The Abrams Report: Is the Media Making This More of A Horse Race?
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Jan 30, 2008 6:00pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
I was a little hesitant to do this post at first because I'm sure I'll be accused of doing a pro-Hillary post. But stay with me here. Looking at this strictly on the level of media bias--and irrespective of the actual candidates--Dan Abrams asks if the media is creating a horse race that does not really exist by downplaying the lead of one candidate and playing up the rise of another just to create a media narrative. And again, irrespective to the actual candidates, there is some truth to what Abrams says (and Rachel Maddow's point that Obama is gaining as well, if you look at the trajectory of the polling data), and we can see it in many other ways, such as the death knell of McCain's campaign four months ago and the presumptive lead of Rudy Giuliani at the same time. Now that actual votes are being counted, who has the delegates and who has gotten out of the race? And let us not forget the media blackout on Edwards and how that impacted his ability to gain traction nor the pundit-declared victory for Obama in New Hampshire before a single vote was counted. Huffington Post's Roy Sekoff, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell chime in as well.
So what do you think? Is the media deciding the terms of the race for us? Tom Tomorrow thinks so.
Jim Booth at Scholars & Rogues takes a slightly different--but related--look at it as it relates to Edwards leaving the race.
Login or Register to post comments.
The truth is he is gaining and any effort by the Media to portray his historic fundraising and support as Media spin is playing into a much bigger, sinister agenda.
:)
Mainstream media has a lot more influence over the election than I care for. For example, they monitor the "debates" and decide what topics will be raised. Whatever happened to debates monitored by the League of Women Voters?
I'm not sure I follow you here Nicole...The media does what the media does..what's your beef? Hillary's not doing so well any more ?
It's not just deciding the terms of the race, it's deciding the race itself.
If you think your Vote matters, then you need to watch this.
The reporters who did this work need to be commended for their good work.
That's reporting.
Of course these "talking heads" are trying to define the race. Look at the way they have treated many of the candidates who were previously running. The amount of time they gave to each candidate in any debate was disproportional. They have their favorites, believe me, they want Clinton (so they can continue to bash her for the next 4 years and they want McCain because he is "so accessible"--either one is acceptable to the corporate suits, because it is all about ratings..also they want to enjoy the tax perks and lack of oversite that has prevailed for the last 7 years. (Serious oversite with the FCC).
Well, I for one (and I'm in my late 50's), want Barak Obama because it will turn the "conventional wisdom" around DC on their heads.
Rachel Maddow made the best point in this discussion. You have to report on what's moving. Hillary's points haven't moved since last year. Obama is gaining and is very close to taking her spot. That IS the story. 4 months ago everyone KNEW Hillary would be the nominee.
Absolutely.The media is obviously manipulating this race for all its worth.Something else thats really bothering me as well is this lockstep way in which the right wing are endorsing Obama.I cannot shake this feeling that he is being set up as the Sacrificial Lamb.I'd like to believe that America is truly ready for "change"(be it in the form of a Black or female President)but I just can't buy it.
Horserace elections eventually lead to electorate dog food.
The short answer is yes. Why do you think politician's spend so much on ads? Because "American Idol" a gong show copy without the humor is the number 1 show on T.V.
"Creating all the news that's fit to spew!"
ysbaddaden @ 10:
good anology.
The media wants a drawn out, close, and nasty race between Hillary and Obama. What they are not acknowledging is that Hillary will almost certainly enter the convention with more delegates because she is going to win California and New York. Obama, interestingly enough, is popular in the rural, inland states (red states). he will win Kansas. He will win many southern states. He might even pull an upset in Massachusetts, where I detect a strong anti-Hillary backlash (and a strong support of Ted Kennedy). But Hillary has a clear edge. Obama is raising a lot of money, and it might be all for naught.
It's another side effect of opinion based news trying to pass itself off for hard journalism. Clueless pundits leap to conclusions that almost never bear out.
I thank my lucky stars that it doesn't seem to effect the voting population as a whole.
Jesse @ 15:
That leprecan is putting something in your cereal dude.
Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM
Criticizing the media for wanting a story (a close election where the underdog is gaining on the favorite) rather than a non-story (lopsided election where favorite crushes underdog) is sort of silly. Of course journalists want a story rather than a non-story.
