Journalists. They can't even "do the right thing for the wrong reasons" right.

"For one thing, almost no one likes or trusts the media. The latest Gallup survey of respected institutions puts us down with the worst of the riffraff"

Shows what happens when you become a prostitute and don't do your job. Sorry Fineman, no one's buying your shit anymore. You sold your soul, live with it. And the declining revenues it's brought you.

Awww too bad Howie boy. So you have finally started to smell the coffee? Too bad it took this long to do that. We were bored with "Walks On Water" the day he announced that he was going to run for the Presidency. You and your asswipe buds at the Washington Compost and the New York Slimes crawled into bed with him, thinking the sex would be great. Now that he is not preforming down to your standards, you all decide to dump him. Well Howie ole boy, we the people don't want you either.

We have been disgusted with you and your ilk since the Nixon era. You and your buds are the ones that took out Nixon and blamed him for the mess they caused. They also crucified Reagan and Bush 41 and 43. Not one time did you and the rest of you shit head buds ever consider that they were trying to do some good. All you were concerned with is that they had an R behind their name and thus, to be considered a nincompoop, that couldn't pour piss out of a boot.

GarandFan: "You [Fineman] sold your soul"

While I'm sure Fineman WOULD sell his soul...I'm not sure even Satan finds much value in a "Journalist's" soul these days. (a) Satan has a box full of 'em and (b) a walk through the "Ocean" of a Journalist's soul would scarely get your feet wet!

TRANSLATION: As we MSM types have already butchered what was left of our credibility by supporting/covering up for this bum, we should have at least been rewarded with the leftist, anti-American, anti-free enterprise agenda we've worked for all these decades. Our heroes destruction of the evil US is taking far too long and doing far too little. We're PI$$ED!!!

Once again the media manages to get it wrong.

First, the media is not losing patience with Obama. They continue to cover for him and his failed agenda. They still do not criticize him unless it is for being insufficiently hard line with conservatives or being insufficiently socialist.

The notion that a 'break up' with the media will help his presidency by presenting some kind of foil for him to articulate his agenda with is laughable. The idea that Obama is failing because he is insufficiently leftist is ridiculous. Every poll shows clearly that the people oppose his agenda.

It isn't because he is unsuccessful that he is unpopular. He is unsuccessful because he and his programs are unpopular. There is a difference.

Forcing a success by cashing in our democracy in trade for a dictatorship of the democratic party is not the road to popularity.

Second, Fineman suggests that if the press attacks Obama then the people will think that there must therefore be something good about Obama worth supporting. What he fails to understand is that it isn't that the press attacks someone that makes that person or idea popular, it is that the press manages to consistently put itself on the wrong side of history. The press is so far left that it cannot help but find itself attacking people and ideas that are generally popular. The public does not want socialism. The public does not want government health care. The press doesn't drive popularity of these things. The notion that the press is so influential is farcical. Mr Fineman has mistaken coincidence for causality.

A pox on them all.

something itchy with boils

"The Times's Frank Rich, the astute dean of the commentariat,"

.....priceless

They foisted this incompetent boob on the gullible... now they're deceitfully attempting to make amends.

That wraps it up fairly concise and to the point.
It's a new age and the Journalists are finding it harder to lie and hide. They are exposed quickly by an overwhelming number of info sources.

Wrong MSM. What really worked for Clinton (ironically)is the beating the Democrats took in Congress in the 1994 elections. Americans like moderation and that loss softened Clinton's image. No matter what the guy does, no matter how inscrutable his explanations, Obama himself still engenders reasonable support/goodwill. And this is aomeone who has almost zero personality compared to Clinton. Pelosi the broom rider and Harry Reid the whatever are his worst enemies. But nice attempt at trying to maintain your relevancy MSM. Nice try.

Oopsie! I just read Bryan D's comment and lost about ten points off my IQ trying to figure out what the H--- he was talking about. Must remember to scan for the commenter's name before reading...

bryanD took the brown acid again.

