Sadly that 'The Media supports the Left' myth is just that, a myth. Nearly all bias that people see in the news is of their own making. It's inevitable really as we all re-interpret the world to fit our own internal model.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It's funny. Depending on how your political leanings lie, if you see just the stories praising Candidate X or crucifying them.

I've seen stories praising and condemning Obama's actions regarding this disaster. Back to back.

I'm just sure glad it's the Presidents job to take off his jacket, clone himself 100,000 times, and send an army of himself out to do everything.
/sarcasm


Like any disaster, you have a huge bureaucracy doing the generalmanship, and like any huge bureaucracy, priorities are set and manpower assigned, and we in the middle don't have the big picture, and much is never said about why things worked as they did. Having lived through a few I know it's frustrating when you're without power for a few days, but there are only so many workers, so much available material to repair with, and sometimes you have to be patient.


Sometimes it's bad generalmanship, or poor preparation, or whatever. Sometimes it's just reality.
But to blame Obama (or Bush) who gets reports on progress, but isn't doing the minute to minute work, because it's not his job and not his specialty, that's just projection.

 

[billc]

To be clear, I'm not blaming obama for the problems with hurricane Sandy relief. He has no direct role in the effort, but neither did Bush. Most of the problems with Katrina came from the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans, but Bush still got the blame. I'm simply pointing out that the coverage of these difficulties would be different if Bush was in office. Believe me, I know that any kind of coordination of effort is difficult under these conditions, but the democrats piled on Bush during Katrina, and now it is only fair to point out the media bias going into this effort.

 

[Tgace]

Sadly that 'The Media supports the Left' myth is just that, a myth. Nearly all bias that people see in the news is of their own making. It's inevitable really as we all re-interpret the world to fit our own internal model.

If you really can't see the media difference between Katrina and this...or the difference between say THIS. Than you either are not looking close enough or you are subject to your own bias. There is a difference. Nobody is saying that the media is not presenting ANY stories on these topics..it's an issue of quantity and intensity (and quality) of coverage.

 

[Sukerkin]

I have to say that, to me, you are seeing what rubs your 'persecution nerve' the most and magnifying it to suit what you think is the lot of your chosen political colour.

Don't know why I bothered commenting really as I don't care that much right now and was just trying to inject a little objectivity into the usual stream of silliness. It might sound odd in the circumstances but I've got far more important things to worry about than false impressions of political martyrdom at the hands of the 'free' press.

 

[billc]

Hmmm...for all the love shown Bush over his management of FEMA...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-Places-Large-Order-Today-for-Delivery-Monday

[h=2]FEMA's vaunted "lean forward" strategy that called for advanced staging of supplies for emergency distribution failed to live up to its billing in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. [/h]In fact, the agency appears to have been completely unprepared to distribute bottled water to Hurricane Sandy victims when the storm hit this Monday. In contrast to its stated policy, FEMA failed to have any meaningful supplies of bottled water -- or any other supplies, for that matter -- stored in nearby facilities as it had proclaimed it would on its website. This was the case despite several days advance warning of the impending storm.
FEMA only began to solicit bids for vendors to provide bottled water for distribution to Hurricane Sandy victims on Friday, sending out a solicitation request for 2.3 million gallons of bottled water at the FedBizOpps.govwebsite. Bidding closed at 4:30 pm eastern.
Breitbart News spoke with contracting officer Annette Wright, who said that the winning vendor would be required to deliver the 2.3 million gallons of bottled water to an East Farmingdale, New York distribution center that was listed in the solicitation request by Monday, November 5th. Ms. Wright was unable to say when or how the water would be delivered from the distribution center to needy Hurricane Sandy victims in New Jersey, Staten Island, Long Island, and other boroughs of New York City. Vendors "are currently being evaluated," she said, and when the vendors are announced, they will provide information on how local distribution will occur.

Will the press hold obama's FEMA director to the same level of scorn as they did Bush and his FEMA director during Katrina?

Especially since this hurricane is after the experience of katrina and they have had how many years to prepare for this one?

 

[arnisador]

Will the press hold obama's FEMA director to the same level of scorn as they did Bush and his FEMA director during Katrina?

Is this one screwing it up as badly as Bush's did?

 

[billc]

If they are, it will be hard to know. The media isn't going to let obama take the fall for this if it goes south...

 

[billc]

If the liberals claimed that Bush didn't respond to Katrina because he "didn't care about Black people," what will they say about obama if this gets messed up...that he doesn't care about black people, hispanic people and white people?

