WaPo's Kornblut: Clinton Camp Has 'Managed To Alienate Most Of The Press Corps'

On this morning's Reliable Sources, Howard Kurtz took up the issues raised in an article on the Politico over a week ago, titled, "Story behind the story: The Clinton myth." The passage in question dealt with how the media had allowed the race to be perceived, and the piece's authors, Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (ironically, not immune to the criticism they level here) mused:

Journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.

It wasn't an argument that Kurtz was prepared to accept lightly, asking, "Why would journalists, who love predicting how these things are going to turn out, perpetuate a fantasy?" Politico's Harris answered with what is accepted conventional wisdom - the media loves the back and forth of the horses on the track: "We love the race."

The Post's Anne Kornblut, however, suggested that the media was just as susceptible to false perceptions as the public, and included a revealing irony:

ANNE KORNBLUT: What I think is so interesting about this dynamic is that the Clinton campaign has virtually no friends in the media at this point. They've managed to alienate most of the press corps, and yet the press corps has written about it as being a real race all the time. I think once that story ran, we saw a lot of people following it up with agreements. There wasn't a whole lot of counterintuitive thinking after the story ran, saying, "No, actually, it really is a close race."

KURTZ: According to that piece -- you travel with the Clinton campaign week after week. According to that piece, you're either delusional about it being a close race or trying to fool the rest of us.

KORNBLUT: Well, we're delusional after traveling so much all the time. When you spend enough time around Senator Clinton and the campaign, and you see the supporters that she has out on the road, it's easy to believe that there is a real race. It doesn't feel on the road like a dying campaign usually does. But mathematically, there was -- there is a real point, that it's almost going to be impossible for her to catch up.

[WATCH.]

Comments

[realityisbetter]

11:50 AM on 04/01/2008

I look at this primary and see that Obama has done more to bring in hoards of new voters for the Democratic Party. I see his campaign has energized young voters and brought them into the process. Obviously the Clintons have the following from years in poltics, Bill's presidency, etc., but she can't even hold onto those voters, let alone bring all these new voters.

But she's decided at this point that she's either going to be the candidate, or she's going to tear the whole house down trying. She's even suggested many times that she AND MCCAIN are the only two that are worth voting for. What kind of a Democrat hints that the Republican rival is better than Obama? That proves to me that she's willing to tear the party apart if she can't win.

If, by some stretch of the imagination, Clinton were to somehow con her way to the nomination, like including delegates from states that Obama wasn't even on the ballot, it would completely deflate the momentum of the Party.

All those new voters Obama brought in are likely to drop right back out. She wouldn't deserve their vote anyway, after suggesting several times that MCCAIN would be a better choice than her rival.

So go right ahead Hillary, tear the house down. After all, it's only the country and our way of life that is at stake in this election.

[iamFrank]

03:02 PM on 03/31/2008

This is a perpetuation of a fantasy on the presses part that Hillary can blow into a town on her train to the White House only to stand at the back and watch the people running after her, with their hands stretched out, shouting in desperation for truth, desperation for Change. To sit in silence and listen to the of the accounts of the past and of the things to one day accomplish, to promote promises throw out like candy to the masses that are running after this train to nowhere. The press is in fear of itself, either it can not report the truth or doesn’t have the ability to do so; report anything negative about the Clintons, they too may be out sourced. We can handle the truth can you handle reporting IT.

[jsinclair]

11:03 AM on 03/31/2008

For every story that seems positive about Obama, I could show you at least ten that are spinning for Clinton (CNN does it all day, especially as Blitzer gets 3 hours.)

Howard Kurtz himself had a ridiculous piece a couple of weeks ago about how the Clintons were right, and she was criticized so unfairly for her hair...her clothes....etc. etc. Scrutinized in ways other candidates aren't.

Really? What channel is he watching? All I hear on CNN is pro-Clinton spinmeisters delivering their spiel to an encouraging Blitzer all day. Yesterday, for example, he had on James Carville, and agreed with every word, concluding, "Yes, if Obama can't handle competition in an election now, how will he ever hold up in the general election?" (Well, who SAYS he can't handle competition? That ISN'T the reason people are asking her to get out. And what Carville was talking about was pure anti-Obama spin and he was given a free pass, even encouraged, to do it.

