Ana Child - World-of-Newave.info http://answers.world-of-newave.info/ana-child.htm Latest news and articles about Ana Child en-us Copyright (c)2004-2008.§/Newave SARL. All rights reserved. webmaster@world-of-newave.com (Webmaster) Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:23:51 GMT Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:23:51 GMT Newave Lisa XML Engine v1.0 - http://www.world-of-newave.info/about.htm 60 http://www.world-of-newave.info/images/wi8831.gif World-of-Newave.info - Knowledge and Informational Database http://www.world-of-newave.info/ 88 31 {NORTH AMERICA > REAL ESTATE} - Mission St (mission district) $2500 1100sqft http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/mission-st-mission-district-2500-1100sqft-20080819121.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/mission-st-mission-district-2500-1100sqft-20080819121.htm Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:31:22 GMT Call 415-282-7821 ask for Alex or Ana. Or Alex at 650-302-8104 can be shown at any time during business hours we are right above the store. Alex Chaudoir | City Realty | 415-282-7821 2982 Mission St. , San Francisco, CA Property was an Insurance office for past few years and a Real Estate office before that. Could be used as anything form offices to pizza store. Loact Retail/Commercial $2,500/month Sq Footage 1,100 Parking Unspecified DESCRIPTION Commercial ground floor in a two story property. Ready for new offices to go in and start work. see additional photos below RENTAL FEATURES Wall to wall carpets. Gas heat. Two bathrooms Counters LOCATION FEATURES Lots of foot traffic. New high density building going up at the corner LEASE TERMS Willing to listen to you ADDITIONAL PHOTOS Renter contact info: Alex Chaudoir City Realty 415-282-7821 Equal Opportunity Housing Posted: Jun 30, 2008, 2:25pm PDT This store front is being used as campaign head quarters for a supervisor running for office will be available November 5th 2008. See it now if you like it its yours in November. call Alex 415-282-7821 ;650-302-8104 Sfbay.Craigslist.Org Mission St (mission district) $2500 1100sqft {new window}   Sfbay.Craigslist.Org - Call 415-282-7821 ask for Alex or Ana. Or Alex at 650-302-8104 can be shown at any time during business hours we are right above the store. Alex Chaudoir | City Realty | 415-282-7821 2982 Mission St. , San Francisco, CA Property was an Insurance office for past few years and a Real Estate office before that. Could be used as anything form offices to pizza store. Loact Retail/Commercial $2,500/month Sq Footage 1,100 Parking Unspecified DESCRIPTION Commercial ground floor in a two story property. Ready for new offices to go in and start work. see additional photos below RENTAL FEATURES Wall to wall carpets. Gas heat. Two bathrooms Counters LOCATION FEATURES Lots of foot traffic. New high density building going up at the corner LEASE TERMS Willing to listen to you ADDITIONAL PHOTOS Renter contact info: Alex Chaudoir City Realty 415-282-7821 Equal Opportunity Housing Posted: Jun 30, 2008, 2:25pm PDT This store front is being used as campaign head quarters for a supervisor running for office will be available November 5th 2008. See it now if you like it its yours in November. call Alex 415-282-7821 ;650-302-8104
Mission St {...}
Published: August 26, 2008, 9:31 pm - Indexed: August 26, 2008, 9:38 pm - Page Size: 13KB
Category: Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate

]]> Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate {NEWS} - Ivanovic survives US Open scare http://articles.world-of-newave.info/news/ivanovic-survives-us-open-scare-20080888828.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/news/ivanovic-survives-us-open-scare-20080888828.htm Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:54:44 GMT Top seed Ana Ivanovic overcomes Vera Dushevina of Russia 6-1 4-6 6-4 in the first round of the US Open. News.Bbc.Co.Uk Ivanovic survives US Open scare {new window}   News.Bbc.Co.Uk - Top seed Ana Ivanovic overcomes Vera Dushevina of Russia 6-1 4-6 6-4 in the first round of the US Open.
BBC SPORT | Tennis | Ivanovic survives US Open scare {...}
Published: August 26, 2008, 6:54 pm - Indexed: August 26, 2008, 9:53 pm - Page Size: 31KB
Category: News

]]> News {RESOURCES > NEWS AND MEDIA} - Top seed Ivanovic survives scare to reach round two http://articles.world-of-newave.info/sports/resources/news-and-media/top-seed-ivanovic-survives-scare-to-reach-round-20080855529.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/sports/resources/news-and-media/top-seed-ivanovic-survives-scare-to-reach-round-20080855529.htm Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:30:24 GMT NEW YORK (Reuters) - Top seed Ana Ivanovic survived a scare at the U.S. Open on Tuesday before scraping past Vera Dushevina of Russia 6-1 4-6 6-4 in the first round. Reuters.Com Top seed Ivanovic survives scare to reach round two {new window}   Www.Reuters.Com - NEW YORK (Reuters) - Top seed Ana Ivanovic survived a scare at the U.S. Open on Tuesday before scraping past Vera Dushevina of Russia 6-1 4-6 6-4 in the first round.
An Error has occured | Reuters.com {...}
Published: August 26, 2008, 6:30 pm - Indexed: August 26, 2008, 9:10 pm - Page Size: 11KB
Category: Sports > Resources > News and Media

]]> Sports > Resources > News and Media {LITERATURE > RSS FEEDS} - Rodriguez Returning To Lost http://articles.world-of-newave.info/arts/literature/genres/science-fiction/rss-feeds/rodriguez-returning-to-lost-20080818324.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/arts/literature/genres/science-fiction/rss-feeds/rodriguez-returning-to-lost-20080818324.htm Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:00:00 GMT Entertainment Weekly's Michael Ausiello >a href="http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2008/08/michelle-rodrig.html" target="outside">reported that Michelle Rodriguez, who played ex-cop and tail-section survivor Ana-Lucia on ABC's Lost, will return to the show for an episode in the upcoming fifth season. Scifi.Com Rodriguez Returning To Lost {new window}   Www.Scifi.Com - Entertainment Weekly's Michael Ausiello >a href="http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2008/08/michelle-rodrig.html" target="outside">reported that Michelle Rodriguez, who played ex-cop and tail-section survivor Ana-Lucia on ABC's Lost, will return to the show for an episode in the upcoming fifth season.
