WaPo calls out media bias against Hillary

In a must-read article today, Howard Kurtz writes about what has been blatant media bias against Hillary Clinton's campaign

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

I have written many times on Daily Kos about what I have perceived as anti-Hillary and pro-Obama coverage, essentially creating an uneven playing field in the race for the Democratic nomination for president. In Mr. Kurtz's article he particulalry calls out several news bureaus, pundits, and blogs for their biased coverage

Arianna Huffington, one of the Net's leading Clinton-bashers, has written of "Hillary's hypocrisy running neck and neck with her cynicism." New Republic Editor-in-Chief Marty Peretz posted an essay last week titled "The End of BillaryLand Is on Its Way. Rejoice!"

One is also amazed by how far off the coverage is from the actual race as Kurtz writes

Never mind that the two Democratic candidates remain close in the delegate count, or that Clinton has been described as doomed once before, in New Hampshire. She is drowning in a sea of negative coverage.

In watching a lot of the talking heads shows on cable news and network Sunday shows I have been amazed how literally none of the pundits seem to provide balanced coverage. For example, today I listened to Seven Days in America on Air America Radio (a weekly wrap up show on the political news) and all three of the pundits were pro-Obama. Kurtz has exposed this

Fueling the sense that the former first lady is sinking is increasingly sharp criticism from liberal columnists who are embracing Obama, while few pundits are firmly in Clinton's corner.

Should the press be choosing the president or should it not be up to the voters? Should the candidates not have an equal opportunity to present their views to the people? The country's future is at stake.

•  Where was this bias when she was Inevitable?

  Did the media somehow go from being perfectly evenhanded when she led Obama by 20pts in every state to being uber-unbiased when he started beating her in states that didn't matter?

  by haruki on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:07:44 PM PDT

  •  I Think the Point is This Isn't the Clintons, Now

    the media is on board.

    by Gooserock on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:10:46 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps you can find

    something concrete from the MSM back in early days of the primary (I believe there were seven other candidates, not just one) when the press was allegedly calling her "inevitable"?
    She was the front runner, but the only ones I ever heard with the inevitable meme were her opponents and their supporters.

    by skohayes on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:15:34 PM PDT

    •  The press never used the exact phrase

      inevitable, but there are more ways than one to imply that it is so.  A few months before the first primary, I watched an interview (forget the network) in which the interviewee basically said that the primaries were a formality.  The meme has been spread by her opponents, but it was one also used by her camp, and also by the media.

      by GeauxGeauxGirl on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:35:26 PM PDT

    •  Are you serious?

      Reporting national polls a year before the first vote started and suggesting that meant anything wasn't nonsense? Did anyone think those national polls in March of 2007 meant anything? Yet they were reported. She declared the winner of every debate that I watched.

      Now you tell me how one can raise money and convince voters when they are told over and over that someone already has locked up the election? How can you convince superdelegates when that is the word out there?

      Perhaps you can find one instance of the Hillary Clinton campaign complaining about the media coverage when they were ahead.

      by Common Cents on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:36:38 PM PDT

      •  excuse me

        but she did win every debate, she still does.
        No one in her campaign ever said she was inevitable.  The media never did either.

        by JoanH on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:51:48 PM PDT

        •  She did not win every debate.

          It is subjective anyway for crying out loud.

          by Common Cents on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:05:40 PM PDT

        •  Ah, I wonder if this is the same

          "JoanH" over at MyDD who was going on the other day about Obama's muslim background despite evidence to the contrary.  At any rate, what do you mean by "winning".  What exactly constitutes a win in a debate?  Gore probably "won" all the debates against Bush, yet he lost when he stalked him on stage and sighed the entire time.  It is the audience that determines what constitutes a win, and it's far from clear that Clinton won the audience over in all the debates...  October ring a bell?

          by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:19:10 PM PDT

      •  She Was Declared Winner of The Debates Because

        The people deciding who won all used to work or still do work for the Clintons. I remember multiple times thinking Obama schooled her but Begala, Carville, and Brazille (All Clinton Cronies) were the ones that analyzed it afterwards.

        by Jdories on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:58:32 PM PDT

    •  how about the obsession about personal things/

      How she laughs (from October 2007)
      http://mediamatters.org/...

      How she dresses and her private parts (from July 2007)
      http://mediamatters.org/...

      by bluestatedude on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:38:25 PM PDT

      •  How About the Obsession with Obama's Supposed

        Inexperience? He has done more for regular people in the last quarter of a century then she has, yet every media outlet I see just accepts that he is inexperienced... So much so, that the average person just mimics this myth without even looking to see what he actually has done.. Much more for the blue collar worker than she has, that is for sure!

        by Jdories on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:01:47 PM PDT

  •  No, the media has always

    had disdain for the Clintons.

    by Mike S on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:28:09 PM PDT

    •  And They ignore Obama's Experience

      Besides, that inevitability crap was hard to listen to for over 6 months!

      by Jdories on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:03:12 PM PDT

      •  They don't want to contradict themselves in GE.

