What Liberal Media?

The media's coverage healthcare reform has been atrocious. Most of the reporting has focused on sideshows -- like scuffles at public meetings held to discuss the issue. Reporters pay attention to spectacle because they would rather create and exploit controversy than educate and inform the public.

Creating drama is a quick and easy way to generate traffic, which, in turn, fuels revenue. Engaging in sustained and helpful dialogue, however, takes time and may not lead to short-term spikes in traffic. Our legal system, however, gives extraordinary protection to news sources because they supposedly comment on matters of great public importance. Much of the contemporary reporting, however, falls short of this lofty ideal.

What Liberal Media?
Although conservatives often describe the media as "liberal," this label is inaccurate. Mainstream news sources are opportunistic, rather than liberal. Politically, they are most likely centrists, but they could lean right or left, depending on what is popular at the moment. The same "embedded" media personalities that salivated as shock and awe erupted, gushed with enthusiasm and emotion in response to Obama and his anti-war narrative.

During the wave of patriotism surrounding the Iraq War and the silencing of critical speech, Peter Jennings was the only major United States news anchor who raised serious questions about the appropriateness of the war. By the end of Bush's second term, when public support for the war had plummeted, no self-respecting reporter had anything decent to say about Bush or "his" war.

Now, the so-called liberal media is proving once again that it only operates to generate profits and to remain close to power (which are related goals). Throughout 2008, the media adored Barack Obama. He could do nothing wrong. Media figures moved swiftly and vigorously to rebuke Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Latino voters, poor white and uneducated voters, racism, anti-elitism, and any other perceived obstacle to Obama's election victory.

Although I am a progressive, I was stunned that my liberal colleagues embraced such a clear lack of criticism among mainstream news sources. They seemed unable to recall that an uncritical media stood idle during John Kerry's "swiftboating." The mainstream media almost universally failed to contextualize statements by Al Gore, which became fodder for late-night television and conservative commentary (he never said he "invented" the Internet).

Hillary Clinton became evil incarnate during the Democratic primaries. Now, conservatives are complaining because she has pretty much escaped criticism as Secretary of State. Bill is now the media darling because of his "diplomacy" in North Korea. Just a few months ago, the Clintons were awful racists destroying their legacy, the Democratic Party, the first "serious" black presidential candidate, and the possibility of "change" in the United States.

And the "Dean Scream" was a gross distortion that only a few networks conceded weeks later. The media, however, was comfortable using it to knock out Dean to boost the limping campaign of more mainstream Kerry.

During the Democratic primaries, the media often described criticism of Obama as rooted in racism. Although some criticism directed towards Obama was indeed racist and xenophobic, the media engaged in absolute overreach on this issue. Keith Olbermann, who at times seemed like he longed to become First Lady, launched into a nearly 30-minute tirade criticizing Hillary Clinton for supposedly saying during an interview that she remained in the race just in case someone killed Obama. Olbermann intentionally twisted and distorted Clinton's words. The newspaper that conducted the interview agreed. But this side of the story received very little attention.

Times have definitely changed. When Obama delivered his "race" speech in Philadelphia, some media commentators described it as surpassing any racial discourse ever uttered in the United States. When Obama said that the police acted "stupidly" when they arrested Henry Louis Gates, the reviews were mixed.

With respect to healthcare debates, the media never really gave the Democrats' reform agenda competent analysis by honestly discussing public opinion (the public actually wants a public plan) and discussing the merits and drawbacks of the legislation (as opposed to the theatrical politics surrounding it). Walter Cronkite is definitely dead.

One other point: Some "liberal" media commentators continue to take their cues from Obama, going as far as contradicting their prior arguments and isolating liberals for criticism and describing the center as "pragmatic" and smart. But I cannot bring nearly as much to this subject as Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com.

Check out Greenwald's recent commentary on this and other aspects of the media:

The Beltway Consensus: The Left Is to Blame for Health Care Battle

Bush Critics: Still Evil, Crazy Extremists

Fringe Leftist Losers: Wrong Even When They're Right


For criticism of the media on Dissenting Justice, see:

Excuse Me Dana Milbank, Your Sexism Is Showing (Again)

Isn't It Ironic: E.J. Dionne's Column on Politics, the Media and Obama

Reader Challenge: How Has Obama Changed DC?

LA Times Joins the Hillary Media Makeover

"Scratching and Surviving" Less Newsworthy Than Politicians at Labor Protests: Scant Media Coverage of Republic Windows Workers After Sit-In

"Change" Has Arrived: NYT's Frank Rich Criticizes Obama For the First Time!

2008's Biggest Losers: The Media

Absolutely Shocking News Alert!

Oy Vey: Liberals Dominate Media Because They Want to "Change the World," Says WaPo Ombudsman

Why I Don't Trust the Media, Part 1000: Palin-Africa Story a Hoax

After the Obamercial: A Hint of Criticism Amidst Effusive Praise

2 Politico.Com Reporters Concede Media Biased, Blame McCain

ABC News Takes on Issue of Media Bias and Concludes: It Exists

Another Study Proves That 1+1=2, Or That the Media Love Obama, Hate McCain/Palin, and Who's Biden?