I have to laugh when I read comments like Stan's: "the ones who took out Nixon and blamed him for the mess they caused."

Huh? The press made Nixon a criminal and an abuser of power?

"They also crucified Reagan..." Riiiight, the press was mean to Reagan and just loved them some Jimmy "Killer Bunny/ Malaise Speech" Carter.

And the post itself is almost as funny. I especially like the part about how the "MSM" will "always team with liberalism." That's why the press spent 2000 portraying Al Gore as "the guy who claimed he invented the Internet", a stiff stuffed shirt and a serial exaggerator, thus foisting a truly incompetent boob on the gullible. Right? And why they never breathed a word about Gennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinsky.

It's just hilarious how conservatives have convinced themselves that they have been victims of the wicked MSM for lo these many years. The press is fickle. It will kick anybody who's down, no matter what their ideology. And if it stumbles on a narrative that sells papers (or gets ratings) it runs with it. About half the time it's democrats and the other half it's Republicans.

Bruce,

I think what Stan was referring to is that after Nixon there has existed a form of gotcha journalism in covering the white house that has persisted up until Obama.

There is no doubt that the press today carries the water for the dems. Occurrences such as Rathergate and the John Edwards non-story are clear demonstrations of this bias.

On what page do you see the NYT covering ClimateGate? Why is it ignored when the European media have it on page 1?

On what page did the NYT cover RatherGate? Edwards? Why don't the MSM cover the dems desire to 'deem' legislation as having passed without a vote?

We are fortunate to have a diverse media where conservative views are heard on talk radio and elsewhere. But Obama wants to reinstate the fairness doctrine and stifle those conservative voices.

You think that the press isn't biased? Pinch Sulzberger just doubled his compensation in a paper that is bleeding red ink faster than it can put the black stuff on newsprint. Where is the outrage at his big raise while the little journalist gets screwed? Oh, that's right, he supports the dem leadership so his big raise is deserved.

Jim, you are a nice and kind man, but you are wasting your time trying to convince Bruce of anything. You see, the many, many voices here at Wizbang are deluded but only Bruce has the "right" take on things. That is how bad off he is. At least he doesn't screech...yet. Paging Steve Green. ww

WW-
I know. But if you are nice to them, you might be able to coax them out from under their rocks so you can give them a good whack upside the head.

More hilarity. Wild Willie imagining that Wizbang commenters represent the True Voice Of Middle America Which Is Always Correct, and jim m imagining that he has ever given anyone, let alone me, a rhetorical "whack upside the head."

And more imaginary victim-role-playing by jim: "Obama wants to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine." Really? Maybe you'd like to show us a quote in which Obama calls for that?

Now I'll admit that I don't keep track of which page the New York Times places which story. But I'm pretty sure I've heard of "Climategate" about 50 bajillion times on NPR and the alphabet TV networks over the last few months. And I heard about "Rathergate" about 20 microseconds after you did, also on NPR and network TV. Ditto the John Edwards story. And, being from Raleigh, I hear about that one 3 times a day on the local news, too.

Hey, jim, didja ever do any reading about forced conversions in history, as I recommended? Or the history of US tax policy in the 1990s? Do you ever read anything not written on a conservative website? "Whack upside the head" indeed! You wouldn't know a whack upside the head if one whacked you upside the head.

Yes I have looked at forced conversions. And if your argument is that Islam today is equally civilized to medieval European society, then I will claim victory on that particular discussion. My position remains that islam has grown almost exclusively through conquest and forced conversion. Christianity has not. Forced conversion has been the exception not the rule.

I posted a rebuttal to your tax policy ignorance previously. I was not incorrect. I was siting a different bill ('97) than you were('93).

And yes. I think that many people here have given you and Steve and your troll friends more than a "whack upside the head" rhetorically. Evidence the fact that often rather than give evidence to support your positions you choose to slink away.

