The New Republic published an article yesterday, Did the Media Really Screw Edwards? in which the author, Jason Zengerle, claims Edwards really did get media coverage. But a closer look reveals that Zengerle's thesis is more than just a little flawed.
Zengerle writes:
If people want to argue that the media screwed Edwards, they'll need to show that they ignored him before Iowa. And I just don't think that's the case. Last summer, after Ezra Klein complained that Edwards wasn't on many magazine covers, I wrote a post (which, like so many other things on our site, continues to be AWOL) that listed the remarkable number of covers he had graced. At the time I think the list included The New Republic, The American Prospect, Men's Vogue, Esquire, and The New York Times Magazine. And I'm sure there have been more since then. One more recent Edwards cover that really sticks in my mind is this Newsweek one from just a couple weeks before Iowa. I'm sorry, but being touted as as "The Sleeper" on the cover of a national news magazine with more than 3 million readers right before the first nomination contest isn't being ignored.
Note that Zengerle fails to consider newspaper and television coverage of the candidates; his examples are entirely focused on magazine coverage. But where do most people get their news on the candidates? This Pew Research study, conducted in 2004, has the answer.
Here's a summary of where people got their political news from the Pew study *:
Local tv news: 42%
Cable news networks: 38%
Nightly network news: 35%
Daily newspapers: 31%
TV news magazines: 25%
Morning TV shows: 20%
Talk radio: 17%
National Public Radio: 14%
Sunday political TV: 15%
Internet: 9%
News magazines: 15% [emphasis mine]
* Note that the study was completed in 2004. Since then, it's certain that the percentage of people getting there news from the internet has risen substantially. However, there's little reason to think that the number for the "Magazine" category increased, in fact, given the general trends, it's likely the percentage declined since 2004.
The Pew study makes it clear that overwhelmingly, Americans get their political news from television and newspapers, where Edwards' has gotten scant attention (as noted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism) in comparison to the two rock star candidates. It's hard to believe that a writer at TNR would be unaware of sources of political information. Americans tend not to get information on candidates from magazines, but that's the faulty premise upon which Zengerle relies in order to make his case. Sorry, TNR, we just can't be fooled so easily.
Greg Sargent at TPM's Horse's Mouth also refutes TNR's claims:
Whether it was the constant coverage of the $400 haircut; the subtext in much coverage that Edwards' personal wealth rendered his populism little more than a phony and ineffective gimmick; or the constant and relentless portrayal of the race as a showdown between two political superstars, there's just no denying that in terms of the scope and tone of the coverage, Edwards has basically gotten screwed.
Sargent also notes the medias' over-emphasis on early fundraising:
As for Edwards trailing them in national polls, this one won't wash as an excuse, because lots of professional political journalists know -- and indeed, often told us -- that the national polls don't matter. Rather, the primary reason Edwards wasn't deemed viable long-term -- and hence went under-covered -- was that he didn't raise as much money that Hillary and Obama did. I think we can all agree that this isn't a good way to determine which candidate's words and actions are more deserving of news coverage.
The comments section at the Horse's Mouth is temporarily down, but Sargent has also posted about the TNR article at TPM Election Central. Although Sargent recognizes that TNR is spouting nonsense, he holds Edwards partially responsible. Perhaps someone needs to ask him why.
TNR is considered a liberal magazine, but has continued to be hawkish regarding the Iraq war. So this really isn't so surprising coming from TNR, where I'm sure Edwards' references to the war in Iraq as "occupation," (rather than the "fighting the insurgents" meme) is sure to have rankled.
The TNR article invites comments, but a subscription to the magazine is required. I'm hoping that a Kossack with a TNR subscription will post the Pew data over there.