The Republicans have made a high art out of whining to the refs for the last several decades. It goes something like this: "The media is liberal. They hate us. They won't be fair to us. Boo hoo. You better not write anything bad about us otherwise you prove that you are liberal and unfair."
And the media has swallowed it whole. They are so careful about what they say about Republicans because they are scared to death of what the Republicans are going to say about them.
On the other hand, the press can say anything they want about Democrats and there are never any repercussions. So, they feel free to hammer away at one party while tip-toeing around the other.
We recently had Mary Mapes on our show. She is, of course, the producer of the 60 Minutes piece on George Bush's National Guard duty. This was a classic case of media overreaction when the Republicans whined to the refs.
Yes, you can have legitimate journalistic concerns over whether they should have run the one document they did not have enough verification on. But the heart of the story stands, even after a thorough CBS investigation into the report led by Republican stalwart Dick Thornburgh. But after this 60 Minutes story, no one ever dared to challenge Bush on whether he showed up to the National Guard in Alabama, although it appears he almost certainly did not.
But that's not why I bring this up. After I asked about how cowed the media is by Republican attacks, I asked one more question: Does the media ever give any pause before doing a similar story on Democrats?
The answer: "No, no, no." (You can get the transcript and the interview here or the short version on You Tube)
When it's Republicans, you better be prepared for a blistering counter-attack. When it's Democrats, unload on them because they never hold you accountable.
Now, to Hillary Clinton's credit, she doesn't accept this paradigm. She is fully aware of this game and knows how to play it with the best of them. And I say this with utter ambivalence. On the one hand, I like that she has successfully adapted Republican political tactics that work. On the other hand, I am uncomfortable with the idea that the media is getting played by her as much as they do by the Republicans.
Look at what she has done in these primaries. Every time she has been attacked, she plays the victim card. She says the media is biased against her. So, now when a news organization goes to cover Senator Clinton, they think twice.
Now, I think there have been times when her claims of bias have been justified (I've written about Chris Matthews in regards to this before). But the media has to be able to discern the difference between legitimate problems in their coverage and political gamesmanship. Of course, the media won't be perfect in covering every candidate (not by a long shot, see Al Gore). They have to be open to criticism without getting bullied.
The Clinton team went from having legitimate concerns about their treatment in the press to aggressively intimidating the media into favorable coverage a long time ago. I thought her references to the Saturday Night Live skit in one of the debates was silly. But I was wrong. It was awkward at the time, but it got the job done. That marked a turning point when the press got gun shy in going after Hillary. They didn't want to get stuck with the anti-Hillary bias tag. They got scared of what SNL or the Clinton team was going to say about them.
What's going through the head of everyone from MSNBC all the way down to the local paper is, "If I say that about Hillary Clinton, am I going to get in trouble? Will her campaign accuse me of having an anti-Hillary bias?"
Do they have similar pause when they are about to ask Barack Obama to apologize for Louis Farrakhan, a man he has no connection to (let alone when Tim Russert asked him about comments made by Harry Belafonte, presumably because they are both black -- what's next, asking him to reject and denounce OJ)?
Did they have similar pause when they couldn't stop talking about John Edwards's haircut (was there a dumber "issue" in this whole campaign)? Did any of the other candidates put out this talking point that the media better be careful what they say about them because they will cry and whine about it?
Now you can say, maybe they should have. And I hear you on that. If I was running a campaign, I wouldn't unilaterally disarm. I would complain bitterly about anti-Cenk bias until I made every press outlet think eight times before they ran a negative story about me. One of the advantages of this strategy is that many stories don't run based on this line of attack simply because people and organizations don't want to go through the hassle and work of jumping through all these hoops to run a simple story. Hence, you have less stories against the candidate who complains more.
Until the press catches on to what the Republicans have been doing for so long and what Senator Clinton has been doing of late, I would whine to the refs like all the rest of them to balance out the playing field. The media has to recognize this and learn how to ignore this kind of b.s. whining (without being close-minded about legitimate criticism).
When Sam Donaldson was on our show, he said that whenever either party complained to his boss, Roone Arledge, about how he was covering the Reagan or Clinton White House, Arledge would give him a raise. That's the spirit of watchdog journalism we have to get back to (and we probably will -- as soon as there is another Democrat in office (man, that's frustrating; but I'll take it if they at least cover the Republicans in Congress and the right-wing media with the same scrutiny)).
