Eugene Robinson, arguably the best columnist writing in America today, posed a two-part question in his column this morning in The Washington Post:
"Are the news media being beastly to Hillary Clinton? Are political reporters and commentators... basically in the tank for Barack Obama?"
Gene's answer: no and no.
My view: yes and yes.
The coverage of Hillary during this campaign has been across-the-board critical, especially since she began losing after New Hampshire. She may have brought much of the negative reporting on herself, sometimes with the help of her husband. Able and articulate as she is, Hillary can be as polarizing among the media as she is with the public.
And her campaign has taken the tough-love approach with the reporters who cover it, frequently ostracizing those they think are critical or hostile. That kind of aggressive press-relations strategy may sometimes be justified, but it rarely effective. Reporters are supposed to be objective and professional. But they are human. They resent the cold shoulder, even if they understand the campaign's motivation.
The result is coverage that is viscerally harsh: her laugh is often described as a "cackle." Her stump speech is dismissed as dry and tiresomely programmatic. She is accused of projecting a sense of entitlement, as though the presidency should be hers by default, that it is somehow now her turn to be president. When she makes changes in her campaign hierarchy, she is described as "desperate."
Chris Matthews argues on MSNBC that Hillary "bugs a lot of guys, I mean, really bugs people -- like maybe me on occasion." Further, he has theorized that she has got as far as she has as a candidate only because of a sympathy vote, because "her husband messed around."
Is that misogynistic? Perhaps. Is it unfair? Probably. Is it crude? Of course. Is Chris on to something? Maybe.
But whatever the case, Hillary and her supporters have reason to complain about the tone of their press notices, if not the substance. Of course, when a front-runner begins to stumble, the coverage is always more critical. And reporters are as subject to Clinton-fatigue as anyone else. But the attacks on Hillary have seemed over-the-top in recent weeks. A barely-suppressed glee often creeps into the commentary when Hillary loses another primary or caucus.
By contrast, has the coverage of Obama been overly sympathetic? Have reporters romanticized the junior Senator from Illinois? Have they glamorized him and his wife? Did they exaggerate the significance of Ted Kennedy's endorsement? Have they given him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his meager experience?
Of course they have.
His rise to front-runner is described as meteoric, his speeches as mesmerizing, his crowds as enraptured, his charisma as boundless. Obama is characterized as the second-coming of JFK, etc. etc. It is all a bit much.
What is behind this enthusiasm? It is not so much personal preference or political bias. It is this: Reporters love a good story, and Obamamania is as good as they come. There has not been such drama and excitement in a presidential race in years. Reporters are suckers for a story that writes itself.
Last summer, the astute National Journal reporter Carl Cannon argued in an Aspen Institute panel that the media were missing the significance of Obama's candidacy, failing to grasp the inherent newsworthiness of his rise from obscurity to the national scene. Carl was right then, but nobody is missing it now, and the result is coverage that is often just short of gushing.
In the end, the contrasting tone of the reporting in the Democratic race may not determine the outcome. But it will influence it. Bill Clinton is right when he angrily protests that "the political press has avowedly played a role in this election."
In his frustration and fury, Clinton probably doesn't understand the real motivation or comprehend what is behind the critical coverage of his wife and the fawning, sometimes cheerleading reporting of the Obama phenomenon.
But he is on to something.
Terence Smith is former media correspondent for The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. His website is terencefsmith.com
Sadly, in a free (capitalist) society we get the television we want. "News" is now entertainment. Who can argue that disparaging the wife of a philanderer while gushing over a charismatic rock star is not a very entertaining angle to take?
Liberals have problem with charisma, who else would choose KERRY AND Gore.
But one thing about the media that I am finding to be blatantly apparent is that we are never going to hear them apply the word "racist" to a Latino. When a segment of the Latino population is identifed on CNN as unwilling or reluctant to support Obama for the single reason that he is Black (I am not referring to those Latinos who reject Obama or support Hillary for other reasons), it's as if we're all supposed to nod our heads and respect the "street wisdom" that brought certain Latinos to this disposition.
I don't respect it, and if racism among Latinos is costing Obama precious votes, I demand a media that at the very least is unafraid to identify it with the word "racism".
Tomorrow, they will bash him and destroy him. This is the media's main objective. He's their toy.
One year from today, Hillary will have survived it all and will be newly sworn in as President of the United States with John Edwards as her Vice President.
Oh, and on McCain......only Bush, Cheney, and Rove will stand by him. Sad choice of a nominee.
