When Candidate "Vetting" Runs off the Rails

Huff Post readers, bloggers, journalists, talk show hosts, onlookers: help me out. Find the pattern:

The New York Times trying to "vet" Obama. (On youthful drug use.)

The New York Times trying to "vet" Hillary Clinton. (On the state of her marriage.)

The New York Times trying to "vet" McCain. (On cozy ties with lobbyists.)

Each story went weirdly wrong. Each story left people scratching their heads: what were the Times editors thinking? Each was part of the "vetting" ritual in which the press imagines itself asking the hard questions of candidates who would be president. Each has a touch of the bizarre.

My question to you: what is going on here?

Comments

[Phaedrusnyc]

It is absolutely the media's (the "fourth estate's") job to "vet" candidates, so that the voter knows what he/she is voting for. That is the traditional role of the media. However, to call any of your above examples "vetting" plays havok with the notion. A media that was really interested in 'vetting" would call out every single lie told during a campaign, from ALL candidates, and put them on the frotn page. They would analyze the position papers to find holes. They would report on legitimate scandals that would impact the way a candidate would givern. And they would do it equally and fairly. THAT kind of vetting I could do with a little more of.

[jsinclair]

At least Russert asked the "vetted" candidate some hard questions:

1. Why won't she ask her accountant to give the media copies of her tax returns?

2. Why won't she make public the list of Clinton library donors?

He could have ALSO asked about the ethics of Bill's billion dollar uranium deal in Kazakhstan for a Clinton donor.

He could ask today why "bitch" is an acceptable word to Hillary to describe women (including herself) but "pimped out" warranted "more than suspension"?

[Anderkoo]

With all due respect to the HuffPo, it's the NY Times trying to compete with the blogosphere and getting the worst half of both worlds: obnoxious scandal-chasing but no guts to follow through shamelessly.

[Jay Rosen - Huffpost Blogger]

See Jay Rosen's Profile

tdbach: Makes sense, yes. I asked my question not to see if anyone could guess my answer, but because I don't know the answer.

Zenobius: "Vetting" was actually my word, not theirs. I don't think Times people would deny that is how they see their role, however.

Here's an answer to my question that came in at Romenesko. I don't know if Larry Kart, the author and a former newspaper journalist, is right, but it's an interpretation I see as relatively plausible and suggestive.

"The common thread here, and the main reason for the bizarreness, is that the real subject of all these stories is the Times itself --and/or the image the Times thinks it's creating or would like to create for itself when it runs an ostensibly major story about a subject that is or will become of common interest.

"The same is true of many other broken-backed stories in the Times and a host of other papers since, probably, the mid 1970s or early 1980s. At least that's the time when I began to see that sort of stuff in action at the paper where I used to work. A particularly revealing early warning sign was when that paper, with a long tradition of rock-ribbed Republicanism, began to seach for some attractive, young, fairly liberal candidates for local offices that it could endorse, while it never dreamed of endorsing (and hasn't dome so to this date, I believe) a non-Republican for president, governor, or senator. It slowly occurred to me that these seemingly against-the-grain local endorsements were in effect advertisements for the paper, a way of signaling to a body of potential readers that the paper very much wanted and needed to attract that the paper was an attractively against-the-grain enterprise, a place of supple independent thought rather than a stern grandfatherly GOP bastion.

"Similarly (but along different lines, given its own history) the Times is dancing in front of a mirror here, trying to move in ways that telegraph to a somewhat imaginary audience that it is a truly supple paper -- iconoclastic toward its own perceived liberal image (if the "facts" of a story require that it be so) and certainly capable of seeing all sides of all issues. Thus these Times stories were mis-conceived and mis-edited so as to incorporate and express the paper's own image-shaping needs; and the "facts," such as they were, were pushed about one way and another toward the end. The paper is not so much a paper anymore; it is itself a candidate."

In other words, institutional narcissism explains what's going on.

[Zenobius]

Hi,

The NY Times is feeling defensive, because what is "news" is being contested from both the left and the right, on the Internet. So, now that it is actually less important than it used to be, it has to mount a PR campaign to defend its position. Thus, the rather presumptuous assumption by the NYT that it is actually responsible for "vetting" the candidates. Back when it was obvious to all that candidates had to be at least acceptable to the NYT, it was unnecessary for it to publicly bill its stories as candidate vetting. What the NYT ran whatever it chose to run, was just news.

This is probably a good thing. Still, the lack of a neutral arbiter between readers of the Huffington Post and watchers of Bill O'Reilly may eventually become a problem. In any event, the NYT is unsuitable for this role.

[tdbach]

You ask a good question. And so far, nobody seems interested in answering it. Odd...

Anyway, I think the Times has undertaken this project, if you will, to demonstrate their fair-and-balanced bonafides; probably a hair-brained idea of one of their editors. But rather than really dig deep and unearth God knows what, where one candidate may end up with a much bigger scandal to deal with than other candidates will (and thus appear to be out to get him or her) they float a vaguely suspicious story on each, and each story is comparably weightless but apparently critical.

I don"t know, it really doesn"t make much sense to me, but how else can you explain it? You"re the journalism professional, not me. Does that make sense??

