How Should Journalists Cover a Charismatic Candidate? When the Subjective is Objective

This week McCain and his campaign have complained about "Obama-love," arguing that fawning journalists are mirroring or fostering a fawning electorate. McCain's charge of press bias on Obama's overseas tour is a little hard to swallow on two counts. The first is that no one has enjoyed so little objectivity from the media as John McCain. He's been the darling of a very forgiving press for decades, which continues to use the word "maverick" to describe a politician whose stances on issues ranging from torture to Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy in wartime would make even John Kerry fall out of his flipflops. The second reason is that McCain is the one who suggested the trip, apparently not considering the possibility that it would elevate Obama's stature both on the world stage and at home, as Obama showed grace and gravitas with world leaders and demonstrated the same rock-star appeal with the troops he allegedly does not support (and even wowed them with his manliness and dexterity with a shot from the three-point line).

Although McCain this week has done himself little good this week by seeming like a whining, grumpy, impotent man who can only protest angrily as a young sprinter runs circles around him, he has done one thing successfully: "work the refs." Every journalist considering running a positively toned story about Barack Obama from now until November will now have that little bird chirping inside his or her head, asking, "Am I being objective?" Hillary Clinton's campaign effectively used this strategy when Obama had begun to run away with the race. In her case, there was more to the charge: The media didn't much care for her, and it showed. Just as they are now asking if Obama is acting too cocky or is "overstepping" when he hasn't yet been elected (a question they never asked when John McCain met with the same leaders and traveled a similar path), they attributed to Hillary Clinton the sentiment that there should be a "coronation" last fall when she broke the 50 percent mark with Democratic voters in the Gallup polls. In fact, the voice suggesting that she was poised for victory at that point was the voice of the people who answered Gallup's phone calls.

But charges of bias, particularly toward a charismatic candidate like Barack Obama, create confusion among journalists about whether they are acting as impartial observers or more like participant-observers. As a result, they often overshoot, as they did in the coverage following Clinton's charge that they were giving Obama a free ride (a charge that must have exempted the coverage of the Jeremiah Wright story or Obama's "elitist" remarks in San Francisco). The charge of bias against a charismatic contender can have a chilling effect on coverage, leading to an embargo on visual images that depict the reality of public response or an obligatory snarky comment or caveat following every story that describes something the candidate has done well. I saw the process in action during the primaries when Hillary's charge led to media concerns about airing footage that would seem too positive for Obama. On more than one occasion, a television producer would ask me for suggestions about film clips to illustrate the point I would be making on air a few hours later or a point they wanted to make, and would reject an appropriate clips because it was "too positive" or because it was from a victory speech. But a victory speech is hardly unfair to show simply because it shows the candidate victorious. That's what victory is.

Clearly journalists need to be on guard to prevent their biases from obscuring a real story, as they did in their propagandistic coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq War. Anyone who dared speak out against it--Al Gore, for example, who delivered a brilliant critique of the drumbeat for war that proved accurate in every detail--was pilloried, and he was one of the unlucky few who was covered at all. But it's easy to confuse biased reporting with accurate reporting about a candidate who inspires voters. Reporting on that inspiration, or simply showing crowd response, is no less "objective" than reporting on voters who aren't convinced that he shares their values or is enough like them to vote for him. Should the media have deleted the sounds and images of the throngs of Berliners spellbound by the potential American president after seven dark years of George W. Bush? What about the response of our own troops to a candidate who has been branded by the McCain camp as their betrayer?

The reality is that journalists are people, and people connect with Barack Obama in a way they don't with John McCain. He draws crowds that dwarf McCain's, and he excites enthusiasm both at home and abroad that McCain simply can't excite. And that's the news.

Drew Westen is professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University and founder of Westen Strategies. He is the author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.

Comments

[Donald Wolberg]

Most often discussions are best when agreement can be reached in definitions of terms used. In the case of Mr. Obama, i suggest that definitions cannot be agreed upon. Where one may see charisma, nother seems ineffectual; where one may see appeal, another may see curiousity; where one may see the "politics of change," another may see just an ordinary politician from Illinois. I suggest Mr. Obama's "journey to the world" and the network camp followers, may have resonated in a decidedly negative fashion for M. Obama's candidacy. In part this is because of who Mr. Obama is, and because of who the press would like themselves to be. Mr. Obama, I sugegst, is more the guy who thought he "visited 57 of our 58 states," and who warned us of all the bad effects of "different kinds of carbon." He is a Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, latte and "c'est domage," Democrat, and seriously misjudges and does not understand the Clinton Democrats or most other Americans. The heartland does not like our candidates annointing themselves and speaking to foreigners about who we are. The press that followed along Mr. Obama's journey of crumbs, thinks of themselves as guardians of the truth (as they see it), leading the poor unwashed to the light. Of course, not many watch the networks any more. In the end, Mr. Obama's journey may turn out to be a trail of tears and negative reactions. It is all about definitions, after all.

