Why Americans Hate The Media (Tim Russert Edition)

Any Tim Russert-moderated debate is a good opportunity to remind everyone (especially professional journalists and bloggers) to read "Why Americans Hate The Media" by James Fallows. If you've read it before, read it again. So far, the print-and-TV-news blogs I've read have focused most on (1) Hillary Clinton's (fair!) complaint that Obama seems to get softer questioning, (2) Clinton (fairly!) running over Russert and Williams when she was trying to respond to criticism from Obama, and (3) the fact that Barack Obama didn't immediate respond to Russert's Farrakhan line of questioning by saying "I want to rip Louis Farrakhan's head off".

Let's take these in turn.

1. I think it's hard to deny that Obama has received softer coverage; the various Pew studies have confirmed that Obama has more positive articles than any other candidate by a large margin. I'm less sure about the questions in debate formats, but I'd be willing to believe it. It appears to be bad form to use SNL to make this point, but I'm not sure how else to make it.
2. Clinton tried to run over the moderators twice ... well, three times, if you count the very first attempt to thrust health care to the front of the debate, which I don't. The first time, Clinton wanted to make another point on health care, w hile the moderators wanted to move on to Nafta. Now, the political press corps has heard these arguments ad nauseum, but the overwhelming majority of debate watchers in Ohio and Texas have not. She should have had a chance to make her point. The second time, she wanted to respond to Obama's response on the far-reaching "genocide and Osama in Iraq" hypothetical, but MSNBC had to take a commercial break. Williams promised them they'd get back to which would have been fine, but instead the debate moved on to campaign hyperbole. Score one-and-a-half for Clinton.
3. The Farrakhan smear was, as others have pointed out, completely asinine. The implication is that because Barack Obama's minister's daughter's magazine said some nice things about Farrakhan, and Farrakhan said some nice things about Obama, that somehow he's insufficiently anti-anti-Semitic. Obama reminds Russert he's denounced Farrakhan repeatedly points to his record of speaking out against anti-Semitism in black churches, and makes a clever point about the historic (but "frayed") relationship between American Jewry and the civil rights movement. Smehow this isn't enough for the political press, or,indeed for Hillary Clinton. Indeed, Clinton pushed this wedge by trying to make a distinction between "denouncing" Farrakhan and "rejecting" his support, as she did by taking a "bold" (but obviously correct!) stand against anti-Semitism while running for Senate in New York. Obama recognizes the parlor game for what it is and says "I am happy to concede the point, and I denounce and reject". Can we stop this now? Is Obama's scorn for Farrakhan, who has no direct connection to Obama's campaign, sufficiently clear that we can get back to something more important? Does Russert ask Republicans about equivalently distant Christian Right leaders, some of whom have unsavory views on Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, homosexuality, women who work, etc.?

In addition, there's no sense in writing the postgame spin so quickly (MSNBC's sub-head: "At end of debate, there is little evidence of a shift in course of campaigns"). Reactions will play out over the next few days. Perhaps Clinton being stymied by two male moderators and a male opponent will play well with women. Perhaps her performance played so poorly that Obama will win Ohio and Texas by five or more points. Perhaps the fact that Obama is campaigning eighteen hours a day and thus unable to follow events in Russia will make people have second thoughts about his foreign policy chops. Perhaps they'll resent the whole exercise and just not vote. We just don't know the answer to these questions, and we won't know until post-debate polls come out on Friday or so. Just let the thing play out!

I think I'm rooting for a decisive victory on March 4th just to spare us all from more Russert-moderated debates. Just a reminder: "Why Americans Hate The Media" is worth re-reading every few months

Comments

[Lisa Simeone]

I will never forget reading that article by Fallows lo these many years ago. It gave me chills. It still does. You're right that we should re-read it every so often.

[Ursula]

"somehow he's insufficiently anti-Semitic."
I think you mean the opposite- because he didn't reject Farrakhan AND his minister's daughter's whatever, he's insufficiently anti-anti-semitic.

[litbrit]

In the article's opening hypothetical situation, I would have sided with the military men, particularly the one who was missing limbs, and their decision--made in the battlefield with certainty aforethought that their prisoners had information that could save American captives' lives--to carry out torture. (Yes, me.) And like them, I would also have done so knowing it would haunt me--perhaps to the point of madness--for the rest of my life. I believe firmly that given the chance to save the life of a colleague, or a civilian, one must do so, however one can.

In the second hypothetical, I would also have reacted exactly as Peter Jennings did at first, before Mike Wallace shamed him for losing objectivity as a journalist: I'd have done whatever I could to warn the Americans and try to save them, damn the story. Those lives could have been my sons' lives; they were someone's sons' lives. And that's all I needed to know, absolutely, that no story could ever be worth more.

