I have an aversion to whining about press coverage in primaries. That doesn’t mean I don’t do it, it’s just that the candidate usually shares a heavy load of responsibility for the coverage that they get. Cultivating a decent relationship with the press and getting them to cover your campaign’s message is part of your job as a candidate. This is an area where both Bill Bradley and Howard Dean did not excel, and it cost them dearly.
At the same time, neither Bradley or Dean received fair or even neutral coverage, while John McCain is the poster-boy for successful wooing of the press. So, I don’t like to whine, but I have to point out what I see as a particularly egregious example of press bias in favor of Hillary Clinton.
We’ve all witnessed the extensive coverage and video footage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and we’ve seen the polls move in a negative direction for Obama (although they seem to be bouncing back) as a result. And while I do have a problem with the way this issue has been handled by the media, it is a fair issue to bring up and debate.
The Wright controversy is an example of a ‘testing moment’ that all prominent campaigns must go through. And, by all rights, the media should be moving on to another testing moment, this time for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The Tuzla controversy, which is also accompanied by damning video, involves the exposure of some rather blatant lies that Clinton has been telling on the campaign trail. The Washington Post has already awarded Clinton four Pinocchios over her deceitful self-aggrandizement. Yet, look at how they decided to cover the issue in today’s Washington Post. In an article appearing on the front page, they choose the headline: Both Obama And Clinton Embellish Their Roles. Even though the Tuzla video has not yet gone viral and appeared endlessly on cable news (as the Wright video has) and the Clinton story is therefore new, the headline chooses to emphasize that both candidates have a problem with self-embellishment. Having neutered any advantage Obama might gain out of Clinton’s lying, the paper then decided to lead with Obama’s embellishment. Of course, the goods they have on Obama are fairly minor. Essentially, they are nailing him for taking too much credit for bills he co-sponsored because he didn’t actually put much work into those bills. They then go on for 17 straight paragraphs questioning Obama’s credibility over two bills. By the time they get to Clinton, in the 18th paragraph, they are off the front-page (and on page 2 of the web-based article). And, even then, they hardly touch on Tuzla. Have a look.
Clinton also has her share of colleagues only too willing scrutinize her claims. Her campaign Web site describes Clinton’s “successful effort to create” the popular State Children’s Health Insurance Program during her husband’s tenure in the White House, and she has placed herself in the middle of major international events, including the Northern Ireland peace process and the Balkan conflict.
But prominent Democratic senators, Irish historians and even Sinbad the comedian, who accompanied Clinton to Kosovo, are challenging some of her assertions.
The article has nothing further to say about Tuzla (and Tuzla is in Bosnia, not Kosovo). Instead it focuses on her exaggerated role in creating the S-CHIP program. The authors of this piece, Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman, have managed to take a breaking story about Hillary Clinton’s honesty and credibility and turn it into a hit piece on Obama.
And that is not neutral reporting. Clinton should face at least as much scrutiny over Tuzla as Obama did over Wright. But, to turn Tuzla into another excuse to bash Obama? That’s indicative of a transparent media bias.
Bradley? Bradley? How many times were we told that Bradley was “authentic” where as Gore was phony?
the press HATED Bradley. They also hated Gore, but they hated Bradley more.
the Clinton thugs are effective, very, at strong arming media arms and legs.
Maybe Wapo took a look at what the Clintons did to CQ’s article by Josh Green and then drank themselves to drowning in the Clinton kool aid.
Time to get credible follow Christopher Caldwell…read his jaw dropper in Financial Times or this:
Obama’s promise of a new majority, and the question it prompts
Don’t spend much time watching tv cable news networks, but whenever I turn them on, they are discussing the Obama/Wright issue with the kind of passion I would expect in coverage of the slow-mo collapse of our financial system, or the burgeoning violence in Iraq. I hear Chris Matthews was still discussing whether or not this issue will sink Obama’s candidacy on his Sunday AM talk show.
Since cult-member (The Family) Clinton and friend of extremist preachers (Hagee, Paisley) John McCain are being given a pass on their religious affiliations and friends, the bias against Obama is out there for all to see, and it is overwhelming. I am surprised given all the negative coverage that his poll numbers have not gone down much farther than they have. A visitor from Mars would assume he was advocating violent revolution and overthrow of the government.
The media is exposing its racist stripes for all to see. It really didn’t take Scarborough, Buchanan and the rest of the tribe too long to start warning people to be very, very afraid of the uppity black man who wants to be President. Why can’t black people just be grateful for all the advantages bestowed on them by us white folks, without feeling the need to have their very own kind as President?
I think there may be more than just racism to this. Both the government and the press have developed a deep disdain for the popular will, and Obama is the popular candidate. His lead in the polls is an affront to the would-be philosopher kings inside the Beltway, just as Dean’s popularity was an affront to the establishment. I think, quite frankly, that the press is offended that the people have not followed the script they provided for us.
Mr. AP and I have bandied this thought around, re: campaign donations.
My belief is that a candidate gets scrutinized if s/he DOES NOT accept a certain amount of donations from “industry” and other big money sources. Magically the candidate is not “mainstream.”
But what happens when it’s shown that you don’t need the usual suspects to fund your campaign? Of all the statements from that horrid Geraldine Ferraro, the statement that Sen. Obama would “need people like her to raise money” was side-splittingly funny. He clearly doesn’t.
If a candidate shows s/he can’t be bought because they are mostly supported financially by a broad range of people, then is that not the bigger threat to TPTB?
My gut is that TPTB are uncertain and don’t quite know what they’re getting w/ Sen. Obama. He’s got the elite educational background and such, but if he’s not as tied to them financially, what does that mean for them? They know that the country is in deep trouble, and as the most intelligent candidate, he can get us out of shrub’s messes. But wouldn’t that carry its own risk when he’s successful, but not owing that success to them? I’m not sure TPTB know yet.
So I’m not surprised by the continuous hit pieces on Obama from the WP while they make up their minds. Clinton is lying her ass off on the Bosnia meet and greet and that this isn’t splashed all over the place is telling.
That is it exactly. Sometime during the Reagan administration, our government became a quasi-monarchy. None of us noticed, but the Washington crowd, which largely means the lobbyist who work for the companies that came to own the government did. That is why they were so aghast at Clinton’s winning the election in 1992. It wasn’t supposed to be, and they did everything they could to ensure that the Clinton presidence would fail.
Nothing has changed. To her (possible) credit, Hillary understands this. I think Obama does, too. In our new form of government, people are expected to buy whatever the government in power is selling them. The election is basically a charade imposed upon us by the Constitution. The last time the result came out contrary to what the Village wanted, the Supremes stepped in to make sure they got the right outcome.
The difference is that, while Dean’s candidacy was obliterated by the media hatred thrown at him, and the back-room dealing of Edwards, Kerry, and Gephardt, Obama’s hasn’t even really been harmed. If anything, all the negative media coverage has made him stronger, reinforced his message: “I’m for change. I oppose the status quo. Look, right there, the status quo is doing all it can to destroy me. Do you want to play their game, or do you want to change the game?”
operting procedure when you have been bought off I believe. Whatever happened to honesty and integrity. There was a day that they were hallmarks of a politician. Now, most lie, cheat and steal in order to grab the power. I am starting to believe our country is so lost it will never get back. Is this really what we want to teach our children? One must tell lies in order to get elected?
Slightly OT, but it’s on my mind.
I JUST clicked here from their website, and near the bottom, there was a photo gallery with a caption with the headline, A Symbol of Pride and Terror. Apparently, some folks think it’s quite peachy to fly their huge ass confederate battle flags around.
“Heritage, not hate,” my ass. Heritage OF hate is more like it.
But it’s strange to me: why is confederate worship not correctly labeled as anti-American? They are lauding people who raised arms against the country. Just why in the hell is that celebrated? Why is this acceptable? I really think it’s sick, and I don’t know why it’s tolerated.
Oh…then again, maybe I do.
Still, it’s never made sense to me.
Back on topic…I will read the Post online for Eugene Robinson and Colbert King but precious little else. We stopped our subscription after the incessant war cheerleading.
I even had an opportunity to question a local columnist about it. I told him during a forum that I felt the Post was biased, gave short shrift to opposing views and was downright disrespectful and mocking to anti-war actions.