On Low Roads and Hypocrisy: The Media, Sexism and Hillary Clinton

Excuse Me Dana Milbank, Your Sexism Is Showing (Again)

In an apparent effort at humor, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank has suggested that if Hillary Clinton had attended the recent Gates/Crowley "summit" at the White House, she would have ordered "Mad Bitch" beer. Milbank and Chris Cillizza, another Washington Post writer, lampooned the summit in their video "Mouthpiece Theatre," which jokingly described the meeting as the "Ménage à Stella Artois."

The Washington Post placed the video on its website but took it down following criticism from liberal bloggers (e.g., TPM) and from media watchdogs (e.g., Megan Garber's essay in the Columbia Journalism Review). Several blogs linked to a Youtube source for the video, but the user who submitted the file subsequently removed it. Dissenting Justice, however, has located the video from another source (see below).

Milbank, Sexism, Hillary Clinton and the Media
Normally, outlandish -- even sexist and racist -- "humor" does not exercise me. I have turned off my television, radio and exited many websites to escape humor that taps into gutter instincts. I even argued that the heated reaction to Don Imus and his racist and sexist commentary was overblown. But Milbank and Cillizza occupy a different position than Imus. They are not shock jocks. Instead, they are writers for one of the world's most esteemed newspapers, and people rely upon them and the Washington Post for political analysis. Accordingly, their sexist humor means a lot more than the rants of Don Imus.

Moreover, this recent flap seems to confirm observations of many commentators (myself included) who argued that the media, particularly male journalists, portrayed Clinton in sexist terms during her unsuccessful presidential campaign. In a May 2008 column, Milbank himself portrayed Clinton as a demented and masochistic individual because she remained a candidate in the extremely tight race -- even though the odds of her winning were evaporating. Male candidates, by contrast, have remained in presidential primaries without winning any states whatsoever, but their continued candidacy never resulted in such hysteria and criticism as Clinton's decision to keep going.

Recently, Milbank employed the "dumb Latina" stereotype that became pervasive in the analysis of many male commentators regarding Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Milbank says that by choosing Sotomayor, President Obama "opted for biography over brain," and he concludes that she could not compete intellectually with other candidates. Milbank, however, offers no evidence for his conclusion.

Despite his harsh criticism of Clinton and almost unwavering support for Obama during the Democratic primaries, Milbank wrote Clinton "A Thank-You for 18 Million Cracks in the Glass Ceiling," a reference to a famed statement from her concession speech. Ironically, Milbank (and other liberal male media figures, like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews) benefits from this glass ceiling, and his sexist commentary certainly does not help to dismantle it.

Media Matters has the video footage, which I have embedded.

[Note: The video condemns a slew of other individuals, including many Republicans.]

Isn't It Ironic: E.J. Dionne's Column on Politics, the Media and Obama

E.J. Dionne's latest column makes the interesting claim that conservatives Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are "winning" national political debates because the right-leaning media regularly reports conservative criticism of Obama, while failing to give equal airtime to left critiques of the president. Dionne argues that this unbalanced news coverage legitimizes rightwing portrayals of Obama as a leftist, socialist, Maoist, Lenninist, Marxist, terrorist, . . . .[Dionne did not really say all of this, but it sounds familiar for some reason].

I describe Dionne's column as ironic because until recently, Dionne himself was an unwavering fan of President Obama. For over a year, Dionne, along with liberal columnists such as Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, and Eugene Robinson could not find any fault in Obama from a liberal perspective. Meanwhile they heaved loads of critical commentary towards Hillary Clinton and, naturally, John McCain. Now, Dionne criticizes the media for making the same mistake that he and other columnists made in their past coverage of Obama.

I have always doubted and challenged the notion that the news media is liberal. Instead, I believe it is centrist and opportunistic. When Bush was popular, the media bashed Gore and, later, Kerry. When Clinton was popular, the media raked Bush, Sr., Gingrich, Dole, Limbaugh, and the "vast rightwing conspiracy" over the coals. When Reagan was popular, it knocked Carter and Dukakis. While Obama rode (and continues to ride) a wave of popularity, it trashed Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Sarah Palin.

The media follows Nielsen ratings and money -- not ideology. Because unquestioned adoration of Obama has fallen in popularity, the media wants to stir up attention by citing to and covering conservative critiques of the president. It's all about the dollar, Dionne.

2008's Biggest Losers: The Media

I never thought my opinion of the news media could worsen, but 2008 proved me wrong. This has been one of the worst years for news coverage in recent history. In 2004, media outlets were literally "in the tank" with President Bush on the war. Critics of the war did not receive coverage or they were viciously shamed (think: BBC and Peter Jennings). This year, the media engaged in painfully awful "analysis." Here are some of the worst things, listed in no particular order:

Nipple-Gate: Obama goes topless in Hawaii; causes media meltdown.

