A bold stroke for Clark
by Angry White Democrat
Fri Oct 31, 2003 at 03:02:48 PM PDT
What should Clark do about the media's attempts to give him the Gore treatment? Why not go on the offensive?
The media's attempts to do to Clark what they did to Gore are in full swing. Check out The Daily Howler to read about it (Bob Somerby has been on this story all week - check out the earlier entries too). It's clear that, if nothing is done, the media will sink his candidacy exactly the same way they sank Gore's.
So what can Clark do about this? I submit that he should fight back - hard. He should get in front of the cameras and explain that his position on Iraq is crystal clear and that the media got it wrong when they said it was confused and muddled. Call these people out on what they're doing.
There would be several benefits to doing this. First, it would get attention. Criticism of the media would (ironically) be big news, and his campaign can use all the coverage it can get.
Second, the message will resonate with many Democratic primary voters. Lots of us are still upset over the media's treatment of Gore in 2000, and if someone started speaking out about their shameful conduct, it would really endear that person to us. Also, beyond the Democratic primary, many Americans are dissatisified with the media - witness the declining viewership for news programs and the strong opposition to more media consolidation. A candidate speaking out the media not doing its job could find a friendly audience in the electorate as a whole.
Third, it would put these people on the defensive (for once). Republican screeching about the "liberal media" resulted in news organizations giving them more favorable coverage and getting tougher on the Democrats in order to deflect charges of bias. If Clark were to speak out about the biased and incorrect coverage he's received, it could force these people to put a stop to it.
Fourth, it would begin to counter the so far uncontested conservative spin that the media is liberally biased. Clark's statements would undoubtedly be met with ridicule by right-wing pundits, but all our guys (Franken for instance) would have to do is trot out the facts about media coverage of Gore to counter this. It would get the issue out there, which could only be good for us.
Now, this isn't to say that Clark wouldn't be taking risks by doing this. While criticizing reporters would force them to improve the accuracy of their coverage in the short term, it could do the opposite in the long term should petty and vindictive journalists decide to seek revenge later on. If Clark did speak out and then went on to win the nominaton, the coverage he receives in August 2004 might make Gore's look positively glowing by comparassion. Continued watchfulness would be necessary, and the first inaccurate story would need to be stomped on immediately.
Also, by doing this, Clark risks sounding silly and/or desperate. So the delivery of this criticism is important, and the campaign needs to be ready with the facts to back it up.
Anyway, this is my suggestion for how Clark should deal with the Goring that's in progress right now. What is absolutely certain is that he needs to do something, or his candidacy will suffer the same fate that Gore's did.
Permalink | 7 comments