Keeping More Than One Idea In Our Heads At The Same Time
January 18, 2008 -- 10:23 AM EST // //
The New Republic's Jason Zengerle doesn't think the media screwed John Edwards:
I think Edwards received plenty of media attention in the year before the caucuses and primaries began. Maybe he didn't receive as much as Hillary and Obama, but then his candidacy wasn't as historic as theirs, plus he trailed them in the national polls. Edwards ran a very good campaign and I think you can make the argument that he actually had the biggest impact in terms of policy on the race -- setting a progressive standard that the other candidates tried to meet -- but he lost, and the fact that he lost wasn't the media's fault.I understand these arguments. But in response, let me just say that I think we should try to keep more than one idea in our heads at the same time. Here they are:
(1) It's true that it's understandable that the press has been devoting some more attention to Hillary and Obama because of the potentially historic nature of their candidacies;
(2) It's true that Edwards' travails aren't solely the media's fault and that he bears blame, should he lose;
(3) But at the same time, it's also true that in general the press has never accorded the Edwards campaign the level of seriousness it deserved and that the political coverage skewed too sharply towards covering it as a two-person contest.
The point is, these two arguments -- "Edwards bears blame for his likely loss" and "Hillary and Obama's candidacies were potentially history-making" -- simply don't refute the argument that Edwards in general has gotten shafted by the press. All these three things can be true at the same time.
As for Edwards trailing them in national polls, this one won't wash as an excuse, because lots of professional political journalists know -- and indeed, often told us -- that the national polls don't matter. Rather, the primary reason Edwards wasn't deemed viable long-term -- and hence went under-covered -- was that he didn't raise as much money that Hillary and Obama did. I think we can all agree that this isn't a good way to determine which candidate's words and actions are more deserving of news coverage.
It's true that at this point the lesser attention to Edwards is defensible. And Zengerle says he doesn't think that Edwards has been short-shrifted over the last year. I agree that this sort of stuff is very difficult to quantify. By nature judgments like these are mainly based on long-term impressions.
But I stand by my view of what's been happening. Whether it was the constant coverage of the $400 haircut; the subtext in much coverage that Edwards' personal wealth rendered his populism little more than a phony and ineffective gimmick; or the constant and relentless portrayal of the race as a showdown between two political superstars, there's just no denying that in terms of the scope and tone of the coverage, Edwards has basically gotten screwed.
No, this isn't the only reason he's losing. And yes, it's partly explained by the groundbreaking Hillary and Obama candidacies. But this is what happened nonetheless.
The comments section is temporarily disabled and is currently undergoing repair. This blog's homepage is here.