News Flash: Anchor Stands Against "Unfair" Campaign Spending

There was real emotion in his voice when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson used Friday night's newscast to stand up for little-guy McCain against online-fundraising powerhouse Barack Obama. By opting out of public financing, Gibson intoned, the Democrat could obtain "two times, three times, four times, as much money as John McCain."

"Let me ask you a question about basic fairness," Gibson implored of his top D.C. correspondent George Stephanopoulos. "People in this country like to believe that people play on a level playing field and that a campaign will be about ideas and personality; if you start with that much more money, is it basically fair?"

It was more a statement than a question, like Brit Hume anchoring at Fox. (ABC has gone Fox-like in crusading over "Obama's Switch" and "Back Flip" and "Flip-Flop" on public financing.)

Gibson's egalitarian "fretting" about fairness was too much for right-wing media critic Brent Baker, who belittled the anchor and McCain: "If Obama can raise more than his opponent, it just reflects greater enthusiasm for him. And there's hardly any nobility in taking taxpayer money when you know you'll be challenged to raise a larger amount voluntarily."

To me, the good news is that a network anchor was giving prominence to the plight of underfinanced candidates.

The bad news is that it's taken years to see an anchor make such a stand. And that Gibson (like other media voices in recent days) is making his stand for "fairness" against a candidate who has attracted 3 million contributions from 1.5 million donors giving an average donation of $91. In other words, against a candidate who is arguably less beholden to big-moneyed interests than McCain. (The Gibson clip is at Crooks and Liars.)

I have mixed emotions about big media's newfound concern for under-funded candidates. Beginning in 1992, Norman Solomon and I used our nationally-syndicated column to criticize mainstream media for their failure to focus on campaign spending inequities and the elite funders of corporate-friendly politicians.

Days after the 1992 election, we wrote that "national media seemed almost clueless to explain the triumph" of endangered U.S. Senate incumbents - with the New York Times blandly noting that many incumbents "somehow managed to survive." We mentioned several narrowly victorious Senators like corporate-backed sex-harasser Bob Packwood of Oregon, who outspent his Democratic challenger by more than 3 to 1. And ethically-challenged Al D'Amato of New York, who outspent his liberal opponent 2 to 1. Our column - titled "We Need Term Limits for Political Pundits" - concluded that "big bucks special interests dominating Washington are almost a taboo subject."

In that column and others, we urged political journalists to calculate and report which candidates won more "votes per dollar spent" - arguing that the "VPDS count would make it clear that many incumbents would have been defeated if not for their advantage in dollars."

So here we are in 2008, and we're witnessing an apparent flip-flop in mainstream news - with bleeding-heart appeals to "fairness" on behalf of the less-funded McCain enough to make a right-winger cringe. From the same outlets that spent decades worshipping a politician's corporate fundraising prowess as a sign of that candidate's strength, seriousness, viability.

When longtime media lapdogs on campaign inequities transform into fierce watchdogs in the face of Obama's online fundraising clout, the public is wise to be suspicious. Are these elite voices truly upset because Obama shifted his position? Are they upset all of a sudden that one candidate has a financial advantage over another?

Or is this just the fear and loathing of the Netroots resurfacing - like when establishment pundits went hysterical as Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in 2006?

Here is an upstart candidate - like Dean in 2003 - with a powerful grassroots funding base that goes way beyond the corporate sponsors of the nightly news. To the old-line media establishment, that's scary.

If network anchors want to be taken seriously on campaign "fairness," they might propose common-sense reforms. For starters: free TV and radio airtime to candidates.

--

Jeff Cohen is the director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College. In 1986, he founded the progressive media watch group FAIR.

Comments

[chris615]

Exactly, Robert,

Goes to show you how much he is out of touch with America

[Cookie100]

I emailed them and sent Charlie this article, why they're loosing ad revenue along with MSM newspapers. Why HuffPo has 5.8 million readers,! If these networks and papers could claim that they'd be in heaven, they're so out of touch nobody bothers any longer. Bad toothed Charlie is disgusting after that so-called debacle debate.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080623_the_hedonists_of_power/
Signed,
A lot of people who have had it up to their earlobes with the complicit MSM!

[RedEyes]

Explain to me again how opting out of the public campaign financing is "real" public campaign financing? Sounds like someone is spinning to me.

I'm part of the public. I didn't send Obama money. So how is that public financing again? It's not. It's just a very large group of private financing.

Obama is a hypocrite.

[huzzah]

Come down off the cross. Plenty of people sent Obama money, and they're part of the public. You can ride the bench all season, but as long as you're on the roster you still get a championship ring.

Public financing has never been an issue for the right until its lackluster candidate gets creamed in the fund raising arena. But of course they're going to go after Obama -- his money won't just go toward defeating McCain. It will directly affect plenty of the down-ticket races. It allows Obama to spend money in previously uncontestable states, forcing McCain to do the same, thereby diverting his resources from swing states. If Obama can afford to campaign everywhere, he'll likely do so alongside other politicians running. This amounts to free publicity for those politicians, which gives us the situation of possibly, just maybe, having an outside chance a t a filibuster-proof 60 Senate seats.

