It is amazing the litany of excuses Clinton supporters use for why she lost. Non of them ever have anything to do with the poor campaign she run. The amazingly incompetent strategy. The amazingly incompetent mismanagement.
I want to use this diary to review the The Shorenstein Center and the Project for Excellence in Journalism's new report on press coverage of the primary election.
First... I don't want to be a poor winner. But, I refuse to pander to Clinton supporters and pretend I'm not jubilant in victory. Progressives have been shut out of every national election in my life time. We have for the first time in my life time a progressive as presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. This is a time to celebrate.
I know there are those among Clinton's supporters who are good progressives and good feminists who legitimately don't trust that Obama is a progressive and a feminist.
I think there has to be healing from Clinton's spin. When politicians try and create a false reality and false consciousness out of whole cloth, recovering from those lies means exposing the facts as can best be determined through the best scientific methods available.
Geraldine Ferraro's essay, "Healing the wounds of Democrats' sexism," in the Boston Globe makes me physically ill.
First key quote:
In response, a group of women - from corporate executives to academics to members of the media - have requested that the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University and others conduct a study, which we will pay for if necessary, to determine three things.
First, whether either the Clinton or Obama campaign engaged in sexism and racism; second, whether the media treated Clinton fairly or unfairly; and third whether certain members of the media crossed an ethical line when they changed the definition of journalist from reporter and commentator to strategist and promoter of a candidate. And if they did to suggest ethical guidelines which the industry might adopt.
Another key stomach turning quote from Ferraro,
As for Reagan Democrats, how Clinton was treated is not their issue. They are more concerned with how they have been treated. Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist. They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.
This is the kind of reality distortion field that makes anyone with an once of intellectual honesty sea sick. This is a supposed progressive! A supposed feminist! A supposed Democrat!
It is frustrating and yes sickening. It is also very painful for both sides and difficult to over come and heal from. Another big SHAME ON YOU! to Ferraro.
Ferraro asks that the Shorenstein Center do an analysis and guess what! They did!
So what did the Shorenstein Center and the Project for Excellence in Journalism's new report on press coverage of the primary election find?
Some key quotes:
From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates’ character, history, leadership and appeal—apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns.
The trajectory of the coverage, however, began to turn against Obama, and did so well before questions surfaced about his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Shortly after Clinton criticized the media for being soft on Obama during a debate, the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical—and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself. What’s more, an additional analysis of more general campaign topics suggests the Obama narrative became even more negative later in March, April and May.
The year 2008 started off extremely well for Obama. Positive assertions commanded 77% of the narrative studied about him from January 1 - 13. By March 9, the figure had dropped to 53%. During this time statements concerning his inexperience and youth more than doubled in prevalence.
While differences by media were minimal, some did stand out. Network morning news is notable for the degree to which it offered an exceptionally positive personal impression of Hillary Clinton. Fully 84% of the assertions studied in those programs projected positive master narratives of the former first lady, some 20 percentage points more positive than about Obama. And on cable news, the three rival channels differed markedly from each other in their treatment of the candidates.
The findings here also belie the idea that Obama enjoyed the most positive coverage, or that the press has somehow gone easier on him than on Clinton during the primaries. In the roughly 10 weeks studied, the former first lady had just as much success in the press as her rival in projecting the narratives she wanted about her personality, history, leadership and character: Fully 67% of the assertions about her as a person were positive, versus one-third ( 33%) negative—numbers almost identical to Obama.
The study doesn't specifically address sexist or racist language in the coverage. However, it flies right in the face of the Clinton whine and spin zone.
So let's start to heal from the spin with the soothing balm of fact!