Was The Media Unfair To Clinton?

Talking Points Memo:

Just what you all have been waiting for: Our long and detailed rundown on the coverage of Hillary during 2008.

This is being endlessly debated right now on television and elsewhere: Was the media biased in favor of Obama and against Hillary? But that's the wrong question, because it's a question about the motives of the press, rather than about the actual coverage.

Read the whole story: Talking Points Memo

Comments

[cadbury]

Well the Hillary haters are still out in force. It's time to knock it off, folks, so we can unify the party and win the presidency in November!

There is no doubt that there was sexism in the way the media covered Clinton. Anyone who can't admit that that is, frankly, an idiot. Academics (including me) will be parsing the coverage for years to come. But the fact that the coverage was sexist may NOT be the reason or the only reason why she lost. Put another way...Even if she had won, it would be fair to say the coverage was often sexist.

[soulsistah02]

I find it deplorable that bloggers and journalists are trying to point to sexism or "disparate treatment" as the reason why the Clinton campaign was derailed by the Hope Express. We have to look at Clinton's failure to live up to the "inevitable candidate" mantra not through the lenses of sexism, but rather costly tactical and strategic missteps.

Pushing the sexism argument as the reason why Obama is the party candidate reduces his achievement to luck rather than superb organization and creativity. Moreover, it quietly advances whites perception that Blacks are inherently inferior; therefore, when a Black person excels in a given area, whites can explain away their mediocrity by pointing to spurious events that denied them a coveted position or an opportunity, instead of looking at the facts and conceding defeat.

[WarriorLemming]

Did Hillary lose because the media was unfair? Absolutely NOT! Clinton asked for everything she got. I'm a 55 year old white woman just a few years younger than Clinton and I have enough sense and wisdom to know that telling :snipper fire" lies 4 times is wrong, trying to appear tough voting for war to look Presidential and a host of other poor judgement calls is plain wrong!

Clinton has the blood of over 3000 American lives on her hands but I truthfully don't think she has a conscience to understand what she has done. And then there's the over 2 trillion war debt which amounts to $33,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in the United States. Think of all the things we could have used that money for but Clinton doesn't have to worry about education, healthcare with her all her money but the "poor white hard working" people she pandered to needed this money. I don't care to hear anymore about poor little Hillary she can go to hell!

[mistertheplague]

The media treated us unfairly, by declining to thoroughly debunk Sen. Clinton's claims that she was "experienced" when in fact she was not.

[barackobama4prez]

The problem I have of Clinton supporters is this:

Where was the outrage when Clinton herself was sliming Barack? So I'm not impressed. Both Democratic candidates had their share of drama during the primaries, and Obama just handled it all better. The longer the Clinton supporters try to threaten us with their votes, the longer we will stay divided, even though we all agree that the policies of Hillary & Barack are virtually identical. Very tacky indeed to behave like voting against your party will actually get something done. This is something that will come back to bite us all. Yes, even Hillary supporters won't be saved by their queen.

[GwenElle]

The article never mentioned Naftagate. That was surely one of the more spurious stories to come out of the campaign and no doubt hurt the Obama campaign. The only clarification I got on the origins and details of that story came from a blogger on this website, not the MSM. They just reported the sensational lie and never vetted the story or cleared it up. There was no fact checking behind (or beyond) the pontificating. I would say that it is definitely unfair coverage when the casual viewer or reader can't get the facts for all the bloviating.

[eggman]

The point that I did not see in TPM's analysis was the number of public statements made by the Clinton campaign, esp. the ex-Prez, suggesting that the unfair treatment was coming from the Obama campaign rather than the media. To hear Bill tell it, Obama is some kind of mastermind media manipulator who plants negative stories but leaves no fingerprints. That doesn't make the media treatment of Clinton acceptable, but it is sort of poetic justice.

[RiseHillary]

How about the statements of Rev. Wright, in his Dec 07....Hill­ary doesn't know what its like to be called the big N word? that at a time when Hillary had 67% of the AA vote. That sermon was recorded and sent around the country to black churches.

[barackobama4prez]

Depends on who you ask. There were reports that the Clinton camp dug up rev. wright to cripple Obama. It just backfired. People are tired of that brand of politics.