Obama Girl: Why? Just why? I am stunned that this received any attention at all outside of Youtube, but I guess the corporate media are desperate for money.

Palin Baby Mama Drama: Daily Kos proves its influence by floating a rumor that spread like a virus -- with equally nauseating effects.

Palin Clothing Drama: Since the baby story did not work, let's create another "scandal." And make it sexist too! Yes, that will sell.

Hillary Clinton's alleged tear in New Hampshire: There are so many things I could say about the absolute immaturity and sexism surrounding the reporting of this issue. But I have already done enough.

Clinton Wants Obama assassinated: Poor Keith Olbermann has a stroke, having convinced himself to believe the lie.

Pro-Obama election coverage: Studies by the Pew Center, Rasmussen, the Washington Post, ABC News, and other outlets confirm that most media outlets were rooting heavily for Obama. Interestingly, a lot of Democrats do not want to admit or condemn this. Well, given the disastrous effects of an uncritical media (e.g. Bush's war), I think we need to reject this type of behavior.

Isms: The denial of sexism against Clinton was astonishing. The effort to turn every criticism of Obama into something racist or malicious was equally astonishing. I think racism and sexism explain both processes.



For more on this subject, I encourage readers to check out Glenn Greenwald's blog on Salon.Com. Warning: His sarcasm and cynicism rival my own!

Also, I have written extensively on the subject this year. Enjoy the links provided in the preceding analysis and the ones listed below.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Oy Vey: Liberals Dominate Media Because They Want to "Change the World," Says WaPo Ombudsman

2 Politico.Com Reporters Concede Media Biased, Blame McCain

ABC News Takes on Issue of Media Bias and Concludes: It Exists

Poll: 55% of Voters Believe Media More Biased Than in Past Elections

Washington Post Proclaims That "Sarah Palin Picks Ferraro as Favorite Vice President." Shocking -- Yes. Truthful -- No.

CNN and CBS Release Highly Misleading Polls Regarding VP Debate

On Low Roads and Hypocrisy: The Media, Sexism and Hillary Clinton

Another Study Proves That 1+1=2, Or That the Media Love Obama, Hate McCain/Palin, and Who's Biden?

Ombudsman Concludes that the Washington Post Was In the Tank!

12 Incredibly Lame News Stories That the Media Reported, Instead of the Impending Doom in Financial Markets

Oy Vey: Liberals Dominate Media Because They Want to "Change the World," Says WaPo Ombudsman

Well, bless her heart (that's southern for "wtf?"). By "her," I mean Deborah Howell, the Ombudsman for the Washington Post. After the presidential election, Howell released a study confirming the complaints of many readers who asserted that the Washington Post's election coverage favored Obama. Apparently, the newspaper wants to reassure its angry readers, because Howell has released yet another article on the subject of media bias.

Howell reports that customer dissatisfaction with the Washington Post has caused 900 people to cancel their subscriptions in the last 4 weeks (web traffic may have declined even more significantly, but Powell does not mention this). Howell also reiterates her prior conclusion that the newspaper has exhibited a "liberal bias." But Howell has an interesting explanation for this bias. Liberals (as opposed to conservatives) flock to media because of their commitment to social change. According to Howell: "Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world." Oy vey!

My (indignant) take:

Neither Liberals nor Conservatives Really Want Meaningful Change
Liberals do not want to "change" the world. Instead, they want to supplant conservatives in leadership positions and pass superficial and symbolic policies that look like "change" to people who cannot imagine more substantial reform. Progressives and the extreme rightwing are the true proponents of change -- even if their polar-opposite ideas are not rooted in pragmatism. Extreme leftist and rightwing agendas will not succeed because society's powerbrokers will not endorse them.

Liberals and conservatives are just on opposite sides of a vast middle conspiracy. They occupy the center-left and the center-right, and every four years they compete for power first by appealing to the extremes in their respective parties during the primaries and then running squarely to the center in the national election.

I do not see much in this election cycle that deviates from this script. Obama is picking up people daily from the Clinton administration -- and is seriously considering Hillary Clinton herself for a Cabinet position. That just does not strike me as some monumental "change" in society. It might represent a departure from Bush, but it is not a change from politics viewed with an historical lens. So far, the Obama administration looks a lot like the 1990s.

Liberals Can Present All Sides -- If They Try
Second, Howell's arguments imply that liberals cannot present all sides of an issue. I am a self-identified progressive, but I have tried to criticize liberals, conservatives, and progressives on this blog. Consequently, rightwingers, leftists, and moderates have favorably cited my arguments. In the few months that I have operated this blog, I have criticized both blacks and gays over Proposition 8. I have criticized the way McCain ran his campaign, but have also acknowledged that the media gave him a raw deal. I have embraced leftwing positions but have refused to demonize conservatives and uncritically accept liberals. Similarly, liberal journalists could explore all sides if they chose to do so. Apparently, they have not.

