Most of the time, in the news media, Obamessia can do no wrong.  He claims to be huamnitarian and equalitarian, concerned for the oppressed folks and underrepresented humanitarians.  How is it then that this man, leader of the most powerful country in the world, can not pronounce the name of undoubtedly the most famous humanitarian there is - Aung San Suu Kyi?
Honestly, this guy is not worthy of being president (not saying McCain or Romney are more deserving) but srsly what an ill informed douche.  From the president of the united states, I would seriously hope for, and expect, better:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100190254/barack-obama-blunders-again-on-the-world-st...

 

BREAKING NEWS

Belittle what? CAPSLOCK HEADER TEXT AND DRUDGE SIRENS!!!!111 EDITORIAL ACRIMONY IS SRS BSNS

Actually, mispronouncing a foreign name just reminds us that He is indeed a son of man. I thought He was a mercurial third culture brat. It's actually somewhat endearing to know that He is after all an aloof and erudite Midwesterner who is more comfortable with the written--rather than spoken--word.

Bush would commit blunder after blunder unless he was talking about killing brown people. That he did with uncanny eloquence. This is a double standard. There is no such thing as a "media double standard." The media are not one monolithic thing. It's a plural.
 

> it's a conspiracy

Cool story, bro.

There is a kernel of truth to your incoherent ramblings ("both" media? u wot m8?) The television news networks had a vested interest in making Mitt Romney seem like he had more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning, because an electoral horse race made for better ratings. Not so much in the print media or the blogosphere. Nate Silver accurately predicted the electoral college spread in early October.

As for differences between the candidates: When Mittens lost, he canceled the credit cards of all his staffers while they were on their sad taxi rides home from headquarters. Obama wouldn't have done that. Because handouts.
 

> TV news
> journalism
Choose one.

Of course television news networks "are not independant news outlets with honest real world analysis and good journalism." Maybe it's a little hard for you to understand the fundamental differences between journalists and broadcasters since the former isn't even an actual profession on your islands, but on the other side of the Atlantic we don't typically refer to people as journalists unless they actually write for fucking journals. Y'know. Those paper things with words written on them.

Consolidation of ownership notwithstanding, the tee-vee is a single medium and is not representative of all media. You might have picked up on this distinction when I pointed out that print journalists, bloggers and broadcasters have frequently contradictory editorial agendas because of the fundamentally different ways in which they collect advertising revenue. But you didn't read, lol.

> "mainstream" media
> librul
Two words: talk radio.

You shouldn't believe everything you see on television. Just because the plebs cede credibility to the illuminated functionaries of the mass media apparatus doesn't mean you have to consent to it, let alone embrace that narrative. TV sure does makes you stupid. Stupid enough to think that the dismissal of a non-story of Obama mispronouncing someone's name is evidence of collusion and nepotism within the fourth estate, rather than a responsible editorial decision.

The difference between revenue paradigms is that print media do not stand to gain as much from brief surges of readership the way that mass media benefits from brief surges in viewership. Giving airtime to the narrative that the election was a close race was in the interests of the mass media, but print media had substantially less to gain. So we had Nate Silver at the New York Times accurately predicting the electoral college results exactly a month before the election. Fucking killjoy. Meanwhile Romney continued to milk his donors for cash to fund his doomed campaign until the bitter end.

Moreover, the dynamics of competition between print and mass media are fundamentally different. You can't watch Fox News and MSNBC simultaneously. On the other hand, nothing stops you from reading two different newspapers in the same market. Even taking corporate consolidation of print and mass media into account, different media use vastly different business strategies and target vastly different audiences. Widespread partisan bias across the the "mainstream" media is institutionally impractical. Capitalist ideological bias, on the other hand, is all but guaranteed in profit-driven media.

Social(ist) media were firmly on the side of the president in the election, too. Time to bust out the tinfoil hats? Nope. Competition doesn't really exist here. Bandwidth is cheap. And that's why you're allowed to exist in same forum as a responsible troll such as myself.
   

Man, what an idiot...still, it could be worse, he could have mangled words in his native language... 

 Yes , we are all proficient in Chinese. I will tell you : Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee, Jet li and wo ai ni.

We are American , not perfection. du bu qi

Thank you, Daniel, for beating the dead horse and then promptly sodomizing it with a comma splice.