The media does much more than report on the results of a political race. It acts as a referee, especially in the race for the presidency, with power to enforce the rules of the game that goes much farther than any other entity.
It has been obvious for some time that, the so-called ‘mainstream media’ has two rulebooks for the same race: an EASY/BEGINNER one for the republican candidates, and an IMPOSSIBLE/EXPERT for the democratic candidates. This favoritism of the media towards candidates of one party is a disease of society that is undermining democracy, and it’s time to stop taking this disease for granted, as treating the symptoms serves only to make the disease worse. Details are below the fold.
The favoritism of the media towards republicans has been on display for all to see in every nationwide campaign since Bush-Dukakis, and is on display this year as much as ever, as seen in controversies like Wright (impulsive) vs. Hagee (repulsive). That comparison between those two ideas of preaching has been made ad nauseam. Lest we fall for the distraction that this is all about the influence of religion on politics, here are a few others:
- When McCain confuses Shiites and Sunnis, Al-Quaeda and Hezbollah, Iraq troop levels, or who calls the shots in Iran, it’s not treated as seriously a ‘gaffe’ as Barack and Michelle’s ‘fist bump’ (which I hope to see become the kossacks’ greeting of choice, by the way.
- Speaking of Michelle Obama, being assertive in public speaking is treated as a greater liability to the candidate than being a pill thief like Cindy McCain.
- Jim Johnson's loans are treated as a more serious liability than McCain’s Phil Gramm's revolving doors or Charlie Black's
Previous races show that the effects of this have been catastrophic for the outcome of the election and for the country. This bias led the Gore campaign, instead of focusing on the problem, to treat the symptoms, which Gore did very well. To a fault, actually, because if one wants to completely eliminate so-called ‘gaffes’ like fist bumps, is to churn out a robotic stage performance, for which Gore got attacked in turn. Even worse, four years later, the desertion of national guardsman Bush from home front duty got a fraction of the attention of the swift boat lies about Kerry.
All this can’t surprise anymore. What is surprising is that some are still expecting the media to somehow realize their bias, and correct it. The reasons are many, but they boil down to this: just like the 3 branches of formal government, over the last few decades, the media has been infiltrated and taken over by interests who are now using it to their maximum advantage, and at the expense of everybody else that is supposed to be served by them. The media’s mission therefore is to skew the public perception as much as possible to do without losing a claim to impartiality.
In order to accomplish this mission, the media does more than apply a different set of rules to each party’s candidates. It engages in the following tactics:
(1) it keeps the citizens away from the topic where their interest is being undermined by those who control the media;
(2) if it not possible to deal with the topic, it treats it cursorily and focuses on peripheral points to the detriment of the important ones;
(3) if it can’t avoid dealing with the main points, it manufactures and promotes dissenting voices from the inconvenient ones, however preposterous, with the aim of confusing and deflecting from the main points
(4) it offers disproportionate airtime to a reactionary ideology that is entirely unrooted in facts and is for that reason, deeply self-contradictory.
To those who may be tempted to reply smugly that this last tactic only works with a minority of deeply flawed intellects, I reply, that it may very well, but that isn’t the only reason for putting the o’reillys and coulters on nonstop. The objective is to crowd out the places where ideas are on display in order to leave the rational and progressive ideas out.
This is a topic for another diary, but let me just say that the single biggest gripe I have with the progressive blogosphere is that it spends way too much bandwidth on the histrionics and hysterics of pro-repub mouthpieces. That removes the opportunity for a common set of concepts and a common progressive culture to emerge.
We can’t let the current unity around the idea of getting rid of the worst leaders this country has ever had since independence mask the fact that the progressive movement is deeply divided internally. One of the reasons for that division is that there has been no space for a common culture, based on common concepts, to develop. So, one thing we are very, very good at doing here is at arguing, and I expect many objections to the idea that we should treat the disease at least as much as the symptoms. Here are a few typical ones.
I expect the objection that the media is showing favoritism to McCain only because ‘the media loves to have a close’ race and is helping out McCain not because he is the repub-money candidate, but because he is some kind of ‘underdog’. To that I say, sorry, it doesn’t explain the half of what is going on. Who seriously believes that the same would happen if the shoe was on the other foot?
