And to the Media -- Apology Accepted? -- Maybe!

In the aftermath of the Michigan primary, where two of the top three Democratic nominees weren't on the ballot, where the State Democratic Party played "chicken" with the National Democratic Party and lost, where for the first time in any primary Hillary Clinton received more votes than the other Dem candidates combined (including the "uncommitted" group), where Mitt Romney insured his run all the way to the convention with maybe as many delegates as anyone else even if he wins no more primaries, and where the Giuliani 50-state strategy featuring two states (Florida and New York) may have been doomed to failure, there's still some unfinished business left over from New Hampshire that we need to address.

And now that the racial tensions within the Democratic Party have cooled down a bit, and notice I said racial tensions within the Democratic Party -- (wait until we get to the general election -- ominous sign for Senator Obama and further confirmation of my position that while I love Barack Obama and what he represents, Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' best chance to actually win in November) -- I think we can focus on the issues I have with the media as an institution and as a collective assemblage of individuals and personalities.

After the New Hampshire primary, the media spent a great deal of time analyzing the unpredicted and surprising comeback victory of Hillary Clinton. Indeed, in retrospect, that victory will be seen as even more important than realized as the day of the primary, some pundits were confidently analyzing what the role of Jesse Jackson would be in the seemingly certain to be Obama administration.

But in the aftermath of all the second guessing, mea culpas and commentary, it was apparent to me that there were two areas where the media and its collective group of individual personalities either missed some salient points or deliberately overlooked them.

First, in the post-primary universal acknowledgment of the fact that Hillary had been "savaged" by the media and the press, no one really touched on why she was savaged, criticized and basically attacked by the media to a far greater extent than any other candidate on either side, Democrat or Republican. The fact is, there was almost an implicit "license to kill" that was issued to everyone in the media with no review, monitoring or renewal requirements. It was open-ended and unlimited in scope. And the reason this activity was allowed to go on essentially without interruption or question before the voters spoke was because there were no recriminations or penalties to be incurred by anyone who engaged in this activity, regardless of how tasteless, unfair or unsubstantiated the actual activity might be.

The media would not have dared to attack or personally go after Barack Obama in the same manner for fear that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and every black leader in America, regardless of who they were supporting, would have come down so hard on the media and individuals in the media that not only would the activity not continued, but individuals singled out in the media as being primarily responsible for engaging in the conduct would have been in jeopardy of losing their jobs.

And on the other side, the media would not have dared to attack or personally go after any of the conservative Republican candidates in the same manner for fear that Fox News and the conservative-based "right" leaning radio talk show circuit would be equally as ferocious in counterattacking the media for what they perceived as "unfair liberal bias" in the portrayals of the conservative candidates.

But with Hillary, everybody felt that they could just unleash any level of attack, venom, and criticism because no one was going to stand up for her since she was a symbol so established in controversy that it would be okay AND, attacking Hillary so viciously gave the general media a cover because they could then say "see, we're not biased in favor of liberals or the Clintons". I would suggest the media might consider a bias in favor of fairness and objectivity as a change of pace that might also be an option the general citizenry might accept as well.

But the enthusiasm and literal glee with which the media went after Hillary Clinton aroused a new policeman on the block designed to restore fairness -- the voters themselves. And the voters, the new policeman on the block, rode in on the night of the primary, handcuffed the media, read them the riot act, and then proceeded to put them on probation and an extended community service sentence. And even opponents of Hillary Clinton were thankful for this new late entry of recrimination and accountability for the unbalanced unleashed forces of anti-Hillarism that had raged unchecked throughout the land for weeks on end.

And finally, perhaps what both amused me and angered me at the same time more than anything else was the post-primary coverage of the media's anti-Hillary savaging by the media itself. Did you notice how everyone, the major pundits, anchors and commentators were rushing to the microphone to explain that part of the explanation for Hillary's surprising comeback win was "resentment over the media bashing" of her that had taken place. And I'm sitting there listening to so many of them say this, and my response was "and you were one of the worse ones responsible for it"-- are you kidding me!

The media is not a building, or a book, or a statue that one can hide behind, refer to as a separate entity, or use as a convenient scapegoat when things go wrong. The media is indeed the collective assemblage of the individuals and personalities that present the news and coverage of the issues of the day to the American people.

If just one of the anchors, pundits and commentators had also added -- "and I must take some personal responsibility for perhaps going too far in criticism of Hillary", that would have gone a long way to really convincing the voters of the sincerity of the post-analysis "mea culpa" on the part of the media, and in so doing, would have gone a long way to generating a sincere acceptance of the apology by the voters themselves, even those whose choice for president is someone else. The community service part of the sentence has already started. Let's see how they do from now on!

