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.
Loading comments…
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
Because the main stream media has become largely irrelevant, it is going to try very hard to become relevant by influencing the '08 elections. This is why it tried to boost Clinton over Obama by looping the Wright story and the "bitter" story and the "proud" scandal. What better way to prove you're still relevant than by steering the people's will in their choice for president? Really, these guys are too smart by half. Fortunately, we (the "people) have been empowered by this Internet thing so the MSM can go fuck itself. That includes Charlie Gibson and his boyfriend George Stephanopolous.
You know why Obama is going to pass on public financing and spending limits? Because he can. Nothing is more important than getting hold of the reigns of government. Obama gets some of my money with every paycheck; I consider it a form of unofficial taxation. I have never donated so much and so often to a political campaign, but this one's a course changer and deserves my full support.
To summarize then: Charlie Gibson bad; money for Obama good. We can't get the trolls out of Washington without lots and lots of buckies.
John McCain can't have my grandson either and I'm going to write him today and tell him so. We all should. Flood McCain's office with photos of our children and a very simple message: YOU CAN'T HAVE HIM EITHER.
Hear, hear!
Amen amen amen. Think for a moment . Will you sacrifice your first born or any born to the sands of Iraq, engage him in killing people who have done nothing NOTHING to hurt us. Was that the reason God gave us a precious little baby, was that what you thought of when you bathed and took care of that little baby, that he will come back one day in a pine BOX Please think America enough is enough Do not let our boys and girls die in wain Yes in wain because of the war mongering in Washington , a war ill conceived and executed by people who never saw WARS!!
Well said JUSTME! Well said.I think I will just do that. What a POWERFUL MESSAGE.I will pass this on.God Bless you my friend!
MSM hates the internet lol.
It was my understanding that both Obama and McCain reneged on their promises to use public financing. The only injustice perpetrated was against the American people. As far as the candidates are concern, "fairness" is out the windows and the gloves are off.
Please explain in more detail how this "reneging" constitutes an injustice to anyone?
Look. Obama and everyone else thought he was faced with two choices:
A. refuse public funding and be forced to court the shadowy armies of deep pocketed private lobby money.
B. accept public money to retain some assurance of service to democracy, but giving up any chance to win the election because of the previously existing name recognition of both potential opponents.
Tough choice, but he went for the high road with B.
Then along comes C. an unprecedented tidal wave of small contributions from individual supporters nationwide.
Obama is not reneging and choosing A for B, he is taking advantage of C, a better option than either he had before.
When he made that original pledge, he had no idea that C was an option. I am sure he is as surprised as Hillary or McCain is, but in his case, and in mine, the surprise is pleasant.
So the American People are suffering in some way because the candidates don't want regulated finances by us and one of them has the ability to get the money without regulation thru donation? Really? Go take a bath or nap or something!
I'll bet poor rich Charlie's still worried about the capital gains tax.
Gibson is a "flip-flopper" himself. He came out of retirement and was hired and agreed to become a temporary replacemen. Jack Ford, who often hosted the Today, morning show was hired and was to become the permanet anchor. Gibson, however, went back on his word and fought Ford for the anchor position.
Gibson and Stephenopolous have NO credibility on any campaign issues this year -- they are so in the tank against Barack Obama it's stunning. If there was an ounce of objectivity at ABC they would have noted that John McCain, the lil' ol' guy, himself flip flopped on public financing of his primary campaign and he is currently violating the law each day he uses private funds until the GE. And Charlie didn't happen to mention the 2 or 3 or 4 times advantage the RNC has over the DNC in its ability to raise unlimited funds and then use them to advance McCain's campaign. Oh, the objectivity of the MSM.
Gibson's performance during the Philadelphia debate was just plain embarrassing. The questions posed to Senators Clinton and Obama reeked of kidlike petulance. Bringing up the lapel pin was the final nail into his credibility. The looks on the debators' faces was, "Dude, move on."
Gibson already lost his credibility during this election after that pitiful performance during the last Democratic debate between Hillary and Obama.
With his grassroots fundraising, Obama has gone further than any presidential contender in my lifetime on campaign finance reform.
So true! Obama didn't renege on public campaign finance. He has, by himself, invented it! Found a way to actually make it work.