[Stillman]

The ground is shifting out from under The Times and many other institutions in this country. Every place you see this bizarre "out of touch" behavior, that's an indication of an institution that doesn't work anymore, but it hasn't died yet. Look at the way record labels have tried to sue their customers out of existence, because the old CD-based distribution system doesn't work anymore. Look at the government, at almost any level. The way that FEMA is broken is not so much Bush's fault, as it is simply another example of a government that doesn't function. We can't even build a 28 mile fence with Mexico, regardless whether we SHOULD build it --the point it that we CAN'T build it. There's a famous line from the movie "The Untouchables". "He brought a gun to a knife fight." That's what we're seeing here: outmoded solutions that no longer address the underlying problems.

[Stillman]

Sorry, the proper quote is "He brought a knife to a gun fight."

[independentrepublicrat]

Slow news year maybe? LOL

[margotb822]

It's the MSM pretending to be journalists. Sure, the stories are interesting and raise questions, but when their corporate backers get nervous, the papers back off and waiver and waffle. It's the pathetic state of American newspapers. They're expensive operations, but none are neutral because they need the money.

http://www.serveoutloud.blogspot.com

[stellanoir]

The corporate media thinks they still can fully appoint our candidates.

They can to some degree. See Kucinich or Edward's campaigns for reference.

But I'm hoping the collective is less vulnerable to media manipulation than we used to be.

Totally sick of being lied to.

[argeec]

Spotting the pattern is pretty easy.
The Times doesn't ask the real questions and ignores the real issues. Like Israel/Palestine or financial regulation or tax policy or income maldistribution.
The NY Times, like the Washington Post and most of the media, has sold out to the neocons and the plutocracy.
Do I win a prize?

[westview]

When experience makes no difference, ability to do the job does not matter, then nonsense rules. I think there is a larger picture here. I don't like McCain but he has spent years fighting for issues he does believe in that affected lives. Hillary Clinton may have had presidential ambitions for years but she always put those aside and did the work she believed in and it changed the lives of millions. Both of those candidates worked hard, right or wrong, for what they believed in. Barack Obama, always wanted to be president, he made a passible resume with lots of titles that created the appearance of work. When examined it turns out to be a job list with no results. What does he believe in? Everything he claims to want to do seems to be copied from either Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, where are the years of dedication? Every democrat I have ever known has done organizing and charity work, and worked with the party. Where did he really make a difference, start a serious program, finish really meaty bills that changed lives? Why is no one asking??

[MariaHopeful]

So Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and John McCain all worked hard to do the work they believed in but Barack Obama only worked to "create the appearance of work"? Unbelievable!

[MinuteMan]

> Hillary Clinton may have had presidential ambitions for years but she always put those aside and did the work she believed in and it changed the lives of millions.

Actually I would say that it's the other way around: she put her beliefs aside and voted in line with her presidential ambitions (e.g., Iraq war vote, introduction of flag-burning amendment, etc.).

[freecasey]

Good article here, titled "I refuse to buy into the Obama hype." 10 minutes well-spent.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

[TimSearl]

What is the change that Hillary brought to millions. What exactly has she done? When experience breeds idiocy (for the war then against the war) when experience provides no insight (for the war the against the war) when experience means that you lie about your record, when experience means you do not disclose your (and your husbands) finances to the voters, when experience means caving into the Bushies, when experience means making nice with the worst administration in recent years, andd standing by while democrats are attacked for opposing Bush and his stupidity. Guess what that kind of experience and that kind of record counts against you, not for you. Cheney is experienced. He is also evil crazy and wrong. In contrast Hilary has shown she cannot control her campaigne, cannot concvince democrats of her trustworthyness and anyone who has been paying attention finds her campaign obnoxious. She is a loser as a candidate. Get over it.

[ignorantwillyharper]

Amen

[westview]

Those who post here who have high income, plenty of insurance, or have never had to take their child to the doctor can say Sen. Clinton's work has not affected millions. They have never had the chance to see the end results of her programs that cover millions of children with insurance and health care for kids that would not have had it without her work. Her lifetime of work for children in health and education is real. Her work in the civil rights community is so strong the NAACP defended her record this year and when asked to list that record declined saying the record was so strong listing it would amount to an official endorsement and they had promised not to make one before the election.
Obama supporters can whine about her record all they want, her record is real and strong. His is flimsey and a paper list for a paper tiger.

[ray3]

His accomplishments include state health insurance in Illinois, video taping police interrogations in Illinois to prevent police brutality, a bill that passed on bird flu inoculations, prevention, and handling of epidemic, a bill to dismantle multi- headed nuclear bombs and mines that are littering countries and causing tragic deaths and more, you can research his accomplishments on his website for more information.

[Malarcus]

"...you can research his accomplishments on his website for more information."

See, the problem is, that information has been available for quite awhile. However, not a day has passed, and I cannot imagine a day passing through to November, where you do not read or hear multiple people state they know nothing about Obama's plans, positions, etc. The simple fact is that the people who continue to insist Obama is an empty suit are people who have no desire or intent to look under the fabric.

[parryisle]

Whenever those who love and support this war speak about victory and imitate Churchill's "We shall nave surrender" perhaps our mediia should ask them if the did choose to surrender who would they do that with? Victory? How can this be achieved when fighting a globally dispersed gang of religiious zealots?

[ray3]

You could add the Huffington Post story on Obama contacting the Canadian embassy on NAFTA Politico did actually contact them and said the Embassy had NOT been contacted by Obama about NAFTA. Politico says there is no story looks like Huffington needs to do their homework.