Why do I point this out now? Because I think there is a very specific issue that the press is not covering nearly enough at this point because of exactly this kind of intimidation. This primary race is over. Hillary Clinton cannot possibly catch Obama in pledged delegates. So, in order to win, she would have to overturn the will of the voters through superdelegates or some other form of political machinations.
So, why isn't the press reporting that it's over, that she can't possibly make a comeback in the remaining elections? Because they don't want to say it's over and have the wrath of Senator Clinton come down on their heads. The Clinton camp would whine about a story like that forever. They would charge that the press is trying to short-circuit the process, have always been biased against Hillary, yada, yada, yada.
But it's time to get real. She won't catch him on pledged delegates -- that's an enormous story everyone should run with. And then the question must be posed to the Clinton camp everyday -- how do you plan to win when you will be trailing (significantly) in pledged delegates? How do you think the convention would play out if Senator Clinton went in trailing significantly in the delegate count and then found a way to take the nomination anyway?
Wouldn't it seem undemocratic and un-Democratic? Wouldn't there be a huge cry of injustice by more than half the Democratic voters at that point (and this time, it would be perfectly legitimate and not some sort of political gamesmanship)? Isn't this the biggest story out there? Who cares what Geraldine Ferraro or Barack Obama's pastor said? What's the math, who's going to win?
Or more accurately -- who has already won? That's the big story and the one the press would be talking about if they weren't at least somewhat intimidated by charges of anti-Hillary bias.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Cenk, do you really think you're doing yourself, or the concept of free and open dialogue, any good by only allowing favorable comments to be posted here?
Just asking.
This is Political Extortion by the Clintons.... basically what they are doing is saying if you don't give me the nomination Superdelegates (although she obvisously can't catch up with him on pledged delegates) I will damage Obama so badly there will be absolutely no way the Democratic Party can win...... Forget the party... Ride or Die for Hillary....If you don't like it oh well... The Clintons are the quintessential example of narcissism
Thank you
I find it amazing that on the one hand, people fight that all states have their say in the election of the nominee. On the other hand, Obama supporters are pretty eager to force Clinton to fold her hand.
They declared that she would fail in Ohio and she won. There are still more than 500 pledged delegates out there. Clinton is behind with some 120-130 delegates. Winning Pennsylvania with a large margin would close the gap.
Even if it is farfetched, but if Clinton wins 85% of the vote, all the delegates would go in her column, turning the "mathmatically impossible" into reality.
Let me get this straight: you're saying that an impossibility can become a reality, provided that an underlying impossibility becomes a reality. In light of the fact that her best showing so far has been in 70% in Arkansas, where her husband was a well-liked governor, and that current polls show her hovering around the 50% mark in Pennsylvania, she's as likely to pull 85% of the Pennsylvania vote as a mysterious brigade of trolls is to crawl out from under the Tappan Zee Bridge and abduct Barack Obama on the eve the Pennsylvania primary. Both events would inure to her benefit, but neither one is going to happen.
85% is not far fetched, it is impossible.
For God's sake, think about it.
Great post with many good points.
Nancy Pelosi now says what the media is not saying, which is that the only way Hillary can win is with a super delegate coup. She further states that this would damage the party and its chances in the general election. Now the Clinton campaign is pissed at her...for what? stating the truth??
I think that the main stream media has not reported this because they are the big beneficiaries of the continuation of the foolishness. They get increased web traffic and higher television ratings as the pundits talk and talk with glee--the more sensational the story, the better.
CNN is so biased for the Clintons it's not even funny.
At the begining they were only showing the total delegate count (superdelegates and elected delegates) They didn't show how the superdelegates were that they were counting just a grand total that showed Hillary was ahead.
When I called them about it they said the total count is what matters. Well how do we know your superdelegate count is even correct I asked. It just is. Well Lantos was a Hillary superdelegate and he passed away last night yet your count has not changes. You were eitherwrong then or wrong now.
The next day CNN started showing both the superdelegate total and the elected delegate total
CNN knows that Vinod Gupta (CEO of surveyusa) is being sued by his shareholders for giving 3.5 million $ of sharholder money to Bill Clinton yet they still use his services. SurveyUSA polls are NOT valid and they know it
The NY Sun already ran a story about the clinton donors yet CNN pretends that is not a story. Nor do they mention the pardons or anything else about Hillary
CNN is the Clinton News Network
Umm what planet did you just land from?
