1/28/2008

'The medium is the message'

Fact: Former President Bill Clinton is being marginalized, not by himself, not by the right wing, but by the media. Obama supporters are cheering, and the GOP is having the last laugh.

Fact: In a thousand subtle and not-so-subtle ways, the media have interjected race into the presidential campaign, very conventiently in the run-up to the South Carolina primary.

Fact: The media are skillful at “creating reality” and making big bucks from conflict.

Fact: As primary day dawned here in South Carolina, a special edition of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” broadcast live from Columbia and asserted 1) Bill Clinton introduced the “issue of race” into the Democratic campaign, 2) Bill Clinton is racist, and 3) any white South Carolinian voting for Hillary Clinton is racist.

You didn’t hear the broadcast? There is documentation across the Web of what went down.

This post is not about the South Carolina primary. This post is about media integrity or, more accuately, the lack thereof.

Finally, in Joe Scarborough’s unrelenting attack on the Clintons (which to his credit MSNBC’s David Shuster tried to tamp down), in the worst display of media bias I believe I’ve ever witnessed, the Congressional Quarterly’s Craig Crawford gained the microphone:

“You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month, and I have watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness.

“I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney, he ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, ‘Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?’ you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons.

“I mean, I think if somebody came out today and said that Bill Clinton -- if the town drunk in Columbia came out and said, ‘Bill Clinton last night was poisoning the drinking water in Obama precincts,’ the media would say, ‘Ah, there goes Clinton again. You can't trust him.’

“I really think it's a problem. You know what? You guys make him stronger with this bashing. This actually is what makes the Clintons stronger.”

That and their record on civil rights and human rights. That cannot be denied.

What is being made weaker is the democratic process. When cable news spins, distorts and lies to promote one candidate over another – because conflict sells and fattens its own coffers – it is the people who lose, not the candidates.

***

Here’s what Mr. Crawford concluded on his blog, “Trail Mix” (LINK) Sunday:

How the Media Destroys Obama
By Craig Crawford January 27, 2008 1:00 PM

Talk about killing with kindness. Supporters of Barack Obama should be wary of the news media’s feverish gushing for the Democratic White House hopeful.

For starters, it was media romanticism – not Hillary Rodham Clinton’s hardball campaigning – that made Obama the “black candidate.” This happens, albeit unwittingly, every time a journalist waxes poetic about the historic step forward of seeing an African-American in a viable run for the presidency. (And yet, when Bill Clinton talks about Obama’s appeal to black voters, it is decried as "injecting race.")

Obama also runs the risk of a backlash against the media being seen as force feeding him to Democratic primary voters.

In South Carolina, the anti-Clinton media frenzy might have suppressed Obama’s white vote as much as any other possible cause – although many appeared to move toward John Edwards instead of Clinton. A similar backlash against media overkill probably contributed to Obama’s last-minute loss to Clinton in New Hampshire.

The Washington press club’s love affair with Obama allows many of a certain generation to indulge the fantasy of returning to their youth as starry-eyed believers in John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy. Hence, the voluble response to Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement in today’s New York Times (1/27/08) and the trembling expectations of a similar move by Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Still, Obama could be excused for welcoming media groupthink that has gone stark raving mad for his candidacy. But in the long run, he might be well advised to dismiss the hype and build a relationship with voters that remains independent of what fickle journalists say. –End-

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

If there were an even bigger issue, bigger than all of us, bigger than our individuals wants and desires, don't you believe, as I feel you would, that you would stand back and look at it, objectively?

The United States of America has never before had a situation where a spouse is in position to succeed a spouse as President. Twice we have had sons follow fathers, and that was a dismal mistake in both instances.

The United States of America has never before had a situation where the former President acts as a surrogate for the candidate spouse. The challenge for the opponent becomes equally unprecedented.

The United States of America has never before had a situation where the role/presence of a potential Presidential spouse is an election issue (as opposed to Mrs. Wilson and Mrs. Harding in their separate conduct after the elections).

In the instance at hand, and in deference to Mr. McLuhan, the MEDIA is not the message. The MEDIA is along for the ride, and is just as befuddled as are the rest of us.
Frodo disagrees with his friend. The Clintons, with no malice aforethought, have given all of us questions that are too big to ignore. It may, and probably unfairly, continue to work to Mrs. Clinton's detriment.

Anonymous said...

You know, I hear what you are saying, and I spent many many years going mentally to bat for the Clintons because of the overwhelming unfairness of the media, the Republicans, the conservatives . . .on and on and on.

So now, when I see it all start up again, I see it with potentially a new eye. It may MAY be just possible that they know just how much controversy to foment to send the media into this frenzy so they can adopt their standard positions of fighting for their survival. Their whole political lives have been spent in being fighters, standing their ground, operating in an atmosphere of diversity. But I see them do admittedly stupid and questionable things almost on purpose it seems to get this atmosphere going again--so they can fight and survive and overcome.

I don't know. I think I'm seeing it differently this time around. But it's not a thought I've cast into stone. I am very interested in watching all the candidates for the next many months to see what atmosphere they actually seem to want, what outcome they appear to be able to pull off. I think in a long and exhausting race such as this, we will get to know these people better and better.

I do know we do not need a president that must have an atmosphere of diversity. And we also don't need a peacemaker who ignores the elephant in the living room . I hate the hype of elections because there's so little time to see what these people actually produce.

Anonymous said...

I hope you realize that, for this reader anyway, I am never criticizing your views. I envy your committment, and I think that's what has got me thinking about the political situation again. For every person you enlist in thinking about the political situation again--you've done your job. It doesn't matter who we endorse. We will not slip by the wayside and become disenfranchised. I wouldn't mention this, but for the fact that in the heat of the situation sometimes you sound worn, because you care, and you must seperate what you do from what is going on to wear you down in the media. The media is powerful, and it HAS power, but it doesn't end there. The people of this country are becoming more savvy to that. And who one person endorses, at this point or another, is not as important as the fact that you get them looking at the facts. It's a good world, that never changes.

B.J. said...

Eowyn, how kind of you to think of me. Criticism? I do not think of another’s opinions as criticism of my own! I am always interested in the ideas of others, which sets me apart from “narrow-minded people on narrow, winding streets,” LOL. Yes, I do get bent out of shape over today’s so-called “journalists,” because that damn Dr. Wiggins, my mentor, led me to believe the Fourth Estate is a noble institution. BJ