Are Journalists Enabling the Obama Phenomenon?

After last week's ABC debate debacle, John Harris and Jim Vandehei have proclaimed that journalists are enabling the so-called Obama Phenomenon, citing in their Politico story the breakdown of objective points of view, the rise of the agenda-driven liberal blogosphere, and coverage of the ideal politics versus the real as the reasons for this so-called ethical breach.

I'm glad they raised the question because it is worthy of consideration. Theirs would be a great argument if it weren't for three things.

First, there is no such thing as an objective journalist. There are many who try hard to separate their opinions from their reporting, and they serve an important and admirable role in our society. But no one can deny their knee-jerk reaction to observing an event or interviewing a person. You can write around it. Editors can neutralize it. Through the consistent publication of various perspectives, media outlets can present fairly balanced story lines over time. You cannot expect reporters to be disaffected by their experiences, and neutralizing their instincts may actually be a hinderance to their ability to asses The Truth.

Secondly, The Truth is inherently subjective and the rise of the agenda-driven liberal blogosphere is proof that revealing one's bias and engaging in thoughtful discourse is a more complete way of keeping citizens informed. HuffPost and Co. may be in the business of advocacy platforms, but it can be argued that this process is more transparent for users. We don't have to rely solely on some Metro editor's ability to manage beat reporters and scour PR Newswire, Reuters and the City News Service in order to disseminate a daily dose of The Truth. We can incorporate it as one of many sources of information, which now includes the ability to hear directly from power players in the blogosphere. We still need that Metro editor as our middleman because he's a smart guy with a lot of context to contribute to our collective conversation, but it's more likely that journalists miss the power they had over the filtering process. It borders on insulting to presume that the general public cannot separate the nuances of a blog post and a New York Times story.

(And I'll reveal my own biases before I deliver this last one. I was apparently so high on Obama Crack after briefly interviewing him on the 2004 campaign trail for The Chicago Tribune's RedEye edition that I quit my day job, started babbling about Hope and ran freezing all over Iowa knocking on doors on his behalf in January. Oh, and I wrote about it on The Huffington Post. Here and here and here .)

Finally, if the media loves Obama, those glowing stories were certainly nowhere to be found last fall during the reign of Hillary inevitability. All of last year while my pals and I were pounding the pavement and predicting his victory we were scoffed at like a group of adorable political neophytes. I could scroll through my Inbox and find the dozens of stories sent to me proclaiming that OBambi (or whatever Maureen Dowd dubbed him) had no chance, citing poll after poll with double-digit HRC margins.

I was standing in the front row of that speech in Iowa on Jan. 3 with all the die-hard staffers and citizens who made it happen, and on Wednesday morning when all the journalists proclaimed him the next Kennedy it made me a little sick to my stomach. Too afraid to acknowledge the grassroots movement he laboriously built in those early states and the millions of dollars he was raking in prior to standing at the podium that night, it was suddenly SuperBowl Tuesday and everyone wanted to go to Disneyland with the country's new MVP. Obama (who still has his name routinely misspelled like everyone's favorite terrorist) had to work around this country's media to get where he is today.

Perhaps the better question is not whether journalists are dangerously enamored with Barack Obama, but why the media is insistent on perpetuating the same old angles when something new is happening in America.

Comments

[elusiveyo]

first off, the few legitimate members of the press out there are not enamored with Mr Obama, the rest of these so called journalist that fawn over him and his movement (remember Nader had 20,000's attend his rallies in 2000 and was never credited with a movement) are very much like the high school yearbook staff with a cross of entertainment tonight pizzazz thrown in, purely infotainment with no stress on journalistic integrity (heck, no integrity at all for some of em wink wink msnbc/fox) folks just remember what these same people did to and said about Al Gore 8 years ago, how he was such a liar blah blah, and what a great guy gwb was, they helped pick the president the last 2 cycles, does this scenario ring a bell, do we want them to pick the person again

[jbatch]

Oh yes, that's it. Press enabling Obama. Like when they have a flag pin frenzy for six weeks but drop Hillary's bald faced lies about Bosnia after two? Or how have a Rev. Wright orgy for a month now, while ignoring Hillary's lies about NFTA? That kind of enabling?

Who are you? This post doesn't even pass the straight face test. I haven't seen anything so fatuous since the ABC debates.

[elusiveyo]

great talking points, when did you become david axlerod's spokesman

[Livvy]

I became an Obama supporter by reading his books.

So far I haven't seen all this much vaulted support in the media that gets thrown around. Of course I don't see many journalists these days either...

[gramofsam1]

Journalists? Who you callin' journalists?
Is it Chris Matthews, who "enables the Obama phenomenon" by perseverating about Obama's elitist preference for orange juice over coffee?
Is it Joe Scarborough, who "enables the Obama phenomenon" by proclaiming the "ambiguity" of who really is the frontrunner, and suggests that Hillary is actually winning? And let's not forget the incriminating bowling tapes-- more evidence for the MSNBC elitist meme.
Is it Tim Russert, who questioned Obama about statements made by Harry Belafonte-- a guy Obama has never met, but who happens to be black and therefore tied to Obama in some convoluted way?
That's just a sampling of the "journalism" on MSNBC. CNN has Lou Dobbs railing about "this fellow Obama" every night of the week. Fox has Sean Hannity leading an entire network of Obama "enablers"-- their enabling was so offensively anti-Obama that their own Mike Wallace was moved to voice a public objection.
I'll answer the question about "journalists" when I find one worthy of the name.

[Siryn]

I don't think so. These so-called journalists repeat Clinton's spin without critical thought and turn it into a meme. Like the "why can't Obama close the deal?" meme that is out there now, or the "out of touch" phrase that was hot last week. They don't turn it around and look at Clinton and ask her the same questions. She says she's fully vetted but the Peter Paul case in California goes uncovered. She spewed that 35 years of experience line and some people bought that, hook line and sinker. It took video to show that her Tuzla trip was a huge fish story where the fish kept getting bigger each time she told the tale. No one pursues the conflict of interest with Bill working for foreign governments and taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash.

Clinton never got thrashed on stupid topics that go to the core of who she is as a person, or questioning her patriotism. She was pressed on policy issues because she is a prominent Senator. No one asks her if she wears a flag pin. I'd say that Clinton plays the media like a fiddle and they take it, and may even love it, since it gets them ratings.

[bryand1]

No matter how much the media fawns over the Chicago charmer, he's still an inexperienced politician with idealistic views and a great speaking ability. He's light on experience in Washington, even lighter Internationally, and should simply wait another four to eight years. Take the VP role and learn, grow and develop. McCain will eat him up in the general election, exploiting the fact that much of American isn't ready for a black president. Primaries aren't reality, not by a long shot. Hope is easy to talk about, harder to maintain.

[Titonwan]

Another Hill Shill talking out of the hole in their neck. Barack earned his way to the top (AND the Presidency). We don't need more politicians to go to Washington and fester in the corruption, that place breeds. It's his "inexperience" is EXACTLY why people want him in office. So STFU and be bitter. That's all that make some people function anyway.

[vat6948]

"Hope is easy to talk about, harder to maintain" is not a reason to dismiss Obama. If straight talk, and pandering are your options, go ahead and vote for McClinton? I'll vote for honesty, and a realistic policy affecting the United States, and the world.

[WilliePilgrim]

"We're going to Carberry next Sa'rday, and that's all there is about it."
Sade Gook
Love, Dixon Fella

[Denni]

Chris Matthews finally spoke up and told the truth! The Media is perpetuating the myth that Clinton can win. BULL! To the Clintonistas who keep sending her money, keep doing it. She could use your cash to pay off that 10.3 million dollar debt, but she can't do much more than that.

[Jjc2006]

You are one of the many reasons that a plethora of intelligent people refer to this site as the Obamington Post. It does not take much digging to find out that one of the largers investors in this blog is an Obama guy. It does not take much to learn with whom Arianna parties.
Her credibility was never great considering her past as a right winger.
But then to see this blog dominated by posts from males, thirty and forty somethings who love Obama/ and have vitriolic reactions to Clinton, speaks volumes. Of the few women who do get to blog here, a miniscule number are pro Clinton.
Now if this blog wanted to represent the citizenry then it would have about a 50/50 split of pro Obama and pro Clinton, and a 50/50 split of males and females. But this blog is a joke when it comes to being representative of anything except a narrow viewpoint. The tyranny from the left here is every bit as frightening as the tyranny from the right.
The comments here speak volumes. The blogosphere does seem dominated by males and many of them remain as sexist in their attitudes as their grandfathers may have been. The saddest part for me is the young women and their ability to embrace sexism.

[SkimaskBob]

such a ridiculous response to a post BY A WOMAN which discusses HUFFINTON POST's OBAMA BIAS. Did you even read the article? Or assume it was written by a man, and that it bashed Clinton in a sexist light and didn't take into account the PrObama slant at this site, then skip ahead to the comments to let your voice be heard?

[meanguy]

in other words maegan, the media is only guilty of not portraying the 'pro-obama' prespective even MORE????? just what is IN that kool-aid?????

[raker]

The media aren't enabling the Obama phenomenon. They created it, and continue to feed it. Americans who stare at the TV waiting for The News or Oprah to tell them what to think voted for Obama or for Clinton - a candidate nobody knows and a candidate nobody likes. Why do you think GE would want a weak Democratic candidate? I think I know why.

[mariemburns]

What a great post! When combined with Arianna's post this morning, the two paint a damning picture of the MSM: (1) the 'facts' they report are tilted beyond recognition toward establishment positions; (2) once they've settled on these 'facts,' the MSM can only sing one off-key note. Again & again. I've got a new torture method George Bush can use on his hapless detainees: make them watch msnbc for 24 hours. After 6 or 8 hours of listening to in-depth analysis of Obama's 'hand gesture,' the poor prisoners would confess to anything.

[katefranklin]

Obama points out the triviality of some debate questions, and he's labeled a sissy. A wimp. A "complainer". If Obama had pulled the same "why do I get the first question" stunt the way Hillary did, he would've been laughed out of the auditorium. There is a blatant double standard here.

[jhNY]

Soa bunch of Obama supporters all jump up as one to agree that the media is not guilty of pro- Obama bias in its coverage... Not completely convincing, but animated anyway.

[meanguy]

when 99% of the MSM proclaim that they are not biased, what, exactly, does that tell us?

[DennyCrane]

There's no liberal media bias. That's just something the right-wingers say whenever the media criticizes them. It's also a great way to get the media to swing the other way. Accuse them of liberal bias and they act conservative in order to prove they're not liberal. Hillary used this tactic. She accused the media of being too hard on her and too easy on Obama. So the media responded by bashing Obama and ignoring Hillary. So the idea that the media have enabled Obama is laughable. Obama got where he is despite the MSM. Back when he was trailing by 20 points, the media had declared Hillary the inevitable nominee. It was only after she stumbled in a debate and then lost in Iowa that the public turned to Obama. The media hasn't enabled Obama. They've been following him cause he brings them big ratings. In the end, that's the only real bias the media has. Not a liberal one, not a conservative one, but a corporate one. I don't care how liberal these journalists are. You know who pays your salary and if they tell you to attack one candidate or leave another alone, you can either follow orders or go work for someone else. Problem is all the media is owned by corporations. So you're screwed no matter where you go. We saw corporate influence at work in the ABC debate. Disney, like any big corporation, wants a president favorable to big business. That's Hillary.