“What can we do better for those of us covering your candidacies far away from where the first votes will be cast in Iowa and New Hampshire?”
—MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace, to former “It” candidate Beto O’Rourke regarding his campaign for the democratic party nomination to run against Donald Trump.
Later, she told Beto, “I’ll leave you with some free advice. Grab Garrett [Haake], who is NBC’s correspondent on your campaign and tell him what’s on your mind. If you don’t like the coverage, you can change it. You’re the candidate.”
Funny, I don’t think President Trump was ever told that when he was running in 2016.
This, I think, is how the blatant and intensifying mainstream media bias will eventually blow up what’s left of American political journalism. Reporters will become so used to supporting the Left and pursuing their own progressive agendas that they won’t even try to hide it. Firmly in their own bubble, they will gradually forget that there is something to hide.
Oh—do I need to point out that in ethical journalism the subject doesn’t get to dictate to the reporter? Or that a reporter should not seek the approval of a subject regarding how he or she is covered? I hope not.
If reporters reveal such unethical collaboration with campaigns and candidates on national TV, what do you think goes on behind the scenes?
This episode once again raises a conundrum I’ve mentioned before. Do the Democrats and progressives who continue to argue, often condescendingly, that the perception of mainstream media bias is all in the minds of conservatives really believe it, are they really so deluded and biased themselves that they can’t see what is so obvious, or are they deliberately aiding media manipulation by a strategy of continuous denial?
Ethics Alarms 
Some of the Democrats and progressives are true believers and really do believe that the media is just telling the truth, same as they believe the antiwar protestors who later became professors told the truth then and are telling it now. Some might wonder, but they’ve drunk so much of the Kool-Aid they don’t dare ask any questions. The ones at the top know damn well the media is aiding them. They lead those willing to function as “useful idiots,” partner with those who are not idiots but are still liberal to a T, and ignore those who don’t go along. In the meantime everyone I’ve just mentioned says the same thing: there’s no bias. When no one disagrees except the conservatives, who of course disagree, they wouldn’t be conservatives if they didn’t, most go along with the one message they do hear.
And then she went on to ask him out on a date.
Sounds like something a “reporter” at Granma would have asked Fidel.
I guess it may be propaganda, but it’s GOOD propaganda. And he’s just so CUTE!
Nicolle Wallace is…not an intelligent person. She’s telegenic and able to generate a large enough volume of words so that her show doesn’t have dead air, but she’s just not that smart. I think these statements are less an indictment of her political bias (which is clearly quite strong), and more an indictment of her lack of brains. Only an idiot would say something like that on a national television broadcast, with no apparent self-awareness. We all know you’re rooting for the D candidates, Nicolle, but you’re still supposed to maintain the fiction of impartiality. If for no other reason than that pretending to be impartial allows you to more influence through subtlety and trickery. Being openly partisan just gets you dismissed and diminishes your influence, you moron.
I remain convinced that Trump’s greatest asset is how incompetent his enemies are.
Nicolle Wallace is billed as a political analyst, with analyst being one of three (sometimes) accepted divisions of journalism, the others being reporter and commentator.
Ideally, a reporter sticks to reporting the news, an analyst provides explanation needed to understand the news, and a commentator marshals facts and logic to tell us what to think or believe.
Wallace departed from her role and acted as a political advisor, echoing some of her earlier career work. When this kind of thing is tolerated by a news media organization (don’t know if MSNBC acted or just tolerated this), they can and should be called out for bias.
However, overt bias is much less troubling than the hidden bias which infests these organizations. The misleading headlines or chryons which some people never get beyond, the buried information which deceives those who only read a few paragraphs, the choice of what to report and what to ignore, the selective inclusions and omissions in ‘news’ stories, the flaunting of false information followed sometime later by a muted correction, all of these are much more insidious.
Were they honest, these organizations would acknowledge the extent of these forms of bias and proclaim, a la Les Moonves, “So, what? It may be bad for the country, but it’s damn good for our bottom line.”
Do analysts get to interview guests? I thought analysts analyzed answers guests provided to journalists.
My next door neighbor installed a sign yesterday in his garage window stating: “Only morons, traitors and dickheads support Trump.” It directly faces my newly created garden patio and fountain seating area. That’s right, after the Mueller Report. Perfect for guests.
This same neighbor has had an Impeach Trump sign in his window since December 2016. That’s right, before Trump was inaugurated. (Nah, there’s not been an organized soft coup.) And, apparently, I’m an assumed traitor. Funny thing is, I’ve never discussed politics or any politician once with him. Nor have I ever put any political sign in my yard. Hell, I voted in the Democrat primary earlier this May.
