Will the media regress to 1992?
This is a reposted and expanded upon comment from the Election Central Roundup:
Eric Boehlert has an interesting examination of how the press, after being accused of favoring Clinton in the election 1992, developed quite a combative relationship with Clinton even before he took office. The "honeymoon" with the media was declared over practically before Clinton was sworn in.
Link: The turnaround (Openleft)
Must-read piece by Eric Boehlert (the original)
(Warning: it's a bit depressing)
Yesterday, Mark Halperin proclaimed, at a conference at USC, that the press was absurdly in the tank for Obama, and that it represented the greatest failure of the press since the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. The most "disgusting", is how he described it.
Link: Mark (ruled by Drudge) Halperin on the "disgusting failure" of the press wrt Obama
Will the press execute a similar turnaround in its coverage of Obama? Will we be subjected to an endless parade of scandallettes? Well, if so, I'd like to highlight one potential topic for a scandal, written about in todays the Sunday Times:
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama promised to get a million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015. His own new presidential limousine will be far from green, however.
The Obamobile being prepared for the president-elect is said to be a monster gas-guzzler made by General Motors, the troubled car giant. It will look like a black Cadillac but is built like a tank. A spy photographer who tracks down future car models for magazines snatched pictures of the heavily disguised first-car-in-waiting when it was being road-tested last summer.
Gasp. The new presidential limousine isn't a Prius! What hypocrisy!
The author goes on to say:
While security is paramount - the car is built to survive roadside bombs as well as gunfire - there are hybrid four-wheel drives on the market, such as Ford's Mercury Mariner, which some critics believe could have been adapted for the president.
The tried and true "some people say" method of reporting. If you want to read the whole piece, here's the link:
The limo's not a Prius! What a hypocrite!
Any thoughts on any other "scandals" that we'll be subjected to? The puppy? The school?
FYI: thepeoplechoose has a blog entry on the Halperin comments: Halperin/media bias?
Mark halperin...is a whinning weasel...he doesn't know up from down. He is the biggest hack.
November 23, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
He may be all of those things, wrb, but he gets attention, unfortunately.
November 23, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 1992, rightwingism was on the rise. Today it is relegated to the trashheap. This will make a big difference over the next 8 years.
BUT, OBAMA is a symbolic figure. To develop a progressive agenda, we need to make progressive policy in CONGRESS and we still need to expel the Liebermans... If the caucus won't do it, the voters will have to. It is time to draw up a list of the 50 most conservative democrats in Congress and 5 most conservative ones (due for reelection) in the Senate for 2010... Primary season is around the corner.
November 23, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what will you do with that list? If you intend to replace them with progressives, where will you get the voters to vote them into office?
November 24, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It will be proof positive that the "librul main-stream media" is nothing more than a Republican black-op.
November 23, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being "in the tank" for a needless war in which more than 1 million human beings have been killed and more than 5 million made homeless... is a far bigger crime, methinks.
That's assuming that Mr Halperin's whines about being in the tank for Obama are true. Which they aren't.
November 23, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, I'm sure we'll get some share of the bullshit we saw in 1992. I'll never forget seeing that Newsweek (or was it Time?) cover a few months after the election, with the tiny pic of Clinton and the enormous headline: The Incredible Shrinking President. The juvenile schoolyard snark factor was overwhelmingly obvious and disgusted me. No doubt something similar will occur with Obama eventually, but hopefully with more backlash against the perpetrators this time.
November 23, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you just disgusted because it was about Clinton?
Look here. Does this cover disgust you as well? Or is it okay because you agree with the premise?
Magazine covers are about graphics to sell the magazine. They are therefore intended to catch your eye. And you know what? Politicians use photo-ops to convince you for things as well. That's why they like to wear flag pins...
If we hold the general editorializing to that level, for both sides of the aisle, we will be doing well indeed.
November 23, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Torture is a war crime. It cannot be made legal. Attemtping to make it legal is also illegal.
We know, with testimony and hard evidence, that Cheney pushed torture.
And you, in being "balanced," are defending him against a mild media critique? Go back to freerepublic.
November 23, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'm misreading you, but your comment seems rather condescending. What point are you trying to make?
November 23, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that few really criticize the media in an objective way. Most tend to criticize the media when it veers from their own personal world view.
FNC is a solid target of intense media criticism since it simply lies over and over again from a single point of view. Most media isn't that extreme.
Classic case and point: FNC is all over how the media "loved" Obama and didn't like McCain. You know what, they are probably right.
And in 2000, the media loved GWB and didn't like Gore.
To think that most of the media has a monolithic political point of view is not substantiated. They like to sell stories to generate (ad) revenue. And that applies to the MSM and the websites both.
November 24, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the media has a monolithic view point, outside of selling a product, getting page views, and attention from cable news outlets.
I would suggest, though, that the media has an inherent bias, dwindling, to be sure, to frame much of any discussion as "Why X is a problem for the Democrats", regardless of the particular Democrats in question and regardless of what X actually is.
I think a lot of criticism of Democrats masquerades as critical thinking when all it really is is knee-jerk criticism. If Obama had acted more aggressively on the economy before today (and I don't know how he could have done that), every cable news "pundit" would be screaming about how presumptuous he is, how we only have one president at a time, and so on and so forth.