Published: August 26, 2008, 6:00 am - Indexed: August 26, 2008, 8:39 pm - Page Size: 40KB
Category: Arts > Literature > Genres > Science Fiction > RSS Feeds

]]> Arts > Literature > Genres > Science Fiction > RSS Feeds {INTERNET > GOOGLE} - Model your campus in Mexico using SketchUp http://articles.world-of-newave.info/computers/internet/searching/search-engines/google/model-your-campus-in-mexico-using-sketchup-20080869816.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/computers/internet/searching/search-engines/google/model-your-campus-in-mexico-using-sketchup-20080869816.htm Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:11:03 GMT Back in February we told you about the 2008 Model Your Campus Competition, a call for students to submit 3D models of their college campuses created with Google SketchUp. We got submissions from campuses around the world, and Mexico stood out with submissions from 13 different campuses. At that time we also ran a parallel contest with a top Mexican school, ITESM (The Technology Institute of Monterrey), and offered a separate prize for the best models submitted by ITESM students. The students come from all over Mexico, so there is a truly national mix of competitors. In total, ITESM participants designed 111 buildings, representing 22 ITESM campuses. All of the submissions will live in a collection within the Google 3D Warehouse, an online storage space for all your 3D needs. From intergalactic space vehicles to cucumbers, the 3D Warehouse is flush with downloadable models made by the SketchUp community.Last week we announced the winners of the contest: David Gómez-Urquiza Madero y Ricardo Pfeiffer Hurtado, both students of Mechatronics at ITESM's Santa Fe Campus. Since a digital Earth needs some digital buildings, we're thrilled that ITESM students have submitted their designs to create a more livable Google Earth-the winning models will be included in the 3D Buildings Layers of Google Earth. The school leadership plan on encouraging students to construct detailed 3D models of all 33 ITESM campuses, and the contest will return for another run next year. Here's to the winners!one of the modelsthe winning teamPosted by Ana Paula Blanco, Head of Mexico Communications and Public Affairs Googleblog.Blogspot.Com Model your campus in Mexico using SketchUp {new window}   Googleblog.Blogspot.Com - Back in February we told you about the 2008 Model Your Campus Competition, a call for students to submit 3D models of their college campuses created with Google SketchUp. We got submissions from campuses around the world, and Mexico stood out with submissions from 13 different campuses. At that time we also ran a parallel contest with a top Mexican school, ITESM (The Technology Institute of Monterrey), and offered a separate prize for the best models submitted by ITESM students. The students come from all over Mexico, so there is a truly national mix of competitors. In total, ITESM participants designed 111 buildings, representing 22 ITESM campuses. All of the submissions will live in a collection within the Google 3D Warehouse, an online storage space for all your 3D needs. From intergalactic space vehicles to cucumbers, the 3D Warehouse is flush with downloadable models made by the SketchUp community.Last week we announced the winners of the contest: David Gómez-Urquiza Madero y Ricardo Pfeiffer Hurtado, both students of Mechatronics at ITESM's Santa Fe Campus. Since a digital Earth needs some digital buildings, we're thrilled that ITESM students have submitted their designs to create a more livable Google Earth-the winning models will be included in the 3D Buildings Layers of Google Earth. The school leadership plan on encouraging students to construct detailed 3D models of all 33 ITESM campuses, and the contest will return for another run next year. Here's to the winners!one of the modelsthe winning teamPosted by Ana Paula Blanco, Head of Mexico Communications and Public Affairs
Official Google Blog: Model your campus in Mexico using SketchUp {...}
Indexed: August 14, 2008, 9:11 pm - Page Size: 77KB
Category: Computers > Internet > Searching > Search Engines > Google

]]> Computers > Internet > Searching > Search Engines > Google {LIBRARIES > WEBLOGS} - LOEX 37th National Conference http://articles.world-of-newave.info/reference/libraries/library-and-information-science/weblogs/loex-37th-national-conference-2008081453.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/reference/libraries/library-and-information-science/weblogs/loex-37th-national-conference-2008081453.htm Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:16:37 GMT Early heads up on next year's LOEX Conference. It will be in Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 30 - May 2, 2009.Here is some text from a promotional flier:LOEX 2009 April 30-May 2 Albuquerque, NM: Blazing Trails On the Path to Information LiteracyJoin us in the Land of Enchantment to explore, network, and share. We encourage you to begin thinking about presentations you would like to share with colleagues.Our trails will diverge toward the following themes:? Trail Guides: Leadership and Management? Off the Beaten Path: Creativity and Exploration? Shortcuts: Lessons ?to go?? From Covered Wagon to the Railroad: Educational Technologies? Round-up: Collaborative Efforts and Spaces? Are we there yet? Assessment and AccountabilityLOEX 2009 New Mexico Planning CommitteeJosé Aranda, Doña Ana Community CollegeMegan Beard, University of New Mexico LibrariesCarroll Botts, University of New Mexico LibrariesMark Emmons (co-chair), University of New Mexico LibrariesSusan Moore, Central New Mexico Community CollegeCassandra Osterloh (co-chair), Queen of Heaven SchoolCecilia Stafford, New Mexico State UniversityGrants Theresa Valko, New Mexico State University Information-literacy.Net LOEX 37th National Conference {new window}   Www.Information-literacy.Net - Early heads up on next year's LOEX Conference. It will be in Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 30 - May 2, 2009.Here is some text from a promotional flier:LOEX 2009 April 30-May 2 Albuquerque, NM: Blazing Trails On the Path to Information LiteracyJoin us in the Land of Enchantment to explore, network, and share. We encourage you to begin thinking about presentations you would like to share with colleagues.Our trails will diverge toward the following themes:? Trail Guides: Leadership and Management? Off the Beaten Path: Creativity and Exploration? Shortcuts: Lessons ?to go?? From Covered Wagon to the Railroad: Educational Technologies? Round-up: Collaborative Efforts and Spaces? Are we there yet? Assessment and AccountabilityLOEX 2009 New Mexico Planning CommitteeJosé Aranda, Doña Ana Community CollegeMegan Beard, University of New Mexico LibrariesCarroll Botts, University of New Mexico LibrariesMark Emmons (co-chair), University of New Mexico LibrariesSusan Moore, Central New Mexico Community CollegeCassandra Osterloh (co-chair), Queen of Heaven SchoolCecilia Stafford, New Mexico State UniversityGrants Theresa Valko, New Mexico State University
The Information Literacy Land of Confusion: LOEX 37th National Conference {...}
Indexed: August 6, 2008, 11:16 pm - Page Size: 89KB
Category: Reference > Libraries > Library and Information Science > Weblogs

]]> Reference > Libraries > Library and Information Science > Weblogs {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Boehlert: Trust me, John McCain doesn't know what bad press looks like http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/boehlert-trust-me-john-mccain-doesn-t-know-what-bad-2008087573.