Obama's secret weapon: the media

[journalist3072]

Obama's secret weapon: the media

By JOHN F. HARRIS & JIM VANDEHEI | 4/18/08 7:05 PM EST


My, oh my, but weren’t those fellows from ABC News rude to Barack Obama at this week’s presidential debate.

Nothing but petty, process-oriented questions, asked in a prosecutorial tone, about the Democratic front-runner’s personal associations and his electability. Where was the substance? Where was the balance?

Where indeed. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her aides have been complaining for months about imbalance in news coverage. For the most part, the reaction to her from the political-media commentariat has been: Stop whining.


-snip-

The shower of indignation on Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos over the last few days is the clearest evidence yet that the Clintonites are fundamentally correct in their complaint that she has been flying throughout this campaign into a headwind of media favoritism for Obama.

Last fall, when NBC’s Tim Russert hazed Clinton with a bunch of similar questions — a mix of fair and impertinent — he got lots of gripes from Clinton supporters.

But there was nothing like the piling on from journalists rushing to validate the Obama criticisms and denouncing ABC’s performance as journalistically unsound.

The response was itself a warning about a huge challenge for reporters in the 2008 cycle: preserving professional detachment in a race that will likely feature two nominees, Obama and John McCain, who so far have been beneficiaries of media cheerleading.

In fact, the balance of political questions (15) to policy questions (13) was more substantive than other debates this year that prompted no deluge of protests. The difference is that this time there were more hard questions for Obama than for Clinton.

Moreover, those questions about Jeremiah Wright, about Obama’s association with 1960s radical William Ayers, about apparent contradictions between his past and present views on proven wedge issues like gun control, were entirely in-bounds. If anything, they were overdue for a front-runner and likely nominee.

If Obama was covered like Clinton is, one feels certain the media focus would not have been on the questions, but on a candidate performance that at times seemed tinny, impatient and uncertain.

The difference seems clear: Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.

(Harris only here: As one who has assigned journalists to cover Obama at both Politico and The Washington Post, I have witnessed the phenomenon several times. Some reporters come back and need to go through detox, to cure their swooning over Obama’s political skill. Even VandeHei seemed to have been bitten by the bug after the Iowa caucus.)

(VandeHei only here: There is no doubt reporters are smitten with Obama's speeches and promises to change politics. I find his speeches, when he's on, pretty electric myself. It certainly helps his cause that reporters also seem very tired of the Clintons and their paint-by-polls approach to governing.)


Entire article at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9718.html

[rainy]

1. The media hit hillary with her own lies and distortions. They hit Obama

unjustly for not wearing a flag pin, questioning his patriotism, for the people he has known. Now, if they hit Hillary for every crook or loonie she has had associations with or anyone else in politics then I would say the media was playing fair. But, they are determined to destroy the populist's choice, Obama. They will stop at nothing. So this post is nonsense. Why are the media not screaming about all the republicans' connections to the moonies and those chazy preachers they hang with?

[ruggerson]

15. Ridiculous

case in point:

when Hillary tried to dodge the driver's license question in one of the debates early on, we spent the next week hearing from every newspaper, talk radio outlet and television station that she was someone who would "say anything" and take both sides of an issue to get elected.

Nevermind the fact that Obama tried to (not very eloquently) dodge the exact same question in the exact same debate. The media reaction: silence, because their story was about pouncing on Hillary.

The OP is dead on correct.

1) The political media is very DC-centric. The beltway pundits covered Clinton scandals for eight years and are tired of it. They don't want to return to it.

2) Hillary is famous for courting the people, not the press. She dislikes and distrusts the press, and in return, they go out of their way to mischaracterize and disparage her.

[shadowknows69]

2. If you were really a journalist you would have seent that debate

For the farce that it was. There is no defending it. We need to go back to the days of newspaper reporters asking our candidates questions. They know there's more to a story than a 5 second sound bite.

[journalist3072]

7. Grow up. You've got your panties in a not just because your candidate was asked some questions....

he was being held accountable.

And that ticks you off.

If your candidate doesn't like being held accountable, why is he running for President?

[americanstranger]

9. You sound bitter.

- as

[shadowknows69]

12. No, actually, I was trained as a journalist and have practiced it

And I know biased, I can't even call it moderating, when I see it.

[bain_sidhe]

3. This is one of the things in my mix of calculations

that led me to decide that Obama has a better chance of winning the GE. (**edited to add, the "one of the things" I mention is the fact that the media likes him**)

(Let me be clear, I think either of them would be a good president, I'm not anti-either. I love them both for different reasons, so don't take anything I say as a diss on Hillary or I'll come back and rant at you. I just want to see a Democrat win in November.)

But you know, this article adds another element I hadn't considered before. I really hate the way Obama supporters *here* seem to swarm like angry hornets at any slight they perceive toward Obama... but, it occurs to me that, if they turn that behavior on the media, we might *actually* see some benefit from it. In large part, rightwingers got where they are, in terms of favorable media treatment, by working the refs. I relish the idea of our side FINALLY doing the same.

[journalist3072]

6. So you think the media should be in the business of "liking" a particular presidential candidate?

Sorry...but the media's job is to do their research, report the facts, and ask the critical questions of our public figures.

The fact that the media likes Obama should be of grave concern to you, because it means most like that if Obama were to be elected, we would have another unaccountable President for the next four years.

Remember, the media likes George W. Bush. And we see where that has gotten us.