[JusticiaParaTodos]

I think that your story while interesting misses the whole point. Journalists for the most part have little if any control over what is televised or printed. The establishment wants McCain (aka McSame) and will do all it can to make Obama the villain. The other factor that is making the news media bosses uneasy is that Obama appears to have large support from the younger voters! While I think that is a good sign, the powers that be are NOT happy, thus the non-stop attempts to discredit Obama, his wife, etc

One thing I have learned in my 43 years of social justice activism is that we the people have lost a lot of the gains made in the 60's including a much more open minded press. This along with a democratic Congress that is scared of it's own shadow leaves us in a very precarious situation! Got revolution?

[Donald Wolberg]

In actuality, the network anchors determine what they will do, especially sincethey are trying to recover viewers who largely ignore them. The era of significant network news has ended--there are no more Brinkleys, or Cronkites or Murrows. Brit Hume gets close I think. The issue is with Mr. Obama, and how he presents himself, a candidate with less than adequate substance, in an aMERICAN SENSE.

[MaryT63]

Donald, one of the concerns that thinkers such as yourself have regarding what business does foreigners have to do with our presidential elections. They are concerned about who gets elected in USA because we have a desire to start wars which their sons and daughters have to help fight. The foreigners care about their children like we care for ours.
Your other comments read like sour grapes for your candidate. Obama represented this country extremely well while he was overseas. Be proud of a fellow countryman. You don't have to vote for him. But be proud.

[Donald Wolberg]

Unfortunately you miss the point. The unique spirit of this nation was founded, as noted by a Frenchman 160 years ago, on a spirit of independence and self-reliance. Seconsly, as I recall those fine Germans gave their children to fight for a royal family in two wars, one against the french, another against all of the West and then a third for a crazed dictator that resulted in 29,500 people killed every day of World War II. The modern folks in Germany are largely a aging population with very few "children" and more isolationist than any other and unwilling to shoulder responsibility in any meaningful sense. It seems odd that Mr. Obama's hubris sees commonality with others and not his own, nor did he seem able to bring inspiration to Americans wounded in hospitals. Yes, I suspect Americans will be irked.

[RButler]

When Hillary complained of bias in the media, Obama's supporters called her and her supporters whiners. Now, they are doing the whining. If there is one constant throughout the Obama campaign it's hypocrisy and I guarantee it will continue even if he's elected.

[idest]

I would say hypocrisy is constant throughout every political campaign, indeed every political moment.

[PhDcommonsense]

I have a problem with the term "Rock Star". Maybe it's just me. The the term Rock Star seems to diminish Sen. Obama's accomplishments. The Press wants to use the term in my opinion to diminish him on the world stage as well as back home as a way to make U. S. Voters feel that it is all performance no substance. The Rock Star performers I take seriously are those that take that status and do some good in the world and call attention to issues affecting the world, like Bono. Would you agree that such a status for Sen. Obama as a potential POTUS , so that more people can kick the tires and sit on the leather seats and test drive is a good thing!!

So, for all of those critics who want to pan him for his visit to the Europe and say he is overstepping his bounds as a U. S. Senator, I say go "pound sand". What is Sen. Obama suppose to do when hundreds of thousands of people want to see him? Should he leave it up to the press to interpret what he is about? Yes, we know how great that works!! Mostly distortions and untruths. What is wrong with that? Sen. Obama is not at fault if it happens to be a LOT OF PUBLIC.

The people that take the time to actually go hear and see politicians for themselves, here in the US and abroad, I call those INFORMED VOTERS.

[carmelcat]

If you can beat a path through the teenyboppers of all ages and nations please ask the Barack star ... What should be done about Blackwater? Why should we go into Afganistan if the citizens don't want us there either? Can our biological defense industry create a nifty bug to destroy all those poppies? Why don't we just stop sending money to Pakistan? How can we spend the war savings on homeland needs ... don't we owe all that money back to China? ... well, fer starters anyway.

[idest]

1. Blackwater - Obama has stated many times we need to rely less on security contractors.

2. Afghanistan - Obama has stated many times we need to be in Afghanistan to push back the Taliban (those who harbored those who attacked this country) and destroy Al Qaeda (those who attacked this country).