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/boehlert-trust-me-john-mccain-doesn-t-know-what-bad-2008087573.htm Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:54:12 GMT Did you know the big bad media are beating up on John McCain? For weeks, the campaign's media debate centered on whether the press was being too kind to Sen. Barack Obama -- whether it was fawning over the Democrat's historic run and drowning him in rapturous coverage. (Recent studies and analysis have cast that claim into doubt.) But now the narrative has been expanded to include the laughable notion that, following a string of McCain campaign stumbles, including botched staging and questionable photo-ops, the press has suddenly turned on McCain and is mocking the Republican. That the same press corps that branded McCain a maverick and for years worshipped his loose-talking demeanor, has now soured on the senator. Meaning, the love is gone. The New York Observer trumpeted that trend last week when it published a front-page article detailing the transformation from McCain-as-media-hero to "McCain-as-marginalized-victim" who's suffering "rough treatment" from journalists. The Observer piece came complete with an illustration that showed the press as a two-by-four-wielding playground bully setting his sights on a vulnerable and childlike McCain. (Run Johnny, run!) Aside from asking for the world's smallest violin, I'd like to make the point that rather than bemoaning the type of press attention McCain has been attracting, most recent Democratic candidates for president, who were pummeled and even savaged by the press, would pay for the kind of respectful coverage McCain has accumulated this summer. They would be rejoicing if the press ever treated them as kindly and as softly as it has McCain this campaign. Let me put it another way: When McCain gets regularly portrayed in the press as a serial liar the way Al Gore was in 2000, then he can complain about the press. When McCain is portrayed as an angry lunatic the way Howard Dean was in 2003, then he can complain. When McCain's war record is dragged through the mud while the press looks on for weeks too frightened to call out the partisan accusers, the way John Kerry's military record was, then he can complain. When McCain's campaign is defined by his haircut the way John Edwards' was, then he can complain. When McCain is portrayed as a cackling witch the way Hillary Clinton was this winter, then he can complain. When McCain is portrayed as arrogant and presumptuous the way Obama is today, then he can complain. But pretending that when the press simply chronicles McCain's disjointed campaign means that reporters and pundits have somehow turned on the candidate -- that they are attacking him and piling on -- is just ludicrous. It's true the McCain campaign has received some unkind press notices in recent weeks, but that's because the McCain campaign has been very poorly run. As The Atlantic's conservative blogger Ross Douthat conceded last week, "John McCain is running a staggeringly inept campaign." That's what Republican boosters were saying about the Arizona senator. But simply acknowledging the campaign's missteps, however gingerly the traditional media have done it in recent weeks, does not mean the press is being nasty to the candidate or attacking the GOP. What's happened in recent White House campaign cycles is that people have become so accustomed to the press openly mocking the Democrat that when that pattern is altered, however slightly, as it's been in 2008, it's perceived to be a massive shift. Since the media are simply not trashing the Democratic nominee as aggressively as in campaigns past, conservatives are claiming that's being unfair. They liked the old model where the press effortlessly adopted GOP spin about Democratic candidates being phony and untrustworthy. That worked for the GOP. Today, that model has been modestly tweaked, and the GOP is crying foul. That's expected. But it was distressing to see the New York Observer buy into the spin about the media turning on McCain. After all, the evidence to support the meme is quite thin. Yes, partisan Republican Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, assured the Observer that McCain "got slapped upside the head" by the media. But in terms of pinpointing actual instances of mockery, the Observer didn't seem to have much to work with. It did cite this recent cable chatter scene: "On a recent segment on Fox News' The Beltway Boys ... Morton Kondracke, countered a little later with this: "McCain did not have a great week. His visual was riding around in a golf cart with old George Bush the First." Mr. Kondracke waved his hands in the air, comically mimicking Mr. McCain at the wheel of a golf car. Mr. [Fred] Barnes crossed his arms and chuckled. That was the Observer's strongest piece of evidence of the media "mockery" -- of the "rough treatment" -- that McCain has had to endure? Kondracke waved his hands and Barnes chuckled. Oh, brother. I mean, how does McCain make it through the days with that kind of media venom flowing in his direction? I can't help thinking if Gore wouldn't have preferred suffering that kind of "mockery" as opposed to having MSNBC's Chris Matthews announce that Gore was so desperate to be president in 2000 that he would gladly "lick the bathroom floor" to get elected. Go read the Daily Howler's 2000 archives for a catalog that's as long as a fire station grocery list of the jarring insults and attacks the press leveled against Gore, who, at times, was portrayed in the press as pathological. And then compare those attacks to the light-as-a-feather mockery that McCain has supposedly had to deal with lately and tell me which is tougher. It's the same reason that I bet Clinton would have gladly been the target of a Fox News anchor's chuckle rather than having The New York Times print a news section analysis of her laugh and then watch lots of well-paid, deep-thinking pundits and reporters at The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Cincinnati Post, National Public Radio, Time.com, Reuters, Associated Press, Politico, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, among others, pontificate about her humorous outbursts. Indeed, way back in November 2007, months before the press really let loose on her candidacy, Greg Sargent amassed a sort of Greatest Hits of the media's phony attacks on Clinton. Read the list and try to think of a single event in the last two months in which the press, which we're told has turned on poor John McCain, ever concocted nonsense like this and targeted the GOP front-runner: * Hillary's alleged failure to tip the Iowa waitress * Hillary's phony southern drawl * The supposed 20-year-plan by Hillary and Bill to take over the world, or at least deliver them both the Presidency, as alleged by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta and denied by the one person who supposedly had first-hand knowledge of their dastardly plot * The baseless claim that Hillary eavesdropped on political opponents in 1992 * The bogus media claim that Bill Clinton accused Hillary's Dem rivals of "swiftboating" her * The media's hyping of Hillary's supposed refusal to release Presidential records, a tale that was taken apart in today's Washington Post and which wasn't matched by any similar media outrage about Rudy [Giuliani's] refusal to release his Mayoral papers. P.S. Don't forget the great cleavage debate of 2007. Yet we're supposed to believe the bullying press is now mocking McCain? Give us a break. You'll also note that with the Democratic trend with Gore, Dean, Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, the caustic coverage candidates have had to endure almost always revolved around questions of character; being a liar, a phony, unhinged, or arrogant. By contrast, there has not been a single, sustained press narrative pushed by the media during this entire campaign season that has ridiculed or called into question McCain's character. Not one. For the press, that kind of character exploration of McCain remains taboo. But when covering Democrats, character assassination remains routine. Meanwhile, I can't help wondering if the press is being tagged as mean and nasty simply because reporters belatedly challenged one of McCain's many campaign lies. Because they decided to come out of their Bush-era shell and actually engaged in a rare bout of fact-checking, or what used to be called reporting, when a Republican tried to smear the character of his Democratic opponent. The lie McCain peddled in a television ad was that Obama canceled a trip to visit wounded U.S. soldiers in Germany because the Pentagon told him he couldn't bring reporters along with him. After some initial hesitation, NBC, along with The New York Times and The Washington Post, among others, finally reported that McCain's central allegation was not supported by the facts. On the front page on July 30, the Post's Michael Shear and Dan Balz reported that McCain continued to make the allegation, "despite no evidence that the charge is true." That might seem like a simple thing. And unfortunately the press still allowed McCain's planted lie to dictate campaign coverage last week. But for the Beltway media amidst a White House campaign, the Post's reporting was different. As the Daily Howler noted: "Shear's report represents a major change in the mainstream press culture of the past sixteen years. In this report, the Washington Post, on its front page, directly challenges the latest slimy "character" charge against the latest Dem White House hopeful. This represents a major change in the way this newspaper does business." Quite simply, the Republican Party cannot afford to have the press become