No doubt when the media reports favorably on us or our candidate, we don't see this as bias. Instead we see this a fair. They got it right.
When media reporting is unfavorable or embarrassing to us, the idea of bias more readily springs to mind.
Newspapers routinely endorse candidates. When Hillary Clinton received the NY Times endorsement early on, I don't recall hearing that she turned it down with an explanation that she is against media bias.
She felt she deserved that endorsement. Hillary (by her own admission) feels, in her heart-of-hearts, that she is the best candidate for president. Many people surrounding her will say the same thing. I'm not going to debate that opinion. Hillary believes it to be true. She believes she is more electable. Yet electability, like love, is in the eye of the beholder. And while I might believe in my heart-of-hearts that I should win American Idol, that doesn't mean everyone else will agree.
As this race has progressed, Hillary has lost her lead. She has managed to lose her lead in the polls (in some cases where she is still ahead, she has lost significant points.) She has managed to lose in delegate count. (Delegate count as recognized by the rules.) And she's managed to squander her incredible name recognition and at the same time drive the powerful Clinton political machinery, left behind by her husband, into a ditch -- all while competing against a relatively unknown black man with a funny name. Then too, there is the enviable lead she had in Super Delegates which is now down to an insignificant difference, and likely will be lost altogether in the coming month.
We all know the reasons. The 4-Ts. Tone, Tactics, Temperament and Ties -- Ties to the likes of Mark Penn and... well... ironically Bill Clinton. His taking $800,000 to lobby for trade agreements in Colombia is just a recent spate of problems he has caused his wife -- for the obvious reason that it is difficult to believe a candidate who claims she is against such agreements while surrounding herself with its supporters.
I'm not going to cover Hillary's problems in depth here. We are a politically astute group and those of us who are not familiar with Clintons gaffs on the campaign trail can research articles here and elsewhere if we choose to do so.
Instead, what I'm going to argue is that Hillary's attempt to paint the media as biased, is really just another campaign ploy. Some have called it "working the refs."
But it is a disingenuous ploy when you consider the situation.
Here a DKos, we've seen this site take on a decidedly pro-Obama slant in recent months. Many times I've seen Clinton supporters bemoaning this fact. MoveOn.org formally endorsed Obama after taking a vote of it's members which was overwhelmingly in favor of endorsing him. Other media outlets too have endorsed Obama -- both overtly, as the Rolling Stones and LA Times have -- and unofficially, like Keith Olberman and many of the Air American personalities. I'm sure you can name more.
Here is the point of argument:
The first newspaper I saw endorse any candidate was the NY Times' endorsement of Clinton. Lately (and especially among more progressive outlets) the endorsements, overt or otherwise, have favored Obama.
This is not a symptom of a Vast Left-wing Media Conspiracy. It is a matter of choice. Had MoveOn.org decided a year earlier to take a vote of its members, that vote might have favored Clinton (due heavily to name recognition). But as time has passed, and people have had a chance to learn about and consider these two candidates, more seem to be drawn to Obama.
This is called "making a decision." In the big picture, it is the result of a competition. Those judging have to, at some point, make a choice. Many of us (including higher-ups in the Democratic party) would like to see the Super Delegates make their decisions soon -- certainly sooner than on the convention floor.
Hillary herself has argued that the Super Delegates are free agents and can choose the candidate they feel is best suited for the job. Her arguments for them to choose her -- most of which I find unconvincing -- are aimed at eliciting that decision.
Yet as we see with Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama, the Clintons feel that if the decision doesn't favor them, then it is traitorous and inherently unfair. Obviously they would not be calling Richardson a Judas had his endorsement come to them.
The same is true of the media. As time has passed and those in the media have seen the Tone, Tactics, Temperament and Ties of the two remaining candidates, they have made their decisions to support Obama -- either through outright endorsements or through something the Clintons see as unfair: The efforts of the media to report accurately and fully on the unappealing side of the candidate they have decided against... instead of giving them a pass or looking the other way.
Trusted media, of course, is accurate in regards to both camps. And just like the Super Delegates, can change their mind right up until the final vote is cast.
But when the facts don't favor a candidate, reporting as if both sides as if they are equal, when they are not, is not journalism. Nor is it fair treatment. Fair, means accurate. It doesn't mean that if you spend 20 hours of air time exploring Clintons ties to Penn, a central figure in the Clinton campaign, and how much influence he has had in her campaign and in her life -- that you have to balance that coverage by manufacturing 20 hours of time exploring Obama's church and his retired minister. A person who, as much as you may disagree with his statements, is not a central figure in Obama's campaign.
Reporting fairly and making a choices as the candidates become more defined by their own campaigns is not a conspiracy. It is not unfair. It is simply a fact of life. This is politics and politics requires that, at some point, you make a decision on the candidates and choose one over the other.
The Clinton's are always saying how they love the fight -- how they love campaigning and they love the race. But one has to suspect that Bill's invitation to "saddle up and have a discussion" is really an invitation to "saddle up and go along for a ride" -- so long as Bill has the reigns.
The truth is, they only love it if they are winning.
When the ride doesn't go their way, or an endorsement falls to the other camp, they cry foul and show poor sportsmanship.
Rational people know that you can't have it both ways. The people at DKos spent months analyzing campaign stories, and the worst they could pin on Obama was something that his ex minister said 6-years ago that is taken out of context... and regardless of the context, could be see from the point of a black man as not all that over the line (especially when you consider MLK said many of the same things in slightly different language.) Or that one of his staff called Clinton a monster -- a situation that was dealt with immediately including a sincere apology to Clinton from the staffer as well as her release from the campaign.
And then they analyze the Clinton campaign stories including her lack of payment of bills and financial mismanagement of her campaign; surrogates like Ferraro making racially insensitive and ignorant comments and then refusing to apologize and instead playing the victim; or NAFTA-gate which includes, in my mind, everything from "Shame on you Barack Obama", right up to the recent revelations of Hillary's promoting of NAFTA as First Lady; And her top advisor, Mark Penn, along with her husband working to promote similar trade deals. Yes, the list is longer. But lets stop there.
These Clinton problems are large-picture issues. They raise questions on her judgement, her ability to manage something as large and complex as a campaign, and her ability to make good choices in the people she surrounds herself with and counts on for advice.
For media to make a choice -- Choosing to back Barack Obama -- is not media bias. It is politics. It is the point of the entire process.
Unfortunately for the Clintons, it's not a guarantee. A fair race means you don't have any guarantees. The outcome is determined by how well you run and the strength of your ideas and message. You win some, you lose some.
So when you hear the claim by the Clintons of media bias, think of this argument: Is this bias? Or is this simply the citizens of this country, including those in the media, making a decision after a long, hard campaign?
After all, isn't that decision what it's all about?
Permalink | 30 comments