I am NOT a supporter of ANYONE and it has been blatently clear and obvious that CNN should just come out with it and Endorse Obama!. Have you not listened to Jack Cafferty? I challenge you to go into his questions for the past month and see if you can fine ONE, question he asks without a negative connotation on Clinton, even when the question is not ABOUT her, he can not resist saying something negative. His hatred for the Clintons could NOT be any more obvious. Even the ever so respected Anderson Cooper is starting to show favoritism.
Now he gets a hit from the pastor and they have pretty much spent 24/7 with Obama, I have YET to see them put pundits on there that talk negative about it. They are ALL quite heated and in defense of Obama.
There is a couple of programs such as Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck who are NOT willing to pander to the cultist like following of Obama, and actually have the guts to ask questions, and investigate the TRUTH. So if it is THOSE programs you are referring to, even then you don't have much ground to stand on, they STILL are focusing on Obama, so HOW it can be the Clinton network is beyond me.
Lets just compare the Powers Ferrero stories for eg. When Powers called Hillary "a Monster!" There was coverage, but there SURE seemed to be a LOT of coverage about all "the good" that woman has done too, and how respectful she is. That it was unfortunate such a vocal advocate had to be released from the staff. When Ferrero broke? And made a comment that Obama's color had actually helped him in his run (which quite frankly I thought was a compliment, and should have been taken as one from a man that was SO focussed on overcoming race. And she was bashed and beaten, called a racist.
Then even worse? John McCain, does he even get mentioned?
Amen. I will never watch CNN again due to the blatant bias.
Me either!!! They stink!!!
There are a number of us, myself included, whose comments are mostly about this exact story.
Yes, it's the biggest story, by FAR, and it isn't being reported as such. Thanks for writing the story.
"[Hillary] won't catch him on pledged delegates -- that's an enormous story everyone should run with. And then the question must be posed to the Clinton camp everyday -- how do you plan to win when you will be trailing (significantly) in pledged delegates? How do you think the convention would play out if Senator Clinton went in trailing significantly in the delegate count and then found a way to take the nomination anyway?
Wouldn't it seem undemocratic and un-Democratic? Wouldn't there be a huge cry of injustice by more than half the Democratic voters at that point (and this time, it would be perfectly legitimate and not some sort of political gamesmanship)? Isn't this the biggest story out there? Who cares what Geraldine Ferraro or Barack Obama's pastor said? What's the math, who's going to win?"
It's akin to telling a terminal patient that any further treatment is going to do more harm then help - everyone knows the reality but nobody wants to say it because there is an overwhelming desire not to want to deal with the drama of that truth. So what do we do? We let things take its natural course. Euthenization may seem like the more humane option, but some people have to reach the end conclusion on their own time. Everything works out for the best ultimately - as the Alchemist says: the Universe is conspiring for you to succeed; and if America has any hope of succeeding, Obama will be ringing in the next term with a refreshing dose of authenticity mixed with an achievable twist of idealism.
Hillary is well aware of the math!
But she knows that dithering "Superdelegates" can yet be panicked in to giving her the nomination!
It is these so called "Superdelegates" who are giving longevity to the politics of division!
If the media would do journalism, instead of gotcha sensationalism, opinion manipulation, and junk news, we might have a better country. These days I go to the internet, the young turks, air america, blogs, alternet, common dreams, consortium news, democracy now to find out what's going on. And even these outlets don't really give me adequate analysis of the events. Television has a 24-hour news cycle, and they fill it with garbage. And if they ever try to fill it with news, their drinking pals in Congress call them up and whine or threaten not to invite them to the next cocktail party. And the story dies. It's disgusting.
Bravo on the blog! You have had the courage to come out and say what SHOULD be apparent to anyone who has retained the ability to see the big picture of this campaign, rather than getting caught up in the distractions the Clinton campaign and the MSM have thrown at us.
"I thought her references to the Saturday Night Live skit in one of the debates was silly. But I was wrong. It was awkward at the time, but it got the job done. That marked a turning point when the press got gun shy in going after Hillary. They didn't want to get stuck with the anti-Hillary bias tag. They got scared of what SNL or the Clinton team was going to say about them."
Yes, it definitely was a turning point. Along with the Clinton campaign"s call for the firing of Shuster, it was HRC"s clear signal that she was willing to "aggressively intimidate" anyone in the media who didn"t give her favorable coverage. Who wants a President who seeks to suppress free speech? I"m frankly disappointed that this doesn"t make more people extremely uncomfortable.