3. Poppies - No magic solution here, Jack. Only when economic opportunities are expanded will this trade decrease. I've read some interesting articles that recommend our military take out the refineries where the poppies are converted, but I'm not so sure.

4. Obama has already recommended restructuring our financial aid to Pakistan to make it contingent upon counterterrorism rather than F-16s to antagonize India.

5. Yes, we do owe a lot of that money to China, but you seem to believe that the only way to lessen our national debt is all at once. It's going to take A LONG period of fiscal responsibility to knock that sucker down.

Don't need to beat a path through anyone, just LISTEN to what the man says with an open mind.

I doubt you've been to an Obama rally or speech, but I have been to several and I can tell you I see just as many, if not more, people over 40 than under 30. So your childish (teenybopperesque?) attempt at an insult fails.

[LTCKal]

I think it would be more productive to understand the extent of "charisma," and understanding how crowds behave. Why don't these huge crowds for Obama reflect in the polls? While Obama was wowing the Germans, McCain just might have picked up those two votes at Schmidt's Fudge Haus in Columbus that would give him Ohio. Reactions to charisma tend to be shallow and not long-lasting. Let us not forget that Jesus arrived in Jerusalem to adoring crowds. A week later they crucified Him.

[Anastasia]

Amen.

Indeed, a more thoughtful approach to Obama's popularity; "What is it about him that inspires this kind adoration", as opposed to merely shooting him down would be refreshing, but as usual, today's MSM, lack the sophistication to delve deeper.

[atciii]

If Obama is attracting and motivating the young as well as new registered voters, they do not show up in many polls, so I believe the margin of error in the polls is greater than percieved. And what is this fear from the right of anyone who can draw a crowd? If Jesus came back today, the so-called Christian Right would be first in line to crucify him.

[jbowen43]

Cover the one making the news. In the past McCain got coverage when none was deserved because he discovered he press' fondness for donuts and BBQ. They were so starved they would sit around for hours chowing down and listening to McCain. The price was to create the myth of the "straight shooter". I assume that's how Bush got the reputation of being the guy you want to have a beer with even though he is a teetotaler. He likely fed the press beer and brats and they missed the fact he wasn't drinking.
Or was he?

[nicholasfromWA]

I graduated with a degree in journalism a couple years ago. You know, objectivity was never stressed in our curriculum. What was hammered into our heads, instead, was that journalists have a primary responsibility to enhance our democracy by informing the electorate.

Meaning, if the President tells a lie to further his agenda, the proper way to report that is - the President LIED to further an agenda. Toning down language for the sake of objectivity is irresponsible.

In short, the idea that journalists should be objective is a myth. Instead, they should hold the interests of the voters paramount before propaganda talking points.

[ChicagoJohn]

Nicholas,
If that's all you got out of your journalism degree, they failed you.
I just took a couple of classes. -And then they sent me to a few of the college journalism workshops that they held every year.

Your approach to journalism presumes that you have perfect knowledge of the facts, and therefor, you can make conclusions for the poor uninformed reader.
If you were to report as you say, and come to conclusions for the reader, you would inevitibly end up making a mistake in judgement that would bring you up on libel charges.

Your job as a journalist isn't to remain objective because its possible. It's to try to remain objective, knowing that your judgement is imperfect.

Its a shame that your instructor never explained this to you.

-John

[Dansden]

REAL JOURNALISTS tell the truth!
SPIN JOURNALISTS work for FOX and MSNBC!

The truth works as objective FACTS that candidates are hiding or dodging!
Neither candidate has has serious scrutiny from DE-PRESS , fascist corporate SPIN that CONTROL the salaries of 'journalists'.......and THEREBY will NOT allow true factual journalism to tell the UGLY stories lurking in the Board Rooms that have aided this corrupt corporate WHITE HOUSE to plunge AMERICA into our worst debt and financial calamities SINCE THE LAST REPUBLICAN DEPRESSION!!!!!

[ChicagoJohn]

Dansen,

Just the fact that you call our last financial recession as something caused by Republicans tells me about your true love of facts, and how the 'corporate' world has misled you.

Read about economics. Then explain to me how the Republicans caused a recession that was already happening.

-John

[lynettema]

The Republican Dictionary

Liberal bias in media = Any media except Rush Limbaugh.

Fair and balanced news = Hannity and Hannity.

Republican complaint = Righteous indignation.