Richard @ 17:
Like beating the first lost soul who enters the food kitchen at St Vincents?
Richard @ 17:
Yes but how the story plays out and to who's ultimate benefit is what is worth consideration.Do you want the press actively interfering in the democratic process?
An argument can certainly be made that this is exactly what is taking place.
In Michigan many of our politicians were telling us to go and vote no matter what. Carl Levin was on the radio days before saying "go and vote uncommitted [if you're not for Clinton or Kucinich]; they'll seat our delegates; it WILL matter; etc."
Were the Democrats in Florida being told the same thing?
Abrams is totally making a point here; it's just an *obvious* one.
Of course the main stream media is steering this race. Take a look at Kucinich... shut out of many debates, given very very low talking time in the debates he was allowed to attend, and yet he won most of the polls after those debates. Did the MSM pick those up and run with them? No, from early on and continuing until Kucinich backed out of the Presidential run in order to focus on his congressional run, the MSM decided he was not electable and treated him as such. Or, look at Ron Paul's media coverage. It amazes me to watch Republican debates and see no one in the audience making a sound until Ron Paul talks about things like us being in Iraq is a mistake, and then the audience erupts in cheers and clapping! And still the MSM discounts him.
It is so odd to watch.
I'm sorry, but I can't watch Abrams. He gets good guests (for some reason), but won't shut up and let them talk. He's getting to be more and more like a left-wing O'Reilly.
But I did read the leader. I'm sorry, Nicole, that you're so defensive.
Nicole Belle
Yes, I will call you out on another pro-Hillary thread. Perfect example of one right here.
This is very simple - Hillary was old news because everyone knew her before she started to run for President. Edwards was known as the one who lost the last election with Kerry so in a way everyone knew him and didn't want that rerun. Finally - Obama is fresh, new and a person who transcends race like no other candidate in my life. Jessie Jackson only had a race issue to run with and no mass appeal so Obama, a young good-looking guy comes along, then that is exciting. Peope want to get to know him and see what he is all about. I am voting for Obama and I had no idea who he was until this race and I like what I see and hear.
Is the media deciding the terms of the race?! Do you even need to ask? Of course they are.
I'm reminded of an NPR piece following the New Hampshire primaries, in which Mara Liasson discussed several of the Republican candidates, including, for example, Giuliani, who fared terribly in that race, in a straightforward, fairly neutral way, then moved on to the Democratic results and pronounced it a "two-person race" between Clinton and Obama. Surprise, surprise-- somehow her prediction, along with that of every other major news outlet, came true.
They give away free publicity by the bucketful, ignore the candidates that don't fit whatever story they'd like to tell, and then they're smug when the race shapes up just the way they said it would.
Richard @ 17:
The problem comes when they create a story or fail to tell a story because it doesn't fit in with their agenda. For example, almost everyone agreed that John Edwards won the last debate, but the MSM reported almost nothing about that. The MSM was so fixed on slamming Hillary and pumping up Obama, that they left the real debate winner out of the story. I've heard someone report that it's one of the reasons Edwards dropped out of the race before Super Tuesday. He couldn't buy press coverage no matter what he did.
The MSM is no longer serving the public good. They do the bidding of their corporate masters. I firmly believe that the MSM is trying their best to affect this election. I think that the pundits are powerless people who report on power and they naturally crave it.
Steve @ 23:
I was waiting for this one. Go ahead, smart guy. Show me how this is pro-Hillary.
I like Dan Abrams, but my god man.. save your breath. A whole lotta nothing in that rant.
Of course they are!
And having the staggered state by state primary just exacerbates the whole process. We have a choice of whomever the kingmakers and powerbokers give us.
and the truth is that the populace of the US is too spoiled and lazy to do anything about it. Maybe if they miscalculated and closed down all the malls something might happen - but I think they get that.
I hold the media totally responsible for Edwards being out of the race. They didn't want Edwards because they've "been there, done that," in the last election and what they value above all is fresh meat for the grinder.
Edwards was scrupulously examined previously and the biggest fault they could find with him: he was a trial lawyer. With Hillary they can reopen every scandal of the Clinton Administration and with Obama they always have the hope of new scandals (Chicago Mafia, anyone?) With Edwards they would have had to talk about the economy and healthcare. Little niggling things like ISSUES. Nothing they hate more.