Now you have tried to engage on facts a good bit more than many of the others and I give you credit for that. And you are certainly far more coherent than BryanD, who lately has seemed to be on some hallucinogenic trip.

bh - "That's why the press spent 2000 portraying Al Gore as "the guy who claimed he invented the Internet", "

CORRECTION: "That's why the press spent 2000 portraying Al Gore" as the be all and end all of democracy all the while pushing the Bush stole the election meme and completely ignoring gore's trick of asking for recounts in three DEM ONLY precincts.

Jim, we're liable to be fussed out for going off-topic (my fault), but forced conversions and conquest are not confined to any one religion. Islam, to be sure, spread in the 7th and 8th centuries almost entirely by conquest. After that, not so much. If it had been, why aren't all the inhabitants of Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and Croatia (all occupied by the Ottomans for 300-500 years) Muslim today? Most of the spread of Islam after, say, the Crusades period, has been through proselytization. By contrast,(or rather, similarly) if the Christian Europeans had not CONQUERED North and South America, Australia, and New Zealand, along with large parts of Asia and Africa, there might not be any Christians there today. Again, claim victory all you like, but repeating your ignorance of basic facts is not a "whack upside the head."

And I don't "slink away." I work, live, and sometimes grow bored with this or that thread, but I don't "slink away" from the likes of you. I don't remember much about the Clinton thread, but I believe that some here were claiming Republican Congresses cut taxes, while Democratic presidents only raised them. Isn't that Republican orthodoxy? 1993, 1997, whatever... I'm pretty sure a Democrat couldn't possibly claim credit for a tax cut, could he?

One other thing. What you call "trolls" are the lifeblood of any blog's comment section. I discovered this site because Jay Tea was a "troll" on Oliver Willis's blog. Haven't you ever been bored to tears reading threads where everybody agrees with the author and each other? Haven't you noticed regular commenters here wishing for Mr Green, BryanD, or myself to show up so they can do their pathetic best to give us a "whack upside the head?"

Marc, I was thinking more of the pre-election part of the year 2000, but I see you latched onto a tangent to fool yourself into thinking you've proved me wrong. As usual.

Seriously, dude, you've got to be the worst commenter on these boards. Do you ever get the point? Do you ever have anything to say but tangential hairsplitting followed by the obligatory insult?

I forgot to mention how that godawful liberal MSM just LIONIZED Mondale and Dukakis, amirite? I mean, really, and how they suppressed that picture of Dukakis in the tank helmet? Boy, you sure never saw THAT picture in '88, did you?

Marc's # 20 says the press spent (2000/2001) portraying Al Gore as (an honest person), all the while pushing the (United States President and Armed-Forces Commander-In-Chief, George Walker) Bush stole the election meme and completely ignoring Gore's trick of asking for recounts in three (heavily "Democratic" potty leaning and controlled) precincts.

The drive-bys also absolutely neglected to ever report the reality of elction night, 2000, when Al-Fredo Gore-leone called and CONCEDED the election and congratulated President-Elect Bush on his win.

Conceding an election is an action - not just words -- and Gore's later reversal of his concession was insane - as was its acceptance -- and should never have been entertained.

The lock-stepping Goebbelsesque propagandist polemicist pamphleteers "press" these days lies so arrogantly and narcissistically, it turns out Jayson Blair's error was to have been just a little ahead of his time.

Again, Mr Allen, I was referring to the pre-election portion of 2000. There were only 7 weeks left in the year on election night.

Marc missed the point because he's clueless -- that's what he does. You missed it EVEN AFTER IT WAS POINTED OUT. What does that make you?

Here's another hint: No one who uses terms like "drive-bys" and "Al-Fredo Gore-Leone" can or should be taken seriously.

I have no interest in refighting election results from 2000. George Bush is gone, thank God. My point was the self-delusion that conservatives labor under that they, and only they, are picked on by the press. It's laughable. And your assertion that the media "neglected" to report Gore's concession on election night is another example of this delusion. EVERYBODY heard about it, over and over and over, from the "drive-by" media, in the period after the election.