        Why would they want to tell you about how experienced Obama is now, when people will remember that in the General Election campaign and that knowledge would work to disadvantage McCain?

        by Judge Moonbox on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:24:37 PM PDT

  •  The bias hurt her insurgent shoestring campaign.

    Give me a break.

    by Common Cents on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:34:17 PM PDT

    •  I Remember that Obama Would Win the Primary

      Money Races, yet the media would all report her primary and general money together to make it look like she won...

      by Jdories on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:04:41 PM PDT

      •  Even counting superdelegates now is crazy.

        Obama has led this delegate race from the beginning. Supers are only counted to make it look closer than it is.

        by Common Cents on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:14:45 PM PDT

        •  Yeah, Why were The Supers Mysteriously Added

          Right after Super Tuesday when Obama began blowing her out?

          by Jdories on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:54:19 PM PDT

          •  We all know why.

            The race has to look close or people won't tune in after the commercial break for the latest delegate count math.

            by Common Cents on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:55:55 PM PDT

•  They're Covering His Dangerous Cult and

  plagiarism much more thoroughly in the last week.

  by Gooserock on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:10:04 PM PDT

  •  Define plagiarism?

    by glendaleguy2007 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:11:22 PM PDT

•  you get what you put out n/t

  by missreporter on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:10:20 PM PDT

•  Now there's a real unbiased guy

  by tazz on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:10:48 PM PDT

•  Give me a break! If Hillary had run a clean...

  honest campaign and not tried to disenfranchise voters in Nevada and not played the race card, and not lied about her position on NAFTA and had apologized for voting for the Iraq war, and not TOTALLY LIED about her previous position on the Michigan and Florida delegates, and HAD AT LEAST TRIED to make allies in the press, there would be no problem.

  The media is reporting what they see.

  by glendaleguy2007 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:10:58 PM PDT

  •  At this point, I agree with you

    but let's not kid ourselves - there has DEFINITELY been a gender bias against Hillary. Tweety alone is evidence of that, and I commend her for fighting back against it.

    Of course, playing a 'delegate gap' from that is absurd. How much 'delegate gap' do we have from Obama the Muslim terrorist? This isn't kickball where you give the crippled kid an extra run. Media bias happens and rather than calculate how many voters are too stupid to read through it you need to attack the media for engaging in it. Again, it's an attack on the wrong people.

    And after the 'second class' stuff started, not to mention the idiotic tactic of attacking Obama on his kindergarden essay and other non-issues, which Obama wasn't reciprocating on, I'd have to say the new media bias is well earned by her.

    by johnsonwax on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:24:45 PM PDT

    •  "There's definitely been

      a gender gap."  Yes, Matthews was awful, but this is a bit of hyperbole, don't you think?

      by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:28:12 PM PDT

      •  No

        Cackle
        Pantsuit
        Too much cleavage
        Diamonds or Pearls
        "Beat that bitch"

        There's been a lot of that crap in the runup that would never be tolerated with a male candidate.

        by johnsonwax on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:39:28 PM PDT

        •  As I recall the cleavage thing

          was a comment by a particular conservative that was then reported.  "Beat the bitch" was a comment by a woman at a McCain event that was then reported.

          "Diamonds or Pearls"?  "Boxers or briefs".

          It is not at all unusual for reporters to report on how public figures dress, and pantsuits are lame (middle management anyone?).

          As for the cackle, Dean's yell.

          At any rate, it's ridiculous for you to imply that somehow these things make up the constant reporting on Clinton.  In the example of the cleavage and the "beat the bitch" you're significantly conflating issues (these things were reported precisely because they were such egregious comments for the people who made them to make).

          by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:48:07 PM PDT

          •  Oh, and the facelift

            It doesn't matter where it comes from - it depends on whether the media is willing to dismiss it as utter crap or promote it as news. The media decided it really was news. They don't have to regurgitate every piece of crap thing that gets uttered, you know.

            As for the cleavage - it wasn't dismissed as you suggest. I watched some idiot on one of the networks put forth the cavutoism "Is it inappropriate for a commander in chief to show cleavage?" or some crap.

            I'll give on the pantsuit since they did question Obama on his lack of tie. Fair enough.

            And the 'beat the bitch' comment wasn't smacked down by the media either. It was twisted into a 'look at what she's going to face' story on how electable she was. The fact that McCain didn't die a horrible political death for laughing along with the comment is proof.