So what did they do? They ignored him. That's what will make Huckabee disappear, too. And what will get McCain nominated? They like the "comeback kid" story more than anything they could say about a rich Mormon.
There's no doubt about it and great post Nicole. I believe the media has a vested interest in keeping the races close and this helps the companies, be it Diebold, who want to slant the elections last minute with hidden software. Everyone benefits from the 50%-50% races. Except the American People and the Truth. It True.
Nicole,
I'll try to answer - it seems pro-Hillary because the implication is that Hillary would be winning this thing but for a biased media that is pumping up Obama. Which, btw, is complete nonsense. There have been 4 contested primaries/cauci, and they have been split 2 each. Obama won Iowa and Hillary came in third, and that result can hardly be "blamed" on the media. Obama's rise in Iowa really got started with his Jefferson/Jackson speech, which really wasn't covered all that much in the media. The media gave Hillary's "upset" in New Hampshire big play. The media didn't stupidly compare Obama to Jesse Jackson, that was Bill.
Do we need to ask? Of course it is, the Corporate Media always does that so they can obfuscate the issues and spin political elections in favor of Republicans by focusing on imaginary PR constructed cartoon caricatures of the candidates. Thus, Bush could win elections based, not on substance, but on the fake notion that he was the kind of guy that you could have a beer with while Al Gore and John Kerry (a war hero) were elitist intellectual wimps.
Ya
They always go for tomorrows news today. And that is the race being neck and neck, Maybe.
JTM @ 22:
This Abrams fellow is hard to watch. He's so full of himself. He would be better as a weather man.
The big story out of Florida is whether those delegates will count at the convention. That's a huge story that could totally explode the convention. Florida was just a poll? Anybody who says this question is settled is lying or dreaming.
Name recognition doesn't explain massive turnout. And Abrams is right, 'momentum' is not about delegates -- otherwise why make such a big deal about Iowa/NH?
In the end, they all conceded Abrams was right. They have zero credibility, they're just entertainers. It's not a damn football game.
naughtynigel @ 24:
Does it bother you that the right wing is so enamored of him?
I'm not being a smart arse,I'm genuinely curious.
Nicole, you
ignorant slutshill for the shrillfeminazineocontroll...whatever you are, thanks for the links and the thoughts.I'm with Tom Tomorrow on this one. The msm is avoiding the issues. Completely. If they were addressing the issues, Edwards would still be running- and probably leading the race.
"I get it, I get it... but I'm 'gunna call it out." (Abrams in closing)
After the treatment Edwards and Dennis and Ron Paul have received.....
Listen, as a card carrying union belonging member of the media elite(television), I can tell you ratings are everything to us. For all of our touting of family values, and concern for educational content and all of that other warm fuzzy claptrap the media pretends to be about, what we are really about is making YOU watch US.
Read further down the main page for the article about Fox News sliding in the ratings to see what I am talking about. The media wants a horse race and if there isn't one, they will create one. Why? Because it garners viewer interest, and logically, ratings. A race that ISN'T a race, one in which there is a clear frontrunner with a massive lead, simply isn't interesting to a nation full of people weaned on competition. We need to present you with something that feels like a competitive race in order to keep you watching (and buying our advertiser's soap and Viagra and shoes...and stuff).
The news is notorious for low ratings, in fact, in the good old Cronkite days, the news didn't even worry about ratings. It was supposed to be "above" all of that, but a while back the news fell under the bigger televised "entertainment" umbrella and suddenly we got crap like O'Reilly and his ilk, a bunch of loud mouthed ill informed louts railing away at whichever side they hated most, and lo and behold, they got big ratings, and the news was suddenly on network exec's radar. Whether it was someone watching because they believed what these knobs were saying, or, like some, they watched because they couldn't believe what they were saying and were getting angry, didn't matter. Only the numbers mattered, and now, today we have a Presidential race overseen, moderated, written, art directed, and ultimately, pretty much decided by big media.