Journalists Are Not Principled Liberals, But Are Professionals Who Use Their Influence to Gain Access to Power and Popularity

Finally, I doubt that many journalists are actually principled liberal. Instead, they are professionals (likely moderates) who cling to popular candidates and court individuals whom they believe will give them the most access to power. For example, just four years ago, the media stood by while the rightwing bashed Kerry, and four years prior to that, they helped conservatives construct a narrative that Gore was a pathological liar (or at least a gaffe machine). They also helped Republicans in their effort to slam Bill Clinton. In 2004 they concocted the "Dean Scream" because they preferred Kerry to Dean and saw the former as having a better chance to win and (thus) gain power. They preferred Reagan to Carter and Mondale, and they were literally "embedded" in the tanks during the Iraq War -- until public opinion turned on Bush and the war. This is not the behavior of a liberal media -- but rather the actions of a power-hungry profession that wants to consolidate and preserve its own power and influence. As a lawyer, I am pretty familiar with this drive.

Howell's explanation for the media's failure to report objectively is better than others I have heard recently. Two reporters for Politico.Com, for example, conceded that the election coverage has favored Obama, but blamed McCain for this!

Related Articles on Dissenting Justice:

2 Politico.Com Reporters Concede Media Biased, Blame McCain

ABC News Takes on Issue of Media Bias and Concludes: It Exists

Poll: 55% of Voters Believe Media More Biased Than in Past Elections

Washington Post Proclaims That "Sarah Palin Picks Ferraro as Favorite Vice President." Shocking -- Yes. Truthful -- No.

CNN and CBS Release Highly Misleading Polls Regarding VP Debate

New York Times to Hillary Clinton: "Call Off the Dogs"

Another Study Proves That 1+1=2, Or That the Media Love Obama, Hate McCain/Palin, and Who's Biden?

Ombudsman Concludes that the Washington Post Was In the Tank!

Ombudsman Concludes that the Washington Post Was In the Tank!

After the public began turning against the Iraq War, the New York Times and the Washington Post both conceded that they were literally and figuratively in the tank with Bush. The newspapers admitting either failing to publish anti-war stories or refusing to place them on their front pages. They also rushed to publish pro-war stories without confirming the accuracy of the content.

Today, Deborah Howell, the Washington Post Ombudsman, released a report (which remarkably concluded the night of the election) that shows that the Washington Post tilted towards Obama in its coverage. The results confirm opinion polling data and a study by the Pew Center which show that voters found the election coverage biased and that the content of media coverage heavily favored Obama. Here is a slice of the article:

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen.
John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than
there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement.
The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about
McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered
those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors -- like most
of the national news media -- found the candidacy of Obama, the first African
American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the
new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more
scars from his longer career in politics...

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin
grew up in Alaska.

Related Reading on Dissenting Justice:

2 Politico.Com Reporters Concede Media Biased, Blame McCain

ABC News Takes on Issue of Media Bias and Concludes: It Exists

Poll: 55% of Voters Believe Media More Biased Than in Past Elections

Washington Post Proclaims That "Sarah Palin Picks Ferraro as Favorite Vice President." Shocking -- Yes. Truthful -- No.

CNN and CBS Release Highly Misleading Polls Regarding VP Debate

New York Times to Hillary Clinton: "Call Off the Dogs"

Another Study Proves That 1+1=2, Or That the Media Love Obama, Hate McCain/Palin, and Who's Biden?

2 Politico.Com Reporters Concede Media Biased, Blame McCain

Two Politico.Com reporters have conceded that the media coverage of the election has "hosed" McCain. Despite denials by others in the media, John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei admit the following:

In the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.



And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.

I would say that this started prior to the "closing weeks" of the campaign, but I find their honesty refreshing. Nevertheless, instead of criticizing the media for failing to exhibit necessary detachment in something as critical and delicate as electing a president, they place blame on John McCain himself. Specifically, they assert that the media are punishing McCain for limiting their access to his campaign. Interesting. I did not know that media ethics varied depending upon whether the particular journalist was upset with the candidate. As a lawyer, I cannot refuse to offer zealous advocacy to a client if I end up not liking the client -- and as a law professor, I certainly cannot grade students differently based on my own personal tastes. Maybe people in the news media should rank below lawyers in the "most disfavored professions" rankings.



I am a Democrat, and I will proudly vote a Democratic ticket this year, but I am concerned about media bias because it has not always benefited Democrats, as I argued in a prior blog entry. This same media rode in the tanks with the military during the war, failed to criticize the Republican witch hunts during the Clinton administration, and did not critically analyze Reagan's claim that Carter (rather than the oil price shocks) ruined the economy. The Politico authors admit, in fact, that the media's fascination with Obama does not reflect an ideological shift because most journalists remain centrists. Accordingly, Democrats should let go of their pride and admit the truth. Most Democrats I know will tow the line if they believe that admitting mistreatment of Republicans could reflect badly upon Obama. I actually thinks that it makes us look better.

Poll: 55% of Voters Believe Media More Biased Than in Past Elections

Rasmussen Reports has released a survey which shows that 55% of voters believe that media coverage of the election is more biased this year than in the last presidential election. Here are some highlights.