The following was said during a katrina relief telethon...remember...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...ck-George-Bush-Doesnt-Care-About-Black-People

Kanye West, 9/2/2005: "I hate the way they portray us in the media. You see a black family, it says, 'They're looting.' You see a white family, it says, 'They're looking for food.' And, you know, it's been five days [waiting for federal help] because most of the people are black. And even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite because I've tried to turn away from the TV because it's too hard to watch. I've even been shopping before even giving a donation, so now I'm calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there. So anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help—with the way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off, as slow as possible. I mean, the Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way—and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us! George Bush doesn't care about black people"

hmmm...barak wasn't mentioned at the relief telethon this time...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11/03/nbcs-sandy-telethon-never-once-mentions-obama

60 minutes and not one of these people - other presenters included NBC's Brian Williams and Comedy Central's Jon Stewart - said one word about politics, global warming, or the upcoming elections.
I guess they learned from 2005's Katrina relief telethon when Kanye West said, "George Bush doesn't care about black people."

Why do they always correct their behavior after they behave poorly toward the republican...?

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...ethon-never-once-mentions-obama#ixzz2BBhab0Dx

 

[Tgace]

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/30/opinion/la-oe-goldberg-msm-benghazi-20121030

In 2000, a Democratic operative orchestrated an "October surprise" attack on George W. Bush, revealing that 24 years earlier, he'd been arrested for drunk driving. The media went into a feeding frenzy. "Is all the 24-hour coverage of Bush's 24-year-old DUI arrest the product of a liberal media almost drunk on the idea of sinking him, or is it a legitimate, indeed unavoidable news story?" asked Howard Kurtz in a segment for his CNN show "Reliable Sources." The consensus among the guests: It wasn't a legitimate news story. But the media kept going with it.

One could go on and on. In September 2004, former CBS titan Dan Rather gambled his entire career on a story about Bush's service in the National Guard. His instincts were so powerful, he didn't thoroughly check the documents he relied on, which were forgeries. In 2008, the media feeding frenzy over John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, was so ludicrous it belonged in a Tom Wolfe novel. Over the last couple of years, the mainstream media has generally treated Occupy Wall Street as idealistic, the "tea parties" as racist and terrifying.

To be sure, there've been conservative feeding frenzies: about Barack Obama's pastor, John Kerry's embellishments of his war record, etc. But the mainstream media usually has tasked itself with the duty of debunking and dispelling such "hysteria."

Last week, Fox News correspondent Jennifer Griffin reported that sources on the ground in Libya say they pleaded for support during the attack on the Benghazi consulate that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. They were allegedly told twice to "stand down." Worse, there are suggestions that there were significant military resources available to counterattack, but requests for help were denied.

If true, the White House's concerted effort to blame the attack on a video crumbles. Yet, last Friday, the president claimed that "the minute I found out what was happening" in Benghazi, he ordered that everything possible be done to protect our personnel. That is either untrue, or he's being disobeyed on grave matters.

This isn't an "October surprise" foisted on the media by opposition research; it's news.

 

[billc]

This article, out today or yesterday, explains why a foreigner wouldn't understand media bias in the states...it is a good article and very detailed...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/british-media-still-touts-obama-but-conservatives-gaining-a-voice/

If many Americans have been surprised at the manner in which Mitt Romney has reversed the trajectory of the election campaign in the past few weeks, Britons taking a passing interest in the contest are thoroughly bemused. For the past few months, since the British media began paying close attention, the narrative has been a slightly more exaggerated and simplistic version of the one that — until the first presidential debate — held sway in the U.S.: Barack Obama, still personally popular despite the struggling economy, was almost certain to defeat the gaffe-prone, out-of-touch-rich-guy Romney.
While U.S. conservatives are used to having their news distorted by the mainstream media, in Britain the news from the U.S. is subject to an additional process of filtering and spin. Due to constraints of airtime and space, the British media tends to take the “consensus” of what’s newsworthy from their U.S. counterparts. Stories that already were chosen to suit the liberal bias of the U.S. media are then edited for UK consumption, which has the effect of stripping away any remaining context, nuance, and balance.


