Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

How the Media's Tarring of Hillary Hurt Obama Too

By Eric Boehlert, Media Matters for America. Posted August 29, 2008.


From the primaries to the convention, the media have become experts at inventing a storyline and skewing facts to support it.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Within the fast-forward world of campaign journalism, it's not considered cool to examine the recent past in order to provide context for today's events. (We know it's not cool because nobody does it.) Nonetheless, here's a very brief history lesson that the political press prefers to ignore.

At the Democratic National Convention in 1992, Jerry Brown, who finished a very distant second to the party's nominee, had his name placed into nomination and addressed the assembled convention. After seconding his own nomination (true story), Brown delivered a fiery speech that thrilled his unruly supporters inside Madison Square Garden. Brown's ill will toward nominee Bill Clinton was so legendary that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution considered it newsworthy that Brown's convention address "avoided a direct attack" on the nominee, while the Los Angeles Times noted Brown "did not specifically endorse presidential nominee Bill Clinton."

Indeed, for weeks leading up to the convention, Brown refused to back his party's nominee, complaining to The New York Times in June that supporting Clinton was like buying a ticket for the Titanic.

Four years earlier, the Democratic convention in Atlanta witnessed even more tumult from the second-place finisher when Jesse Jackson, furious at being passed over for the vice-presidential slot by the party's nominee, Michael Dukakis (who failed to call Jackson and tell him the VP news), threatened to withhold his delegates' support from the party's nominee. In fact, just hours before the convention began, Jackson's supporters threatened to place the candidate's name into nomination for the vice presidency, which would have created a massive floor fight between Jackson and Dukakis' pick, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas.

Pre-convention tension grew so heated that the mild-mannered Dukakis was quoted as saying, "I don't care what Jesse Jackson does. I'm going to this convention and I'm going to win." During his convention keynote address, which lasted nearly an hour -- much longer than expected, Jackson did not specifically endorse Dukakis.

End of history lesson.

Now, take those historical nuggets from 1992 and 1988 and transport them to Denver this week, and try to imagine what the press reaction would be (not the political reaction, but the press reaction) if Hillary Clinton delivered her address Tuesday night and did not endorse the Democratic Party's nominee.

Honestly, I have trouble even picturing the response, mostly because there has already been such an unhinged media response (see Maureen Dowd, if you must) to Clinton's finishing second, speaking at the convention, and supporting the party's nominee. If she snubbed the nominee? We'd probably see a media-credentialed riot, with hordes of pundits and reporters roaming the late-night streets of Denver (Pitchforks? Probably) in search of Clinton and looking to inflict long-term pain.

Fact: Many in the press have portrayed Clinton's planned convention address, as well as the fact that her name is being placed into nomination, as an unprecedented, heavy-handed power grab.

Fact: It's not. In years past, Democratic candidates who won lots of primaries and accumulated hundreds of delegates (sorry, Howard Dean and Bill Bradley) have always been allowed to address the convention and very often place their name into nomination. It's the norm. It's expected. It's a formality.

This newly manufactured media attack on Clinton is just the latest in a long line of press grenades thrown her way this year. But this time, she's not the only victim, because the media's concocted story line is being used to unfairly skewer Barack Obama, too.

Consider New York magazine: "Obama Agrees to Roll-Call Vote for Clinton. Does That Make Him a Sissy?"


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, hillary, obama, barack obama, hillary clinton, dnc

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This is News ?
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 29, 2008 12:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is called the corporate media my friend ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is News ? Posted by: bottom-line
Mismatched bedfellows
Posted by: BST on Aug 29, 2008 3:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for a fine article. A corrosive media yoked with a gullible populace made for tough times for the Clintons, and produced a primary season riddled with mistruths, half-truths, withheld truths.

It did the Clintons a disservice and it did all of us a disservice. So many voters know so little about history and politics that we depend on a wise, fair and learned media to keep us on an even keel.

Good luck with that pipe dream.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wait and see . . .
Posted by: 6399 on Aug 29, 2008 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what the McCain posse does with all that priceless footage of the Dems tearing one another apart. Does anyone have any idea how many potential snippets they have at their disposal? I am personally looking forward to the "all he has is a speech at the 2004 DNC" quote.