Guys with a real message that might actually galvanize voters and really turn things around, upset the status quo, you know, somehow make a difference, guys like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards or Chris Dodd or Ralph Nader are dismissed because for whatever reason, the media pays little or no attention to them. Perhaps they aren't physically attractive, or their name isn't whitebread enough, or their backstory isn't as attractive, no matter, they are dismissed and we get whatever candidates the media feels are most viable shoved down our throats in a pre-scripted phony race where the end is already known. Sad days for the Republic, mes amis, sad days indeed.
Jim @ 32:
But here's the thing, Jim: look up on the original post. Do you see where not once but TWICE I wrote "IRRESPECTIVE of the actual candidates"? ABRAMS--not me--chose to focus on the Obama/Hillary part. I'm not concerned with the actual candidates which people who have issues like Steve don't seem to have the nuance to be able to understand. I'm concerned with the media bias. I'm concerned with the media having a greater say in our democratic choices than the electorate does. That's why I brought up Edwards.
But then there are small, little angry people like Steve who seem to think that if I don't denounce Hillary Clinton as the spawn of Satan in every post that I must be pro-Hillary.
It's sad to me that we talk about it being perfectly understandable that the media want a story, they want to talk about something interesting, as if a candidate who doesn't fit into some media story (whether it's an interesting one, or, all too often, a really tired one), doesn't deserve to be heard. We talk as if an informed citizenry was an irrelevant concept. If you think about the real-world implications of the candidates' platforms, Edwards' story was in fact an exciting one. As are some aspects of many of the other candidates' stances.
I had the same feeling when reading the comments on Gov. Sebelius' SOTU response-- so many people complained about it being "boring". Are we not adults, citizens, who can think about what a person has said, and what they've done?
I care about ideas and actions. And I am really sick of the abysmal media coverage of this presidential campaign. And I'm angry that the vast majority of Democrats will not be given the opportunity to choose from the many excellent candidates that were running, because the media has chosen for us.
Chicken or the egg.
What came first: the poll points or the coverage?
16 Shiva H Vishnu Says; That leprecan is putting something in your cereal dude.
Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM
If that's legit, that is scary! Why isn't the media covering that ?
pinkobait @ 19:
Some of you have such a low, unreasonable, unfounded hatered of Hillary Clinton you can't even see what this post is about. It doesnt make any difference who the leader is, they must be bashed and the underdog propped up to artifisaly make a race. What ever draws the most eyeballs, the job of the media should be to analize posisions and platforms, to inform the voter. The media has ignored people they don't want and tried their best to keep it close for the final two in each party.
I wish you didn't have to post a justification for posting this clip Nicole, it was a good segment even if it didn't tell us anything new. Of course the media frames the story however they feel would make it more interesting for them to cover. It's been the way of things for well over a decade now, if not well beyond that. It's sad and unfortunate, and it's why John Edwards is no longer in the race. It's just nice to hear a host actually say the obvious on television. Usually it's a pundit who brings up the point on a show, if it gets raised at all, and that person gets gets shouted down and made to look crazy.
RayC @ 47:
'ARTIFICIALLY'
Richard @ 46:
Nicole,
I'm not expecting you to denounce Hillary. However, you can't get away with saying "it's not me, it's Dan Abrams saying this." You yourself obviously understood that posting this clip might be viewed as pro-Hillary, otherwise you wouldn't have prefaced the post as you did. In my opinion, you posted what Dan thought, presumably as a means of getting the "media hates Hillary" meme out there once again. Not that it makes you a bad person, of course. I generally love your stuff here.
In any event, after watching the segment twice, I think Abrams, who is someone I generally like, was the one trying to create a controversy that doesn't exist. The press didn't give much notice to Hillary's Florida victory because the candidates had agreed not to give much notice to Florida, at least until Hillary somewhat reneged. There was no conspiracy on the part of the media to cover up a huge Clinton victory.
RayC @ 47:
im so sick of being told that i dont have a reason for disliking clinton...i have many reasons, and the main one being her initial cheerleading for the war and then occupation in iraq, and the fact that till this day, she refuses to admit that it was a mistake.
and i will not have the msm tell me who to vote for, as they have told us since 04 that hillary will be our nominee
i wish i could have backed kucinich, but he never got any real traction
so it up to obama to stop the clinton machine
While it may be true that whining (although it's fun) is often pointless--demanding a return to the fairness doctrine, gaining a majority in congress and lobbying for, at the very least, a commitment from public broadcasting to media fairness, would not be pointless.
