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

[Dannydel]

I don't get it... Obama isn't going to take taxpayers money or lobbyist dough....a­nd you're upset?

[roshni]

They are upset because they are owned by the corporations and Obama supporters don't watch MSM that much. Most of them get their news on line because the MSM is so biased.

[Shayrae]

True, roshni...a­fter contacting ABC, I made that point to them. Gibson is a little out of his element in political reporting. I think they made a mistake putting him on the evening news desk. He was better on GMA, reporting on trivial news stories.

[kas70]

Exactly. I told my kids the same thing. The media is trying to focus people on the "flip-flop" instead of what he "flip-flopped" ABOUT. It's a GOOD thing for him to change his mind about. And there is just no good reason why his fund raising abilities should not be a benefit in this important election.

[mheister]

So why doesn't Gibson interview the chairpersons of the RNC and DNC together, ask each how much money they're going to raise and how they're going to spend it? Why doesn't he bring in some experts on 527's to get a feel for the kind of onslaught that Obama is currently preparing for?

I'm pretty much over mainstream media, and every time I read about a Charles Gibson asking tone-deaf questions like this, it just lessens their credibility.

[reelcobra]

CHARACTER is a "distraction"
EXPERIENCE isn't judgement

Obama is qualified becauise he took a course on international relations in college.

Stop all the scrutiny! It's racialism at its worst!

BHO '08!!

[sclucie]

Right. All that experience. Like George Bush brought us - with Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. I want more of that. And with all that alleged experience that McCain has you would think he would be able to tell the Sunnis from the Shiites (the Sunnis are the ones without the guns), and be able to tell us who was responsible for the ceasefire in Basra (one week after his green zone visit - it was negotiated in Iran), and realize that hey! that surge really isn't working, is it? Because the entire point of the surge was for the Iraqis to take control of their own nation - but McCain forgot that. Along with many other things. Like what he's voted for and what he hasn't. Or what he said three days before.

[frugorfoto]

I am soooo tired of the media defending everything Obama does. Now its the flip flop on campaign finance. Get real to go from a crusader for public finance and a pledge to talk to McCain about this..he goes overboard and contradicts what he allegedly stood for. I am so tired of free passes from the media for this basically weak candidate who has flip flopped on Israel, defended his alegience with Rev Wright (poorly-another free pass..) and on and on:
This is no reformer.
This is politics as usual. So get with the program or you will be mightily disappointed when he is office and cant manage much, Obama is a front for Kennedy, Dean and Kerry and Axelrod who are out to capture the soul of the party. And they may be the "liberal" faction trying to take over the moderate wing.. I am a liberal Democrat- but basically its just another smalll group hungry for power.
As much as I loathe McCain, I will write in in this election.
I am totally DISGUSTED with the DNC.

[buzzygirl]

You are tired of the media defending Obama?

What universe do you live in?

Give me a break. John McCain has gotten by with a slap on his wrist. From changing his tone on Social Security to his so-call gaffes on Iraq and Iran. Please. You loathe him, yeah right.

Don't belittle Barack Obama, as so many of you are apt to do. You demean and castigate him as if he is some school boy with no knowledge of his own. He is a man in his own right, an intellect, who's worked hard to get where he is. That's more than we can say for a lot of people who try to make him out to be a so-called "empty suit." What makes him a front man for Kerry, et al.

Think he doesn't have enough sense to lead them, but he's got to be a follower, eh?

He is front, how insulting. Please!!!

[eden4barack08]

Defending???

[sclucie]

Great. I hope that you are very, very, wealthy and don't need health insurance. Because under the McCain plan, insurance shifts from employee-sponsored health care to corporate insurance-­controlled health care. Planning on changing jobs? Any chance you or your kids might lose a job? Forget health care then. Because they can use any pre-exclusion they want. Biggest reason for exclusion? Being overweight. Good luck. And I hope you don't know anybody who is anywhere close to draft age because somebody's got to fight all these wars McCain's planning. And I hope that you can afford private education because McCain's education plan in nonexistent. Lots of people sat out the 2000 and 2004 elections. Look where it got our country.

[Shayrae]

So are you telling us that you would cast a write in for someone you loathe rather than for someone whom America seems to believe can go long way in getting our counrty back on track? Now that's a smart way to think.

[kellygrrrl]

SO!

Get Over It!

Deal With It!!!

isn't that what they've been telling us for 8 years?

let's talk about how FAIR the LYING smear campaigns are.

let's talk about how FAIR the "False Felon Lists" are.

let's talk about how FAIR the lies that led to War are.