The media isn't fair, isn't unbiased, doesn't have any editors holding it to the highest standards of journalism. We just have to learn what that means and how to deal with it without losing every good candidate in the process

[debwarot]

12:10 PM on 03/31/2008

Some very valid points - thanks for sharing.

Because members of the media come to work with different experiences, life styles and belief systems, media bias will always exist to a certain degree. But not all biases are inherent to the system and a strong code of journalistic integrity, if enforced, would go a long way towards putting media influence in a more appropriate context.

The lines between commentaries/editorials and factual news have become badly blurred, and in some cases, virtually nonexistent. This could be monitored.

The ratings game plays too much weight in determining what and how information is relayed. Being outspoken and controversial (even when contrived) , reporting innuendos, rumors, exaggerations and half truths as if they were the truth are all tools that can be sued to bring in more viewers, listeners and readers. This is not beyond the control of a strong journalistic ethic.

Sponsorship also plays a role in media bias. If an oil company, of example, were to spend big advertising dollars on a television station owned by a major right wing conservative, we would all acknowledge that perhaps global warming would get little positive coverage. And, although many of us do see these relationships, many don't recognize them for what they are. Under the highest standards of journalism these relationship would become transparent or dismantled.

[northeast73]

10:05 AM on 03/31/2008

HMMM?

Let see, Obama is 750,000 votes ahead with 10 contests remaining.

There are 4 million registered dems in PA. If half show up, that is 2 million voters.

If she wins by 10 points? Nets 200,000 votes

By 20 points ? 400,000 votes.

Oh yeah, it is IMPOSSIBLE for her to catch up....lol

[nazgul]

11:38 AM on 03/31/2008

The contest is determined by DELEGATES. She cannot catch up based on delegates.

(Play around with Slate's delegate counter if you aren't convinced.)

She was going to bow out after March 4th if she did not win OH and TX. She lost TX and she's further behind now than before March 4th.

[greenpaz]

01:27 PM on 03/31/2008

Hmmm? Let's see, northeast73 tries to prove that it is not impossible for Clinton to win the race by pointing to ONE state where she has an advantage. What about "Clinton down 20 points" North Carolina. Or "she's never gonna win it in" Oregon?

[FredZ]

08:30 AM on 03/31/2008

Don't over think this. The root cause is journalists are mathematicians.

[nazgul]

08:29 AM on 03/31/2008

Excellent article. The biggest indicator that the MSM is not biased against HRC: they haven't taken the lid off and factually demonstrated and declared the truth about Hillary's chance. The word on the street is that it's "close," when in fact it only seems close. In reality, thought, it's not.

If you think HRC should stay in, tinker with Slate's delegate counter. It proves pretty effectively that she can't win.

http://www.slate.com/id/2187679/

[eshaneua]

03:24 AM on 03/31/2008

Obama win appears big in Texas delegate battle
By Anna M. Tinsley, Aman Batheja and Sarah Bahari | Fort Worth Star-Telegam
Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008

Barack Obama appeared to have scored a clear victory over Hillary Clinton on Saturday in the second step of Texas' multi-tiered process for selecting its delegates to the Democratic National Convention. With results available from about half of the district conventions held statewide, the Associated Press reported that Obama had won 59 percent of the delegates headed to the state party's June convention to Clinton’s 41 percent. That translates into 1,858 delegates for Obama and 1,270 for Clinton.

That result made it likely that when the delegate selection process is finally completed, Obama will have more Texas delegates to the national convention than Clinton, despite Clinton's having won the March 4 primary vote 51 to 47 percent. Under Texas' delegate selection process, 67 of its 206 delegates are selected by the June state party convention.

Tens of thousands of Texas Democrats turned out for Saturday's district conventions in a chaotic day in which many of the meetings in Texas' large cities lasted late into the night. Some delegates — confused and frustrated by hours-long delays, disorder and disorganization — gave up on the process and left, still not sure if their vote counted. “Please move a bit faster,” urged delegate Whitney Larkins, who attended the largest senatorial district in Fort Worth gathered at the Will Rogers Coliseum. “.....

[northeast73]

10:03 AM on 03/31/2008

SO CLINTON WINS THE POPULAR VOTE BUT HE GETS MORE DELEGATS?