            I'm not going to excuse the cackle with the equally inexcusable Dean Scream - which at first was an unexplained event vs a character trait. And honestly, the issue with the cackle wasn't the sound but the 'fact' that it was phony (as if the media could know that). It cast her as so dishonest that she can't even laugh honestly.

            by johnsonwax on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:04:43 PM PDT

            •  Look at what you wrote:

              As for the cleavage - it wasn't dismissed as you suggest. I watched some idiot on one of the networks put forth the cavutoism "Is it inappropriate for a commander in chief to show cleavage?" or some crap.

              So some idiot makes some idiotic comment on a news show and suddenly that's representative?  

              And hell yes the media should report when things like the bitch comment are said...  Just as they were right to report Cheney's comment.  

              by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:11:08 PM PDT

              •  Sorry,

                the idiot was one of the washington reporters for one of the major networks. Reporter whose name you would recognize. I can't remember exactly who - it was some time ago.

                by johnsonwax on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:50:35 PM PDT

                •  So some jackass

                  says something stupid on the news and now suddenly all the media are against Clinton?  I fully agree there have been some sexist and racist comments.  But why not be honest?  Given the trivial nature of the examples you cited, the real issue here is one of providing the means of a blanket condemnation of the media and with that enabling yourself to dismiss any negative press that comes out of the media while simultaneously trying to shore up support among women who might identify with this.

                  by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:10:47 PM PDT

                  •  No,

                    The negative press that has been coming out recently is fully warranted. I'm just pushing against the notion that there was no negative bias before, when I think there was some clear evidence that there was.  There was some positive bias as well as the inevitable candidate.

                    by johnsonwax on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:14:04 PM PDT

        •  Or to make the point a bit

          differently, I think you need to learn what sexism is, because clearly you conflate things with the listed examples.  First, by your reasoning (the cleavage thing and bitch comment), the media would be racist for reporting Michael Richard's (Kramer from Seinfeld) racist outburst at the comedy club.  Absurd.

          Second, the media reports idiosyncracies of all public figures, male and female.  It makes all sorts of observations about Bush's speech and laugh.  It made all sorts of observations about Gore's mannerisms.  It makes observations about how they dress.  Etc.  Clinton does have a rather unique (to put it kindly) laugh.  She does dress in a particular way.  This sort of reporting on men and women is not inherently sexist.

          Third, the media always interjects "human interest" stories into its reporting.  Hence the boxers or briefs question to Clinton.  Or stories about the candidates dog.  No difference here with the pearls.

          What is sexist is the suggestion that someone is inherently inferior because of their gender or that they only got where they are because of a man or that they are unfit to rule due to their gender.

          I understand that this sort of criticism is very convenient for Clinton supporters as it allows you to cast the patina of "misogyny" on anyone who doesn't share your views and to deflect uncomfortable reporting or observations.  But please, try and get some better examples if you're going to wave this stuff around.

          by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:08:28 PM PDT

        •  What do you think of Bill Clinton as the First

          Black President? -- Hmm, I find that an insulting question to the actual first Black President...

          Not to mention the inexperience myth...

          He just won this state because it is black...

          by Jdories on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:11:03 PM PDT

        •  Crying Has Ended Many a Man's Campaign

          by Jdories on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:14:06 PM PDT

      •  yes - Matthews has been outrageous but

        he is but one talking head with a small audience. HRC has had a pass from much of the rest of the media and has gotten away with all kinds of crap . .

        by alba on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:42:24 PM PDT

      •  What's so hyperbolic about diagnosing a problem?

        Yes, Matthews was awful, but this is a bit of hyperbole, don't you think?

        I don't see any reason to see referring to Matthews's behavior as hyperbolic. I think he's typical of the supposedly Mainstream media. I think you will too, once they turn their guns on Obama.

        by Judge Moonbox on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:59:14 PM PDT

        •  Pointing out that

          Matthews said a number of very sexist things and often behaves in sexist ways towards his female guests is not the hyperbole.  Suggesting that this behavior is representative of the entire media is.

          by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:02:11 PM PDT

          •  Entire media doesn't have Tweety's soapbox.

            Suggesting that this behavior is representative of the entire media is.

            I'm sure there are lots of political reporters who never get the chance to say what Tweety says. But how about the smaller universe of people who get to editorialize on camera for the MSM? I say that Matthews is typical of that crowd.

            by Judge Moonbox on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:27:36 PM PDT

            •  Well this is purely

              speculation on your part, now isn't it?  You are changing the claim.  The original post said "the media is sexist".  Now it's shifted to "Tweety is sexist".  The first is a false generalization, the second is true.  Tweety himself had to apologize for his language.  

              by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:30:14 PM PDT

              •  Stop picking nits. You're ducking the question.