The next story that really has me concerned is that Obama's cornerstone of his campaign is CHANGE and the Rezko story and his past of being a Washington insider directly contradict his message. His contributions from Exelon Corp and nuclear power company in Illinois - he received at least $227,000.00. Exelon is one of his biggest contributors (See the New York Times February 3, 2008) Obama then voted for Dick Cheney's 2005 Energy bill, which gave nuclear energy a $4.3 Billion dollar tax reduction. And the Time's story focuses on the fact, that after input from Exelon Obama's legislation changed leak reporting requirements from mandatory to voluntary. Thus one can easily make the case that Obama can be influenced WHICH IS NOT CHANGE. But the msm will not look at this obvious hypocracy.
The other most terrible thing that the media did in my mind is marginalize John Edwards. He was an excellent candidate, but got pushed aside for the more glamous story of firsts.
I must tell you, in addition to the two named sources above, I read my local daily and visit HuffPo and some other online sources. My local paper endorsed Clinton and has been challenged on their pro-Clinton bias. I don't watch Chris Matthews, we don't even have cable TV anymore. I would not have guessed that he sits at the top of the media foodchain.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/11/barack-obama-the-color-of-water/
My lovely wife, a Clinical Psychologist with a couple of PhD’s, seldom makes mistakes. Not counting that ‘I Do’ before a minister pronounced very few years ago.
“What do you think of Obama?’ I asked her, curious to get a clear judgment on a candidate that seems to have raised a tsunami of expectations from the American public. A public that is desperately seeking someone to worship.
I have already registered shameless comparisons of Obama with Lincoln, Jesus of Nazareth, Jack and Bob Kennedy, Plato, Enrico Carusso, Martin Luther King, George Clooney, Daniel Webster, St. Augustine, Count Dracula and Borat. You listen to the panegyrics and you can almost see the halo around Obama’s pointed head. I said so. She smiled, condescendingly as usual, and replied:
“Great powers of expression. I heard him talk about the problem of garbage disposal in urban areas. I remember it word by word.” She quoted:
“Problems of this kind in our nation answer to a popular belief in the infallibility of the subtle control projected by any government with an ideal in mind and a policy on hand. Sublime efforts can only be spent by the generous American nation in the pursuit of objectives clearly delineated by the Founding Fathers and the glorious brilliance of activated minds and pristine souls. In the end I conclude that such problem is not a problem. God Bless America!”
She added: “You know what? He reminds me of Robert Redford!”
“Robert Redford?”
“Yup. Robert Redford in The Candidate. Remember the last scene? After a string of brilliant speeches, he is finale elected president; he sits on the edge of the bed and asks his Chief of Staff, “What do I do now?”
Reply | posted 10:36 am on 02/16/2008
Obama is benefitting from the same treatment. Lets hope that he has good surprises up his sleeve... but really, his message is pretty vapid and full of rhetoric... I mean, it is thoughtful and inspiring. It is, but does he deserve the media rocket ship?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I will never vote for Hillary. Not because she is a woman, but because I don't like political dynasties, think they have no place in a true meritocracy/democracy.
Proof of this is in the form the criticisms take - almost all sexist. They talk about her cackle and her ankles. They call her a hypocrite if she appears feminine and too mannish if she doesn't. They focus obsessively on her husband. Several commentators said that a major reason that Ted Kennedy supported Obama was because he was angry with Bill; I don't believe that, but the idea that someone would pass on that info without commenting on how outrageous it is is very telling.
The destruction of Hillary's campaign is a blow to all women.
What about all the women blown to pieces or maimed in Iraq? I'm a guy, and I have a problem with that.
Then when he got Imus ( a radio personality) fired (I believe), I realized how much power he already had. I began to ask myself questions about his judgement. Did he really want partnerships or like he said, he "would not go on Imus' program again". Imus was fired because of Obama's words. It worried me. The power of it worried me. Everyone's acceptance of it worried me. Imus was powerful but not equal to Obama's power. Many were giddy with how powerful Obama was (because he got Imus fired). The giddiness worried me and subsequent racial divide blogs worried me.
When I was in NYCity going to school in the 80's, I was thinking that future radical change would happen by a "voice of authority" and that the voice would be a black american male voice. And that it would be so powerful as to influence masses because of a new technology. I wanted to research why this "voice" could influence masses by comparing it to the way Hitler had used the new technologies of his time - the microphone, the radio, and film. People had little experience before Hitler, of a leader using these technologies. The new technology increased by 10/100/1000? Hitler's influence or power. In my thinkiing, I imagined this voice to influence radical change. The 60's were a time of radical change. I felt good about the changes in civil rights, womens rights, human rights.
I no longer trust radical change Obama style.