LET'S TALK ABOUT FAIR -- please

[kellygrrrl]

gee, no mention about the UNFAIRNESS of lying smear campaigns?

[musselmanm]

Is there a www radical agents of intolerance web site for these trolls to post on?
Oh I get it they are sent to drive up the financial advantage Senator Obama has over McBush.
These are the people saying may I have a third scoop of the Bush ice cream?

[Trittydi]

This is SO frickin' funny.
*

[kassandrasduplex]

On a side note...the notion that Obama "has attracted 3 million contributions from 1.5 million donors giving an average donation of $91" is a distortion. Only a small percentage of his donations have come from people giving under $200. In fact, The majority of his contributions are between $200 and $2,300 and a sizable chunk comes from those bundling well over $2,300. His early bundlers included the second richest hedge fund manager in the United States as well as the CEO of the American subsidiary of UBS Bank. These are not Mom and Pa progressives folks. (source: Chicago Tribune July 07 Obama's Big Fish)
The grassroots image of Obama's popularity is a distortion and cultivation.
Some of us feel that he was backed by the Big Guys to defeat Clinton in the primaries, and as soon as that was accomplished the media propaganda machine would be directed at him, thereby making McSame our next president. While some of us still feel that way, we neverthless support him. Much as we were forced to support the losing candidacy of Kerry instead of the preferred Dean.

[oscartucker]

I am one of the $25 contributors and so are several other people that I know. There are plenty who give small amounts. . . some for the first time ever in their lives.

[poppyseed]

Typical of the Trolls of Distortion­...you supply as evidence a ONE YEAR OLD article from the Chicago Tribune July 2007 to deny the June 2008 claim that Obama has raised donations from 1.5 million donors giving under $200. Hello! Did you not notice there was a whole primary election, and a huge influx of small on-line donors to Obama after he won Iowa?

You also falsely suggest you are a Clinton and Dean supporter, I believe that as much as I believe your "data".

Hard Fact News Flash: Obama elected in November in a landslide.

[patriotic008]

waa waa waahhh!!! cant wait to get my stimulus check to send it to the obama campaign!!

[aflurry]

Yes! Ha Ha Ha!

[TJRich]

After witnessing Gibson's skills in the ABC debate, I've concluded that he is a lightweight and parrots issues without depth or understanding.

[JanSP1971]

What happened to Charlie? He was one of the few net work guys I used to listen to, up until the debate. I have switched what net work news I tivo to Katie. Katie was the only one that owned up to the net works not asking the hard questions.
I'll miss my old Charlie from GMA.

[twohearts]

Thanks, Mr. Cohen. I never watch ABC Nightly News (actually, I only watch McNeil/Lehrer, if that). It's been obvious for months that George S. is a terrible newsman, and Gibson is, too. Just retire, just go away.
It is SO frustrating & disgusting to not trust anything they say - and millions of people watch and presumably listen to them every day.

The entire MSM is giving McCain an easy time of it and hassling Obama for any tiny thing they can dream up. Even the NY TImes does it, and I love the Times.

I'm so glad we have Huffpo.

[ROBOT8]

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
--Hermann Goering
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, THE TRUTH IS THE GREATEST ENEMY OF THE STATE." -- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

[magen]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Fairness?????????

The people of this country are retaking it from the special interests, and the spokespeople for these interests are upset!!

Once we have President Obama and a big Democratic majority in Congress, we'll get some media reform too, and these people like Charlie Gibson WON'T be silenced, but will be relegated to an AM radio station in the desert of Utah with a range of ten feet. That's pretty much what they've done to progressive voices, why should the same not be done to them?

[kassandrasduplex]

You had better educate yourself about the reality of Obama's "grassroots" popularity. His money mostly comes from wealthier backers than the "little people". I support Obama. I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat. But if Obama's supporters are going to continue to march on inspiration and relative ignorance about the realities they face (such as widespread pro-GOP media propaganda, and Obama's slightly less than grassroots real popularity) they might very likely be as disappointed come November as Gene McCarthy's, George McGovern's, and Howard Dean's supporters were.
Read the Chicago Tribune's story on Obama's backers from July 07. Obama's Big Fish.

[Myshkin57]

One thing the networks could do is limit the amount of political ads they are willing to air if it's so unfair. I doubt we'll see that any time soon, or ever.

[Okieborn]

Charles Gibson is a Republican and evidently can't help it
FOX NEWS AND CBS, ABC are SLIME SERVERS FOR BUSH/MCCAIN !!!!!

[smurphette]

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for stating the facts, By the way you ever hear David Gregory he's one and the same .

MCSame that is!!!