                Well this is purely (0 / 0)
                speculation on your part, now isn't it?  You

                Would you say that Media Matters is engaging in pure speculation when they say that Ann Coulter peddles hate? Here's a quote she made on MSNBC last Thursday:

                Just yesterday, Coulter was a guest on MSNBC Live. A day earlier, she had referred to Barack Obama as "B. Hussein Obama" five times in a span of two minutes and once described him as "President Hussein." During her appearance on MSNBC, the cable channel touted her recent statement that Obama "wouldn't be running for president if he weren't half-black," which she has described as his "big accomplishment."

                ---------------------------------------------------------------------

                You are changing the claim.  The original post said "the media is sexist".

                I'm sure you've never said anything unclear or imprecise; or that if you had, you chose to leave the error stand rather than say what you had meant to say.

                Now it's shifted to "Tweety is sexist".  The first is a false generalization, the second is true.  Tweety himself had to apologize for his language.

                And Tucker Carlson.
                And Joe Scarborough.
                And Ann Coulter.
                etc.
                etc.
                Now do you have the percentage of people allowed to editorialize on camera for the MSM who haven't made such biased judgments against Democrats? I trust Media Matters and the Daily Howler.

                by Judge Moonbox on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:49:57 PM PDT

                •  Who's picking nits?

                  Again you're conflating claims.  You wished to move from the specific claim that Tweety is sexist to the universal claim that the media is sexist.  As any logician will tell you, this is a logical fallacy or an instance of improper universal instantiation.  Now trying to make your case you come back with the example of Coulter.  Well gee wiz, yes I agree Coulter is racist and many other things besides, but that still makes your case no stronger.  I'm tired of these games from you Clinton folk.  Keep your claims specific or don't make them at all.

                  by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:13:06 PM PDT

                •  Or to be more clear,

                  the speculative claim was the claim that "all the media is like this behind the scenes" as you or someone else originally suggested.

                  We all know the game you folks are playing here.  The aim is to dismiss uncomfortable things being reported through these generalizations about the media that cast a shadow over everything that's said.  You realize that as democrats the chances are that the vast majority of us find sexism or any other form of bigotry abhorrent, so you try to manufacture examples of this to your advantage.  Well bullshit, enough is enough.

                  by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:16:16 PM PDT

                  •  Quoting Ann Coulter is manufacturing?

                    Or to be more clear,  
                    the speculative claim was the claim that "all the media is like this behind the scenes" as you or someone else originally suggested.

                    Trees.

                    Media Matters: rather than a years-long pattern of behavior that has been exhaustively detailed by Media Matters, Bob Somerby, and others.

                    Forest.

                    Face it, a substantial number of pundits favored by the MSM are substantially biased in favor of Republicans. Exactly how many? Enough to warrant assumption that there's a pattern here. Did you catch that the Coulter quote I chose was against Obama? That's what we will face in the General Election campaign. Do you wish to disarm us now?

                    by Judge Moonbox on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:25:59 PM PDT

                    •  I wish us to be effective

                      in how we handle the media.  I think Clinton's approach to handling the media has largely been disasterous for her campaign.  

                      by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:28:38 PM PDT

                      •  I wish party rank and file could sue leadership

                        I wish us to be effective  
                        in how we handle the media.  I think Clinton's approach to handling the media has largely been disasterous for her campaign.

                        It's not just Clinton. I think the entire party leadership has been too concerned about looking "Conventionally Wise" and not enough about winning. That includes Obama.

                        I've been agitating for a long time, and I don't see the Obamians doing any more than the Clintonians. Indeed, I see a naivete, as though they think a media that's against Hillary now won't be against Barack in the General Election campaign.

                        by Judge Moonbox on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:34:21 PM PDT

  •  Does the media have ESP?

    Media Matters has documented some unfair treatment of Hillary Clinton by Tucvker Carlsen:

    On the November 1 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, while discussing the response by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) presidential campaign to the October 30 Democratic debate, host Tucker Carlson asked whether Clinton can "claim to be a grizzled veteran of rough and tough politics and then cry 'No fair!' when her male opponents fire a few jabs at her." Carlson then said that Clinton "clearly is playing the gender card"

    They've also archived a lot of stuff from Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough going back farthur than your alibi would have us believe.

    Another problem I have, Glendaleguy2007, is that you attribute a Liberal agenda to the media. So why is it that so many pundits are saying that the Surge is working; and not even mentioning the fact that Moqtada al-Sadr's ceasefire might be the main reason for that apparent success, let alone not explaining why he called for a ceasefire. Are you suggesting that McCain is the most Liberal candidate out there?