* Although 55% of voters believe election coverage is more biased, this depends upon party affiliation. 79% of Republicans perceive greater bias, but only 36% of Democrats do. 54% of independent voters view the coverage as more biased.

* With respect to individual networks, the pollster presents data for MSNBC, CNN, and Fox. Here are those statistics:

MSNBC -- 51% biased towards Obama; 28% unbiased; 5% biased towards McCain

CNN -- 46% biased towards Obama; 33% unbiased; 6% biased towards
McCain

Fox -- 39% biased towards McCain; 42% unbiased; 8% biased towards
Obama.

My thoughts: First, the people who view Fox as favoring Obama and MSNBC as rooting for McCain need to turn in their voter registration cards! All kidding aside, I believe that, overall, media reporting of the election has indeed leaned in favor of Obama, but this depends upon the network, individual journalist or reporter, etc. Media bias, however, has gone against many Democrats in the past. Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Michael Dukakis, for example, were skewered by unthoughtful reporting. And Hillary Clinton was brutalized during the Democratic primaries. So Republicans need to let go of the leftwing conspiracy language.

In addition to unfairly portraying Democrats in the past, the media have also helped Republicans -- including President Bush! Remember that the media were literally "in the tank" during and leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post, two constant sources of Republican ire, later admitted that they refused to publish some antiwar material, relegated articles critical of the war to less popular sections (i.e., something other than the front page), or published pro-war stories without seriously scrutinizing their factual claims. If the media can exhibit bias covering a matter so extraordinarily important as this country's decision to invade and slaughter people in another country, then it is not irrational to believe that they can also show bias in a presidential election. Accordingly, when Democrats and members of the media deny the existence of pro-Obama bias in this stage of the election and during the Democratic primaries, they come across as disingenuous.

Perhaps the media are trying to compensate for their shamefully uncritical treatment of Bush leading up to the war, by bashing the war, Bush, McCain and any other Republican. Guilt is a powerful instrument. I cannot accept the narrative that, collectively, the media are suddenly leftist. Regardless of the cause, my fellow Democrats had better enjoy our positive stature in the media while it lasts. History has shown that media bias does not remain on one side of the coin.

Message from the Professor: If you enjoy the commentary on this site, please subscribe to Dissenting Justice. You have the option of receiving daily email digests of blog essays or to access blog material in your favorite feed reader (or both!).

McCain's Implosion: 7 Reasons Why His Campaign Is in Crisis

As the presidential election day approaches, the race continues to shift to Democrat Barack Obama. Although Obama has almost always led McCain, following the Republican National Convention, the polls shifted significantly to McCain. But the electoral landscape has abruptly changed in recent weeks. There are several factors that explain this transition, some of which McCain can control, others that he cannot. But overall, his campaign seems unable to create traction. Here's why things have gone bad for McCain.

1. Economy
Clearly the economy has had a tremendous -- if not the most -- impact upon his campaign. McCain was leading in the polls until several large financial institutions imploded. After that time, things began to favor Obama. Historically, voters blame incumbents for poor economic conditions, rightfully or wrongfully. And they are clearly blaming McCain and the Republicans for the current state of affairs. I think both parties share the blame for the credit crisis; FactCheck.Org agrees. McCain has not effectively communicated this.

2. Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin has also caused problems for McCain. Although her addition to the ticket initially invigorated McCain's campaign, subsequent poor performances during media interviews and also (probably overdone) negative scrutiny by the media turned her into a liability. Several conservative commentators demanded that McCain remove her from the ticket. Palin, however, was able to alleviate many concerns voters had with her candidacy with a good performance at the Vice Presidential debate. Her favorable numbers improved dramatically. Despite this, concerns linger.

3. Republican Exhaustion
Republican exhaustion can also account for McCain's bad luck. Party dominance is cyclical at the national level. The Republicans have dominated the White House since 1964 -- which started at 44-year stretch with only 16 years in which a Democrat occupied the White House. Obama's change theme works very well with party exhaustion, and McCain has been unable to revitalize interest in Republicans.

4. Forgoing "Experience" Argument
McCain's campaign has also failed to take advantage of a few opportunities to shift the electorate. First, by picking Palin he essentially removed the "experience" theme from his campaign, which gave his campaign a coherent narrative.

5. Failure to Distinguish Himself from Bush
McCain has also failed to show that he is not Bush III and that he is a "maverick." While many members of my party would say that's because he is Bush III, like most things in politics, it's all about a narrative. For example, McCain recently proposed a mortgage plan, which Obama and the media have bashed. But he could have at least used that moment to say that he, unlike Bush and many others in his party, knows that government has a role in helping society. He could have also said that he, unlike Bush, is not afraid to reconsider his opinions about the role of government in society. Instead, his plan lacks a marketing narrative at all. Obama's plans, on the other hand, always do. Aided by the media in large part, he announces a "major policy speech" on any given subject and grabs headlines. I do not agree with Obama that McCain is erratic, but I do believe that without a narrative, voters cannot connect his proposals.

