A big part of Newt Gingrich's popularity has to do with his debate performances, which could be boiled down to a criticism of the media. While Gingrich is right, there are problems with the media, it’s not exactly how he sees it.
II feel for John King. I really do. He's moderating a Republican debate at the time that one of the new front-runner’s ex-wife is saying he asked for an open marriage. Given Newt Gingrich's stance on same-sex marriage, and how the conservatives of South Carolina are probably not fans of "open marriages", this is fairly obvious question to
ask. I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Of course, Newt being Newt, he absolutely crucifies King and the debate crowd loves it because, damn you media for bringing this up.
Since the 2008 election, I've been pseudo-fascinated with how the right views the traditional media. You ask them about something they don't know? That's "gotcha journalism". Ask about past positions? That was then, this is now. Ask about events in their past that are maybe not so flattering? How dare you, that's despicable. Since voters on the right typically distrust the traditional media, this works fairly well. Sarah Palin isn't unqualified because she can't name a Supreme Court decision other than Roe vs. Wade that she disagrees with. Katie Couric is bad for asking it. Newt Gingrich didn't do anything wrong by carrying on extra-marital affairs and allegedly asking his second wife for an open marriage. John King is despicable for asking about it.
I will give Newt some credit. The timing of ABC News’s interview with Marianne Gingrich is, to say the least, inconvenient for him. But, as the post I linked to earlier says, its not bad journalism to ask a candidate this question when a vote is looming. Instead, that's why it’s important. Voters should get to hear Newt's side of the story. I'd legitimately like to hear it. But when he takes King to task for even asking it, part of me just assumes that what his ex-wife said is true. (I believe Gingrich did deny the accusation) Gingrich wants to change the topic, but the question is still there.
On the right we reach a paradox of sorts. They want the media to treat GOP candidates with kid gloves while taking Democrats to task for everything. This is why the question about Newt Gingrich's infidelity is taboo, even though the former speaker is possibly most famous for leading the charge to impeach Bill Clinton for being unfaithful. Its like when Tucker Carlson criticizes Jon Stewart for asking John Kerry soft questions despite the fact that Jon Stewart works for Comedy Central, not an actual news station. (One could argue that Stewart SHOULD ask tougher questions, and I believe he does more than he's given credit for, but that's for another day). Carlson says to Stewart "you're not doing your job", but one can't help but wonder that if Stewart asked George W. Bush the same questions if Carlson would be happy with it.
I'd agree that there are issues with the way the media covers campaigns. But I don't think that it’s based off of what questions are being asked. I think the biggest problem in how the media covers campaigns, especially primaries where there are multiple candidates, is that it focuses on one or two main candidates and then ignores the rest of them.
Let's say you are an undecided voter in the South Carolina primary, or even the Florida primary coming up later this month. Doesn't it feel that you've been given two choices, even though there are four people in the race? Most if not all of the press coverage is on Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul aren't given nearly as much coverage. There's four people in the race, yet in Politico's recap from last night they talk about Paul "frantically waving his arms" to get the attention of King. If you were an undecided voter, wouldn't you feel a bit irked that you didn't get to hear from all four candidates?
Some of this has to do with money, and how networks have to decide how to best spend it. No media outlet is ever going to be able to cover every town hall or speech, but I don't feel that they ever truly try. Over the summer, CNN joked on the air about how they wouldn't cover Ron Paul. As much as I disagree with him on his views, I will agree with his supporters that he is woefully under covered. It should not be up to the media to anoint the winners and losers of a political campaign, and yet I get the feeling that sometimes that's the way that it is becoming.
This year, it is easy for us on the left to dismiss these issues. But we should not. Because in four years, the Democrats will have a Presidential Primary and at the on-set, we will pick our favorites and watch the drama unfold. And I can guarantee that there will be posts about the ignoring of this candidate and the media's preferred treatment of another one. It should be up to us, the voters, to make these choices. The media's job is to be fair to all candidates and ask the questions that we need to make that choice.