HOW DEMOCRATIC!

[debwarot]

12:12 PM on 03/31/2008

Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but W won the election!

If you don't like the way things are set up, try to change them. MTM, play by he rules.

[chin075]

03:40 PM on 04/01/2008

You're well schooled in the Clinton talking points. Nice job, but we know you only bitch because she's down, that's all.

[Grannysue]

12:26 AM on 03/31/2008

The press, like old Wolf on CNN are always showing the Wright clip, the ones who are Jewish want Clinton because they don't think Obama will make Israel a top priority. It's also because a good many of them are beholden to the Clintons who have long arms and a whole lot of money. So there are some who's agenda's are clear.

[John51]

12:10 AM on 03/31/2008

As I understand it the Clintons are calling in their Markers with the MSM's Sponsors and keeping their coverage alive in this manner. That would fit with their Modus Operandi. It just makes me sick to watch Joe Scarborough (guessing on the name spelling) talk about her as if she is being cheated out of the nomination and Joe is a Republican. I think it’s very likely the Clintons are intimidating the MSM in some fashion or the media corporations simply prefer a Hillary candidate.

[hawkseye]

06:29 AM on 03/31/2008

Republican media corporations want a Hillary candidacy because they believe she will be easier to beat.

[goodsnservices]

09:00 AM on 03/31/2008

Eventually, just like campaign cash, even the Clintons will reach the end of their chips to cash in. I think we're seeing the edges starting to unravel even now. You can bet their tendency to burn bridges will be affecting their ability to get anyone to deal with them without getting cash up front from this point forward, for instance.

[RobtBrock]

10:43 PM on 03/30/2008

I like candidates who piss off the press. I want them to treat the press with bold disregard.

[IkeChicago]

12:11 AM on 03/31/2008

That real stupid, the press is our only source of info unless you have a direct line to the candidates and the white house. Well do you?

[presto]

09:42 PM on 03/30/2008

Well, that was weak. I thought there would be a story but I watched the video. Not much there.

[Norbrook]

08:59 PM on 03/30/2008

I think it's a combination. The media loves a horse race, and on the road with the candidate, they're seeing the enthusiastic rallies. Hillary does have her die-hard supporters, who will turn out and be wildly enthusiastic at a rally. If that's all you're seeing, day-in and day-out because you've been assigned to cover her campaign, of course you're going to think she's still got a chance! It's only when you pull back that you realize that her chances of capturing enough delegates and popular votes to win or make a viable case for the nomination are slim to none. Even counting Michigan and Florida still won't help her much. Her "big wins" for Ohio and Texas actually didn't dent Obama's delegate lead, and it's looking like Obama is going to end up with more delegates in Texas than she is. Then you add in the blunders she's making. The press is finally starting to do the math, and state what was obvious to many observers a while ago.

[ObserverinVancouver]

08:50 PM on 03/30/2008

This is more proof of the self-destructiveness of the Clinton campaign. It is really baffling to think of how the campaign got into this mess. She started off with the name recognition, the fund raising machine, the political contacts across the country. If she had simply kept to the high road, or even the middle road, she could have coasted to victory. Instead, her campaign had a take no prisoners attitude like threatening retribution against anyone who donated money to other candidates. Then the drumbeat of Billy Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, Bill Clinton, Bob Johnson (?, the guy from BET). I thought Sen. Clinton was off-putting during that "Shame on you" weekend in Ohio and was startled when she won there. But that seems to have caught up with her along with the exaggerations on foreign policy, SCHIP, FMLA, etc. She has no one to blame but herself. James Carville's vindictiveness to Gov. Richardson is another sympton. Most telling, I think, is the inability of anybody to recognize what wasn't working and try something else. Instead, the attitude seemed to be, they (the voters) didn't hear the first time, so we need to be louder.

[presto]

09:51 PM on 03/30/2008

You got all that out of Kornblut's 30 second clip? Wow. Now we'll start hearing about the Wright 30 second clips.

[IsobelDeBrujah]

10:56 PM on 03/30/2008

No actually, generally Obama supporters research. As such the poster to whom you are responding seems to e referencing, although not sourcing the myriad of other pieces of information about the same issue. It is also possible the poster to whom you are responding has simply been paying attention to the course of this campaign.