McCain and the Republican leadership could have agreed that he would go after Bush on a few important policy areas on which he has disagreed with Bush (e.g., environmental policy, corporate ethical reform, campaign finance, etc.). Instead, he has been stunningly silent on the details of his "maverickness," which makes the whole them ineffective.

6. Failure to Question Obama, via Biden, on Iraq
Although the economy has for a long time overshadowed the Iraq War in importance to voters, Obama continues to say that McCain exercised bad judgment voting for the war. McCain has responded primarily by arguing that his support of the surge and continued funding of the troops demonstrates that he can win a war (unlike Obama or Bush). But McCain has not emphasized Joe Biden's vote on the war at all, which seems to call into question Obama's war critique. Although Palin accused Biden of waffling on the war during the Vice Presidential debate, when Obama said McCain's war vote reflected poor judgment during the second presidential debate, McCain failed to mention Biden's vote at all, squandering an opportunity to question the sincerity of Obama's war critique.

7. Embedded Media
Finally, the media have made it more difficult for McCain and easier for Obama. I am not saying that the media have thrown the election to Obama. But I am acknowledging that for the most part, coverage favors Obama more. This began during the primaries, and Tina Fey brought the issue to national attention. Keith Olbermann's blood-faced rants, Chris Matthews's "tingly thighs," and the legion of opinion writers in the major papers (e.g., E.J. Dionne, Frank Rich, Dana Milbank, Maureen Dowd, and Eugene Robinson) who churned out weekly pro-Obama essays most likely helped shape public opinion regarding Obama. I am not saying that he does not deserve a great reputation, but that free publicity from authoritative media goes a long way towards constructing a positive image. By contrast, a litany of negative press (from these same influential media sources) can damage a candidate's reputation among voters.

The recent scuffle over McCain's mortgage plan provides a good example of likely media bias. The media have intensely scrutinized the plan -- as they should -- but they have primarily just reported Obama's objections to the plan. More importantly, they have not asked Obama what he would do to fix the problem. During the bailout discussions, the media questioned whether McCain had a plan or a role in the negotiations. The bailout actually authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase individual mortgages, but leaves it to the Secretary to devise a method for valuing the mortgages and assisting homeowners. McCain has at least given us a window into what he would do -- whether this is purely political or otherwise. Obama has not, and the media have not demanded that he do so. I also don't recall the media inquiring about Obama's role in the bailout negotiations.

This is not the first election in which the media have shown a candidate preference. They turned Gore into a laughingstock -- ridiculing him for "gaffes" that upon further examination, weren't gaffes at all. During my youth, they loved Reagan (the "Great Communicator") and bashed Carter on the economy and Iran, although much of the economic peril in the country resulted from factors outside of the control of the president, like the very dramatic (and almost overnight) increase in the price of oil. They never challenged voters on the relevance of Dukakis looking goofy in an Army tank and his ability to govern the nation. And beyond election campaigns, the media were literally "in the tank" with the White House during the Iraq War. If the media can embed themselves with the Bush administration to clamor for access, why wouldn't they do the same during a political campaign?

Can He Do It?
The odds are stacked against McCain at the moment, but some commentators say that he could still pull off a comeback. I am not convinced. I do not see an effective strategy by McCain, and I am not sure what he could do to neutralize the media. Calling them out as biased seems to have made them worse.

Washington Post Proclaims That "Sarah Palin Picks Ferraro as Favorite Vice President." Shocking -- Yes. Truthful -- No.

I guess I have officially accepted the role of the liberal who has a soft spot for candidates who suffer from media misrepresentation. During this election, I tend to side with Republican fears that behind the screen of objectivity, most people in the so-called "mainstream media," want Barack Obama to win. As a Democrat myself, most people would wonder why any bias in favor of my party would bother me. Well, the old saying "what goes around, comes around" warrants mentioning because in the past, the media have subjected Democrats to questionable treatment as well. I guess this is where I first developed my sensitivity to bias (being black makes me a little nervous about bias as well, but I digress).

I still cringe when I remember how the media laughed at Al Gore's "internet" statement. No -- he was not trying to stake a claim as inventor of the internet. Instead, he was referring to his role in the effort to make the internet available to the public (it had been exclusively a Department of Defense medium at the time). And how can any loyal Democrat forget the theatrical farce of "Whitewater" that plagued the Clinton administration until mud finally stuck, by way of Monica-gate. And Carter was blamed for the recession during his presidency, when really the enormous oil price shocks of the late 70s were largely to blame. Having witnessed Democrats unfairly treated in the media and elsewhere, I appreciate fairness as a general principle, which is why I am moved to write this entry.

While everyone was getting ready to watch the debate last night, the Washington Post posted this zinger on its webpage: Palin Picks Ferraro As Favorite "Vice President." What a headline! I did not hesistate to click the link, because this statement would certainly have been Palin's most damning comment to date. It could have even ended her vice presidential candidacy -- if the rest of the media picked it up and caused a feeding frenzy. So why hasn't such a storm occurred? Because there is a major wrinkle in the story: It is absolutely and unequivocally false and misleading.