But, yeah, lets call him a hypocrite and demand he tie his hands behind his back while the GOP machine throws everything it can at him.

I'm an idealist, but sometimes a little pragmatism can be a good thing.

[Cookie100]

Baloney, it's a grass root effort by 5 million volunteers to get the war monger out of office, and keep them out,

[huzzah]

Isn't the official GOP stance on campaign finance that money equals speech, ergo to limit said money is to curtail the candidates' 1st Amendment right to free speech? So Obama's just exercising his Constitutional rights to the fullest...

[RedEyes]

Exactly. And since Democrats take the exact opposite position as Republicans, their hypocrisy here is plain as day. I agree with your statement. But Barrack wouldn't, and that's what the big deal is. He made a big deal out of supporting public financing, until he realized it wasn't a smart play for him, and then - BAM - he flipped and figured he could talk his way out of it as he's laughing to the bank. And sadly, he probably will get away with it.

[huzzah]

So you would rather Obama run with the $85 mil public financing and have, say, a 50-50 shot at winning, than run without public financing and have, say, a 65-35 shot?

[Marlyn]

"Obama's Switch and Back Flip and Flip-Flop on public financing" = SMART MOVE

[Marlyn]

"ABC has gone Fox-like"

and CNN too.

[Marlyn]

"stand up for little-guy McCain against online-fundraising powerhouse Barack Obama." ???

That is the chorus from the right lately, "oh poor GW Bush, leave him alone. The poor guy's ratings are so low, have a heart. Don't be cruel."

[Marlyn]

"There was real emotion in his voice when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson" ???

OMG no! Not REAL emotion. NO! NO! Don't try to tell me Charlie Gibson is a real person. no ...

[Roomer]

Even playing field?

what a joke! Gibson is attempting to "make news" here. What is sad is that there seem to be few newsreaders who have the intellect to know the difference between corporate cash flowing (the "quid") for (pro) tax-breaks and loopholes, not to mention blatant pork and under-regulation (the "quo").

Obama initiates a REAL publicly financed campaigned, and McCain-with the corporate Repugs flush with cash (see Supply-Side or Trickle-Down Economics)-scrounging for every penny he can get his fingers on.

Gibson IS out-of-touch.

The people have spoken, and they're making their checks out to Barack Hussein Obama. I love it!

[bhenry112]

I noticed some time ago that ABC News is becoming "FOX Lite". Especially Gibson ( I love his voice and delivery, but hate his bias). Watch GMA for a week. You're gonna sit through a couple of human interest stories about the "power of prayer" and at least one about "look how great these prostheses work on my blown off legs!" including a soldier who "has no regrets". Same thing on WNT.
Same jingoistic right-wing rapture-nut attitude.

[Betty Jean]

It seems to me that the Republicans need to support their candidate monetarily. I can't believe they can't contribute $50-$100 a month until this is over. I've seen McCain's website and certainly there's the "click to donate" button right there! How difficult would it be to spring for a little money. Either you believe in McCain or you don't.

Obama needs more money to run for president. With all the Republican misstatements and outright lies, he needs to put out more and more ads to counter them.

[foxflood]

Gibson is ridiculous. How in all "fairness", since he brought the word up, can he use fairness as a reason Obama should not use his own fundraising? Given how the McCain campaign's Carly Fiorina has been bragging that they have use of the entire RNC warchest and the 527s? This is a sucker's bet they've been trying to force on him, and Gibson is as disingenuous as Lindsey Graham in his performance with the weeping over this same issue. I'm glad Obama turned it down, and the complaints are too little too late---where were these same guys when Chris Dodd and Joe Biden and Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani were sucking wind on the money front?

[metogamekun]

So this is what happens when you don't take money from corp America - they have nothing to pin on you but that you're making too much money.

[perpetualpessimist]

Somebody has to say it:

If ABC is owned by Disney, does that mean Charles Gibson is a Mickey Mouse reporter?

[politicalgenius]

"Basic Fairness" - are you "EFFING" kidding me. Brian wants to talk about basic fairness when ABC and FAUX NEWS won't lift a finger to report on the daily gaffes and flip-flopping by the Double Talk Express, yet will play Jeremiah Wright and Michelle O on a continuous loop? Tough Sh-t that the Double Talk Express can't raise enough money. Maybe it has to do with the candidates likeability Brian. So, by Brian's logic, BHO has to apologize for essentially being a better candidate, a better organizer and more appealing to the American people...

You wanna talk basic fairness - it's unfair to smear someone's name, family and religious beliefs but where's your Basic Fairness there Brian?

[oogabooga]

I love how the corporate types play victim when a grass-roots campaign is drowning their guy.