Carl Jeffers is a Seattle-and-Los Angeles based columnist, political analyst and lecturer. He hosts a KIRO-AM talk show program, ON FIRE with Carl Jeffers, and he is a guest host for Clear Channel Radio and Air America Radio as well. Carl Jeffers is a political commentator for the Radio One Network and the KCBI network in Dallas, TX. Jeffers is a national TV political commentator and is also an editorial contributor to The Seattle Times. E-mail: [e-mail]

Comments

[Jonni Rae]

Hers was the only name on the ballot in Mich!! She didn't win anything. She showed lack of integrity by not removing her name when all the others, including Obama did, in accordance with the DNC rules. She feels she is above the rules. Nobody savaged Hilary. Her campaign started it all, Bill got mad because Obama was giving them a real campaign, and she started throwing nasty stuff around about Obama's record, MlK, etc., the Johnson stuff, BET and LBJ, the stupid remark of Rangel, the constantly distorting or lying about his record. Hey!! She is a woman with "35 years of experience" in dirty politics. She can throw the s..t but she can't take it. By the way, Jefers, aren't you a LOBBYIST, or a sell-out of some kind? You need to start walking on the right side of the street and stop defending "Miss Anne." She doesn't need any help from the likes of you.

[mightbesane]

What is lost in all of this is that over the years, the media has actually been getting more and more responsible in its reporting. Never forget that when the Founders championed freedom of the press, the press was truly wicked, printing outright lies about one presidential candidate while in the pay of another. And I'm not talking Nixon and Kennedy, I'm talking Jefferson and Adams.

So suck it up, candidates. And get it straight, press. Because candidates will always be slandered. And people who want to be thought of as serious journalists will always be fact-checked by an alert citizenry.

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

Does anyone remember what label was worn by anyone that argued any political point with George W. Bush? That person was . . . "a Bush-Hater." Did anyone note that, after a reporter called attention to Mitt Romney's slight prevarication regarding the presence or absence of lobbyists on his staff, Joe Scarborough stepped up to say, "All Washington reporters hate Mitt Romney." Hence, the critic is a "Romney-Hater." Is anyone noticing that whenever Hillary Clinton is critiqued (at all) by a commentator or even a next door neighbor, that person is a . . . what? . . . ding, ding, ding, ding . . . you guessed it . . . A "Hillary-Hater." You may ask yourself, "But why does this work?" Well, folks, it's a recycled variant (and a VERY effective one) of the "argument ad hominem." When I cannot defend my position, I just claim that everyone that disagrees with me is "bad, ugly, stupid" or, in a stroke of genius, "a hater." I say, "The only reason you disagree with me is because you hate me." The Greeks taught us that the "argument ad hominem" is a logical fallacy. That means it's false. Immediately and obviously false. So, for the remainder of this campaign, we must demand from all our candidates a combination of thick skin and a willingness to stick to their own vision for America. For, none of us will ever disagree because we are "Bush-Haters," "Romney-Haters" or "Hillary-Haters." Rather, we will disagree on substance. I mean, look at it this way: Is it possible that, at some point during the career of our next president, she or he might be confronted with vociferous critiques from the ladies and gentlemen of the press or from another world leader? Given such criticism, would it be a wise response for the leader of the free world to say, "You're just saying that because you hate me!"

[buddyd]

Thank god another black person beside me is speaking up. I have been saying some of the same things for days.. People,we are trying to pick the best candidate for the party. If it's Obama, then so be it. If it's Clinton, then so be it. However, you guys have to stop feeling guilty are whatever you call it an be open to all of the Dems. Please demand that the media be fair to everyone, Even Republican. Thanks Mr Jefferies. I saw you on MSNBC and you were great.. I started out supporting Mr Obama because I thought he was bringing something different to the table. After listening to him in the debates, I changed my mind..I am undecided at this time but will make up my mind very soon..

[OhgReaTone]

Chis Matthews offered rationalization and justification for attacking Clinton. His attack was out of the realm of politics - It was a chauvinistic statement by a media bigot.
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/18/morning-joe-defends-chris-matthews/

[Jjc2006]

Carl this was a fair and intelligently written piece. I thank you for it. I am sorry the vile haters of huffpo feel the need to trash your point of view.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

[Grulg]

Exactly. Good column. Chris Matthews esp. was embarrassing. I also enjoyed seeing how extremely thin skinned Jonathan King of CNN is-WOW. These guys can't really take it, can they?

[patrice37]

Who are these media savages you keep talking about, and in what outlets were they doing their death dance? You don't give a single example. For the most part, the media were simply reporting what the polls were telling them: that Obama had a 10-point lead in New Hampshire. If you want Hillary to be president, just say so. Don't whine about unnamed people who are supposedly fomenting hatred around the land.

[Semaj51]

And a side note, I'm not planning on voting for her.

[dbredes]

I would also say since I can't shut up today...

That I would love to vote for a woman for president...

A woman - not getting a political pass because of her husband's resume...but a woman...who has worked hard and earned her office on her merits. Our time is coming..just not Hillary..not now...not this way..


and no I'm not working on the Barack campaign.

I am a democrat..who really cares about Democrat issues...and wants us to win...and turn this country around.

[moonjumper]

Oh Christ, enough with this "but they're pciking on her" bs.