Thankfully, the Washington Post blogger embedded video footage from the interview with Katie Couric (enough already?), in which Couric asks both Palin and Biden to name their favorite Vice President. Consequently, the careful reader has the opportunity to compare the Washington Post's representation of the interview with what Palin actually said.

I will start with the blog entry. Here's how the Washington Post 's blog, The Trail, summarized the interview:

When asked to name a favorite vice president, Sarah Palin initially cited failed Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro.

"That's an easy one for me because she's -- she's the one who first shattered part of that glass ceiling anyway in American politics," the Alaska governor said of the first woman to sit on a major party vice presidential ticket. "So it would be she as a candidate."

The blog text (along with the dramatic title) leaves only one impression: that Palin mistakenly believes Ferraro actually served as Vice President. The tape of the interveiw, however, tells a completely different story:

Couric: What previous Vice President impresses you the most and why?

Palin: Oh my goodness. It would have to be...ah....just a candidate. And that would have been Geraldine Ferraro, of course. That's an easy one for me. She is the one who first shattered part of that glass ceiling...in American politics. So, it would be she as a candidate.

Palin ultimately picks George Bush, Sr. as her favorite Vice President, as the blog entry reports. But the blog omits the passage where Palin says "It would have to be ah...just a candidate." This, however, is crucial language, because without out it, Palin seemingly lacks knowledge of her own place in American history -- that she (not Ferraro) would be the first woman Vice President if McCain wins.

My guess is that Palin was simply stalling while she thought about how to answer the "feel good" question (favorite Vice President -- what does that tell us about a candidate?). It is also worth mentioning that during her first speech after she became McCain's running mate, Palin mentioned the historic candidacy of Geraldine Ferraro. In the Couric interview, she merely reiterates this statement. Palin is simply playing gender politics -- not botching history.

The Washington Post is a venerable institution, and I read it daily. I even stream its RSS feeds on this blog in recognition of the important role it plays in reporting political and policy news. So how could such an honored institution make such a horrible error twice (once in the title and again in the blog essay)? Is it harmless error? Do blogs get less editorial attention? Is there really a biased elite media? What do you think?

On Low Roads and Hypocrisy: The Media, Sexism and Hillary Clinton

Apparently, the New York Times grew uncomfortable watching other media outlets attack Obama’s critics. Although the newspaper endorsed Clinton, it has now joined a barrage of pundits who have launched a full scale assault on ABC's debate in advance of the Pennsylvania primary.

Media's Summary: Clinton = Witch; Obama = Saint
The media's outrage demonstrates (yet again) that Clinton provokes the wrath of journalists who seemingly believe that their ethical and professional duties involve: (1) constructing and enforcing a de facto rule that prohibits any public criticism of Obama; (2) smearing Clinton and portraying her as a pathological liar, closeted-neoconservative, cold and conniving Tonya Harding in pantsuits, and as a threat to the Democratic Party; (3) denying and obscuring Obama's own weaknesses, deceit, shifting positions, and subtly negative campaigning; and (4) offering constant praise for Obama and anyone who supports him. New York Times columnists Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich have spent almost an entire year writing opinion pieces that scrutinize and condemn every dimension of Clinton or praise Obama’s character, ideas, and campaign. Content with the monotony of their own repetitive and predictable Clinton-Bashing, Dowd and Rich reach the same weekly conclusions. Clinton is a mean, deceitful, selfish, and heartless witch. Obama is an inspiring, smart, honest, and ethical leader.


Obama Can Appear "Positive" Because Media Does His Attacking
Obama benefits from a mainstream media and blogsphere that do his "dirty work" for him, which allows him to remain above the fray. Whatever Clinton says or does, a host of media outlets will seek and find or even invent fault. The New York Times, for example, recently rushed to discredit a story Clinton tells on the campaign trail concerning a young woman who lacked health insurance and money to pay for a doctor visit. This rather innocuous story -- which describes the plight of far too many poor people -- became headline news because it purportedly documented "yet another" Clinton "lie." News of Clinton’s "deceit" spread quickly. There was one problem: The story was true.

If the media had simply investigated the issue, rather than rushing to portray everything Clinton says as something unseemly, they would have discovered the veracity of her account. That did not matter. Smearing Clinton legitimizes media professionals among their colleagues, especially the white men. Media professionals can obtain street credibility if they uncover the newest reason why Clinton would melt if you heaved a bucket of water on her.

Obama, on the other hand, does not have to answer difficult questions or face relentless scrutiny. The toughest moment in his campaign surrounded the Reverend Wright controversy. The media held their collective breath searching for a way to spin this low point into triumph. The next day, Obama’s staff released a statement announcing that he would give two "major policy speeches" on race and the economy. The media reported exactly this: "Obama will give two major policy speeches in Philadelphia this week."

This is the only time I can recall seeing the media describe campaign speeches as "major" based solely on a candidate’s description of them. But it helped shape the mood for Obama's valiant return. The atmosphere was solemn and hopeful. Fittingly, change was also on the horizon. Soon the race speech would rise above mere "major" status and morph into a courageous, crucial, historic, and brilliant dissertation on race. Commentators passionately and uniformly praised the speech. Many of them compared Obama to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. But Dr. King never wore the safe "post-racial" label, and he died as a result of his sustained, courageous and organized efforts to combat racial injustice. Obama, by contrast, addressed racial justice in one fleeting moment solely to overcome a serious threat to his political campaign. Yet, his opportunistic usage of race was completely off-limits as a topic of serious inquiry. Only marginalized commentators like Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell could even explore these questions. Good "liberals" could only offer effusive praise or (worse) silence.


Hutchinson's Summary: Clinton = Obama = Typical Politician
For the record, I do not endorse all of Clinton's political tactics, nor do I believe that moments like Wright-gate should derail a candidate. But Obama's response to the situation is just as "political" as Clinton's efforts to show her superiority and question her opponent's readiness for the presidency. They are both typical politicians. According to Obama's campaign narrative, however, he offers a new, kinder and gentler politics, even though "change," "hope" "unity," and "Washington-outsider" rhetoric have framed many previous campaigns.

Successful candidates must construct personal narratives that resonate with the public and inspire trust; Obama has accomplished this important task. But most media have uncritically accepted and have even strained to validate his campaign narrative in their reporting. This constitutes a terrible abdication of their important social function.

The Media and the "Isms" Factor
The blatant media bias also conflicts with liberal and progressive commitment to racial and gender justice. When liberal egalitarians spew endlessly about the inherent evil of Clinton and the unquestionable sincerity and rightfulness of Obama, this smacks of hypocrisy and disparate treatment. Their coddling of Obama also suggests that liberals, especially white liberals constantly yearning to prove how "post-racist" they are, suffer from the "bigotry of low expectations." This stereotype discounts the intellectual capacity of blacks, which could cause Obama’s supporters unconsciously to question his ability to take on a strong competitor, despite his frequently touted academic achievement and eloquence. The unprecedented efforts to insulate Obama from any measure of media or political scrutiny could stem from the operation of this stereotype.

Obama’s surrogates and the media have utilized a variety of responses to vilify his critics. Early on, his surrogates called them racists. Then they dismissed them as being "more of the same." Then they brushed them aside for wasting Obama’s time with "business as usual." Then they demanded that Clinton leave the race, which would undoubtedly reduce the opportunity to critique and raise questions concerning his relative fitness for office. His supporters have also dramatically described fairly standard campaign tactics as "knifing," "kneecapping" and tossing the "kitchen sink" at the first viable black presidential candidate (an argument which, ironically, validates Ferraro's statements). Obama’s guardians have predicted that Clinton's allegedly "divisive" campaigning will destroy the Democratic Party and weaken its nominee, an argument that requires the listener to forget that the Democrats have only managed to produce one two-term President since FDR.

But the New York Times exceeds the melodrama of many Obama protectors when its editorial asserts that Clinton has called out "the dogs" for Obama. The imagery used to describe Clinton and Obama consistently portray her as a conniving, ruthlessly violent old hag and Obama as a defenseless, frail, and effete "Negro" (also known as "boy"). The media’s blatant efforts to prop up Obama and demonize Clinton smack of a racial paternalism that is as rooted in white supremacy as segregation. Their disparate coverage also relies extensively on gender stereotypes, which should trouble all individuals who are truly committed to the advancement of civil rights. Yet many self-proclaimed progressives have condemned feminists who critique the media’s treatment of Clinton as being knee-jerk activists engaged in vulgar identity politics. Anti-feminism now joins post-racial (but still enough qualify as "real") blackness as newly minted leftist ideologies. Blacks have acquiesced in and legitimated this disturbing occurrence with their almost unanimous support for Obama.

This entire election has caused me to grow even more suspicious and cynical of liberals. It also confirms how utterly unhelpful media have become. A short time ago, the most powerful among these companies were "embedded" in military tanks in order to stream U.S. war propaganda domestically and throughout the world. Some, including the New York Times, later admitted to suppressing antiwar coverage or confining it to "second-page" status, but their apologies only came after popular support for the invasion dissipated, and the precious opportunity to educate the pre-war public opinion had long passed.

With respect to this campaign, the opportunistic New York Times endorsed Clinton, but now that everyone else is ready to burn her at the stake, they view her as the Democrats' worst nightmare. Similarly, the New York Times endorsed Senator McCain, but once he secured his party's nomination, it suddenly unveiled 25-year-old, unsubstantiated allegations of adultery and conflicts of interests surrounding McCain. The paper sat on the story and released it soon after its ability to influence the Republican contest had expired. Media actors have contributed heavily to the venomous atmosphere of this election. The media’s pernicious bias against Clinton and its uncritical stance toward Obama undermine the credibility of their efforts to police the tone of any candidate's campaign.