    Mark my words, if (or at this point, maybe I should start saying when) Obama locks up the nomination, the media bigwigs are going to turn their guns on him. Maybe many of them hate the Clintons too much--over things that have nothing to do with good government--to treat Obama unfairly (Maureen Dowd is an exception; she's already calling him "Obambi."); but when they have a clear shot, they'll take it.

    by Judge Moonbox on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:53:37 PM PDT

  •  If Hillary Slaughtered Barack in 8 Primaries in a

    row - there would be a coronation and pressure for Barack to drop out. Instead, there is every commentator saying, "Don't count a Clinton out!'

    by Jdories on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:06:44 PM PDT

  •  The press is reporting

    what it's told to report. I find it strange that you don't even question why the press (other than the ones in Chicago)has been so silent on the upcoming Rezko trial since Obama has been named in the trial briefs.  On Obama's relationship with not only Rezko but with others like William Ayers who have donated to his campaign. A big deal has been made about Clinton's tax reports, but there's nothing about Obama refusing to name the donors whose contributions have been hidden by bundling. Practically nothing has been carried about his church and the anti-semitic, anti-white rhetoric of its preacher.  

    It's coming, but not until after he has the nomination.  And I hope when it does consume every news cycle no one here will have the nerve to act surprised or injured, since research on any of this has been sorely lacking at this site. No one wants to know.

    by miriam on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:43:23 PM PDT

•  poor Clinton

  maybe Wolfson should hold another conference call so Blitzer and Tapper can devote another day to unquestioning coverage of her silly "plagiarism" campaign against Obama.

  by Stroszek on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:11:15 PM PDT

•  I don't know about all of the media,

  but Howard Kurtz loves Hillary!  Every one of his programs makes that perfectly clear.  Objectivity is not his strong suit.  The new Jeff on CNN loves Hillary also and seems to be there to only present pro-Clinton segments.  For every perceived slant toward Obama, there are plenty of pro-Clinton examples in balance.
     

  by dotster on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:11:30 PM PDT

  •  Howard Kurtz loves republicans

    There isn't one Democrat he likes. Like you say, he's transparent.  kurtz is married to a onetime republican operative (she may still be) and he's transparently republican. He gives no favorable coverage to any Democrat.

    by dougymi on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:45:20 PM PDT

  •  Begala, Brazille, and Carville Were All Reporting

    on the campaigns supposedly objectively as they were advising the Clinton Campaign

    by Jdories on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:16:45 PM PDT

•  The press is,for the first time in a long time

  very representative of the voters.

  Have you been in hibernation while Obama has won EVERY primary and caucus since Super Tuesday?

  by ctkeith on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:11:46 PM PDT

  •  again, with the facts.

    pesky things, facts.

    by agnostic on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:31:13 PM PDT

  •  Not their job to be representative.

    The media (or at least journalists and not opinion columnists) should be reporting facts.  Facts are facts.

    Many of the "newshows" are more opinion shows and more akin to infotainment than news shows

    by Santarita on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:03:44 PM PDT

    •  OK

      THE FACTS HAVE AN OBAMA BIAS!!

      He's won the last 8 contests and is favored heavily in the 2 tomorrow.He's also gone from 20 down in texas to a dead heat in the latest poll.

      by ctkeith on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:07:42 PM PDT

      •  That Fact Does

        But is that the only relevant fact?  What facts are reported and what aren't and why? (Example: The number of US soldiers that have died are reported every day by every main news outlet.  How about the total number of Iraqi dead?  Which number is bigger?  Which is more important according to the reporting?)

        How many speeches does a candidate give in a given week?

        Why are some remarks selected and not others?  Why are some images selected and not others?

        We allow the media to shape the issues and the candidates by not digging deeper and doing our thinking.

        by Santarita on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:27:55 PM PDT

        •  This is an excellent point...

          I like to use the analogy of a window.  Everything you see through a window frame is absolutely there.  It's true.  The problem is that there are things outside the frame that might case a different light on what's seen in the frame.  This is the way a journalist's camera functions.  "Facts" are nonetheless interpretations, framed, selected, yet this shouldn't lead us to dismiss them outright...  That's when things really fall into subjectivism.  Rather, we need to both recognize that things only become manifest based on distinctions and that these facts can nonetheless be valid.

          by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:25:43 PM PDT

          •  The Complete Picture

            Your analogy is apt.  I would suggest, however, that it is often necessary to capture both inside the frame and outside the frame to get  a complete nd accurate picture.  So we shouldn't ignore the facts within the frame presented by a given journalist but we should check to make sure that the facts outside of the frame presented by the journalist don't materially alter the facts presented inside the frame.  Example: looking out a window someone may see what appears to be a tranquil garden scene.  But lurking just outside the frame may be a tiger.  The fact of the garden doesn't change but a more complete picture changes the sense of tranquility.  Journalists may believe that they are presented selected facts that represent a complete picture.  But sometimes a little digging or a change of perspective provides additional facts which complete the picture in a very different way.

            by Santarita on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:02:28 PM PDT

            •  Right, this is my point

              Although the philosopher in me is itching to argue that we can never capture a completely accurate picture because our ability to indicate anything in the world requires us to frame, limit, or draw distinctions that necessarily exclude something (as the mathematician Spencer-Brown put it, "first draw a distinction!").  For example, our visual field is necessarily limited by a horizon and blind spots.  But these are all needlessly nuanced philosophical points.  The tiger example is very nice.  Usually when I talk about this I give the example of a visual where the day looks beautiful in some place like Iraq and just out of the view of the camera taking the picture a car is just exploded and people are shooting each other.  The whole idea here, of course, is that even images, which we take to be so truthful because they look like reality, are themselves a form of rhetoric by virtue of how images are always selected and bounded.

              by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:44:02 PM PDT

  •  Are you saying the voters support the Surge?