Walter Cronkite was boring. I want the news to be boring again.
Richard @ 17:
Is it really so silly? I don't think it should be. Sure it's natural, as Rachel said, to want to report on what's moving rather than what's coasting, but only if you're so bound and determined to pay attention to the horse race aspect of the campaign and nothing more. Journalists aren't just supposed to report "stories," they're supposed to deliver information. And it wouldn't hurt them to spend less time framing the race and more time on educating the public on the issues as each of the candidates present them in their platforms and in their past history.
Good for Abrams! Fascinating to watch people like Maddow and the guy from HuffPo trying to justify the tired old media status quo horse race reporting.
And how ridiculous is it to write-off the Clinton victory in Florida because they didn't campaign there?! As if the voters in Florida have no idea who these candidates are and what they stand for if they don't get to see any TV ads! Wow. Do these people think Floridians don't read newspapers or use computers? Unbelievable.
Andy K @ 38:
lol
edwards couldn't win a primary if he were the only guy on the ballot....
often times, the simplest explanation is the correct one-- people don't like edwards, whatever the media does or does not say, because they don't like the guy.
that's it.
no conspiracy.
no corporate plot.
people see edwards' record and decide they don't like it, and they don't like him.
There is not one person in the media that gives Hillary a kind word. Chris Matthews is being watched by Media Matters, so he's been a little more controlled, but he makes sure all his guests are Hillary haters , so they will do the damage for him. He had DeeDee Myers tonite, but she really was'nt that kind towards her, either. How can she have a fair chance when the media hates her so ?? Even Andrea Mitchell.....must be something that happened way back when. I thought she would get support from woman that had to fight their way up in a man's world.
Nicole Belle @ 42:
pinkobait - I have a friend that keeps saying how much the right wing likes him. I ask her for examples of this, do you have any? I am not challenging you but would like some links or specifics about this issue. I wonder how much of the verbal support, if there is any, is more of an anti-Hillary attitude than a pro-Obama. What I mean is that they are affraid of a Hillary campaign due to the Bill Clinton machine that knows how to deal with those low-life right wingers. Maybe they see Obama as a person that they can easily beat but I think that Obama has a good machine in place and can win. I know that, if the voting machines work, that he could cause record turn out especially with the young voters and win. My best friend is a Republican and he loves Obama but won't vote for Hillary. He would either not vote for Pres or pick the Republican - that is how much he hates Hillary. I teach at a high school which is 98% white and there is a lot of interest in Obama. We didn't even have a black student until about 5 years ago. There is generational racism there but the young don't care and hopefully won't follow in their parent's footsteps.
To Nicole... trust yourself and not those proObama hippies. I find you very fair on your posts as you are bringing us facts and not hypes =)
I'm pro-Hillary and i'm proud of it. I'm an independant and can still be swayed. But however, the pro-Obama's supporters should convince me why i should vote for Obama when he's weaker on Healthcare, Environment, Equal Rights and the Economy in comparison to Clinton. Don't tell me of the baggage that Clinton carries. Obama has baggage too which has not yet been hyped by the media. So tell me on facts and policies, what makes Obama triumph over Clinton? Tell me about why i should vote for Obama over Clinton rathar than not to vote for Clinton. If you want a president who you can drink a beer with, Bush is your prime example.
Read the link for Jim Booth if you haven't. He may be clairvoyant in his prediction that "moderate" progressives rejected John Edwards' message while benefiting from the same concerns and programs of earlier presidents, and they may rue it when the Democrats lose the election in 2008. Booth DOES blame the media for making the upcoming election an exciting "race" between a Black American and a woman, rather than an election about what's best for America. Shame on those who buy into this framing of the race.
But Nicole, media influence aside, the three guests were the ones that were arguing the
facts, that indeed, the "WIN", is not what it seems. Abrams seems to be the one who wants the "win" on front pages of major news prints, (as do the clintons) without delving into the nuances of it. If anyone is trying to shape things here, it is Dan, in my humble opinion. And as far as Edwards is concerned, well Kuch comes to mind.
Yes the media has definitely decided who they want nominated. The bias is making me sick. So as usually I vote for the person they are bashing as long as it's not a Republican.
