After touting GOP's “remarkable” feat in 2002 election, media ignored historical context for Dem victories in 2006
Elections
-
-
Appearing on Beck, Time's Allen called McCain “authentic,” said Romney “looks like a president”
-
“Media Matters”; by Jamison Foser
-
In reporting on White House's defense of Pelosi, AP, SF Chronicle articles ignored RNC hit piece
-
Journal Ed. Report selectively quoted Clinton to claim she is “disingenuous” and “supported the war” in 2004
-
Wash. Post's Balz alleged “Clinton fatigue” but did not quote anyone tired of Clintons
-
ABC's Raddatz baselessly claimed that national security seems “a bit of a foreign language” for Democrats
-
Media echoed, applauded Giuliani's distortion of Paul's comments about 9-11 attacks
-
Klein wrote of Paul's “singular moment of weirdness” at debate, but 9-11 report supports his claim
-
Wash. Post's Romano challenged Matthews on his “obsession” with Clinton marriage “logistics”
-
NBC's Reid reported McCain's blast of Dems for “no” vote on troop funding, but not McCain's prior “no” vote
-
Hannity suggested Edwards' “primping” is evidence that he does not “understand[] the nature of the battle in the war that's being waged against us”
-
Media flacks for McCain's false “flak” attack on Obama's spelling
-
Media advanced McCain's false “flak” attack on Obama
-
Gerth and Van Natta falsely claim Clinton did not speak about terror before 9-11
-
Wash. Post reported that Thompson sees himself as “antidote to Washington politics,” ignoring his history of playing politics
-
Matthews repeated disputed claim about Sen. Clinton's presidential ambitions
-
Politico's Obama coverage marred by inaccuracies, misleading reporting, and baseless allegations