aggressive fact-checkers out on the trail. So in an attempt to intimidate the press back into the semi-crouch that has defined campaign journalism for the last decade, conservatives whine about how mean and nasty the media are for attacking McCain. But the far-fetched claim just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In fact, it directly contradicts very recent testimonials from starry-eyed journalists on the McCain beat. "Covering McCain is a blast," wrote Ana Marie Cox, in a recent issue of Radar. "He genuinely likes reporters: He'll joke with us about our drinking habits, playfully request our cell phones in the middle of a call and tell some unsuspecting editor or parent that the phone's owner has just been hauled off to rehab, and engage in gleefully sarcastic banter about both our colleagues and his." And on MSNBC last week, Time's Mark Halperin, sounding like somebody putting off making an unwanted dentist appointment, assured viewers that, "McCain deserves scrutiny and he'll get some." Halperin couldn't quite say when that pending scrutiny of McCain would take place. (Stay tuned.) The truth is that the press not only has not turned on McCain but it continues to act as a key campaign ally in a way it does not for Democrats. I'm trying to imagine back during the 2004 campaign, when the debate about Iraq was raging: What if candidate Kerry had sat down for an interview on the CBS Evening News and promptly made an egregious factual error regarding the timeline of events there? Does anybody really think that rather than air Kerry's blunder, and in fact trumpet the misstep as news, that CBS would have cut away from his botched answer and replaced it with three separate spliced-together statements made by Kerry, one of which was the answer to a different question, and then not tipped off viewers that the interview had been heavily edited? Does anybody think CBS would have extended Kerry that courtesy? That's exactly the kind of oversized life preserver Katie Couric's Evening News threw McCain when he bungled the timeline of the U.S. military's surge in Iraq during a CBS interview. In an extraordinary act of kindness, Couric and company covered for McCain -- and violated CBS' ethical guidelines in the process. Yet today we're told the press has turned on the GOP candidate and that it's mocking John McCain? Trust me, if the press had turned on Al Gore like that in 2000, he'd be finishing up his second term as president right now. Mediamatters.Org Boehlert: Trust me, John McCain doesn't know what bad press looks like {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - Did you know the big bad media are beating up on John McCain? For weeks, the campaign's media debate centered on whether the press was being too kind to Sen. Barack Obama -- whether it was fawning over the Democrat's historic run and drowning him in rapturous coverage. (Recent studies and analysis have cast that claim into doubt.) But now the narrative has been expanded to include the laughable notion that, following a string of McCain campaign stumbles, including botched staging and questionable photo-ops, the press has suddenly turned on McCain and is mocking the Republican. That the same press corps that branded McCain a maverick and for years worshipped his loose-talking demeanor, has now soured on the senator. Meaning, the love is gone. The New York Observer trumpeted that trend last week when it published a front-page article detailing the transformation from McCain-as-media-hero to "McCain-as-marginalized-victim" who's suffering "rough treatment" from journalists. The Observer piece came complete with an illustration that showed the press as a two-by-four-wielding playground bully setting his sights on a vulnerable and childlike McCain. (Run Johnny, run!) Aside from asking for the world's smallest violin, I'd like to make the point that rather than bemoaning the type of press attention McCain has been attracting, most recent Democratic candidates for president, who were pummeled and even savaged by the press, would pay for the kind of respectful coverage McCain has accumulated this summer. They would be rejoicing if the press ever treated them as kindly and as softly as it has McCain this campaign. Let me put it another way: When McCain gets regularly portrayed in the press as a serial liar the way Al Gore was in 2000, then he can complain about the press. When McCain is portrayed as an angry lunatic the way Howard Dean was in 2003, then he can complain. When McCain's war record is dragged through the mud while the press looks on for weeks too frightened to call out the partisan accusers, the way John Kerry's military record was, then he can complain. When McCain's campaign is defined by his haircut the way John Edwards' was, then he can complain. When McCain is portrayed as a cackling witch the way Hillary Clinton was this winter, then he can complain. When McCain is portrayed as arrogant and presumptuous the way Obama is today, then he can complain. But pretending that when the press simply chronicles McCain's disjointed campaign means that reporters and pundits have somehow turned on the candidate -- that they are attacking him and piling on -- is just ludicrous. It's true the McCain campaign has received some unkind press notices in recent weeks, but that's because the McCain campaign has been very poorly run. As The Atlantic's conservative blogger Ross Douthat conceded last week, "John McCain is running a staggeringly inept campaign." That's what Republican boosters were saying about the Arizona senator. But simply acknowledging the campaign's missteps, however gingerly the traditional media have done it in recent weeks, does not mean the press is being nasty to the candidate or attacking the GOP. What's happened in recent White House campaign cycles is that people have become so accustomed to the press openly mocking the Democrat that when that pattern is altered, however slightly, as it's been in 2008, it's perceived to be a massive shift. Since the media are simply not trashing the Democratic nominee as aggressively as in campaigns past, conservatives are claiming that's being unfair. They liked the old model where the press effortlessly adopted GOP spin about Democratic candidates being phony and untrustworthy. That worked for the GOP. Today, that model has been modestly tweaked, and the GOP is crying foul. That's expected. But it was distressing to see the New York Observer buy into the spin about the media turning on McCain. After all, the evidence to support the meme is quite thin. Yes, partisan Republican Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, assured the Observer that McCain "got slapped upside the head" by the media. But in terms of pinpointing actual instances of mockery, the Observer didn't seem to have much to work with. It did cite this recent cable chatter scene: "On a recent segment on Fox News' The Beltway Boys ... Morton Kondracke, countered a little later with this: "McCain did not have a great week. His visual was riding around in a golf cart with old George Bush the First." Mr. Kondracke waved his hands in the air, comically mimicking Mr. McCain at the wheel of a golf car. Mr. [Fred] Barnes crossed his arms and chuckled. That was the Observer's strongest piece of evidence of the media "mockery" -- of the "rough treatment" -- that McCain has had to endure? Kondracke waved his hands and Barnes chuckled. Oh, brother. I mean, how does McCain make it through the days with that kind of media venom flowing in his direction? I can't help thinking if Gore wouldn't have preferred suffering that kind of "mockery" as opposed to having MSNBC's Chris Matthews announce that Gore was so desperate to be president in 2000 that he would gladly "lick the bathroom floor" to get elected. Go read the Daily Howler's 2000 archives for a catalog that's as long as a fire station grocery list of the jarring insults and attacks the press leveled against Gore, who, at times, was portrayed in the press as pathological. And then compare those attacks to the light-as-a-feather mockery that McCain has supposedly had to deal with lately and tell me which is tougher. It's the same reason that I bet Clinton would have gladly been the target of a Fox News anchor's chuckle rather than having The New York Times print a news section analysis of her laugh and then watch lots of well-paid, deep-thinking pundits and reporters at The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Cincinnati Post, National Public Radio, Time.com, Reuters, Associated Press, Politico, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, among others, pontificate about her humorous