I have decided to wait until we know who is nominated to watch again.
lopaloo102 @ 56:
"No conspiracy"? "no corporate plot"? I'm sorry but that is a very naive argument.
Steven @ 60:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of having people convince you, why not do something crazy, like, perhaps
visit both websites and draw your own concusion ?
1,600,000 Democrats voted in Florida, half of them for Hillary, and the majority of the media AND the blogosphere try to make is seem like nothing happened.
If they do talk about it, they conflate the delegate issue with the results.
Nicole Belle @ 27:
It's pro-Hillary because you aren't bashing her.
If you aren't against her, you're for her.
myiq2xu @ 66:
that's because the DNC said there was no game in florida, and so all three candidates agreed there would be no game.
it's absurd, and beautifully clintonion, to suggest that votes without contest should be meaningful......
and what of the michigan votes- she won there too....should she get those delegates?
or does the fact that there were no others on the ballot, that you could only vote for clinton, mean anything....
Man, I am soooo sick of hearing about the horse race between Obama and Hillary. I'm sick of hearing endless, pointless, bullshitting by the media about whether blacks are just voting for Obama because he's black, or are women getting behind Hillary because she's a woman. I'm sick of turning on the tv and seeing clips of two people (one of whom may very well be the next President of the United States) or they're surrogates (Hello Bill!) throwing around accusations that one is a racist and the other is a misogynist. Fuck this noise! I want to hear from these people just what it is they're going to do to make this country whole again. I don't want bullshit speeches! I don't want platitudes about "change". I JUST WANT THESE PEOPLE TO TELL US, IN PLAIN ENGLISH, JUST WHAT IT IS THEY'RE GOING TO DO TO PUT THIS COUNTRY BACK ON TRACK!! Is that too fucking much to ask??
I very much doubt that one could attribute all this spinning of narratives to the media.Sure they invent some of it but for the most part journalists and pundits are essentially stenographers telling whatever story they been spoon fed by the various political camps. Look what happens to "news" organizations that become too overtly partisan like (shudder) Fox. They lose access and therefore news currency and then market share. There is a symbiotic relationship between political camps and media types. If they are currently hyping the meme of a horse race you can be sure that story is coming from whoever is second in the polls. That particular meme means: "it's not over".
Is the media deciding the terms of the race for us?
Yes, even Rachel Maddow has been taken in by the media's terms, as not once did they talk about issues. She used to be plucky about these things.
Of course in a very large way the media impacts the race for JQ Americaner.
Let's face it, if anyone has travelled the world, JQ Americaner may be accepted as coming from the most powerful country in the world but listen up folks, the average JQA is also perceived as probably the least informed and knowledgable of the top 25 countries in the industrialized world. It's embarassingly pitiful actually.
The average JQA would rather have someone tell them a story than find out the facts themselves. Finding facts takes time. That's time away from sports events, girls gone wild movies, what's up with Britiany and Play Station friggin 2. So let Bill O, Rush, Sean give us our history leeson.
JQA might as well live in a cave for Christ sakes.
Is the media deciding terms of the race for us???? You have to even ask?? Of course the media is doling out terms, not just for Dems but also for Repubs. They have excluded selected candidates during TV debates and absolutely refused to cover Edwards. The most coverage EVER received was the day he quit.
I have a question..........
Why hasn't there been any Senators, Govenors or Congresspeople crossing the line and making the declaration "for my state, I think "so and so" would be the best President?
Wanna see balls......Until then...it's all bullshit covering $$$$$.
Bill Hicks just endorsed Hillary!
crazy train @ 62:
How is the win not what it seems? Both candidates were on the ballot, over 1.5 million voted, and Hillary won. What is missing for you in that equation? It doesn't count because the candidates didn't campaign in the state? This campaign has been going full speed for MONTHS. It's been in all the papers - maybe you've seen it. If there was a primary in your state this week and the candidates were barred from campaigning there, would you suddenly be confused about who to vote for? Use some common sense, people! Hillary won Florida and it's every bit as relevant as McCain winning Florida.
Nicole: "I was a little hesitant to do this post at first because I’m sure I’ll be accused of doing a pro-Hillary post."
Oh? And lose your street creds with the kewl kids out there idolizing the latest new, new thing?