[bain_sidhe]

17. It's not what I think, it's what IS that counts

Fact, media bias has played a HUGE role in the past two elections, and IMHO, is the main thing that cost our candidates the elections in 2000 and 2004 (Neither one should have been close enough to steal, but they were, because the media relentlessly promoted bush with favorable coverage, and relentlessly denigrated both Kerry and Gore with stupid and unfair "memes.")

I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. But it's what IS. And I'll be damned if we shouldn't take it into account when trying to figure out which candidate has at least a *chance* of escaping that dynamic. We know Clinton doesn't. We've already seen open media hostility toward her, and she's not even the candidate yet.

Although large swaths of the media are clearly "in the tank" for McCain, we at least have a *chance* of leveling the media playing field (whether or not we like or approve of that field as it is) with Obama.

That's my take. You're free to disagree with it, but I don't think any reasonable person would disagree that we have to go to the election with the media we have, not the media we wish we had.

**edtied for tyops**

[TML]

4. I don't know about this

I was watching CNN Headline News a few minutes ago and they advertised HRC's upcoming appearance on Monday night. The hook? Will their converation change your vote? I'm not making this up. If you watch Ballot Bowl later today, I'm sure you'll see it with your own eyes.

The MSM fix for HRC is in.

[scarletwoman]

5. This is from politico.com. Why are you posting right wing propaganda here?

It's absolutely ridiculous, posting this crap as though politico.com has ANY legitimacy whatsoever.

Pathetic.

[ruggerson]

19. Politico has been far kinder to Obama than Clinton

and they admit as much in this piece.

[scarletwoman]

20. That makes no difference. Politico.com has NO legitimacy, period.

Using a link from politico.com to "prove" a point is like taking a PR news release from Exxon to "prove" global climate change isn't happening.

In other words, it's a farce. Politico.com is just another branch of the corporate establishment media and it serves the same masters.

[americanstranger]

8. Two more journos who miss the point.

They keep calling them 'tough questions.'

They weren't. they were stupid questions, meaningless questions, lame questions.

There's a difference, and a lot of journalists apparently can't see it.

- as

[BlooInBloo]

10. DUers and their Drudgico lies... Sigh.

EDIT: Forgot the "r". Heh.

[ruggerson]

11. The journalists are in the "ok, so we are incredibly biased, but honest enough to admit it" mode

[ginnyinWI]

13. No, it's the way each of them reacts to the media.

Hillary should stop whining, because being a whiner doesn't get you anywhere. Obama is more likely to crack a joke about it, which is much more effective. You can't blame Obama for being able to use the media to better advantage. Don't whine and complain endlessly, just work with the media you have, keep your complaints to yourself, and roll with the punches.

The best thing to happen to get the media to sit up and take notice, though, is when others attack them, rather than the campaigns themselves. When independent journalists and citizens raised an outcry, it meant more.

[Hutzpa]

14. Are you really a Journalist? nooooooo

you are not a journalist, YOU my friend is a pretender to travesty,
continuation of instigation, insinuation and distorted truth to
please your pay masters.

The American media has helped destroy a profession once thought sacred,
because of greed and personal affiliation the media has become a
second fiddle, where politician who are not so bright has used it to
their advantage and helped destroy potential candidates.

YOU have the guts to actually complain after all the destruction the Fourth
Estate has helped create, your estate is partly responsible for the Iraq War,
the economy, high gas prices, foreclosures, health care and education you want
me to go on...I doubt that, now you making a case that asking Obama questions
about lapel pin, association with Rev Wright and Weatherman are question
people want to know about.

The media constantly refused to asked tough questions, questions that should
have save this country from where it is right now, and you guys are screaming
foul because people can no longer condone the media inability to investigate
and report news.

The bottom line is this, if the media wants to asked questions, do so but
be fair, McCain, Hillary and Obama has associated with people who have
bad records, but singling out one person for persecution is totally unfair
and calls for media bias.

[Hutzpa]

16. delete - double post

[Faygo Kid]

18. This so totally misses the point. It's about substance. Clinton desperately spinning it otherwise.

The problem with the questions isn't that they were tough, it's that they were STUPID. For an hour, there wasn't a single substantive question asked. None! Don't give me the "balance" crap; I saw the "debate." Now the Clinton camp is twisting the whole sorry episode to characterize it as Obama not being "tough" enough.

Single moms without health care, kids coming home from Iraq with no legs, middle-aged jobless with no prospects - that's truly tough, and that's what the debate should have been about. Clinton's spinning is another desperate tactic of a failed campaign.

[Awsi Dooger]

21. You don't get mocking names like The Obama Network (MSNBC) without basic truth

I saw Howard Fineman get annoyed at that description the other day, saying Ed Rendell pointed him out as, "...that guy from the Obama network." Fineman whined, "Well this isn't the Obama Network."

LOL. Do you realize the severity of the slant it requires for a tag like that to birth, let alone stick and be debated? It's not 60/40 or even 70/30. It's massive, a FOX News-type avalanche.

I majored in journalism, albeit sports focus, and I don't see how the bias toward Obama can be denied. It was blatantly obvious, when I was supporting Edwards and really didn't care about the Hillary/Obama feud, other than how it impacted Edwards' chances.

And really it's hardly surprising, something that couldn't be predicted or wouldn't evolve the same way again. Journalists are going to swoon toward charismatic wordsmiths, people who more or less write their stories for them, even if the deliverer isn't well rounded and fortified. I've seen it countless times, newcomer football coaches over valued by the media when they have atypical vocabulary and verbal skills for the profession, second-tier recruits who are hyped beyond their talent level if they can charm the media with intellect and wit.

This is merely a big league version. And I don't reject it as a rationale to favor Obama as opposed to Hillary for the general. In fact, one of the more sensible and valid ones.