On The Media is produced by:
Campaign correspondents tread a narrow path between political analysis and outright prognostication. Once quick to predict the future (Google these words: wrong about New Hampshire), are reporters now more circumspect? And is all coverage created equal? New York Magazine’s John Heilemann weighs in.
I find these interviews very one sided for Hillary Clinton.
1) It was not to Obama's advantage that the press went nuts in NH. It set up expectations that were so high, his failure to reach them would have cost a normal candidate the campaign. He came out that night and made one of the most elegant and considered speeches I have ever heard. That takes leadership and character and it wins friends. What is cheap about it?
2) Obama has clearly got a better organized campaign and has fought a 50 State strategy. Again, he deserves credit for this. Why is Clinton's campaign so disorganized if she is so experienced? She had a lot of money. A huge amount.
3) The subtext I get from a number of NPR presenters is that Obama, together with a nefarious media, has stolen the election from Clinton. And, that this is because of sexism. I consider myself a feminist (I am a man). I have voted for women many times in the past. I feel I have a right to support Obama and not have my judgement discredited by the NPR presenters as somehow shallow, ill considered, or sexist.
4) Obama won 11 States in a row and already leads by 100 delegates. The argument is being made that some of those States were caucuses and therefore somehow invalid. But, by their own admission, the Clinton Campaign did not choose to run in those States. What does that say about them? Any other candidate would have been anointed winner by the press after that record. If Obama was on the losing side there he would be out.
I never thought I would become supportive of Senator Clinton but, frankly, I just do not see a "there" there in Senator Obama and I do see at least unconscious sabotage within Clinton's campaign.
In the long run, the media fawning over Bill Buckley since his death, while ignoring his egregious racism and elitism, is a barometer of the biases with which it can safely get away.
I think Clinton is seen as being more calculating because she seems to contradict herself depending on the audience, like the whole NAFTA revisionary history. It's interesting how she tends to become more emotional right before an important primary. Obama's message is consistent; just as pandering but always the same.
I do believe that the press is favoring Obama but the coverage is pretty equal. Clinton does have history in the public eye so she is much more likely to be subjected to ridicule. Its interesting because the press is suppoessed to be objective but there is slight indirect favor on Obama.
Please keep your comments relevant to this entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments on On the Media are moderated. On the Media reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the onthemedia.org Comment Guidelines before posting.
Back to Episode