The cable news networks love Hillary's scorched-earth strategy that pits Democrats against Democrats and drags the party into the mud because they thrive on sensation and controversy. It has helped their ratings.
What a joke.
OVERT, rampant sexism is daily on MSNBC and not one liberal on this site calls them out.
Oh wait, I forgot.
Racism is evil but sexism is a good thing.
I have marched against racism since college, organized with others to stop it...just like, you know, Hillary Clinton has done since college. And we both worked with and against sexist male leaders on the right and the left. But alas, one only needs to come on Huff, look at stats and see what is still going strong.
Sorry Cent, your inability to be fair and honest speaks volumes.
Hillary whines and Barry lies!!
A few facts would help here. Perhaps you can tell us about Obama's lies?
How about "I never heard or knew about Dr. Wright's sentiments"? Or "I hardly know this guy Rezko, who is still a friend and donated 40.000, no, wait, 70.000...no, 150.000 dollars to my campaigns. $150.000, that's all there was, unless you look closer.
Look at his statements on Iraq or NAFTA...
You wish!!! It's Hillary who is the REAL LIAR here!!! She can't win on her record, so she lies, spins, and distorts. She is the new "Master of Dirty Politics!" And why won't she release her joint tax returns since her White House years, or her White House records, for that matter? Why won't she discuss her lobbyists, and the support she receives from a firm with 103 sexual harrassment complaints filed against them? Why won't she really denounce the filthy supporters like Geraldine Ferraro and her own husband, who use racism and sexism as a divisive tactic? Why? Because that's all she has, and she has so much to hide! A large percentage of her "wins" have been from RePUKES attempting to steal the vote from Obama, because they know how easy she will be to beat in November!!! 24% of her vote in Mississippi were from RePUKES, many sent by Rush Limbaugh, to "steal the vote!" New Hampshire wasn't a "win" for her at all, but "Diebold voting machine fraud!" (See blackboxvoting.org and/or bradblog.com). Just because it hasn't been reported in the MSM, doesn't mean it didn't happen!!! If you want to talk "facts," then use "real facts," not just rumors!!!
Bravo.
Let's retire the hag and the whining. I'm tired of this and the news is no longer news. It's never ending re-runs of informercials of the 90's. If not the Clinton who would shut up, let's not hear another word from Penn. Had enough in the '90's and worse of it all, no really good tunes from that era to reflect any good memories. I just want to move on. Let's get the show on the road, win or lose. Let's finish it.
Welcome to the Punch and Judy puppet show Cenk.
The Corporate Press loved Bill so much it was ridiculed and the Republicans were able to start their whole "You're not fair to us" meme... Then they PROVED IT. Dems don't admit it much, but BILL LIED HIS ASS OFF, and the media LET HIM. Then the Republicans Impeached him for it, and the press started a whole new ass cover story, about it JUST being a little lie.
The Corporate Media is big business, Cenk... And, as was recently pointed out, the Republican "Brand" has been demolished. So, now it's time to go back to the puppet they wear on their left hand.
Enjoy the Puppet show.
Judy is gonna' hit Punch now... Then Punch will hit Judy... The Corporate Media will clap like a bunch spoiled kids, and Suburban America will go to their cubicles... and everything will be back to normal.
NPR is the epitome of MSM venality. Their avoidance of anything that isn't an official controversy is appalling. Even then they water down the terminology to fit their style manual. Torture becomes "a controversial form of harsh interrogation." Resistance guerrilas in Iraq are insurgents. (Whazzat?)When Christian Parenti appeared on the News Hour in 2003 and pointed out how the Bushies had botched the post-invasion occupation of Iraq he was told off camera that he wasn't welcome to make "controversial" statements and would NEVER be back on the program.
The vacuous content of what passes for news coverage has been a critical part of the dumbing down of the public. "Go out and shop! Be very afraid!" The latest is the magic trick that took Gerry Ferraro out of the headlines and swapped in Rev. White. American journalism is lazy, superficial, and gutless, a triad that leads directly to the death of democracy.