[MizJ]

08:36 PM on 03/30/2008

If the Clinton campaign has been cool to the press it may be because the press has been brutal to her. The print media, along with the cable talking heads, have villified, demeaned, and held her to different standards than what McCain and Obama have endured. He may have the Rev. Wright mess but tune into MSNBC in particular and the babble is endless regarding her hair, clothing, laugh, clapping, tears, etc, are discussed ad infinitum. Instead of being considered as a viable candidate she has been treated as if she had no damn right to stand in the way of "Mr. Change We Have Been Waiting For". Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Frank Robinson, Andrea Mitchell, Chucklehead Matthews, Keith Olbermann, the Daily Kos, Huffington Post blogs, all call for her to step aside and let the coronation begin. If there is wariness on the part of the Clinton campaign to cozy up to the media a la John McCain it is understandable. If Obama does become the nominee he will have a lot of unifying to do with the female voters because he has not once stepped up to the plate and made it known that he is not a female basher.

[AurigaRa]

08:56 PM on 03/30/2008

if Obama weren't running she's be the nominee.
Just bad timing Hil.

Oh and I guess unless he says differently we have to assume Obama IS a female basher??
Geeeesh.

[ObserverinVancouver]

09:16 PM on 03/30/2008

If she can make nice with Richard Mellon Scaife, she can make nice with anybody, including the devil.

[presto]

09:52 PM on 03/30/2008

...and Republicans. Sounds like she's make a good president.

[gjklbc]

08:28 PM on 03/30/2008

The only reason that she isn't dropping out is her supporters and Washington insiders like McAulife, Penn and Wolfson. They know that as soon as she does, they're toast in the democratic party. Once Barrack wraps this thing up, he's the new head of the party. And you will begin to see the reformation of it. Good bye DLC. That wing of the party will be sent to the back bench, where they belong.
That wing, the Lieberman wing, if you will, never cared about the core principals of the party and have far more loyalty to the money, money, money.
What's sad is these are the same people who've been losing elections forever and still run the same campaigns again and again with no change. It tells me that they have no intererest in winning, just keeping their wallets full.
Obama didn't choose Penn and Shrum. He chose Axlerod and Ploufe, new leaders with a plan to win. Say goodbye to these losers. I'm sure there's a high paying lobying position waiting for them.

[naschkatze]

09:55 PM on 03/30/2008

Very nicely put. I too think there has been a civil war going on in the Democratic Party, and it's much more than the Clintons and Obama. It's a struggle to the death between the DLC and the grass- and netroots who want the party to return to its progressive principles and to represent the poor, the working class, and the middle class all of whom have no representation right now. The DLC and the Republicans are fighting for the same small base of the wealthy, the corporations, the corporate media, and the lobbies. We the people are going to win.

[nurseattorney]

09:48 AM on 03/31/2008

You nailed it. I believe that the sucess of the Obama campaign is an extension of what Howard Dean started, its a return to real Democratic principles, instead of the Republican-lite triangulating of the DLC and the Clinton legacy.

ANd its the internet thats made it possible. The corporations and their media and their lobbyists have been equalized (if not surpassed) by a million "common people" who can give a few bucks via the 'net. One day, maybe we'll have a SUpreme COurt that will stand up and acknowledge that corporations are not "people" and are not entitled to purchase elected offices for their own benefit. Imagine...returning the government to the PEOPLE, just as the Constitution envisions.

[Boris]

12:44 AM on 04/01/2008

The Clintons are part of the Estabishment...meaning they are politicians who are bought and paid for by the Lobbying branch of congress. Even if I hated Obama, I could not vote for Hilary because she is already beholden to the same people who own the GOP. The best thing Obama has going for him is that he has not been in politics long enough to have been bought off by the DLC contributers.

Most important, Howard Dean...he helped turn Montana and other unimportant 'red states' a nice shade of Blue. The DLC doesnt give a damn about your little state, your little town or your personal debt or job. It cares only about money and power. Hilary is a card carrying member and the powers that be know that, with Hilary, nothing will really change.

I thought she was okay until I saw the desperation...she will destroy the Democratic party and Howard Dean unless she gets into office so she can pay back all those favors she has gotten from the big money people. Wake up, people. Hilary is a pure Fraud.