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

[Rober]

One wonders if the generally negative views expressed by many editors stems in part from the realization that they will no longer have as much freedom to steer the storyline, stirring up controversy to generate ratings.

Consider the Swift Boat debacle a very small ad buy followed by thousands (tens of thousands?) of free airings by the "news" media. With Obama sitting on a sizable war chest any constant repeating of the "story" can at least be countered with ad buys in the same media.

[rasthedestroyer]

1.5 million donors. That's real public financing.

[PopeRatzo]

"1.5 million donors. That's real public financing."

Beautifully put, my friend.

[LeonBNJ]

Until we are willing to change the First Amendment to put in exemptions such as political campaign spending, or limit or ban TV ads, we will never have 'clean', publicaly financed elections. Too many players, including the TV networks, their affiliates as well as cable/dish stations get Billions spent by all canidates for all offices from ads, almost all pure profits.

[floydSmoot]

Ironic, given how "unfair" it was for the media to champion a war based on lies.

[ohmercy]

"From the same outlets that spent decades worshipping a politician's corporate fundraising prowess as a sign of that candidate's strength, seriousness, viability."

It is pretty hilarious... in a cynical sor ot way.

and I know its not the same thing but these same guys were praising the hell out of Obama for the same thing they are criticizing him for now.

I didn't hear them complaining when Obama was spending 2, 3, 4 times as much as Clinton.

bunch of jerks.
I predicted they would turn on Obama after the primary closed down and here they go, everything about Obama is under scrutiny and the attacks, though more subtle then the attacks on Clinton-- and more in the form of questioning (with an agenda) are and will be ever present while McCain, who has always been their first love is returned to and given a pass.

Sickening.

[filmex]

Thank you for noticing!

I sat in stunned silence as I watched this. I wondered how it was when the GOP was overwhelming the Dems with their huge financial advantage for decades, that no one ever pondered on air as to the fairness of it all.

And Gibson showed himself to be the actual new Britt Hume of ABC with his debate moderation this year, as it turned out to be a tortured analysis of why people that make millions a year, such as himself, were being targeted by people like Obama to pay their fair tax share.

Gibson always has been a shill for the oligarchy. What's more disappointing is that many of his questions are bounced off of George Stephanapolous, who plays along as if he's Hume's...errr... Gibson's ventriloquist dummy.

[Donnat]

You're going to hear more whining from Republicans and their media lackeys as their own tactics are used on them.

I'm lovin' it. Gibson needs to retire and build model airplanes. He's pathetic.

[simplyirresistible]

You're darned tootin' they'll be whining as the people's choice is finally elected to the White House. Does Charlie really think that we think he can think?
Another vapid newsmodel. He showed his hand during that so--called debate.

You're a racist if...

http://healinganation.wordpress.com/

[AnnaList]

Talk about "Dead "men" walking! ABC, NBC and CBS are relics of the past. There time has come and gone. Once upon a time the networks were able to shape public opinion, but no more. Not only because of the way they handled the run up to the war in Iraq, but also for the bias in their reporting. In fact, they insult the intelligence of the American people; technology has changed all of that. Because of their lack of credibility, viewers were force to seek out the truth for themselves, hence the blogs and the beginning of their dimise. Unfortunately, these "puffed, pompous, political panderers, do not yet realize they have been religated to nothing more than "Talking Heads." They talk, but do not inform. In a way it is sad to see the profession of journalism sink to such a self-destructive level. Retirement of these collaborators can't come soon enough. I withheld comments about the FOX and CNN networks for obvious reasons, notably their own "special interest," too much salt required.

[Incredulous]

What a crock of shit! When was the last time the Republicans played fair in an election? Where's the level playing field? It sure as hell isn't the Mainstream Media, Chuckles!!! Wanna talk flip flops? How about McCains position on immigration? How about McCain's position on off-shore drilling? How about McCains position on the war? How about McCains position on CAMPAIGN FINANCING??????? Isn't it McCains name on the campaign finance reform bill? Hasn't McCain actually broken the law when it comes to campaign financing, let alone the flip flopping? McCain's free pass by the Corporate Mainstream Media is becoming farcical! So Obama wants to raise his own money, and forgo taking taxpayers dollars from the federal government. He doesn't want to spend your tax dollars, and he's being portrayed as a bad person!!! IUnbelievable!!! In every other election, when the Republican war chest was exponentially bigger than any Democrats, that was just fine. The media didn't bat an eye. It's all fair when the Republicans have the advantage, isn't it Chuckles! Chuckles Gibson has proven himself once and for all to be a hypocritical, partisan buffoon! What a hack!

[mjc]

It is quite clear that the media has long pooh-poohed the Republican financial machine as just a show of interest on the part of American business in an election which might have some significant impact on corporate America. Feingold's AND McCain's interest in leveling the playing field seem a real step in the right direction for fairness. Then when McCain sputtered and nearly died in the primary process it looked like the Democrats were going to be better at attracting individuals and businesses and their money to their side. All this talk about Obama getting so much from the internet and individual donations has yet to be really unraveled and analyzed but Barack the freedom fighter was untouchable. Outspending his final opponent often 3 or 4 times to her outlay of money didn't seem to make too big a difference for Obama in states where that happened. Obama spending in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana didn't automatically shut out Clinton. So maybe the guy couldn't cut the deal, but the hope was that McCain would reveal himself to all as an even bigger flip flopper than Obama. But the rejection of campaign finance fund limits from the feds, the first since 1976, made Obama who had a much purer look as a politician than McCain seem quite dirty and sleezy. Not the fairest one of all, it seems.

[glaze]

WAAAAHH! NO FAIR!
MOMMMMM! He's got more money than me without even having to use public funds! He got it from those peeyookie ordinary citizens! I have to use public funding, and lobbyist money, and Cindy (SNIFF, SNIFF) won't give me any more, just because I called her a... a... a... WAAAAAA!! I'm STILL BEHIND! Why doesn't HE have to, the big show-off?! Buhoo hoo hoo....

[glaze]

Memo to Charles Gibson:
It's the democracy, Stupid!

[GolfingDevil05]

Are any of us surprised that this would come from Charlie Gibson? The anchor who's own interest in staving off any increase in the capital gains tax caused him to go after Obama during the ABC debate? The anchor who thinks that teachers and firefighters generally earn six-figure salaries? Of course he would think that McCain is getting a raw deal, because he wants McCain to be president so he can continue to benefit from the Bush tax cuts for wealthy people.

Gibson is lucky that Peter Jennings is not alive to kick his ass.

[PorkBelly]

Between his 2 debate performances this past primary season, Gibson has shown himself to be the most out of touch, corporate hack on TV.

[nerakami]

what's fait about Republican administrations continually giving Tax breaks to corporations who in turn generously fill up the GOP coffers?

what's fair about that?

[JJeff88]

Let me ask Charlie Gibson a question.

'How "fair' do you and George S consider the way you rigged the ABC primary debate to favor Sen. Clinton at the expense of Obama?"

And while we're at it, I'd like to ask him a second question - "Are you coming up with this all by yourselves? Or are there others at Disney telling you (or "strongly suggesting") what you should say?"

[RRK70]

Grassroots internet campaigning threatens the MSM, that's why they railed against Dean and are railing against Obama. The same people who have large sums of capital to donate to politcal campaigns are by in large the same people who have large sums of more for lobbyists and media advertising. The Mainstream Media IS Corporate Media. Grassroots fundraising like Obama's threatens the political status quo.

[ched]

Kindly ole Charlie Gibson has revealed himself to be a punk-ass Disney Wall Street tool more interested in his capital gains tax than struggling average Americans.
Charlie and Disney and suck my donation right here. Their attempts to persuade Americans to vote for Grandpa McBush will fail, since fewer and fewer Amerikcans get their news from ABC, especially since their disgraceful hit-piece cum debate gave them away. Watch their numbers continue to shrink, especially after their brain-dead older demographic goes "lights out" as of Jan, 09, when TV goes digital and Charlie's audience starts hitting the idiot box wondering if the world is coming to an end.