As it is, they're screaming about how Obama has to take action, any action, or the fate of the entire universe is in jeopardy.
November 24, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the media may try to do a "1992", but I think conditions on the ground may be a bit different than they were back then. First, as the Marquis mentions above, conservatism was on the rise back in 1992. That certainly is not the case now.
But perhaps more importantly, the very idea of the media has changed in the intervening years. The MSM is not just competing with America Online (AOL) and CompuServe like it was in 1992. It is competing with a massive, popular movement that all of us reading and writing here are a part of. This movement was built from the ground up to change the direction of the United States, and that media is now the equal of the MSM in scope as well as power.
You may not believe my last assertion about the scope and power of the blogosphere just yet, but keep in mind that I am a US citizen currently writing this from a land far away from any US territory. The blogosphere, then, has the ability to reach places that the MSM cannot, and it can reach those places with an eye toward organization that the MSM is in no way equipped to capitalize on. It is this ability to organize people's behaviors that will push the MSM to reflect the interests of it's viewership, and not just the interests of the MSM itself.
So, let them try to revert back to "1992." They're not going to get away with it for very long this time. I mean, we've already started organizing against that possibility on this website before they've even started. They're not going to know what hit 'em if they try.
November 23, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two things play into this. 1)The media needs a narrative that sells, since they have to pay their bills and 2)the media will try to sell a responsible narrative when the stakes are high.
Some, like Halperin, will try, but are likely to fail. In 2002, the Bushies ran a narrative that the public bought into and the media did little to challenge. The public was behind the Bushies. The public was willing to support (viewership) the media narrative, and the 2002 congressional election confirm that.
The public is now behind Obama. An anti-Obama narrative will not work, at least with a large majority of the public. Except for a few exceptions at the fringes, a negative narrative won't pay the media's bills so they won't pursue it, at least not now.
I think the media also has some sense of responsibility. Look at how they helped take down Palin and, in spite of a few attempts at "false balance," called McCain on his lies and his suspension of his campaign. IMO, they acted responsible but would have abandoned it if the public rejected the narrative.
November 24, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except McCain had given the media ample opportunity to call him on a variety of things before he suspended his campaign. Imagine that Obama had suggested that, for instance, his wife compete in the topless "beauty" pageant. Imagine that McCain had suggested we sit down with our enemies "without preconditions". The first instance would have generated a media firestorm, the second, nary a whisper.
November 24, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I agree. The media was MIA on a number of issues. There was 2 months of POW POW POW before they finally called him on it in mid august or so. Post Palin, there tolerance was severely diminished.
However, I'm not sure what your point is?
November 24, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That it took a rather long time for the McCainism's to sink in to national media, and that had McCain been a Democrat, those McCainism's would have been front and center.
The response to Palin could be construed as an example of the media doing its job. Then the question of why arises, and that's where the media response to Palin becomes significantly more complicated, if you ask me.
The media "does its job" when the target of that job is a Democrat, or a woman. When the target is an older white male? Not so much.
But that's perhaps an issue for another day.
November 24, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The financial crisis will keep the media looking and running a supportive narrative.
November 24, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you people stop giving the media a pass by saying that conservatism was on the rise in 1992 and early 1993?
Bush Sr. Had just lost the presidency in late 1992. Conservatism was on the decline.
That conservatism later made a comeback is a different story . Why don't you theorize that the subsequent rise of conservatism was boosted by this media behavior?
November 24, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too late for the school thing; they're already in a huff that he'll be sending his daughters to a private school and yet he opposes vouchers.
November 24, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or, he's being given a choice that millions of Americans don't have.
Nary a whisper about security concerns in the entire discussion.
November 24, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Found another, from yesterday's Politico:
See? He really isn't a Christian.
November 24, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although I have always been a registered Democrat, I never voted for Bill Clinton, having opted for the third party candidate. I had some extended work time in Little Rock in the mid -late eighties and heard a lot of things that led me to question Clinton's moral compass even back then.
However, Once Clinton was elected, I gave him the support that the office of President deserved. What I recall to have been shocking is how intense and extreme the MSM and Repub surrogate attacks became in a short period of time. It just did not seem right.
Looking back on everything we know today about the neocon/conservative elite attempts to control the MSM themes and Rove's plans to create a long lasting Repub majority. As many would call it, using Hillary's description, a " vast right wing conspiracy" the reality seems to be a more limited form of a conspiracy.
I have no doubt that we are already seeing, and will continue to see, signs of an attempt to rejuvinate this tactic. The continued fascination with Sarah Palin and the clarion call of fools like Mark Halperin to name a couple. Rush Limbaugh's blame game for the negative economy on P.E. Obama before Inauguration is probably a shot across the bow by these same interests.
Although the posters to this thread have pointed out reasons to be hopeful that the Repub Noise Machine will not prevail this time around, we cannot let our guard down.
Hopefully, our free market capitalist system on its own ill take care of many of the Repub mouthpieces.
November 24, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the "Obama recession" that Rush et al have been peddling for a couple of weeks now. I think it might have worked, except reality has been grim for many people for too long.
I'm wondering who the Palin commercials are targeted at. I'm also wondering if last week's turkey episode might blunt some of the effectiveness (if any) of those ads.
November 24, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink