The Media's Role in the Obama Phenomenon as a Sign of a Deeper Trend
Posted by Damozel | The media critics --- many of whom unabashedly favor Obama --- have been out in force this week, pointing fingers and getting red-faced over ABC's treatment of their favorite in the debate. Yes, that shoe always pinches when it's on the other foot, I've noticed. At the Politico, John F. Harris and Jim Vandehei write:
The shower of indignation on Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos over the last few days is the clearest evidence yet that the Clintonites are fundamentally correct in their complaint that she has been flying throughout this campaign into a headwind of media favoritism for Obama..... (The Politico)
The article further acknowledges, "Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon." (The Politico) [Egalia: "Politico says Obama has a secret weapon....the media. Duh. Duh. Duh. That's a secret if you're deaf, dumb, and blind."] But it's not exactly a new trend; the media also --- according to me --- did its little all to get George W. Bush elected.
At The Fix, Chris Cillizza logs major developments in 'the debate over the debate':
* Moveon.org, which is supporting Obama in the primary, organized an online petition drive decrying the alleged lack of issues discussed in the debate. "Enough is enough," read the petition in part. "The public needs the media to stop hurting the national dialogue in this important election year."
* The Post's own Tom Shales penned a column decrying the debate and the performance of the two ABC debate moderators. "Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition," wrote Shales.
* Obama's campaign used the perceived imbalance in the debate to raise money -- sending out an e-mail solicitation entitled "Gotcha" and asking for $25 donations to counter the perceived bias.
* Stephanopoulos, in an interview with Politico's Michael Calderone, defended his performance and that of his network on Wednesday night. "We asked tough but appropriate questions," Stephanopoulos said.
* Clinton insisted the content of the debate was just fine by her and that Obama should be ready for much worse from Republicans if he winds up as the nominee. "I'm with Harry Truman on this: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," Clinton said yesterday in Pennsylvania. "Just speaking for myself, I'm very comfortable in the kitchen."
* Politico's John Harris and Jim VandeHei posted a piece arguing that the debate was not all that different from past set-to's, but that the "unfair to Obama" narrative has taken hold because of the media's willingness to buy into the Obama campaign's spin.
At The Politico, Harris and VandeHei snark:
My, oh my, but weren’t those fellows from ABC News rude to Barack Obama at this week’s presidential debate.
Nothing but petty, process-oriented questions, asked in a prosecutorial tone, about the Democratic front-runner’s personal associations and his electability. Where was the substance? Where was the balance? (The Politico)
Yes, they say, "Where indeed." The appropriate response to Obama's media advocates, they argue, is the same response 'the political media commentariat' has given to complaints from Hillary's supporters of bias in the media.
Hillary Rodham Clinton and her aides have been complaining for months about imbalance in news coverage. For the most part, the reaction to her...has been: Stop whining.
That’s still a good response now that it is Obama partisans...who are doing the whining. (The Politico; emphasis added)
For the record, I thought the 'prosecutorial tone' of the ABC debate was pretty evenly distributed. Being a Hillary supporter, I barely twitched an eyebrow when they brought up Bosnia. It's what we're used to, after all.
But I am fascinated that so many in the media are so indignant over ABC's treatment of the candidate. More from Harris and VandeHei:
This is not to say that ABC’s performance was flawless. There were some weird questions (“Do you think Rev. Wright loves America as much as you do?”). There were some questionable production decisions (the camera cutaways to Chelsea Clinton, the stacking of so many process questions in the first 45 minutes).
But there was nothing to justify Tom Shales’s hyperbolic review (“shoddy, despicable performances” by Gibson and Stephanopoulos) in The Washington Post or Greg Mitchell’s in Editor & Publisher (“perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years”). Others, like Time’s Michael Grunwald, likewise weighed in against ABC.
In fact, the balance of political questions (15) to policy questions (13) was more substantive than other debates this year that prompted no deluge of protests. The difference is that this time there were more hard questions for Obama than for Clinton.
Moreover, those questions about Jeremiah Wright, about Obama’s association with 1960s radical William Ayers, about apparent contradictions between his past and present views on proven wedge issues like gun control, were entirely in-bounds. If anything, they were overdue for a front-runner and likely nominee. (The Politico; emphasis added)
Quite whining and woman up, Obama supporters (in the media and elsewhere). To be electable, Obama is going to have to deal with some uncomfortable, petty questions.
But of course the deeper question has to do with the media's barefaced advocacy of Obama---as evidenced in what the article calls "the embarrassing rush of many journalists to his side this week."(The Politico)
Though I realize that Obama supporters see such reportage as pure, unvarnished fact, no Clinton supporters who has been paying attention really needed this piece to point out the following four media trends:
1. The breakdown of journalistic conventions about point of view. In an earlier era these standards — favoring austere, stoical language conveying voice-of-God authority — were designed in part to ensure that stories betrayed no hint of the writer’s real feelings....(The Politico, pg 2)
2. The rise of the liberal echo chamber...it has only been in this campaign cycle that we have seen the liberal echo chamber — from websites like The Huffington Post and cable commentators like Keith Olbermann — be able consistently to drive a campaign story line...(The Politico, pg 2-3)
3. The blurring of lines between journalist and advocate. The Huffington Post is an admirable enterprise....But it covers politics with a mix of traditional reporters and analysts, like Tom Edsall, and with people who define themselves principally as advocates. Many of these advocates, like The Huffington Post as a whole, are proudly cheering for Obama..(The Politico, pg 3)
4. Covering politics as it is versus as it should be. Many of the people complaining about ABC’s coverage, even some Clinton supporters, disliked the questions and the tone because they felt they were serving as a warm-up act for Republican attacks in the fall.It is not an easy balance. It is not reporters’ job to promote the opposition’s story lines... But nor can serious reporters avert their gaze from the fact that questions about how well candidates connect personally and culturally with voters matter a lot — they were decisive factors in both the 2000 and 2004 elections.. In the wake of the debate, it is time for Obama’s cheerleaders in the media to ask some questions of themselves. (The Politico, pg 3; emphasis added)
My own thoughts on this are easily summed up: if former journalists want to advocate for a candidate, they need to abandon the misleading/disingenuous pretense that they are reporters and get a blog. If I read a traditional news source, even on the internet, I expect to be told the facts and to be allowed to form my own opinion. (Thank God for BBC News).
What bothers me most about shameless shilling in the media is the lack of consequences for those who are proven wrong. Shouldn't people with big media platforms who have ---inadvertently or otherwise --- misled their public at least have to issue some sort of disclaimer with all their future pieces advocating some other cause or candidate?
But no. No. As Andrew Sullivan demonstrates, all you have to do is acknowledge with bowed head that you were wrong (in his case, about Bush and Iraq) and you're free to return to your huge media platform to sing the praises of Barack Obama while remorselessly trashing Hillary. But what if Sullivan --- whom I think is right on a number of issues, by the way --- turns out to be wrong about Obama as well? What happens then?
Memeorandum has blogger reactions to The Politico piece
At The Moderate Voice, Pete Abel mainly concurs with Harris and Vandehei:
Though I don’t agree with everything they write, I do — even as an Obama supporter — agree with their essential thesis.....[T]he media (old and new) that stake a claim on “pure journalism” — that present their writers as “pure journalists” — ...must rightly operate at a different level, which is precisely why I think they’d be well served by an open, honest read of Harris’ and Vandehei’s critique.
Tennessee Guerilla Women have a video clip by scholar Deborah Tannen on the Hillary double-bind that is well worth a look, as well as a bit of feedback for The Politico itself:
Politico says Clinton scorns the base, by which they mean, Hillary criticized MoveOn for flooding the caucuses with bullies. Newsflash Politico: MoveOn is NOT her base. Hillary's base scorns MoveOn! We left MoveOn when they declared war on Hillary.
Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard:
Thus far, the media has managed to report on Obama's gaffes, but has not kept up the drumbeat of negative stories that would normally hound a candidate - especially a Republican one. I suspect most people can see the way the media is treating Obama with kid gloves - and the media will pay a price in the long run for that. Harris and Vanderhei do not seem to think the media is the main cause of the rise of Obama, but I suspect it has a lot to do with it. Reporters are playing softball with Obama while playing a death match with Clinton.
Democrats Do Want Change -- in DNC Leadership
This Just In: Obama Launches 'Republican-Style attacks' on McCain!
Does Obama Dislike the Taste of his Own Medicine?
Democratic Debate: the Audacity of Misrepresentation
The Mainstream Press Addresses Obama's Questionable Claims of Independence from Special Interests
Signs of Bush Tactics & Hypocisy in Another Obama Campaign Email
Comments