[yinyyanginsense]

All the older women out there who say they are holding a grudge about obama winning make me sick! If they think that for some reason voting for john mccain will get them revenge they deserve what they want... millions without health care suffering everyday..­. planet on full throttle to environmental disaster..­. Roe Vs Wade overturned­... War... being ignorant to the reality of the media, they don't want barack to win either so there playing right into there hands... Shame on them

[frustratedinohio]

Yin, go find an article that would make your comment relevant. This one is about media coverage of the primary as it relates to Hillary.

[frustratedinohio]

A lot of it was coming from the Obama campaign. They were very negative in their local tv ads. The MSM under reported that, but they did report it. When Hillary said something negative it ran on a loop 24/7. That's what is unfair.

[Lemeritus]

"Do my examples prove that the media was unfair to her as a whole or worse to her than to Obama? Not really. But taken together, they amount to a startling parade of media buffoonery and mendacity that should have been unacceptable to any reasonable observer -- even ones who supported one of her rivals." -- Greg Sargent, TPM (for those of you who didn't read the article)

It isn't enough to say that, hey, Obama took it on the chin (he did) and, anyway, she ran a terrible campaign (she did). The issue here is, and rightfully so, the quality of campaign coverage -- it was, in fact, a parade of "media buffoonery and mendacity". The media, like Narcissus, has fallen in love with the image of itself in a still pool -- once in a while a story might disturb the media's reflection and then the issue becomes the media's reaction to the story, then the media's reaction to the media's reaction, until the last ripple of insignificance spreads away. That's what should concern us.

[Angelic11]

In that 18 Million the Clintons are counting; let's not forget the Limbaugh, Florida and Michigan factor:

Truth is she did not get 18 million democratic votes, she got republican renegade votes, Florida uncomplete­d-I-only-k­now your name votes and Michigan's My-name-is­-the-only-­one on the ballot votes ...these are the 18 million votes she claims...h­er constituency is less powerful than reality dictates.

[thecanadian]

100% Correct Angelic11! Another myth (mis-speak) that no one has so clearly pointed out. Try 1/2 of the 18 million and maybe you come closer.

Well said!

[justobserve]

Don't you think that with half of 18 million voters, Hillary would need them just to donate 4 bucks each and she would have her debt wiped out? Where are all these 9 million voters now when Hillary needs them? It seems they left her a long time ago after she praised McCain and attacked her fellow Democrat, Obama.

[barackobama4prez]

18 million votes.....­wonder how many of those voters wanted to switch to Obama anyway, as Hillary's campaign went from bad to worse?

[RiseHillary]

You have forgotten that Hillary was on a winning streak...O­hio, Pa, Texas, WV, Ky, SD. PR,, etc. She actually went from bad to best in many cases. She out did him in the final round of primaries.

Don't forget that Obama took his name off the Mi. ballot for political gain in Iowa and NH, both were determined to be first and second. She out did him in the final round of primaries. Then the DNC rules committee rewarded him, even after his political tactic almost worked. He won Iowa and was predicted to take NH by a landslide.

[stringer]

Didn't Pew Reserach, the very group Geraldine Ferraro demanded be allowed to do an independent inquiry into this media coverage, do a study and find out that, no the coverage was not unbalanced?

Of course they operated from reality and not the outraged take of many supporters on both sides to always prove that in fact the other campaign was dirtier and their candidate was screwed over?

If I remember correctly they pointed out the horrid sexist coverage Hillary Clinton got from the media (which Obama supporters don't want to admit), BUT they also pointed out the 2-month non-stop, 24/7 Reverend Wright coverage and the ABC debate, pointing out that (despite what Clinton supporters want to admit) that this was, yes, an almost unprecedented wave of negative coverage for any candidate Obama underwent. Hence they said it was a wash.

Both sides were predictably angry and refused to accept the conclusions.

[oscartucker]

Perhaps Hillary will run again some day; I believe she will run as a very honest candidate, who will not "try everything in the book to to win". Her attitude this time was "by any means necessary"! On 60 Minutes, she could have cleared up the rumor of Obama being a Muslim, but it was so convenient to throw in doubt. With Rev. Wright, whether Obama was in the church for 20 years or more, she knew that Wright didn't speak for Obama. All she said was, "He would not be my preacher." She tried to let people know that Bill didn't speak for her, at times. Hillary's laugh was a "cover-up" when she didn't want to answer something, it gave her a little more time to think, and I believe people who heard her "laughing" knew that it was not genuine--it was a sickening sound and a sickening ploy. It was when she was laughing during the campaign that I felt the sickest. I wonder if all of those who have complained will join in the cry against what is being done and what will be done against Michelle Obama? They will probably just say to Michelle, "Go for yourself, girl!"
Now everyone is beating to death the addition of Solis to Obama's campaign and some are taking offense. Ask someone in the campaign, "Why?" The woman probably needs a job, needs to get paid, and she must have some "skills".