This is how the citizenry and our representative republic has been so completely perverted by the Nicolle Wallace’s of the media.
Good Lord. That would not be permitted in my neighborhood. Are you sure there isn’t some ordinance about it? “Dickhead” crosses the line.
Did I fail to mention the graphic of an index finger pointing at the viewer? It’s so nice.
Somehow I think that the local authorities would always find themselves too busy or otherwise occupied to bother about it, or might say “we’re not going to interfere with his First Amendment rights.” Of course then you’re free to post your sign saying “Only idiots want to impeach a president before he’s even sworn in, so what does that make you?”
In the past, on occasion, I snickered at “Impeach Bush” signs and asked, “Why do you want to make Cheney president?” Wouldn’t work as well with Pence, I guess, but he will become progressively (hah) more evil if he gets any closer to the presidency.
In honesty the point(s) raised about Wallace are valid but Trump supporters pretend the Fox is a balanced unbiased news agency, none of you mentioned Hannity or Shapiro or the three geniuses on the morning couch. Very selective memories to support a would be dictator. Ps I am not a liberal
1. I’ll put your comment in the dictionary under “whataboutism.” The post was about a specific incident with a specific “journalist.” When I want to write an extensive review of all biased instances in the news media, I will….when I have ten years and a bigger blog.
2. Trunp supporters think Fox News is unbiased? Prove it. Conservatives know and admit that Fox tilts right—they also know that it was created to provide contrast and some desperate balance after the arrogant mainstream media had made its agenda clear to anyone paying attention. Ailes was explicit about Fox’s orientation, and nobody on this forum is so stupid or dishonest to pretend otherwise.
3. So who do you think you’re talking to? A theme here, for years, is that there is no bias-free, trustworthy news source Right-biased sources like Fox News are essential to provide access to some stories that the mainstream media intentionally or negligently buries.
4. Meanwhile, while Fox is mostly straight about its bias, we hear utter insulting disingenuous nonsense from, for example, the editor of the Times, who boasted about how objective the unofficial voice of the democratic party is. This was the paper that announced that it would tilt its coverage against Trump at the end of the campaign, a flaming admission that it’s a journalism disgrace.
5. In contrast to most Fox News fans—I boycott the network because of its lack of professionalism, and only use it when it is flagged as a source for a left-buried news item—pompous, complicit progressives still generally deny the mainstream media’s bias, which is daily, pervasive, and getting worse.
6. If progressives were half as honest agreeing that the mainstream news media was an ally of the democratic party pretending otherwise as conservatives are honest about Fox News, maybe this crumbling and rotting profession might begin reforming, which is desperately needed.
7. But then, people like you (I almost used another description, ) pave the way for unethical journalism by minimizing episodes like this one with blather like “What about Fox and Friends? What about Hannity?” Fox’s cheerleading—which is obviously cheerleading—neither balances, counteracts nor excuses the breaches of MSNBC, ABC, where a Clinton acolyte pretends to be n objective journalist, CNN, CBS, NBC, PBS, The Times, The Washington Post, and others. In short, Fox News is not relevant to the serious issue of mainstream media bias.
8. This site does have a search engine, you know. I challenge you to find anything but contempt for Sean Hannity and Fox and Friends.
9. Ben Shapiro is a generally smart right-wing commentator, and has never pretended to be anything else. He also doesn’t work for Fox News. His Daily Wire is in the same category as The Blaze and Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller.I’ve never pretended otherwise, and if you bothered to do your due diligence here before accusing me, you would have seen the last post about Ben, which scored him for doing pretty much what your idiotic comment did to me.
10. When a Fox host asks a GOP candidate “Tell me how we can help,” I’ll write about it.Someone will have to flag it first, because, as I said, I don’t watch Fox News.
11. In short, your comment is a cheap shot, logically and ethically lamebrained, and not backed by the record of this blog. Whether you are a liberal or not is irrelevant. You’re a jerk.
Post Script: Do better next time, or else.
Please explain your dictator reference.
Isn’t it true the prior administration tried to dictate the outcome of an election and having failed has been seeking to undo it? That’s more authoritarian than anything I’ve seen from the current one.
I don’t watch Fox and have seen their bias in the past, though not to the degree CNN, MSNBC, NYT among many others seems to be pursuing.
I didn’t even get to the stupid dictator reference. Not worth my time. All it proves is that Mike follows “resistance” talking points and is willing to advance Big Lies. And that he is either a cretin, or plays one on TV.
His statement of not being a liberal may be correct. His adoption of the tactics and lexicon of the resistance left is pretty clear. I.e. he may be a leftist not a liberal.
Dude is a card carrying progressive…liberals are too far right (and unWoke) for him.