Democrat complaint = Whining.

Republican change if mind = Flexibility.

Democrat change of mind = Flip flop.

Republican non-change of mind = Righteous determination.

Democrat non-change of mind = Mule-headed obstinacy

Elitist = Your guy is smarter than ours.

Arrogant = Your guy is more confident than ours.

Inexperienced = Your guy is younger and fitter than ours.

Diva = Your guy gets bigger crowds than ours.

Different = Your guy is black.

America loving = Bomb the snot out of the Middle East.

America hating = Don't bomb the snot out of the Middle East.
Posted 03:12 PM on 07/25/2008
- + dragonmage06

This is why the press bends over backwards for the Republicans. They (the Republicans) play the press expertly. It's disheartening to see how easily manipulated our "free" press is.

[SFRob]

SO: "McCain and his campaign have complained about "Obama-love,"

Right. And these are the same people who complained 8 years ago when the press went totally ga-ga over Bush, the ("tea-tottling") friend you'd like to have a beer with!

Who's crying in their beer now??!!

[ChicagoJohn]

Rob,

If the press went "ga ga" over George Bush in 2000, then I'm Princess Diana, and I want a different driver!
Is this what you seriously believe? That Bush was treated FAVORABLY by the press???

In 2000, the Dems couldn't believe that Bush won DESPITE how much the press hated him. Do you NOT remember the Killian memos, and how EVERY news station covered it as fact initially???

-John

[Arouete]

"Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible... . [they] are ... confidence [men] preying on people's vanity, ignorance or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse. ... The more pompous talk about freedom of speech and "the public's right to know"; the least talented talk about Art; the seemliest murmur about earning a living." (Janet Malcolm)

[lynettema]

If the media just report the news as it happens without the commentary - "Obama is - presumptive - arrogant (code for uppity black guy?)- taking a winning lap," the whole right wing conflagration has a fit. The media is not just allowed to report on Obama, they have to minimize whatever they see to please the right wing radicals. If they don't, it's not fair and balanced. Obama may get the lion's share of the news, but it usually is qualified to pacify the right. Obama is a great candidate because he is a quality person. He is smart, has a calm demeanor even when angry, he listens, he makes those around him feel like he cares. He is smart enough to sift through all the information, throw out the garbage in it and keep what is good. Were that the media could do this, too.

[RAStewart]

"Every journalist considering running a positively toned story about Barack Obama from now until November will now have that little bird chirping inside his or her head, asking, 'Am I being objective?'"

Okay. I've heard some variant of this over and over again, for years now. It sounds plausible ... until you notice that that little bird chirping, and that journalistic over-reaction, only operates in one direction.

It's no secret that the corporate media have given John McCain a free ride through his whole career. It's no secret that they did the same for Reagan, or that the current boy-king has been subject to nowhere near the scrutiny that his incompetent, deeply corrupt, anti-constitutional, and viciously class-biased administration has deserved. And we liberals have raised our voices about this, for years, in our thousands in the few venues that remain available to us. And the media's response to that? There has been none whatever. Liberals and Democrats can criticize the corporate media until we are hoarse, to exactly the same effect as if we had spent the day like King Canute shouting commands at the tides. Right-wingers drop a word about this mythical "liberal bias" and the media fall over themselves apologizing and twisting into ever more blatant--but never acknowledged--conservative bias.

[PatrickforO]

They need to cover Obama fairly, that's how. Golly, he just keeps doing newsworthy things, like today, he is meeting with some all-stars at a summit on the economy. Warren Buffet, Paul Volcker and others. At the same time McCain is making a speech to some oil people. Think about that for a minute.

Yesterday, my wife and I were watching CNN and they were very biased against Obama. They had two Republican leaning analysts and one Democrat who doesn't like Obama talking about what a lame speech he made in Berlin. Sorry, but he drew 250K people who were cheering wildly. I guess maybe they're all stupid. And, at the same time McCain was talking in a store against a backdrop of packaged cheeses.

[ChicagoJohn]

He drew 250k people in Berlin after his campaign passed out flyers in Berlin.
But you knew that. RIght?

-John

[booksnmore4you]

If the Hindenburg were falling aflame to earth, media shows would bring in some talking heads "to give the other side".

[sandpiper1]

A former publisher/journalist in 1953 at the Press Club referred to journalists as wh o res who will sell themselves to the Corporations who control media. Cant' remember the exact quote but did copy it & will post when I do find it. It's just so appropriate to 2008. The guy was prescient in his opinion of journnalism & journalists.