[harriscrl3]

The media is Bias PERIOD. The media has been bias since there was such a thing as a media and for anyone to think that Hilary is a special case is ludicrious. In a poll MSNBC had more Positive HIlary reporting than any other network it had more than Obama. People tend to forget the positive when there is a string of negative but when Hilary was up by 30 points she was treated as the front runner the one who was going to be inevitable she was getting positive coverage then. Obama on the other hand was always viewed suspiciously. Even now he is winning among women they point out does he have trouble with suburban women. Obama is suppose to win ALL the demographics. Oh he has a Latino, catholic, blue collar, jewish, asian you name it he had it. Goodness Pat Buchanan refer to him as being exotic and the host doesnt seem to be offended by that. When he wasnt getting the black vote it was is he not black enough now that he is getting it its is he too black. He has had his fair share of bias coverage the difference he doesnt take advantage of it he doenst complain as much as Hilary. He doesnt use it to try and gain sympathy like Hilary does. But to think that he has a free ride its is laughable. CNN the major news network watch how many negative Obama story they have in a week.

[frustratedinohio]

Please provide the link for that poll about MSNBC.

[engineer68]

Chris Matthews was fair to Hillary? MSNBC was ruthless in disparaging Hillary.

[bygollymissmolly]

That was an interesting read. The thing is that the author could come up with just as long a list, and probably longer, of how the press treated O'bama badly. I'm not sure exactly what the purpose of that article is. Was the author trying to elicit sympathy for C'linton. Was the author trying to give voice to C'linton supporter's claims that the election was stolen from her?

All I know is that C'linton lost the race and she did it on her own merits, such as they were.

[frustratedinohio]

No one is saying that Obama was treated badly by the press, not even MSNBC. The author, I thought, was NOT claiming the election was stolen from her. Do you READ before you comment?

[TNFarmer]

What makes someone think the motivation of the MSM is to be fair about anything or anyone? They're big business, people. You should only be surprised at their coverage if you expect them to report real news and follow real issues. They don't, for the most part - just like the author of this article. Keeping or creating controversy puts bread on their table and vacation plane tickets in their pockets.

Lest we forget, there's a general election coming up PDQ. Put all this kind of "stuff" on the back burner until after the election, then drag it up to your little heart's content. There are a hell of a lot more important concerns facing this Nation right now that we might have a chance of actually doing something about, rather than continuing to wallow in self-pity, finding someone to blame, and other tangential issues. Besides, all this speculation and expert "analysis" of which of the Democratic candidates got screwed the worst will never be resolved - it won't change the minds of a particular candidate's supporters that it was their man or woman who got the rawest deal.

[timm0]

The key to the utility of this whole stupid exercise is at the end of the article where the author(s) state that they weren't trying to show who got more screwed by the media - just to show how unfair everyone was to poor, poor hillary...­. the same hillary that was pampered by the media for about a year when she was up by 20-30 points.

Look, EVERYONE is screwed by the media. This masterpiece of "journalistic watchdogging" is totally pointless garbage. Even bush has been misquoted by the media before - does that prove he's good? Does it prove he's been unfairly treated? Does it mean his approval ratings are due to the mean ole media?

If someone counted the inaccurate stories and compared candidates, then maybe this "story" wouldn't be so irritating. Because, other than idle [rhymes with witching], what the hell is the point of this article?

The media sucks. She got no worse coverage than Obama. HRC ran a horrible campaign, she represents the establishment in a time when people are dying (literally) for change, and she reinforced all her reputed personality flaws on the public stage - so she lost. Move the hell on whiners.

[marymansour]

Off subject here but noticed when I clicked to read the story that Obama was helping the flood vicitims. You Tube filmed it and Andrew Sullivan wrote about it. This should get on the evening news or at least make Huff Post.

[tenilla]

I am sure that Huffington Post had the picture. I saw nothing on the MSM, but maybe
the Obama campaign didn't put the picture out there, feeling that it would be pandering.

[RiseHillary]

Now what could he do except have a photo op? He owes Iowa lots.