    The press is,for the first time in a long time
    very representative of the voters.

    Here is a link to an editorial in the WaPo, faulting the Democrats for not pretending the Surge is a success. This is not fact based, they don't even mention Moqtada al-Sadr, let alone explain how much his ceasefire has contributed to the drop in violence nor whether the Surge made him grow up or he's biding his time.

    To me, that seems to be McCain's position. Are you saying that the voters are as strongly for McCain as the MSM?

    by Judge Moonbox on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:34:14 PM PDT

•  on the other hand, there are plenty of things

  about Obama that are taken as a given without any real examination. like that latino voters won't vote for a black guy or that Obama is mostly rhetoric over substance.

  I'm not surprised if the press is positive towards Obama since he has won 8 straight contests and may very well win 2 more tomorrow and because Hillary now needs to win 60% of the delegates from here on out to catch up.

  by terra on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:11:50 PM PDT

  •  Actually, in TX it'll probably have to be better

    The Clinton camp's recent "discovery"

    Good lord, let’s see if I have this right. The Clinton campaign decides to cede every post-Super Tuesday state to Obama under the theory that Texas and Ohio will be strong firewalls. After – after – implementing this Rudy-esque strategy, they "discovered" that the archaic Texas rules will almost certainly result in a split delegate count (at best).

    by MingPicket on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:28:33 PM PDT

•  Of course.

  Let's elect the candidate who's hated by republicans, independents and the media!  That will show 'em.

  Seriously, I always thought that controlling your media narrative was one of the most important challenges for a candidate.

  by Mannabass on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:12:33 PM PDT

  •  In other words

    who cares if the media is practicing bad journalism, let's ignore that. Why bother demanding better journalism when we hate her too?

    Of course you ignore the fact that they will do the same to Obama when he is the nom.

    by Mike S on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:31:09 PM PDT

    •  To add to this.

      I'm quite worried about the reactions here to the bad media coverage. What is happening to her isn't new. It's happened to every Democrat in my life time. It will happen to Obama if he is the nom.

      Look back to the Bush/Gore race. The media was horrendous. The stories they manufactured destroyed him. Same with Kerry.

      If we don't demand good journalism for all we can't demand it for one.

      by Mike S on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:53:51 PM PDT

      •  Remarkably I hear these same

        arguments over at redstate about coverage of Bush and the Republicans.  Hmmm.

        by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:26:45 PM PDT

      •  You must be joking...

        Look back to the Bush/Gore race. The media was horrendous. The stories they manufactured destroyed him.

        No, his overpriced incompetent media consultants destroyed him.

        Seriously, this summer the media wrote plenty about Obama's campaign being dead in the water, the media constantly tells you that Obama has no experience (though he's held elected office longer), is just an empty suit (though he's got pages of pages of policy you can read through), that his insurance coverage isn't universal (without discussing that is because he prioritizes cost control and availability instead of mandates that, gee, sure haven't covered everyone in MA).

        Excuses excuses excuses.  It's everyone else's fault.  

        by Mannabass on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:31:53 AM PDT

    •  Uh...

      Give me an example of bad journalism, I mean, if you want to have the discussion, I'll need something a little more concrete than "The media likes Obama better."  The media has tried to strap Obama with a different narrative plenty, only thing is, it doesn't stick because his campaign controls their media narrative effectively.
      That is the problem with the Clinton campaign, no control, just excuse after excuse after excuse.  The media doesn't like me.  Those are caucus states.  Those are red states.  None of them matters blah blah blah

      by Mannabass on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:23:53 AM PDT

•  Also, a key point now

  is that both the Obama and Clinton campaign have acknowledged that there is essentially almost no chance that the primaries will end with Obama not leading in pledged delegates.  Both sides essentially acknowledge that Obama will be the winner of the popular vote.  When Clinton was perceived to be the frontrunner, she got the coverage of a frontrunner, since the voting began Obama has proven himself to be the frontrunner, and has gotten the coverage of a frontrunner.  I agree that Obama has gotten much more positive coverage than Clinton, and some of it is unfair, but there seems to be the position that any positive coverage that Obama gets and any negative coverage that Clinton gets is unwarrented — this is not the case.

