Romney Moves to the Center With Help from the ‘Liberal Media’
The general election is on like Donkey Kong, which means it’s time for Republicans to start singing their “Librul Media Done Did Me Wrong” song. The Librul Media™, you see, is the cause of all that is wrong, unpatriotic, and insufficiently star-spangled in this country. The liberal media (which comprises all media, except the stalwartly fair and balanced, and not-at-all-in-the-tank-for-the-GOP Fox News) is just so meaaaaaan to Republicans.
Mitt-3-PO, of course, is only too happy to flog this narrative. Last week, Mittbot cried to one of Andrew Breitbart’s apostles that “There will be an effort by the, quote, vast left-wing conspiracy to work together to put out a message and to attack me,” and attempted to paint himself as a victim of unfair news coverage. That will be the new meme for this election season, and it’s the same as the old meme: a lie.
In reality, Romney enjoys glowing media coverage when compared to President Obama:
The Liberal Media has consistently given more positive coverage to likely Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney compared to President Barack Obama, according to a new survey of media coverage from the Pew Research Center’s Excellence in Journalism Project.
During the early weeks of 2012, Romney’s media coverage was slightly negative—between January 2 and February 26, 33 percent of the stories about the ex-Massachusetts governor were positive and 37 percent were negative, according to Pew’s analysis. But Romney has received mostly positive coverage since then (47 percent positive to 24 percent negative). By contrast, according to the report, President Barack Obama “did not have a single week in 2012 when positive coverage exceeded negative coverage.“
And the same was true for 2011, as Karoli of Crooks and Liars explained last October:
One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all, the study found: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-1. Those assessments of the president have also been substantially more negative than positive every one of the 23 weeks studied. And in no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the president positive in tone.
When one reads tripe like the following from ABC News, one begins to understand how this phenomenon is possible:
Last week, Mitt Romney hired Richard Grenell as his new foreign policy spokesman. Grenell was President Bush’s communications director at the United Nations for eight years, and has been a spokesman for a handful of prominent Republicans such as George Pataki and Dave Camp.
Along with his qualifications, Grenell is also gay.
When the campaign announced the hire, Grenell’s sexual orientation wasn’t noted in media coverage, nor, arguably, should it have been. He got in a bit of a tangle for scrubbing his Twitter profile to erase messages he wrote about Newt Gingrich and his wife, but that was about the only newsworthy development in the hiring announcement.
That is, until a gay-bashing radio host at the American Family Association wrote in his blog that by appointing Grenell, Romney was telling the so-called pro-family community to “drop dead.” CNN amplified that message from Bryan Fischer by inviting him on for an interview.
Grenell’s appointment also signaled that the Romney campaign had fully moved on from the primary in which the former Massachusetts governor vaulted to the right wing of his party to win conservative voters who were less likely to support gay rights.
In a general election, however, being open to gay rights could even help Romney win some independent voters – especially against a president who has been timid about outright support of gay marriage.
See? Romney hired a gay guy. It doesn’t matter that Grenell is a misogynist dick. He’s gay! And it certainly doesn’t matter that Grenell worked with Bush UN Ambassador John “If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference” Bolton and his Mustache of Doom. Why? Because of the gayness. Grenell is gay. That’s all that matters!
And President Obama? He’s just some guy who has been “timid about outright support of gay marriage.” Seriously.
As John Cole writes:
You do see how it is done, though, don’t you? Make an appointment that does nothing to advance gay rights or take back the harm your rhetoric did during the primary, nothing to change the extreme positions of the GOP on gay rights or change the fact that if elected, you will do nothing for gay rights, then your insane right flank freaks out, and a stenographer comes along from ABC and tells everyone you’re really a centrist.
Just kill me now.
Me too, please.