Given that Fox News functions an ancillary propaganda arm of the GOP/Right, and given the unending onslaught of political spin from that channel 24/7, Obama is going to need a bigger "war chest" to achieve some level of parity against this distinctly advantageous resource in McCain's corner. This free PR from Fox never seems to make it into the comparative calculus of the financial resources of the two candidates.
Obama only receives consistently positive marks from Keith Olbermann, Dan Abrams, Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Oh yes, Jon Stewart on the Comedy Channel gives some lift to Obama, but this, in some measure results from the inability of the GOP to break out of its hopelessly inept character of the past seven years.
CNN was clearly leaning towards Clinton during the last months of the primaries, and now that cable organization seems a bit directionless with her departure. Perhaps they should (as should ALL self proclaimed news sources), stick to reporting the events with as little 'body english' as possible. The ratio of news reporting to editorializing from these Big Three is way too lopsided.
If McCain doesn't have enough money to run, then he needs to talk to Cindy. I am sure she has plenty to spare. If not, don't call us if you are running out of money. To my knowledge, this is the first republican candidate to have any type of money problem. If his republican friends don't trust him enough to write a check, why would that be our problem? Well, I don't want to seem too mean. If he breaks down in tears over the matter, then I promise to go get him some tissue.
Gibson isn't much of a journalist and he and his buudy Geore Stephh whatever proved that in their clssless debate they hosted.
Charlie should just work for Fox directly. Everyone knows ABC is a right wing organization, tehy just clean their propaganada up a bit for rabbit ear TV viewers. Charlie Gibson is vying for a job at Fox. The college educated citizens don't watch this fraud.
Remember when Corporations giving money to politicians and candidates was judged to be the same as free speech..$-
Now when you have The People giving money in small amounts millions of them somehow it's not Free Speech..?
How is corporate giving by the ten of thousands of dollars free speech and small amounts by The average citizen not...
So this isn't an issue of Campaign Financing choices as much a Free Speech..an
Right Jeff..?
TJ...
This makes me almost nauseous. This is the man thought the middle class was people who make $250,000 a year and that the most important issue facing average Americans was how much capital gains tax we were all going to have to pay.
Most times Imus is offensive intentionally; that is why people tune it; I almost always disagree with him but Imus just as JWright can only spew intolerance as free speech.
GOP/Pox news use these same tactics (terriost bump) for generating fear and hate world wide.
John Gibson has lost all my goodwill. He has turned out to be a blind republican who has no more sense than Karl Rove or Dick Cheney. Senator Obama is up against so much of this republican media. Thankfully he is a fighter and is smarter than they give him credit.
Yes! And I told ABC him so and so can you. Don't let these attacks go unanswered by these "so called journalists!"
http://abc
Thanks. From Charles Gibson to George S. to Tapper and his lazy lapdog coverage of McCain I don't get why anyone watches this network.
Thnaks for the link, Dee. ABC is going to hear from me!
Iraq, Iran, & the Vanishing Context in American News
http://www
08/20/07 "Zmag" -- -It’s no coincidence that the American corporate media is the wealthiest communication systems in the world, yet also one of the worst in terms of educating its citizens. Extraordinary riches require extraordinary efforts to divert public attention from extreme inequality and the democratic deficit under which Americans suffer. Despite the abundance of media sources throughout this country, Americans still endure a staggering ignorance regarding the reality of U.S. foreign policy. Horrendous media coverage no doubt accounts for much of this ongoing tragedy...
The prolific comic George Carlin has this insight to share concerning the American media’s commitment to class warfare:
http://www
ABC news has gone down the toilet since the loss of a great newsman, Peter Jennings
and replacing him with Gibson and Steponopolis, Really junior grad newsmen.
These guys are not an option for news!
Funny no one ever complained when the Republicans were raising more money than the Democrats. Gibson never was very good newsman, and he hasn't gotten any better.
Agree 100% JonW
Amen. Neither of these clowns could come close to Peter Jennings on his worst day. ABC has become a joke.
Agree - Gibson is a clown. I have stopped watching ABC altogether.
Jennings actually did research - and could read real books and did real interviews. Now they have Tapper who reads church bulletins - except wait - he doesn't even do that - that would require too much research - he reads BizzyBlog and gets his news on church bulletins from them. Or from the El Infintada website. Or from that nutso woman who called Jill Carroll un-American after she had been held hostage for 3 months in Iraq. Pathetic. They used to have a real news bureau.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