  by ggottlie on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:14:37 PM PDT

  •  There's been a marked tendency among

    certain Clinton supporters to detach the negative coverage from its "why's" and "wherefore's".  That is, it's presented as if it's just a conspiracy against the Clintons based on irrational "Hillary Hate" rather than a response to genuinely deplorable actions on the part of the campaign.  We see a similar tendency here on Dailykos, where it's perpetually said that Clinton is the object of irrational and unfair attacks, as if the criticism Clinton receives weren't prompted by dishonest or false claims or by the egregious rhetoric of her supporters.  Yes, there are instances of unfair coverage and unfair treatment here, but I think they're generally rather small in proportion to the amount of coverage and the number of comments and diaries posted here.

    by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:33:25 PM PDT

•  Frankly

  the press is and has been for the longest time pro-Hillary, to the extent that there is a bias. That inevitability idea? Guess where that came from?

  by MBNYC on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:15:07 PM PDT

  •  BWAHAHAHAHAHA

    Has been for the longest time "pro-Hillary"?
    What planet have you been living on?

    by skohayes on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:18:06 PM PDT

    •  Planet Earth.

      She's gotten the lion's share of the coverage, one puff piece after another for months on end, the list goes on. Like I said, inevitability.

      by MBNYC on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:33:30 PM PDT

      •  yup - the media never has examined her

        claim of "experience" and "ready on day one" even though it's basically a load of you know what . . Similarly, there has been precious little attention focused on the danger of a possible "co-presidency" even though it is without precedent and is incompatible with basic democratic principles.

        by alba on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:47:49 PM PDT

  •  I don't think that's quite fair

    The 'cackle', too much cleavage, pantsuit, facelift, diamonds or pearls, and so on is just unacceptable. They may have bought into the inevitable meme and given her a boost from that, but that's as much pro-Dem bias as pro-Hillary. On personal stuff, they've been insanely petty - and have been since the 90s.

    by johnsonwax on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:28:03 PM PDT

    •  chris matthews is but one of hundreds of media

      voices - then there is the fawning CNN, which systematically denied Obama's delegate lead for as long as it possibly could . .  

      by alba on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:49:05 PM PDT

    •  Dean's "Scream" Lost Him the Election, And many

      men have dropped out of elections after crying...

      by Jdories on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:20:13 PM PDT

  •  Not to mention Emphasizing Obama's Biggest

    polls, so that it is a let down when he only wins by a few points.

    by Jdories on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:18:43 PM PDT

•  She had it better than Biden / Dodd whose

  Senatorial credentials exceeded hers.

  Who promised an "even playing field" anyway?

  by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:17:06 PM PDT

  •  damn if this race were between Dodd and Obama

    I would be bubbling with endless happiness.

    by Stroszek on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:18:37 PM PDT

  •  yup - the media has given HRC a huge

    pass on her fabricated claim of endless "experience." Both Biden and Dodd have so much more experience that she does yet they gained no traction and HRC's experience claim was never debunked by the media.

    by alba on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:36:14 PM PDT

•  Hillary's always the victim

  Just ask her.

  by Jeffrey Kohan on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:18:07 PM PDT

  •  Do we really want to

    be lead by a person who has such unfortunate luck, always miraculously finding themselves in the position of the victim and never herself being responsible for how people respond to her?

    by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:35:12 PM PDT

  •  So the press coverage has been fair?

    Edwards shutout and now ... Whatever, lets all stop thinking and go with who the msm chooses for us.

    by freeman11 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:36:18 PM PDT

    •  i do believe

      it's voters who are doing the choosing.

      by pacified on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:44:19 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, i am an Obama Guy, but the Edwards Coverage

      was very very unfair.

      by Jdories on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:21:38 PM PDT

•  There's no media bias against Hillary that

  doesn't coincide with how the majority of Americans feel about her.  Reporters are people too.  If they think she's duplicitous, it's pretty hard to suppress that.  Sometimes a candidate's portrayal in the press is exactly the portrayal the candidate deserves.

  by Man in Black on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:18:11 PM PDT

•  The press is obsessed with the contest.

  ... and now that Obama is on a roll, and McCain has practically sewn up the GOP nomination, the media wants to get to the final, two-person horserace: GOP versus the Dem candidate.