As in the States, our election coverage has been deferential to Obama, while every real or imagined Romney gaffe has been pounced upon. “Controversial” Romney remarks — like his perfectly reasonable response to the attacks on U.S. embassies to the poorly phrased “47 percent” speech — have been widely reported. Yet few in the UK are familiar with “you didn’t build that.”
It doesn’t help that the first many Brits saw of Romney was during his Olympic visit to London, when the UK media attacked him for raisingthe same security concerns that … the UK media had been reporting for weeks.
You might think Mitt would get a fairer hearing in the UK than he does at home, given that a larger proportion of newspapers lean to the right politically in Britain than in the States, but it’s not as simple as that. For a variety of reasons, Republicans tend to be portrayed less favorably here, both in media coverage and in the popular culture in general, than Democrats. Broadly speaking, the received wisdom in the last three decades has been: Reagan, the Bushes, and now Romney — bad; Clinton and Obama — good.

Perhaps most significantly, the media agenda in Britain is still set to a large degree by the hugely influential and publicly funded BBC, whose liberal-left biases permeate its vast swath of programming, from news and current affairs to comedy and drama. The BBC was an early and enthusiastic supporter of Obama and has always shilled for the Democrats; along with theGuardian newspaper, it’s also largely responsible for propagating amongst Britons the stereotype of Republicans, and conservatives in general, as red-necked, gun-toting religious fanatics.

A second factor is that the center of political gravity in Britain is a good way further to the left than in the U.S., so even right-leaning British newspapers tend to view elements of U.S. conservatism as extreme — particularly with regard to “social issues” such as abortion, gun control, and gay marriage. The embrace of religion that informs some of those social issue positions is in itself a trait that both amuses and unsettles Britons, and our media and cultural elites in particular. You’ll rarely hear even a Conservative politician invoke God in a speech, and the fact that the leader of the opposition Labour party is openly atheist is not controversial.

And this...

Into this mix you can add the streak of what we might call “establishment anti-Americanism” that transcends the political divide in Britain, and which has its roots in America’s displacement of Britain as a global power in the years following the Second World War. This typically manifests itself in a perceived crudeness and irresponsibility on the part of Americans in their attitude to the rest of the world and the foreign policies of their leaders in particular. Just recently, I watched a pundit on a BBC panel show call Romney a “cowboy,” to general approval, in the context of a discussion about foreign policy; the same term was routinely used to mock George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan before him.

While this anti-Americanism is evident on both the right and left, it’s directed disproportionately towards Republicans and conservatives for the simple reason that they’re comfortable talking about American exceptionalism, refuse to apologize for their country, and loudly extol its virtues of freedom and self-reliance. Democrats and liberals, on the other hand — as exemplified by President Obama — are rather more reticent about standing up for America, and tend to defer to other countries and international bodies such as the United Nations. In the eyes of the British and other foreign media, therefore, they “know their place”.

 

[billc]

And to the actual bias in news coverage...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/11/02/Pew-Survey-Network-News-Coverage-Favors-Obama

[h=2]Pew Research released a survey of 2012 media coverage Friday which shows the three major networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- are more favorable in their coverage of President Obama than Mitt Romney.[/h]In its survey, Pew examined the media coverage of the two presidential candidates from August 27 to October 21 by the morning news shows -- ABC's Good Morning America, NBC's Today Show, and CBS This Morning -- and their evening news counterparts on the same networks. Morning shows' coverage (only the first half hour was considered) of Mitt Romney was positive 18% of the time and negative 27% of the time. Obama fared similarly with 13% positive and 30% negative.
Coverage of both candidates on morning shows was negative overall, but Romney had a 1.5-to-1 ratio of negative to positive stories while Obama was 2.3-to-1. Removing so-called "horse race" coverage (stories concerned with the direction the election is going and the strategies of the two candidates) from consideration, Romney actually received more positive (26%) than negative (16%) stories, while the ratio of Obama's positive stories remained negative.
While Romney enjoyed slightly positive coverage on the morning news programs, the numbers shift dramatically if you look at the evening news shows. When combined, the coverage for ABC World News, NBC Nightly News, and CBS Evening News for Obama was positive 25% of the time and only negative 23% of the time, a roughly even split. By contrast, Romney's coverage was 2-to-1 negative, with 16% of the stories about him being positive to 33% negative.
Pew notes that removing the horse race coverage actually makes the split worse for Romney. Without these stories about who is winning and why, Obama's coverage goes to 27% positive and only 17% negative; Romney's barely budges at 17% positive to 25% negative. Evening news was negative about Romney by a 2-to-1 ratio when including horse race stories and 1.4-to-1 negative without them. Meanwhile, they were 1-to-1 on Obama with horse race coverage and 1.6-to-1 positive without it.