I guess that permanently disqualifies me from being a "real" media writer.

[litbrit]

Oh, and re: Obama's handling of the Farrakhan smear, Robert and I were amazed at his grace under fire, truly. He didn't rise to the repeated baiting by Timmeh, and he said exactly the right thing--that he denounced the man's antisemitism but could not tell him whom to support or not support--as calmly as though he'd been asked what he'd do if the dry cleaner ruined his suit. He even deftly worked a nice reminder about the numerous civil rights allegiances that the nation's Jewish and black communities have, historically, forged.

Me, I think I'd have had a hard time not barking "Asked, and ANSWERED!!!" when Timmeh kept on poking and repeating himself.

The real losers last night were the MSM, methinks. Their behavior was appalling on so many levels.

[low-tech cyclist]

Can't believe it's been 12 years since Fallows wrote that article, and the Atlantic published it. (I probably have the original print issue it's in, buried away somew And the MSM have fixed...what, exactly, in those 12 years?

If I'm feeling sufficiently cranky one of these days, I may print out a copy of the article, take it downtown, and Scotch-tape it to the front windows of the Washington Post building.

[North]

I might go with "plays well TO women" rather than "plays well WITH women." May not be as correct, but ya know...

That aside, I agree with Nick here.

[John]

I'm not sure what the basis is for the idea that Obama gets favorable treatment in the debates. Being willing to believe it isn't really an argument in favor of the notion. Nor is citing a terrible SNL sketch a very good argument.

As to Pew studies, I'm not sure that the existence of better media coverage proves "bias." Obama's been winning, so of course he's going to get better coverage. Getting "more positive" coverage doesn't prove bias.

By the way, Clinton apparently was playing fast and loose with the story about the Independence Party. She implied that they endorsed her and that she rejected their endorsement, thus potentially costing her votes from Independence Party straight ticket voters (I guess). In fact, she went to their convention and asked for their endorsement, while at the same time, er, denouncing, anti-semitic elements within them. She also said she wouldn't accept their endorsement if they endorsed Pat Buchanan.

[Nicholas Beaudrot]

But, he got more positive coverage in 2007 as well, and again by a large margin. I guess I should have said that.

As for debates, maybe we'll have to review what's happened in the last two or three.

[Ron]

Are we supposed to expect exactly even positive and negative converage for every candidate? Is Obama supposed to receive the same amount of negative converage as, say, Tancredo, Romney, or Kucinich? That seems clearly absurd. Counting up the positive and negative news stories doesn't tell you a whole lot and we shouldn't expect them to be exactly even among different candidates who have run different campaigns with different messages. Obama receives more positive coverage because he is a better candidate with a better message and a better campaign. End of story.

[prospero]

IF the moderators or whoever was responsible hadn't run the gratuitous Youtube tripe video clip at the beginning, there would have been a little more time for both candidates to address issues. Unconscionable, actually.

[Stephen]

Obama receives more positive coverage because he is a better candidate with a better message and a better campaign. End of story.

That's exactly right. It's the same as in 2000. George Bush was a hard-working Texas oilman, ranch owner and cowboy, a devout Christian committed to marrying conservative governmental and economic theory with Evangelical Christianity's record of compassion. Easygoing, accessible, totally frank and honest.

Al Gore, on the other hand, was an earth-tones-wearing serial liar and exaggerator, an effeminite Northern liberal who always poll-tested everything he would say beforehand and then switch it the next day.

Clearly Bush got more positive coverage in the 2000 election because he was a better candidate with a better message. And I think the last 7 years have borne that out, especially in the way the press has rewarded his administration's unprecedented openness, honesty and bipartisan spirit with the deference it deserves.

/sarcasm, if you can't tell

Obama's great, Ron, but put down the Kool-Aid. Seriously.

[Sir Charles]

Hillary has gotten some terribly unfair coverage and Obama is a better candidate. These strike me as independently true propositions.

Unfortunately, I suspect the time is rapidly approaching (if last night's debate did not signal its beginning) in which the MSM feels duty bound to try and take Obama down several notches. And then the Republican campaign is going to begin, which will be, I suspect, as vicious and disgusting as any we have ever seen. So I am anticipating an infuriating several months in front of us.

And yet, I still think Obama will win. (This hope crap must be contagious.)

[low-tech cyclist]

Wonder when the moment will come that the MSM feels duty bound to try to take McCain down several notches.

Maybe at this time.

[Sir Charles]

lt-c

We wouldn't want them to be precipitous.

It's pretty stunning how quickly the Commetariat dismissed the NY Times story and the first couple of follow ups as somehow being about the inadequacies of the Times.

St. John is still beyond reproach -- I had to wake up this morning to hearing Mara Liarson on NPR claiming that Obama had waffled on public financing while McCain had committed to using it. It defies parody.