You think they've been swift boating Obama now, wait until the campaign gets going in earnest and the Rove machine goes into overdrive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A populace so thirsty
Posted by: weathered on Aug 29, 2008 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for something to believe in. We're like a self-indulged, needy little child looking for a protective parent to show us the way.

Tom Brokaw was right about one thing. Those who lived in and went through WW2 were a great generation.

Iam an aging yuppie who remembers confronting my parents about how all their friends at the country club were phonies. Well my generation turned out to be the biggest frauds and phonies of them all, forgive me and my arrogance.

Media/Entertainment/hollywood:the WalMart of cheap, shallow distractions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How About Hillary's Tarring of Obama?
Posted by: CatDad on Aug 29, 2008 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...with her "3AM" commercials which implied that Obama wasn't competent enough to handle a crisis? This is gold for the opposition and you can be sure that they'll put this into 24/7 rotation in the media just before the election. This internal smearing is mostly likely the reason that the polls are now tied between Obama and McCain...something that is mind-boggling when considering the advantage we had coming off the 7-year train wreck of George W's administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Campaign to Correct Media Bias
Posted by: LiveFree on Aug 29, 2008 10:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article reminds me that the newspapers during the administrations of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson became warring camps making up information "as much as you please."
After Watergate, the life and times of a reporter changed dramatically leading to more investigations and documentation of information and sources.
Today, cable networks and talk shows have essentially painted journalism a deep shade of yellow - in the tradition of Randolph Hearst, who has been credited with starting a war in Cuba.
In its coverage of the Democratic National Convention, the Boston Globe committed a serious error by omitting two of the three sentences in President Bill Clinton's speech which testified to Senator Barack Obama's qualification for president.
The story cited Clinton as saying Obama was ready to be president. What Clinton actually said, "Barack Obama is ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world. Ready to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United states. Barack Obama is ready to be president of the United States."
This editorial bias can be written off as editing for available space but the political context from which President Clinton was speaking demanded a complete quotation. During the primary season, both Clintons questioned Obama's fitness to be president, and the former president said, and rightfully so, that no one is ready to become president.
The media news line reported the Clintons and their supporters were ready to disrupt the DNC, while the major news media have severely limited and neglected the important news that the effort to achieve impeachment of Bush and Cheney has grown tremendously in the past year.
According to one NPR reporter speaking on-the-air Thursday night, only two or three Clinton supporters out of more than 100 delegates he interviewed on the convention floor said they would be voting for John McCain.
How many major news media reported that Clinton supporters in 34 states had a chance to cast votes for the runner-up (after she asked them to vote for Obama and) before she stopped the roll call vote to ask the convention to nominate her opponent by acclamation? How many reporters cited the number of votes cast - 1,549 for Obama and 231 for Clinton (from the NY Times)?
By the omission of facts and important quotes, the news media spins its own version of the news.
Also, many newspaper reporters apparently operate from a preconceived set of questions which limits their view of what constitutes facts that establish the news. The news media suffers from editorial blinders, and like unprofessional scientists, disregard all data not deemed pertinent to their investigations.
Knowing that newspaper reporters are thin-skinned (from my own experience writing for daily newspapers and editing a community newspaper in Bad Kreuznach, (then) West Germany for the 8th Infantry Division), I wonder how many stories ommitted former Vice President Al Gore's reference to inconvenient truths during his DNC speech.
In another instance of editorial bias against the Clintons, the Washington Post omitted Senator Obama's remarks about President Bill Clinton at the end of Wednesday night's speeches during his surprise visit. Obama made reference to Clinton as an example of a president who puts people first. Perhaps the reporter and editor disagreed with that statement?
At what point did newspapers and other national news media decide that their responsibility in interpreting the news included omission of statements they believed to be untrue? This is a subtle form of propaganda by newsmakers (and not newswriters).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great story Posted by: Lauren
Associated Press: Loss of Credibility
Posted by: Jest2007 on Aug 29, 2008 11:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Associated Press, a news organization with supposedly high standards and values, has now joined the ranks of journalists who have lost all sense of honesty and leadership. Of course, it may have something to do with the new AP Washington Bureau Chief, Ron Fournier. A recent study by media watchdog group Media Matters found that Fournier's presidential coverage has consistently smeared Democrats and favored John McCain. Even more astounding is the fact that the Associated Press is doing nothing about this obviously biased reporting. The man should either recuse himself or he should be fired. The latter would be preferable since he has violated the AP's "values and principles." A brief sampling of AP's headlines are an example of the abysmal political reporting of this news organization:

Headline: SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON AN ARTFUL DODGER Excerpt: "Slick Hillary? Former President Clinton earned the nickname 'Slick Willy' for his mastery in the political arts of ducking and dodging...His wife may not be as smooth, but Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is doing a passable impression of the ever-parsing former president."

Headline: CLINTON'S POLITICS OF PITY Excerpt: "Poor Hillary. After trying to save her sinking candidacy with awkward turns of flattery and sarcasm, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton resorted to a new tactic in Tuesday night's debate: self-pity."

Headline: OBAMA WALKS ARROGANCE LINE Excerpt: "There's a line smart politicians don't cross—somewhere between "I'm qualified to be president" and "I'm born to be president." Wherever it lies, Barack Obama better watch his step. He's bordering on arrogance."

The AP has breached the standards of good journalism, but that seems to be the state of the media in this country. Appalling!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Crabby grass grows in the Fourth Estate
Posted by: hagwind on Aug 29, 2008 11:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice job, Eric Boehlert: good reporting, solid analysis. You wrote:

Even after all these months, I still don't completely understand why Clinton's essentially centrist campaign for the White House ginned up so much open contempt from the press corps, which has felt completely comfortable addressing her in an openly derogatory and condescending manner.

OK, I'll take a stab at it.

1. She's a woman. The misogyny of the reporting of campaign 2008 has already been pointed out (which is not to say that those responsible for the misogynistic reporting have gotten the message -- only that the misogyny has not gone unremarked).

2. She's married to Bill Clinton. What difference does this make? I can think of at least two possibilities: (a) The baying hounds of the Fourth Estate have finally acknowledged that they went overboard for Bill when he was president, and rather than admit it out loud they are trashing his wife as a surrogate; and (b) They are crazy jealous of Hillary because she's married to Bill and they aren't. (If they asked Hillary pretty-please to switch places with them, I bet she'd agree.)

This near-total inability to provide accurate and meaningful context for Hillary Clinton's convention performance doesn't surprise me either. Researching the story is work. Shooting off your mouth is fun. Who's going to pay attention to a story that says that Hillary Clinton is doing what many of her predecessors have done, or that Hillary Clinton means it when she says she's going to campaign hard for the party's nominee? These people are trying to draw attention to themselves, not to the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

atruedemocrat
Posted by: atruedemocrat on Aug 29, 2008 12:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On wednesday I divided my time between Cspan and msnbc. Cspan was at the scene of the convention and the msnbc team was aparently in lala land. Hillary had told her supporters on Wednesday afternoon in Denver and everyone else who would listen that she would support Obama for the nomination, and that she had released her delegates to support Obama. Yet the 'news reporters' at msnbc were oblivious(?) to that fact. Are these msnbc people newsmen or tv personalities? Why listen to people who pay no attention to the facts if the facts do not support their agenda? And worse, we, as members of the public, apparently must do own fact-finding since we cannot rely on the media to do an honest job. Those msnbc 'journalists' are a disgrace to the journalism profession.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Try PBS Posted by: Jest2007
Who cares about what the Controlled Media Says Anyway?
Posted by: bottom-line on Aug 29, 2008 8:20 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The controlled media is losing its audience more and mroe each day and the Internet is picking up. Alternative media is where it's at.

We are sick of the lies and propaganda. It's on the Net too, but we can pick and choose what we want to look at, and the truth is there for anybody who wants to look for it.

Lots of people are listening to Alex Jones and finding out what SOBs are running the government, child molesters, devil worshippers, Freemasons who worship Egyptian pagan gods, meet at Bohemian grove to dress up like Druids and orgy and plot how to start wars and stage eavents to get the serfs (that's us) to go along with them.

Personally, I'm staying home on this phony election. The machines are mostly all rigged, the candidates are puppets handed to us against our wills, and to go vote just lends credibility to the whole dog and pony show.

That's why communist countries have mandatory voting, because otherwise nobody would vote. Who wants to stand in line for a sham election anyway?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Hillary didn't kowtow to Barack and endorse him,
Posted by: lindat on Aug 29, 2008 8:34 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
she would heave been smeared as "racist," just like the American people will be called racist if they don't elect Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

COMPLAIN TO THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Posted by: Jest2007 on Aug 29, 2008 10:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Upset with the biased press coverage written by the Associated Press? Send this esteemed wire service an e-mail (info@ap.org). The AP deserve to hear from the public. In the ASSOCIATED PRESS STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES are the following excerpted statements:

"For more than a century and a half, men and women of The Associated Press have had the privilege of bringing truth to the world. They have gone to great lengths, overcome great obstacles – and, too often, made great and horrific sacrifices – to ensure that the news was reported quickly, accurately and honestly. Our efforts have been rewarded with trust: More people in more places get their news from the AP than from any other source."

"In the 21st century, that news is transmitted in more ways than ever before – in print, on the air and on the Web, with words, images, graphics, sounds and video. But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news."

"That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions. It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast; nor will we alter photo or image content. Quotations must be accurate, and precise."

"It means we avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest and compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action."

"It means we must be fair. Whenever we portray someone in a negative light, we must make a real effort to obtain a response from that person. When mistakes are made, they must be corrected – fully, quickly and ungrudgingly."

"And ultimately, it means it is the responsibility of every one of us to ensure that these standards are upheld. Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously.
The policies set forth in these pages are central to the AP’s mission; any failure to abide by them is subject to review, and could result in disciplinary action, ranging from admonishment to dismissal, depending on the gravity of the infraction."

To read the complete version, click on the link or paste it in the browser: http://www.ap.org/newsvalues/index.html.

The AP has a huge problem and their mission is being compromised. With more and more of the media relying on the wire services, the public should not allow the AP to abdicate their values and principles. Consequently, it is incumbent upon the public to remind them of these responsibilities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hindsight is 20/20
Posted by: janelynne on Aug 31, 2008 4:30 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In an effort to see Barach Obama prevail, many Obama supporters became confused by the Rovian tactics they saw repeated all over television and online. The swiftboating of Clinton was a very slick operation that was meant to divide the Democrats.

The Democrats have to grow up fast and spot the Rovian playbook at work. The Democrats have to see through the propaganda, and be united to fight it in a unified way.

We are seeing the evidence in the media's jubulance and over-coverage of Sarah whats-her-name. If anyone bothers to tally who sponsors the television network and cable news, it is easy to understand that these industries do not want change: From ED medicine to medicine for osteoporosis, change threatens this corporate pre-eminence.

T-Bone Pickens, the man who funded the swift boat ads that called Kerry a traitor, is funding "Green-wash" ads toutng wind and solar energies. These ads will confuse the electorate, and McCain will annex Picken's message as his platform. Soon McCain will become the "agent of change", and the media will repeat and repeat it until the media will announce that there is no difference in the candidates.

The advertizing, the hoopla, the false rumors, the intentional confusion of message, the missing information, and the media story-telling will converge into a cohesive propaganda package, that is meant to deny Obama the White House: Karl Rove at his best.

McCain won't be needing independent advertizing because he is going to get much of it for free.

While the media talked over the Democratic convention, mostly with negative discussions about the Clintons, this will not happen to the GOP convention. Instead we are poised to see a glowing media that will explain, polish, and hold seminars on McCain's positions.

The Democrats need to "get" this, and get it fast. We need to use our advertizing dollars well, to counter the Republican/corporate culture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]