I heard the earnest tripe about the “firewall” between editorial and reporters, but no one believes it. When certain reporters–whose bylines and stories are often found on the front page–suddenly get buried on A11, then I’m not trying to hear how they’re not following the lead of the editorial side of the house. It doesn’t pass the smell test. It just insults my intelligence.
Come to think of it, any time there’s some insane comment from the Post or from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, I’m just going to say…
That’s not rain.
Well, of course AP, you certainly know the answer to the question. And it is very simple. It is because it is directed at minorities, specifically African Americans. It is an issue which goes to the very heart of the closet racism that still permeates the country. And it is perfectly symbolized in the FEAR THIS tattooed on the boys hands. And there is a symbolic reason that he must make a fist in order to read it.
They should be called for what they are. These people are white trash, flaunting their hatred and bigotry under the umbrella of free speech. This isn’t about pride on ones heritage. It is about intimidating people who they feel are less human and less worthy than they are. It is about their ideal of maintaining white tribal superiority, through whatever means are required. But it is mainly about fear. That is their stock in trade.
You’re right. I guess I’m trying to understand the mental gymnastics folks must do to excuse the confederate worshippers and Falwell fundamentalists.
They can talk about how they don’t like Blacks/abortion/illegal immigration/no prayer in school/etc., say this country should go to hell or whatever, but then get exercised over Wright?
The only explanation is that the only “Americans” are the white ones, and the nonwhite ones should just STFU. Of course, if a nonwhite mentions it, they somehow transform from “non-American” to anti-American.” Is that how it works?
OK, my head hurts. How these people even FUNCTION is beyond me. It’s like going through life still believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny.
The MSM is always a few days behind the blogs on stories like these. I’m withholding judgment until the end of the week. What they are reporting on now about SChip is what we were all discussing in the middle of last week.
As far as hitting Obama first on things that you think don’t matter – in general I think Obama has gotten better media coverage than Hillary throughout this campaign. Hillary finally made a concerted effort to attack the media for their bias and that’s bearing fruit for her now. But … that’s politics. You manipulate the media you have, not the media you want.
And who knows? Maybe by the time comes for them to focus on Bosnia, it will be all Hillary because they’ve run out of minor Obama vetting.
/You manipulate the media you have, not the media you want. /
OMG, that’s so funny. It shouldn’t be. But it is.
Of course the WaPo is not fair and balance. That would cost them readers and thus, advertising.
They need conflict to get people to read their stuff. McCain is broke and can’t legally campaign, and besides, all the energy is in the Democratic Primary. The WaPo can’t afford to let the Democratic Primary go dark on them until the conventions.
Hillary is toast. She’s broke. Obama has both the money and the organization she lacks, and the recent attacks by Hillary surrogates reflect very badly on her character or leadership ability, one or the other if not both. The media in general can’t deal with that, so they are running the life support to her, just to keep the conflict going a little longer.
The Republicans are also happy with that state of affairs, so they are feeding the media beast. They, too, have a vested interest in keeping the conflict going. It may damage the eventual Democratic nominee (Obama) and all they have to run on is fear and resentment. That might be enough, if it weren’t for the Republican-caused Depression that is going to be fully acknowledged by Summer.
The big guns will come out for the general election. They will be the Depression, Iraq and Republican corruption and incompetence, while the Republicans will run on fear and racism (in both the threat of the scary Black man, and the threat of those scary Muslims.)
The Depression is going to trump the rest. It is the direct result of the conservative movement and the Reagan Revolution, and as it gets more clearly worse, it will decide our next President.
In the meantime, the WaPo and the rest of the media need conflict to get people to read their fish-wrappings or watch their overpaid personalities like Matthews or Russert.
And, yes, their behavior is disgusting. Just remember, the news is only bait to get readers. Advertising is their real business. There is no difference between the Greensheet or local shopper and a newspaper except that the newspaper uses conflict to get you to read it. TV shades the conflict into entertainment, but it’s the same story. They either sell advertisements or subscriptions. Not news.
News is bait, and conflict is better bait than fairness or real analysis.