outbursts. Indeed, way back in November 2007, months before the press really let loose on her candidacy, Greg Sargent amassed a sort of Greatest Hits of the media's phony attacks on Clinton. Read the list and try to think of a single event in the last two months in which the press, which we're told has turned on poor John McCain, ever concocted nonsense like this and targeted the GOP front-runner: * Hillary's alleged failure to tip the Iowa waitress * Hillary's phony southern drawl * The supposed 20-year-plan by Hillary and Bill to take over the world, or at least deliver them both the Presidency, as alleged by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta and denied by the one person who supposedly had first-hand knowledge of their dastardly plot * The baseless claim that Hillary eavesdropped on political opponents in 1992 * The bogus media claim that Bill Clinton accused Hillary's Dem rivals of "swiftboating" her * The media's hyping of Hillary's supposed refusal to release Presidential records, a tale that was taken apart in today's Washington Post and which wasn't matched by any similar media outrage about Rudy [Giuliani's] refusal to release his Mayoral papers. P.S. Don't forget the great cleavage debate of 2007. Yet we're supposed to believe the bullying press is now mocking McCain? Give us a break. You'll also note that with the Democratic trend with Gore, Dean, Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, the caustic coverage candidates have had to endure almost always revolved around questions of character; being a liar, a phony, unhinged, or arrogant. By contrast, there has not been a single, sustained press narrative pushed by the media during this entire campaign season that has ridiculed or called into question McCain's character. Not one. For the press, that kind of character exploration of McCain remains taboo. But when covering Democrats, character assassination remains routine. Meanwhile, I can't help wondering if the press is being tagged as mean and nasty simply because reporters belatedly challenged one of McCain's many campaign lies. Because they decided to come out of their Bush-era shell and actually engaged in a rare bout of fact-checking, or what used to be called reporting, when a Republican tried to smear the character of his Democratic opponent. The lie McCain peddled in a television ad was that Obama canceled a trip to visit wounded U.S. soldiers in Germany because the Pentagon told him he couldn't bring reporters along with him. After some initial hesitation, NBC, along with The New York Times and The Washington Post, among others, finally reported that McCain's central allegation was not supported by the facts. On the front page on July 30, the Post's Michael Shear and Dan Balz reported that McCain continued to make the allegation, "despite no evidence that the charge is true." That might seem like a simple thing. And unfortunately the press still allowed McCain's planted lie to dictate campaign coverage last week. But for the Beltway media amidst a White House campaign, the Post's reporting was different. As the Daily Howler noted: "Shear's report represents a major change in the mainstream press culture of the past sixteen years. In this report, the Washington Post, on its front page, directly challenges the latest slimy "character" charge against the latest Dem White House hopeful. This represents a major change in the way this newspaper does business." Quite simply, the Republican Party cannot afford to have the press become aggressive fact-checkers out on the trail. So in an attempt to intimidate the press back into the semi-crouch that has defined campaign journalism for the last decade, conservatives whine about how mean and nasty the media are for attacking McCain. But the far-fetched claim just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In fact, it directly contradicts very recent testimonials from starry-eyed journalists on the McCain beat. "Covering McCain is a blast," wrote Ana Marie Cox, in a recent issue of Radar. "He genuinely likes reporters: He'll joke with us about our drinking habits, playfully request our cell phones in the middle of a call and tell some unsuspecting editor or parent that the phone's owner has just been hauled off to rehab, and engage in gleefully sarcastic banter about both our colleagues and his." And on MSNBC last week, Time's Mark Halperin, sounding like somebody putting off making an unwanted dentist appointment, assured viewers that, "McCain deserves scrutiny and he'll get some." Halperin couldn't quite say when that pending scrutiny of McCain would take place. (Stay tuned.) The truth is that the press not only has not turned on McCain but it continues to act as a key campaign ally in a way it does not for Democrats. I'm trying to imagine back during the 2004 campaign, when the debate about Iraq was raging: What if candidate Kerry had sat down for an interview on the CBS Evening News and promptly made an egregious factual error regarding the timeline of events there? Does anybody really think that rather than air Kerry's blunder, and in fact trumpet the misstep as news, that CBS would have cut away from his botched answer and replaced it with three separate spliced-together statements made by Kerry, one of which was the answer to a different question, and then not tipped off viewers that the interview had been heavily edited? Does anybody think CBS would have extended Kerry that courtesy? That's exactly the kind of oversized life preserver Katie Couric's Evening News threw McCain when he bungled the timeline of the U.S. military's surge in Iraq during a CBS interview. In an extraordinary act of kindness, Couric and company covered for McCain -- and violated CBS' ethical guidelines in the process. Yet today we're told the press has turned on the GOP candidate and that it's mocking John McCain? Trust me, if the press had turned on Al Gore like that in 2000, he'd be finishing up his second term as president right now.
Media Matters - Trust me, John McCain doesn't know what bad press looks like {...}
Published: August 5, 2008, 5:54 pm - Indexed: August 6, 2008, 11:14 pm - Page Size: 28KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Boehlert: Reporters whine about Obama; ignore McCain attacks on the press http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/boehlert-reporters-whine-about-obama-ignore-mccain-20080758433.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/boehlert-reporters-whine-about-obama-ignore-mccain-20080758433.htm Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:01:09 GMT The Obama campaign hurt Adam Nagourney's feelings. The New York Times' political reporter recently claimed to have felt the campaign's sting after he wrote a front-page piece on July 16, detailing recent polling that suggested the presidential candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama had not dramatically altered views about race in America. In a New Republic article about the campaign's pushback against his July 16 piece, Nagourney said that the night the story was first posted online he received a terse email from an Obama rep who raised questions about the story. Nagourney responded to the email and thought that the matter had been settled. The next morning he was surprised to see that the Obama camp had released a lengthy, eight-point critique of his article. (The Obama team was not alone; the premise of the Times piece was widely criticized.) Nagourney "really flipped out" when he saw the Obama release. "They attacked me like I'm a political opponent," the aggrieved reporter told The New Republic, which used the anecdote to kick off a rather breathless analysis of what the magazine claimed was Obama's increasingly rocky relationship with the press. Headlined, "End of the Affair: Barack Obama and the press break up," the New Republic piece leaned heavily on the notion that reporters were angry with the Democratic candidate and ready to revolt; that Obama's press aides were "alienating" the media by providing "little to no access," being "total tightwads with information," and acting in an arrogant fashion. And worse, as Nagourney lamented, the campaign treated a reporter like a political opponent. Oh, brother. Do I even have to make the obvious point here that Republican politicians, and Republican candidates, have been attacking journalists and treating them like political opponents for years now? (Most notably President Bush, whose contempt for the press has been widely advertised for years. But over the years, why didn't reporters complain publicly -- why didn't they flip out, as Nagourney called it -- about the naked GOP attacks? I didn't hear many industry-wide cries of consternation then. Instead, it's only considered to be newsworthy, and to be a point of deep media concern, when a Democrat is accused of slighting the press. Indeed, the double standard on display couldn't be more obvious: When the GOP plays hardball with the press, or what's perceived to be hardball, journalists tough it out and consider it the cost of doing battle in the Beltway. But when Democrats play hardball, or what's perceived to be hardball, reporters consider the jousting to be some sort of personal attack and rush to complain to colleagues how nasty the Dems are behaving. Meaning, journalists expect Republicans to be mean and treat them like political opponents; to sit on information, cast aspersions, and make life difficult. That's a dog-bites-man story. By contrast, journalists feel personally wounded and get indignant if they think Democrats have dissed the press. And then journalists wonder how the slights might affect the candidate's campaign coverage. (That's a topic rarely broached when the GOP plays rough.) And talk about thin-skinned. Nagourney even "conceded that he may have erred" in omitting polling information, according to Talking Points Memo. So why did he take the Obama camp's critique personally? Why did he flip out when the campaign's objections targeted the substance of the article, not the reporter who wrote it? Meanwhile, as the press today ponders whether Obama is playing too tough with the press, it ignores the fact that the McCain campaign, despite the media mythology about the candidate's Fourth Estate love affair, has a long history of snubbing reporters and walling them off. Note that the current double standard doesn't apply only to Obama. The New Republic mined this same territory before. Back during the Democratic primaries, the magazine published a hyperventilating piece detailing the over-controlling Hillary Clinton campaign's desire to "crush" the press and how, much like Obama today, it was endangering campaign coverage. To highlight the vicious brand of hardball being practiced by the Clinton camp, the article led with what was supposedly its best anecdotal evidence: After the Times had published a friendly feature about Obama's love of basketball, a Clinton rep called the Times reporter to note his "annoyance" with the story. ... That was it. No threats. No profanity-laced tirades. No organized boycott. Just a person-to-person call to express annoyance. That's how The New Republic was sure the Clinton campaign was out to "crush" the media. Even more comical was a later anecdote in the piece about how, when making small talk with The Washington Post's Anne E. Kornblut, Clinton noted that Kornblut had just returned to the campaign trail from vacation. The problem? The encounter, according to The New Republic, revealed Clinton's "ominous awareness of the reporter's movements." Good grief. When Bush made buddy-buddy banter like that with reporters during the 2000 campaign, the press announced that it was proof that he was authentic and one of the guys. When McCain does the same today, reporters gush about all the personal attention he showers on them. But during the primaries when Clinton made time for small talk with a reporter, The New Republic practically portrayed the Democrat as a stalker. To review: When Republican candidates turn on reporters, it's expected. When Democrats are accused of doing it, it's newsworthy. When Republican candidates schmooze the press, it shows their human touch. When Democrats schmooze, it reveals their dark side. But back to Obama. Any discussion about his press relations and whether his campaign has walled out reporters takes place against the backdrop of the Beltway conventional wisdom that McCain enjoys an easygoing kinship with reporters because his free-wheeling, media-loving campaign boasts an "almost obsessive level of press access," as Ana Marie Cox stressed in a recent issue of Radar. (It's access that, as Media Matters for America's Jamison Foser pointed out, serves no real purpose unless reporters put it to use by asking McCain probing questions.) "Covering McCain is a blast," wrote Cox. "He genuinely likes reporters: He'll joke with us about our drinking habits, playfully request our cell phones in the middle of a call and tell some unsuspecting editor or parent that the phone's owner has just been hauled off to rehab, and engage in gleefully sarcastic banter about both our colleagues and his." According to Cox, it's because of that close camaraderie that reporters mostly turn away when McCain makes obvious campaign trail gaffes, like confusing Sunnis and Shiites. In her piece, Cox quoted an unnamed television reporter who appeared star-struck after McCain engaged Cox and the TV reporter in some small talk in the lobby of a hotel: "I've been doing this for 12 years and no candidate ever does that -- just comes over to say hi." In other words: He likes us, he really likes us! Two points. First -- this is hardly an original observation -- the idea that journalists base their presidential campaign coverage around the personal likes and dislikes of candidates and their handlers is so obviously wrong that one would hope it didn't need to be highlighted. Yet clearly it does. Second, this notion that McCain's campaign puts reporters up on a pedestal and that the candidate himself graciously responds to every press query is pure mythology. For instance, in terms of access, The Wall Street Journal reported last week, "As the Arizona senator re-organizes his operation and tightens control of his message, the campaign has taken to cherry-picking who and what media outlets get the most face-time with the candidate." The newspaper stressed how the "national press has had very limited access" to the candidate. That's what The New Republic article accused the Obama camp of doing -- limiting access. Yet note there are no audible rumblings on the media landscape about a pending breakup between the press and McCain. Why? Because it's OK for Republicans to wave off the press; to treat reporters with disdain. But if a Democrat gets tagged for doing it, that's the basis for a messy divorce -- a "break up." And make no mistake, McCain and his campaign regularly show contempt for the press. For instance, last week, McCain publicly snubbed Wall Street Journal reporter Elizabeth Holmes. (She was the same reporter who wrote about the McCain campaign limiting access to journalists.) After calling on Holmes during a press avail on July 25, McCain, standing just few feet from her, promptly, and pointedly, ignored her and called on another reporter. McCain's rebuke was just the latest in a long line of slights; slights that The New Republic has yet to detail in an article chronicling the press' reaction to being humiliated and ignored by the Republican hopeful: The McCain camp last week released a fundraising video, dubbed "Obama Love," that openly questioned the press' professionalism for what Republicans claim is the soft coverage Obama has been receiving on the trail. The McCain video featured a myriad of TV clips featuring well-known journalists discussing Obama, mockingly set to the background music of Frankie Valli's "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You." When McCain held a 10-minute press conference on July 9, national reporters were sitting 27 miles away on an airport tarmac, having been "ferried" to McCain's charter plane. Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn wrote this month that "it seem[s] that the McCain campaign has been screening questioners during the conference calls featuring campaign aides and top-level surrogates it mounts for reporters." In March, McCain berated New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller after she asked why, in 2004, the senator had denied ever talking to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) about possibly being his vice presidential running mate. In May, after Newsweek published an article the McCain camp didn't like, McCain aide Mark Salter reportedly threatened to throw the magazine's reporters off the campaign bus. A senior McCain strategist in 2006 allegedly told an Arizona Republic reporter he was "off the bus" after writing an article the McCain camp didn't like. And let's face it, McCain is simply picking up where the 2000 and 2004 Bush presidential campaigns left off in terms snubbing the press. And specifically, the Bush crowd loved to snub The New York Times. At a September 2000 campaign rally, Bush spotted a veteran political reporter in the crowd and turned to running mate Dick Cheney to remark: "There's Adam Clymer, major league asshole from the New York Times." "Oh yeah, big time," replied Cheney, in an exchanged captured by an open microphone. During the 2004 re-election campaign, the Republican National Committee accused the Times of fabricating "third-hand, made-up quotes" from Bush (the paper was guilty of "Kitty Kelley journalism," RNC chairman Ed Gillespie said). The Times had reported that during a closed-door meeting with funders, Bush claimed he would announce plans for "privatising of Social Security" after the election, which of course, is precisely what he did in 2005. And don't forget that Times reporters were denied access to Cheney's campaign plane in 2004. Did anyone at the Times fight back publicly? Did anyone get quoted in Beltway magazines about how the nasty Bush campaign attacks on reporters had really "flipped" them out? How they were surprised to be treated like "a political opponent"? Not that I saw. But when the Obama campaign simply issues a statement raising factual doubts about a questionable Times campaign report, we're told it's an egregious act? Please. The GOP has done far worse for years, and the press never made a peep. Mediamatters.Org Boehlert: Reporters whine about Obama; ignore McCain attacks on the press {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - The Obama campaign hurt Adam Nagourney's feelings. The New York Times' political reporter recently claimed to have felt the campaign's sting after he wrote a front-page piece on July 16, detailing recent polling that suggested the presidential candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama had not dramatically altered views about race in America. In a New Republic article about the campaign's pushback against his July 16 piece, Nagourney said that the night the story was first posted online he received a terse email from an Obama rep who raised questions about the story. Nagourney responded to the email and thought that the matter had been settled. The next morning he was surprised to see that the Obama camp had released a lengthy, eight-point critique of his article. (The Obama team was not alone; the premise of the Times piece was widely criticized.) Nagourney "really flipped out" when he saw the Obama release. "They attacked me like I'm a political opponent," the aggrieved reporter told The New Republic, which used the anecdote to kick off a rather breathless analysis of what the magazine claimed was Obama's increasingly rocky relationship with the press. Headlined, "End of the Affair: Barack Obama and the press break up," the New Republic piece leaned heavily on the notion that reporters were angry with the Democratic candidate and ready to revolt; that Obama's press aides were "alienating" the media by providing "little to no access," being "total tightwads with information," and acting in an arrogant fashion. And worse, as Nagourney lamented, the campaign treated a reporter like a political opponent. Oh, brother. Do I even have to make the obvious point here that Republican politicians, and Republican candidates, have been attacking journalists and treating them like political opponents for years now? (Most notably President Bush, whose contempt for the press has been widely advertised for years. But over the years, why didn't reporters complain publicly -- why didn't they flip out, as Nagourney called it -- about the naked GOP attacks? I didn't hear many industry-wide cries of consternation then. Instead, it's only considered to be newsworthy, and to be a point of deep media concern, when a Democrat is accused of slighting the press. Indeed, the double standard on display couldn't be more obvious: When the GOP plays hardball with the press, or what's perceived to be hardball, journalists tough it out and consider it the cost of doing battle in the Beltway. But when Democrats play hardball, or what's perceived to be hardball, reporters consider the jousting to be some sort of personal attack and rush to complain to colleagues how nasty the Dems are behaving. Meaning, journalists expect Republicans to be mean and treat them like political opponents; to sit on information, cast aspersions, and make life difficult. That's a dog-bites-man story. By contrast, journalists feel personally wounded and get indignant if they think Democrats have dissed the press. And then journalists wonder how the slights might affect the candidate's campaign coverage. (That's a topic rarely broached when the GOP plays rough.) And talk about thin-skinned. Nagourney even "conceded that he may have erred" in omitting polling information, according to Talking Points Memo. So why did he take the Obama camp's critique personally? Why did he flip out when the campaign's objections targeted the substance of the article, not the reporter who wrote it? Meanwhile, as the press today ponders whether Obama is playing too tough with the press, it ignores the fact that the McCain campaign, despite the media mythology about the candidate's Fourth Estate love affair, has a long history of snubbing reporters and walling them off. Note that the current double standard doesn't apply only to Obama. The New Republic mined this same territory before. Back during the Democratic primaries, the magazine published a hyperventilating piece detailing the over-controlling Hillary Clinton campaign's desire to "crush" the press and how, much like Obama today, it was endangering campaign coverage. To highlight the vicious brand of hardball being practiced by the Clinton camp, the article led with what was supposedly its best anecdotal evidence: After the Times had published a friendly feature about Obama's love of basketball, a Clinton rep called the Times reporter to note his "annoyance" with the story. ... That was it. No threats. No profanity-laced tirades. No organized boycott. Just a person-to-person call to express annoyance. That's how The New Republic was sure the Clinton campaign was out to "crush" the media. Even more comical was a later anecdote in the piece about how, when making small talk with The Washington Post's Anne E. Kornblut, Clinton noted that Kornblut had just returned to the campaign trail from vacation. The problem? The encounter, according to The New Republic, revealed Clinton's "ominous awareness of the reporter's movements." Good grief. When Bush made buddy-buddy banter like that with reporters during the 2000 campaign, the press announced that it was proof that he was authentic and one of the guys. When McCain does the same today, reporters gush about all the personal attention he showers on them. But during the primaries when Clinton made time for small talk with a reporter, The New Republic practically portrayed the Democrat as a stalker. To review: When Republican candidates turn on reporters, it's expected. When Democrats are accused of doing it, it's newsworthy. When Republican candidates schmooze the press, it shows their human touch. When Democrats schmooze, it reveals their dark side. But back to Obama. Any discussion about his press relations and whether his campaign has walled out reporters takes place against the backdrop of the Beltway conventional wisdom that McCain enjoys an easygoing kinship with reporters because his free-wheeling, media-loving campaign boasts an "almost obsessive level of press access," as Ana Marie Cox stressed in a recent issue of Radar. (It's access that, as Media Matters for America's Jamison Foser pointed out, serves no real purpose unless reporters put it to use by asking McCain probing questions.) "Covering McCain is a blast," wrote Cox. "He genuinely likes reporters: He'll joke with us about our drinking habits, playfully request our cell phones in the middle of a call and tell some unsuspecting editor or parent that the phone's owner has just been hauled off to rehab, and engage in gleefully sarcastic banter about both our colleagues and his." According to Cox, it's because of that close camaraderie that reporters mostly turn away when McCain makes obvious campaign trail gaffes, like confusing Sunnis and Shiites. In her piece, Cox quoted an unnamed television reporter who appeared star-struck after McCain engaged Cox and the TV reporter in some small talk in the lobby of a hotel: "I've been doing this for 12 years and no candidate ever does that -- just comes over to say hi." In other words: He likes us, he really likes us! Two points. First -- this is hardly an original observation -- the idea that journalists base their presidential campaign coverage around the personal likes and dislikes of candidates and their handlers is so obviously wrong that one would hope it didn't need to be highlighted. Yet clearly it does. Second, this notion that McCain's campaign puts reporters