Another objection to this I expect is that we, the democrats, do not need to rein in the media because our message is better. To that I say, the message that leaves our lips may be better, but the message which reaches the ears of most people isn’t, because the media has seen to that. The self-selecting blogosphere may be great to lead and organize, but to bring the overwhelming majority on board, we need enough of the passive receivers as well.
Another reply I expect is that we are going to win anyway, so let’s just make sure that the gap between us and the republicans is overwhelmingly large and we’ll be have enough to overcome the media favoritism of the repubs. To that I say, there is no good reason to settle for a marginal victory when all the conditions should be a crushing and final rout of our opponents. Besides that, the greater the gap between Obama and McCain, the harder the media is going to work in order to close it. And the media favoritism will extend beyond the election, as the Clinton years attest.
Another reply I expect is that we have all the transformational leaders we need to bring this to a successful outcome. It is true that for a century, we have had all the real leaders: the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Kings and the movement in a progressive direction has been impressive as a result. In fact, of the three celebrated ‘transformational’ leaders on the conservative side (Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich) the first is a joke, the second a tragic fraud, and the last a pathetic flop. However, even our own transformational leaders have a tendency to appear irregularly, with an average frequency about generational, and tragically, but only on the progressive side, they have a disproportionately high untimely mortality, caused by opposition to their otherwise unstoppable momentum.
I, for one, I am not interested in telling the next generation that mine passed on its opportunity because Mr. or Ms. Ideal-and-Perfect-Charismatic-Leader didn’t show up, and as a result their position at the starting blocks is worse than that of my grandparents’. Please do not read this as an oblique lack of trust in Barack Obama. Obama himself makes it clear that we need to be rely on ourselves, not just on him, and that is one of his core messages. The odds of succeeding in reclaiming all the dimensions of power are immensely greater with a Barack Obama presidential candidate. The results, on the other hand, are much more dependent on what all of us do with that opportunity.
Another reply I expect is that we do not have time or money to acquire the big media companies in time to make a difference in this election, so we should just accept the media favoritism of McCain and live with it. To that I say, we can still accomplish a lot by putting them on the defensive, exposing their games, and undermining them in the short term, even as we work to regain control in the long term. Exposing the double standards, challenging the questioners and reporters, threatening regulatory action and dragging their management into the spotlight, are all things that can be started TODAY by controlling congress, the blogosphere, and advocacy groups, and being present everywhere else. Congressional hearings should begin immediately, featuring executives under oath (if all they are doing is speaking their mind, let them come and say so under oath, or are they hiding something?"), Al-Gore-quality statistical charts, non-stop press conferences, whistleblowers, and a new, draconian version of fairness doctrine with Arthur-Andersen-like penalties, looming on the horizon. The one thing that won’t work, however, and it’s been done to the point of numbness, is to waste time by shaming them in front of the same internet audience alone again and again. It must be done, and blatantly, in front of the passive receivers. Again, the point is not to convict or shut down anybody, but to put the spotlight on the favoritism and put the media who play favorites on the defensive. That would be enough for now.
There will be those who bleat about freedom of the press, To that I have to say, freedom is not the same as unchecked abuse of power. Besides, freedom of the press has already been trampled upon by those who are controlling it now. Owners have been pushed out. Shareholders have been silenced. Advertisements have been withheld and threats made. Dissenters have been fired and the others muzzled. So, if there was freedom of the press at one time, it isn’t there anymore. There is only the abuse of the press by those who control it now, and tolerance of such abuse in the name of freedom of the press, which is supremely ironic.
There may be other replies, but most of them, in one form or another, boil down to rationalizations of the fact that we feel entitled to prevail on the force of our righteousness and the caliber of our leaders and ourselves. This would keep us from getting our hands dirty with ‘unsportly’, if not distasteful, tactics. To that I say, winning on the merits works ONLY if we are fighting with the same weapons as our opponents. We must make sure we do, everywhere and all the time. The alternative isn’t good enough for our children and grandchildren, who will have to live in a world that could be much better or even far worse, depending the outcome of this struggle.
I promise to continue this discussion in a diary that focuses especially on what we need to do to rein in the favoritism in the media, in time for the election, but it took me a while already to put all this stuff into a diary. However, I also promise to use as much of the points made in the discussion, in putting together the next one.