  They want to stop having to cover Huckabee and having to figure out delegate counts.  They want GOP 527s slamming the Dem candidate.  They want REAL contrasts on the issues.  They want to MOVE ON from the Democratic race.

  by pkohan on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:25:37 PM PDT

•  yes, Howard Kurtz is right--this time

  If you have any doubt, check the super delegate controversy and the threats against members of the Congressional Black Caucus that support Senator Clinton:
  http://www.reflectivepundit.com/...

  by Brigitte on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:25:45 PM PDT

•  The press covers

  what's moving, as simple as that.  Imagine news reports that didn't cover what is moving:  "Today, for the 1,654,000th day, no one was killed in Antarctica.  Back to you Philip."  Given the disproportionate coverage your gal got early in the primary, you folks really flummox me with your willingness to call victim and project a conspiracy behind everything that doesn't go your way.

  by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:26:30 PM PDT

  •  OMG all the Edwards peps have left dkos n/t

    by freeman11 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:38:27 PM PDT

    •  I haven't the faintest clue

      as to what witticism you're trying to make here.

      by Philoguy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:48:50 PM PDT

•  Where was Kurtz's "objectivity"

  when Edwards was being relentlessly non-covered? You know, the other senator with national-level funding and similar record of experience to the two pre-chosen ones? Sorry Howie, you don't have enough credibility to being making meta calls like this.

  by CJnyc on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:29:00 PM PDT

  •  Yup - Kurtz is not exactly the best

    source to substantiate a claim of media bias as he has been in the tank himself for years . .

    by alba on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:38:11 PM PDT

•  your title is wrong

  the Post, as a publication, did not "call out" as you describe it.  It was not an editorial, it is Howard Kurtz's column, which is something entirely different.

  by teacherken on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:30:12 PM PDT

•  The truth is biased against Hillary

  Hillary receives more negative coverage because she says and does more things that are obnoxious and/or untrue.  She is a mean-spirited, arrogant demagogue who fills her campaign with incompetent cronies and the worst cutthroat bastard operatives the Democratic party has to offer.  Her entire campaign is based on spinning lies about her opponents on both policy and character issues.  She's constantly violating the ethical boundaries most Democrats envision for within-party contests.  

  The media has let some of this slip through.

  That's bias?

  by Troutnut on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:37:29 PM PDT

•  Howard Kurtz

  is bought and paid for...a real ass.

  by shlenny on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:44:34 PM PDT

  •  He's the press secretary

    for the "village". Whatever the village thinks, that's what kurtz reports. They don't like Clinton, so that's the way kurtz feels. He knows nothing that the village doesn't know.  He's bought and paid for, all right; by mccain.

    by dougymi on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:50:43 PM PDT

•  Facts

  As I read through the comments to this diary, a number of allegations  were made regarding dishonest and false statements and egregious rhetoric.  I was hoping to see some facts or at least examples that would substantiate the allegations.  

  by Santarita on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:16:41 PM PDT

•  I studiously ignore..

  ..anything Howie Kurtz writes.  Especially because he often critiques TV coverage for the Washington Post, while being employed by CNN; a station, that coincidentally has a pro-HRC bias.

  by sofia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:33:05 PM PDT

•  Before Super Tuesday the media created

  Obama momentum that wasn't real. They had him tied in CA, threatening in NY and on and on. The fact that Hillary won NY, NJ, CA, AZ, AK, TN, etc on Super Tuesday has been consistently downplayed and somehow Obama won Super Tuesday.

  The polls said he was up by 20 going into NH -- again creating a false momentum. Hillary is winning among Democrats, but yet the media keeps wanting to make like she's behind.

  If Independents and the GOP pick the democratic nominee we are all doomed. McCain will laugh his way into the Whitehouse.

  Absolutely the media is playing a role in this whole thing -- they don't report on the sexism, they mimic the GOP anti-Hillary language, and create an illusion of Obama being a stronger candidate than he is.

  Without an unbiased press we lose our democracy...the reason Bush has been able to trash the constitution without going to prison for treason -- the press. Most people go through their days without even recognizing that we are a nation at war. That's because the press doesn't cover it day in and day out like they did Vietnam. Just the idea that we would nominate a freshman senator without any armed services or foreign policy experience is ludicrous. I don't care how much hope he has.

  by seattlegonz on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:05:36 PM PDT

•  Did you all enjoy this?

  Washington Post: Markos "Kos" Moulitsas, the most prominent liberal blogger, voted for Obama in the California primary and has been ridiculing Clinton's campaign.

  I've been here at dkos a long time and can remember when it was the place to come for well researched diaries, good comments from every perspective, and fine wit.  It's sad that the flavor of this site has become so bitter, the wit mostly sarcastic and mean-spirited, and the sense of community gone for all but the most partisan.  I know Markos has moved on to bigger notoriety, but I can't say it's better notoriety.  In the past couple of months this site has lost almost everything I valued in it, including the level-headed, essentially pro-Democratic stance of it owner.  It's been unpleasantly enlightening to see him so publicly "ridiculing" a Democrat who may yet be the party's nominee.

  Many good people have left here and I'll soon be among them.  Obama's "unity and hope" thematic has proved to be divisive and depressing.  It's an example that should give pause to those who believe this man can bring this country together.        

  by miriam on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:19:08 PM PDT