up on a pedestal and that the candidate himself graciously responds to every press query is pure mythology. For instance, in terms of access, The Wall Street Journal reported last week, "As the Arizona senator re-organizes his operation and tightens control of his message, the campaign has taken to cherry-picking who and what media outlets get the most face-time with the candidate." The newspaper stressed how the "national press has had very limited access" to the candidate. That's what The New Republic article accused the Obama camp of doing -- limiting access. Yet note there are no audible rumblings on the media landscape about a pending breakup between the press and McCain. Why? Because it's OK for Republicans to wave off the press; to treat reporters with disdain. But if a Democrat gets tagged for doing it, that's the basis for a messy divorce -- a "break up." And make no mistake, McCain and his campaign regularly show contempt for the press. For instance, last week, McCain publicly snubbed Wall Street Journal reporter Elizabeth Holmes. (She was the same reporter who wrote about the McCain campaign limiting access to journalists.) After calling on Holmes during a press avail on July 25, McCain, standing just few feet from her, promptly, and pointedly, ignored her and called on another reporter. McCain's rebuke was just the latest in a long line of slights; slights that The New Republic has yet to detail in an article chronicling the press' reaction to being humiliated and ignored by the Republican hopeful: The McCain camp last week released a fundraising video, dubbed "Obama Love," that openly questioned the press' professionalism for what Republicans claim is the soft coverage Obama has been receiving on the trail. The McCain video featured a myriad of TV clips featuring well-known journalists discussing Obama, mockingly set to the background music of Frankie Valli's "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You." When McCain held a 10-minute press conference on July 9, national reporters were sitting 27 miles away on an airport tarmac, having been "ferried" to McCain's charter plane. Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn wrote this month that "it seem[s] that the McCain campaign has been screening questioners during the conference calls featuring campaign aides and top-level surrogates it mounts for reporters." In March, McCain berated New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller after she asked why, in 2004, the senator had denied ever talking to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) about possibly being his vice presidential running mate. In May, after Newsweek published an article the McCain camp didn't like, McCain aide Mark Salter reportedly threatened to throw the magazine's reporters off the campaign bus. A senior McCain strategist in 2006 allegedly told an Arizona Republic reporter he was "off the bus" after writing an article the McCain camp didn't like. And let's face it, McCain is simply picking up where the 2000 and 2004 Bush presidential campaigns left off in terms snubbing the press. And specifically, the Bush crowd loved to snub The New York Times. At a September 2000 campaign rally, Bush spotted a veteran political reporter in the crowd and turned to running mate Dick Cheney to remark: "There's Adam Clymer, major league asshole from the New York Times." "Oh yeah, big time," replied Cheney, in an exchanged captured by an open microphone. During the 2004 re-election campaign, the Republican National Committee accused the Times of fabricating "third-hand, made-up quotes" from Bush (the paper was guilty of "Kitty Kelley journalism," RNC chairman Ed Gillespie said). The Times had reported that during a closed-door meeting with funders, Bush claimed he would announce plans for "privatising of Social Security" after the election, which of course, is precisely what he did in 2005. And don't forget that Times reporters were denied access to Cheney's campaign plane in 2004. Did anyone at the Times fight back publicly? Did anyone get quoted in Beltway magazines about how the nasty Bush campaign attacks on reporters had really "flipped" them out? How they were surprised to be treated like "a political opponent"? Not that I saw. But when the Obama campaign simply issues a statement raising factual doubts about a questionable Times campaign report, we're told it's an egregious act? Please. The GOP has done far worse for years, and the press never made a peep.
Media Matters - Reporters whine about Obama; ignore McCain attacks on the press {...}
Published: July 29, 2008, 7:01 pm - Indexed: July 30, 2008, 4:52 pm - Page Size: 28KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {NORTH AMERICA > RENTALS} - Apartment to share (fremont / union city / newark) $900 http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/rentals/apartment-to-share-fremont-union-city-newark-900-20080792234.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/rentals/apartment-to-share-fremont-union-city-newark-900-20080792234.htm Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:43:47 GMT Looking for female roommate starting Sept 1, 2008 - Dec 1, 2008. RENT: -$900.00 including Utilities – due 1 week before the 1st of the month APARTMENT: -1 Bedroom with own bath within 2 bedroom 2 bath apartment -Shared space, fully furnished, including internet access, cable, and washer and dryer in unit -non smoking -Large balcony and vaulted ceilings APARTMENT COMPLEX: -Includes a new fitness center, spa, club house, pool, and hot tub. LOCATION: -Walking distance from Quarry Lakes -Close to Bart and Amtrak CONTACT: Ana Sfbay.Craigslist.Org Apartment to share (fremont / union city / newark) $900 {new window}   Sfbay.Craigslist.Org - Looking for female roommate starting Sept 1, 2008 - Dec 1, 2008. RENT: -$900.00 including Utilities – due 1 week before the 1st of the month APARTMENT: -1 Bedroom with own bath within 2 bedroom 2 bath apartment -Shared space, fully furnished, including internet access, cable, and washer and dryer in unit -non smoking -Large balcony and vaulted ceilings APARTMENT COMPLEX: -Includes a new fitness center, spa, club house, pool, and hot tub. LOCATION: -Walking distance from Quarry Lakes -Close to Bart and Amtrak CONTACT: Ana
Apartment to share {...}
Published: July 28, 2008, 6:43 am - Indexed: July 28, 2008, 10:16 am - Page Size: 5KB
Category: Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate > Rentals

]]> Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate > Rentals {NORTH AMERICA > REAL ESTATE} - 1254 65th St,. (emeryville) $549900 http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/1254-65th-st-emeryville-549900-20080740320.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/1254-65th-st-emeryville-549900-20080740320.htm Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:30:58 GMT Ana Canessa | Century 21 Bay Realty | 510-245-2100 1254 65TH ST, Emeryville, CA 2BR/2.5BA Townhouse offered at $599,900 Year Built 2003 Sq Footage 1,296 Bedrooms 2 Bathrooms 2 full, 1 partial Floors Unspecified Parking Unspecified Lot Size Unspecified HOA/Maint $0 per month DESCRIPTION Open House 6/8/08 2-4...Beautiful Townhouse with many upgrades, all custom made window treatments and stainless steel appliances are staying..Garage is shared, it is not a Short Sale... sellers very motivated see additional photos below PROPERTY FEATURES Hardwood floor Tile floor Washer Dryer ADDITIONAL PHOTOS Seller contact info: Ana Canessa Century 21 Bay Realty 510-245-2100 For sale by agent/broker Equal Opportunity Housing Posted: Jun 7, 2008, 7:35am PDT Sfbay.Craigslist.Org 1254 65th St,. (emeryville) $549900 {new window}   Sfbay.Craigslist.Org - Ana Canessa | Century 21 Bay Realty | 510-245-2100 1254 65TH ST, Emeryville, CA 2BR/2.5BA Townhouse offered at $599,900 Year Built 2003 Sq Footage 1,296 Bedrooms 2 Bathrooms 2 full, 1 partial Floors Unspecified Parking Unspecified Lot Size Unspecified HOA/Maint $0 per month DESCRIPTION Open House 6/8/08 2-4...Beautiful Townhouse with many upgrades, all custom made window treatments and stainless steel appliances are staying..Garage is shared, it is not a Short Sale... sellers very motivated see additional photos below PROPERTY FEATURES Hardwood floor Tile floor Washer Dryer ADDITIONAL PHOTOS Seller contact info: Ana Canessa Century 21 Bay Realty 510-245-2100 For sale by agent/broker Equal Opportunity Housing Posted: Jun 7, 2008, 7:35am PDT
1254 65th St,. {...}
Published: July 22, 2008, 11:30 pm - Indexed: July 22, 2008, 11:40 pm - Page Size: 13KB
Category: Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate

]]> Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate