Is the Press Helping Obama? It's Not That Simple.

We're being indundated by complaints from Bill Clinton and others that the media's unfairly helping Obama. Yes, coverage is very good for him right now. But before the victim card gets played too heavily, let's remember that the press made Hillary a front-runner by spending the past year promoting scripted Clinton notions like "inevitability." The media giveth, and the media taketh away.

There's no question that Hillary's been subjected to a lot of sexist, hostile, and even emotionally stunted coverage, while Obama's received more positive press on the personality front. But she was able to dominate the race (at least until Iowa) because journalists uncritically repeated ideas that were carefully planted by her campaign, i.e. that she was the overwhelming favorite for the nomination - or, to use her own campaign's word, the "incumbent." Obama and her other opponents spent the fall fighting against this prophecy's impact on endorsements and poll numbers.

The problem with "inevitability" is one Clinton and her strategists should have seen coming: the first time you hit a bump you lose the expectations game. That's Politics 101. To the extent that her campaign pushed this idea, they - and not the press - are responsible for their own sudden decline.

And uh-oh: Now look who's "inevitable." 12 out of 12 commentators on a news show the other night said that Obama would be the eventual nominee. That perception may help him, but it carries a lot of risks too.

If Clinton runs a decent second in New Hampshire she will try to spin it as a "win" - and the press, ever eager for an ongoing battle that will drive up ratings, may decide to help her. Edwards, who the press have shunned all along, may challenge him for the "change" vote. It's Obama who now carries the burden of media-anointed "inevitability," and remember: The media giveth ...

Hillary Clinton wasn't "inevitable" before last week, and she certainly hasn't lost now. Obama will still have a fight on his hands, even if she doesn't win New Hampshire. She's running unopposed in Michigan (Obama and Edwards declined to run after the party disqualified the primary), and there's still Super Tuesday. Pundits are the self-appointed referees of politics, and they're trying to call the game in the second quarter.

The media throws its bias in all directions, at least where Democrats are concerned. Someday they may stop handicapping electoral races and go back to just reporting them. But for now, press coverage will remain a gamble for candidates like Obama and Clinton - and the only sure loser is the public.

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments

[hershel62964]

Huffington Post is the greatest, keep up the great work.

[RAMHaiti]

I don't get it, are you justifying lousy press?

The bias on this blog makes it a bit Foxish, no?

Why attack Fox and then turn around and emulate them?

Hypocrisy.

I'm used to it. I've had a good view of the MSM for a long time, they're always trying to slant reality.

Soon Obima will be emulating every one he's criticizing and yet he'll still remain incompetent for the job.

The more they gang up on Hillary, the more I realize she's the right WOMAN for the job.

[thatvisionthing]

I heard stuff on TV tonight about what's wrong with the polls, and Clinton shill DeeDee Myers saying Hillary was never the frontrunner, and Andrea Mitchell saying candidates get better with being challenged -- and all I could think of was how the media has protected and shielded the "frontrunning" candidates from challenges by favoring them with talk clock time in the earlier debates and then excluding the "lesser" candidates entirely from the later debates. A corporate media poll test to delegitimize legitimate on-the-ballot candidates. Based on what. Achieving what. Total crap. The brightest ideas were outside the box, but the media disappeared them. What a total perversion of a public broadcast licence. What a shame.

[uheardme]

This is a very balanced column. People should stay in their shoes and hold these campaigns accountable for not getting the message out. This thing isn't over and people becoming unhinged already. Calm, folks.

[glitzqueen]

The candidates who have a legitimate complaint against those who shape the news are John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. How dare the Clintons kvetch about their treatment? All along, our corporatist media have been defining this as the Hillary and Barack show. She just doesn't happen to have top billing at the mo'.

Bleagh.

[canesfan]

Two simple questions. Starting at the begining last year, who has the media tended to praise and who has the media tended to criticize?
Any one willing to say the media tends to praise Clinton and criticize Obama must not believe in, Thou shall not lie.

PS. the media tends to ignore Edwards and Richardson also.

[cynara]

The press builds people up to tear them down. Obama may be the press corp most beloved candidate, but thats since he still is perceived as an underdog on the ascent. If, or when, he's the confident and obvious front runner, they'll make hamburger meat out of him, just as they would to anyone that achieves front runner status.

[cynicalintell]

If the media had an ounce of fairness the people would have heard about another candidate running for office, John Edwards. He came in second in Iowa and has been rarely mentioned. It just seems more proof that the corporate media control the elections.
Obama is nice enough, but just light on policy and accomplishments. Just being present is not good enough for me, although it seems to be good enough for alot of people.
If Obama is elected the neo-cons win, because all he wants to do is play nice, therefore giving them the oppurtunity to slink away without accoutability for the usurping of our constitution and the murder of our soldiers in Iraq.
What Obama offers, in my opinion, is the ability for people to stick their heads back in the sand and forget all that has been perpetrated on this nation over the last seven years. The people are fat and happy again, and the neo-cons walk away with all our treasure. This corporate cabal is disgusting, and it is ashame no one else sees it for what it is, a white-wash.

[S1m0n]

The other trouble with Hillary campaign over the past year was that the Clintonites didnt' seem to get the fact that "vote for me, I'm inevitable" ISN'T actually a campign.

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

You said it, R.J.

I finally managed to see the two-minute clip of Hillary Clinton's "personal" confession yesterday in N.H. about her daily grind on the campaign trail. I was and am STUNNED at her obviously manipulative performance: both because there is no doubt in my mind that it was a masterfully-controlled effort to play for sympathy to the crowd (and to the camera that was recording her hour-long talk), and because so many observers seem to think it was an inadvertent, uncontrolled moment of 'truth'...

Clinton got just the response she was hoping for, by putting her chin in her hand, and saying in a suddenly soft, weepy voice (with no real tears to speak of) - "You know?..." followed by a pause, until the listeners were forced to acknowledge her comments as genuine. But she was totally in control, carefully coiffed and on her game the whole time. She started to answer the question in her usual voice, paused long enough to scan quickly past the camera (conveniently right in front of her, focusing only on her), carefully noting its status, and then proceeded to put on her act in full view of the camera which she never glanced toward again.

That act actually appalls and worries me. It makes me unable to believe that anything she says is genuine. What WON'T Clinton do to become president, or as president, if she is capable of such a scheming stunt? I don't have the words to describe the mindset that would contemplate such a charade - faking genuine emotion to play the 'sympathy card' - with total emotional control so as to go only so far, and no further, weaving in sound bites from the campaigns of her rivals in the process, and playing the American people for suckers every inch of the way...

Who IS Hillary Rodham Clinton?

[PFStephen]

As a long-time former journalist, the biggest problem I have with the coverage is the emphasis on polls and predictions. I don't want my TV to become a crystal ball, but that's what has happened.

[DoorsOfMyFace]

This is a mild re-write from another thread. The grapes doth turn sour, eh? The sour grapes angst of the posters here is palpable. But as I said elsewhere it"s still nonetheless , not too late, maybe Hillary will still be able to get the flag burning amendment you want passed when she goes back to the senate. I think I like most people here, aside from the paid and not so paid sour grape shills, are growing weary of having to suffer the pretense of going out to the net and bringing back information so as to de-construct shill innuendo, misrepresentations, and out and out lies.

You know stuff like acts passed, early activist history, and stuff like plans from Obama"s website. The fact that Obama seemingly wants input from the American people, rather than coming in like daddy and fixing everything for us, as an adult ... I like that.

Almost as much as we are of shills pretending it doesn"t exist.

[IsaacKuo]

If Hillary can come back from this, then she'll gain a lot of sympathy and be a much stronger candidate as a result.

Last night, I watched LSU have the most demoralizing start imaginable. They were making clumsy mistakes left and right, and couldn't even manage a decent tackle. OSU snatched up a ten-nothing lead in no time. But LSU somehow got their act together and became unstoppable. The flavor of that victory would have been completely different without the early disasters.

If Hillary had coasted to victory like the original plan, then everyone would just be bitter about the "inevitability candidate". But if she manages to claw her way back into the game, people will have a very different impression of her.

[DavidHealy]

It would be interesting to know what small percentage of the population supports political candidates as the result of some sort of fact-based reasoning.

It's been very interesting in the past day or so to see the reactions of those Hillary supporters who seem to have supported her primarily because she was the presumptive nominee and now are mad that they picked the wrong horse.

[lynnn]

Hmm I've notice lots of subtle racist jabs. Saying that Obama is more an entertainer, and people go to his rallies to be entertained. Or that maybe from Iowa Africans Americans in South Carolina will think they are able to jump in the pool. The media is just giving him back handed compliments, even my republican husband has commented about that.