Couldn't agree with you more. The media is running scared especially CNN, Jessica Yellin a reporter for CNN Ballot Bowl in one of their segments ask viewers to compare Hillary and Barack speeches, she ask viewers listen how specific Hillary is in her speech compare to Senator Obama, this happen during the time Hillary was accusing Senator Obama of just saying words. In addition, whenever numbers are mentioned, Ms. Yellin constantly state that Hillary won 16 States ( including Florida & Michigan in the count) when in fact Hillary has only won 14 States...talking about buying the spin on the election. But one doesn't have to digg deep to see the fear of media regarding how they cover the Clintons, since Super Tuesday, Senator Obama has won, 12 contest to Hillary 3 after almost 2 months where Hillary had 0 wins...Yet according to the media she has the momentum. How is 3 wins out of a 15 contest consider a COMEBACK? Does anyone know how to do math in the media, no wonder they also believe Ms. Clinton is going to be good for the economy. I also found it strange that the media, had not comment that Ms. Clinton had thrown herself a confetti party in Ohio after only 3 wins, instead they played along. Furthermore, Ms. Clinton mentioned that she has been vetted and Senator Obama has not...Ms. Clinton vetting took place while she was First Lady, not as a Presidential candidate, she continues remain secretive about her taxes and the Clinton Library donors...yet the media continues to ignore this... Senator Obama, wasn't married to a former President therefore since Ms. Clinton is claiming the experience of the White House as her legitiment claim to the candidacy of the Democratic Party...these experiences need to be examined, the media doesn't have to go after Ms. Clinton personal life, but they can take a closer look at her resume; including what she might have left out, i.e her Membership on the Board of Walmart, her vote for the War in Iraq, what type of influence did she have over the Presidency including NAFTA, her claims of foreign policy experience, as well as her experience as a woman i.e what message did she think she was sending to young women/ daughters when she decided to stay with Bill Clinton after his affair and how that decision has in anyway advance or empowered women then the media can point to Ms. Spitzer who in 2008 still felt the need to do the same as she did, within the same context another question relating to ethnics could be; Ms. Clinton do you think the oath one takes in one marriage is the same as the oath of elective office? Finally, if Ms. Clinton continues to make claims that her qualification to be Commander and Chief is base on her marriage to Bill Clinton, the media has an obiligation to exam their relationship as well as her qualifications. The media seems to have no problem, reporting or asking Senator Obama about his relationships or the comments made by associates however distant those associates might be. Unlike Senator Clinton; Senator Obama, is not using his relationship with Rev. Wright to claim legitimacy to Candidacy of the Democratic Party.
Completely agree and lets add Cooper to the list. He has become a joke. Biased doesn't even begin to describe it. Cooper's interview with Obama about his pastor had an extremely nasty edge and considering all his coverage of Katrina and personal story it was almost laughable. He follows Bill and Chelsea around like a lap dog and asks, from what I've seen, absolutely no hard questions of her or her campaign. In short he makes me want to puke with his arrogant holier than thou attiitude.
Amen, Cenk! It's like watching Dennis Rodman flop on the floor during the play-offs.
If Sen. Clinton thinks the press is being unfair now, what does she think it's going to be like if her pipe-dream comes true? One way or the other, her honeymoon with FAUX Noise will come to an abrupt halt once the Dems choose their nominee.
Imagine if we were in the opposite situation.
Imagine if Hillary were ahead FOR SOOOOO LONG NOW in all measurable categories-delegates,superdelegates, and popular vote.
There would be choruses of voices in the MSM SCREAMING for Barack to get out of the race.
Her situation is hopeless without some kind of Rove/republiCON dirty trickery and she looks, and sounds like a Sore/Loserman '08.
The MSM lost its spine a long time ago. They know exactly what Hillary is doing, but they don't have a clue how to respond without reinforcing her claim. But seeing her act more and more Republican just makes me despise her even more. I used to tell myself that I would vote for whoever the Democratic nominee was. But there's no way I'll vote for her, not after everything that's been said and done.
what spine........???
I agree. If the situation had been reversed (Obama losing), he would be done. But, since it's the Clintons, it's a totally different ball game. I understand it. It's not the democratic process, it's the Clintons. Therefore, the campaign has to continue and has to play itself out until she realizes there are no more ifs ands or buts. In the meantime, we have to watch how pathetic Hillary, Bill and their campain truly are as well as watch them hang themselves in the process. The plus to all of this? We will finally be rid of them in the end. Whoohoo!!!
Why are you whining about this. If your guy is so great, then he'll win. I think Obama supporters are a bit insecure. They want him declared the winner immediately and damn anybody elses voting rights. That's democracy for you. That's bringing us all together, yeah right!
Posted March 17, 2008 | 01:37 AM (EST)