Cross-posted at
Dem Talking Points.
Greg Sargent's fine post over at the American Prospect's new blog focuses on Adam Nagourney's profile of Al Gore in today's New York Times and raises the question of the media's role in Gore's defeat in 2000. He notes that the obnoxious language the Times uses in describing Gore is reminiscent of the way he was covered during his presidential campaign.
Is it churlish to note that, while the piece was somewhat sympathetic to Gore, the paper was still straining to revive an old Gore chesnut -- Gore is a pompous ass -- by noting his "cluck-clucking" at a time when Gore was talking about what is quite literally the most important issue facing humankind, i.e., the fate of the earth? Maybe. It's also worth noting that the piece strained to imply that Gore had other motives -- worry over his image and legacy; fear of losing -- for devoting himself to issues instead of returning to politics.
Sargent references the archives of The Daily Howler from 2000, which contains plenty of coverage of the media's anti-Gore bias. It also might help to examine how the media covered the "last lap" of the 2000 presidential race. With thanks to Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, I found a report on just that. Pew Charitable Trusts Project for Excellence in Journalism recorded the tone of the coverage both Bush and Gore received. The results:
Tone of Coverage For Bush & Gore
Gore Bush
Positive 13% 24%
Neutral 31 27
Negative 56 49
Total 100 100
The media, like the country, didn't seem to like either candidate
very much, but Gore clearly was treated worse than Bush. Franken also
cites an article by Robert Parry in the Washington Monthly,
which debunks many of the lies the media spread about Gore. Even
professional Clinton/Gore hater Christopher Hitchens admitted that Gore
got ridiculously unfair coverage in the press. In a rare moment of
honesty in the campaign, here's what Chris Matthews (who later admitted
to voting for Bush in 2000) and Hitchens said about the debate coverage
on the October 4, 2000, edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Your review, sir, of that 90-minute spectacle?
Mr. HITCHENS: I can't believe what I'm reading this morning. I co--didn't believe--could barely believe much of what I heard last night from the supposed snap polls and the people who promulgate them. I mean, there was no real contest. The vice president did everything but kiss Governor Bush's wife for him, it seemed to me. It was--he didn't just eat his lunch. He regurgitated his lunch, in the--that's probably because they have many of the same policies on most of the crucial things. There was absolutely no contest. And--and puzzling over the stupidity, which I think is willful of the pundits this morning, the only conclusion I can come to is this. You may remember, Christopher, about five or so days ago--perhaps longer--there was a big story in The New York Times, brow-furrowing, masochistic story: Is the press biased in favor of Al Gore? Is there a liberal bias in the press? A lot of people are saying that.
MATTHEWS: Right, I saw it.
Mr. HITCHENS: Well, I think that--that's the only conceivable answer. The people are so determined to avoid that charge and to avoid a Republican anti-press campaign at this point that they--that they--that...
MATTHEWS: It could be--could it be that the...
Mr. HITCHENS: ...they say that this--the--they're ridiculous.
MATTHEWS: Right.
Mr. HITCHENS: The--the ridiculous figure of Bush who didn't stray beyond
his stump speech remarks, and when he did, fell badly, had to have two
tries at saying Milosevic, couldn't keep a preposition under control...
MATTHEWS: Right.
Mr. HITCHENS: ...looked nervous, wimpish, weasel-like, was the equal of the vice president, o--of whom, as you know, I'm no fan.
MATTHEWS: Neither me. But let me ask you, could it be that the punditry...
Mr. HITCHENS: So I--I just really think it's--I think it's a--it's a negative masochistic media blitz.
MATTHEWS:
I agree. Could it be that the punditry class is the only profession in which you're allowed to simply take a pass and say, 'I'm not going to be a pundit tonight'? I couldn't believe the number of people who chickened out last night. It was clear to me--and I am no fan of either of these guys entirely, and I can certainly say that about the one--the one who I thought won last night, that's Al Gore. I thought he cleaned the other guy's clock, and I said so last night and all four national polls agreed with that. In fact, the ones with the--the one with the largest sample, which was CBS, found a 14-point spread of those who thought that the vice president really leveled the other guy. I don't understand why people are afraid to say so.
Emphasis added. We got a reminder of the negative bias that was so present
during the Clinton/Gore years again this week, when the press corps
went crazy over a gossip story about the 'state of the Clinton marriage' that appeared on the front page of the Times. Not to mention this week's right-wing comparisons
of Al Gore to Hitler and his new global warming documentary to Nazi propaganda. It seems as though when the media hears the names "Gore" and "Clinton" they shake off 6 years of sleep and go in for the kill.