If the media was "making" this a horse race, then they would be attacking Obama AND Hillary in turn, to play it out for as long as they could. However, all I see is a one-sided love-fest for Obama and Hillary pilloried at every turn. I think that there are enough men and women out there who see the unfairness of it all, and will vote for Hillary as they did at NH, Nevada and Florida.
You don't have to apologize for telling the truth Nicole. It's a fact, don't worry what the Obama cultists are gonna say just tell it! Look at the Huffington Post. Hillary wins Florida and they don't report it for a couple of hours then when they do they say "Hillary wins Florida.....in beauty contest." There's bias against Hillary Clinton everywhere and the Obama people don't seem to mind one bit.
The Hillary Bias And Assumption
"I was a little hesitant to do this post at first because I’m sure I’ll be accused of doing a pro-Hillary post;" a quote by Nicole Belle. It has come down to qualifying any point you make with something positive or objective concerning Hillary Clinton. The Republicans has their biases, the right-wing media has their biases, and now, sadly, the Democrats has their own biases directed at Clinton. Barack Obama does not get the same kind of scrutiny or negative association. I look for it to come from the Republicans and the media, but not from the Democrats.
I recall coming to the defense of Clinton and being blasted off the site because I included a negative directed at Obama. There is a very concerning divide developing in the Democratic Party I need to warn against. We cannot beat the Republicans divided, and the way we are headed is dangerously a advantage to the Republicans. I say disagree, but don't divide. Be critical but not labeling. Most of all, be able to come together as one in November. We must not let the Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzers in the world tell us that a candidate is being racial or sexist. We are Democrats and to say that means we have a value system that is rooting in the respect for all human beings. We don't need to have the media tell us who we are.
Joseph
well the only reason hillary was in the lead was because of all the press she got while in office and because of her husband... So I would think giving Obama a little more press coverage now is just evening things out a bit... although they probably aren't thinking of it like that...
I'm as much of a conspiracy nut as anyone, but there's a clearer answer we're ignoring.
Is the media making this more of a horse race? OF COURSE. And why? Because they're a business!
All the media cares about it making money (via ratings, sales, ads, etc.). If a candidate in each party has their race locked up, it leaves the media a lot of time to talk about nothing. Look at what the two week layoff between the Super Bowl has done to the (horrendous) media coverage of the game.
The media always builds a candidate up that they prefer and then tear them down to make it close with another candidate they'd prefer. They elevated Hil and McCain at the beginning, then tore them down for Obama and (whatever R they wanted at the moment), then built them up again, and so on...
lopaloo102 @ 56:
I'm not saying it was a plot.
Edwards was sandwiched between to candidates who are historical firsts, in that they are the first woman and the first African-American to run viable candidacies(with apologies to Shirley Chisolm, who, face it, wasn't viable).
I'm not saying that the media has been wrong for focusing a bit of time on the historical aspects of these campaigns, I'm saying that the media is wrong for focusing on nothing but those aspects, at the expense of real issues.
And don't take this to mean that I believe Edwards would be the frontrunner if the real issues were addressed- I think that we'd be seeing a pretty even race between the
threefour (I've been leaving out Chris Dodd, screwed over worse than Edwards) right now if the issues held any worth to the media.As much as we talk about the exclusion of Edwards, Paul, and Kucinich, let's look at this logically:
Kucinich - Small men are unsexy for media types. They know the American people respond to tall, handsome men. Are they biased against short people? Sure - because they know their market. It's sad that much of this superficial American electorate won't listen to Kucinich because of his size and looks, but that's how it is.
Edwards - Young, good-looking, great story, BUT.....will he sell as many papers as a younger, handsomer, better storied African-American (first serious black candidate in history). AND....will he sell as many papers as the continuing soap opera known as the Clinton saga?
Just like in wrestling - a one on one contest feels more prestigious than a 3-way (and I mention wrestling because politics is equally as staged).
Paul - Romney is younger and better looking. McCain - we've seen for decades how much the media loves their war heroes. Plus, the media loves their actors (Thompson) and their scandal-plagued New York bullies (Ghouliani). Poor Paul and Huckabee get lost in the shuffle (although they built up Huckabee before Iowa because they saw he would do well and didn't want to feel like they missed something).
lopaloo102 @ 68:
Funny thing about the Michigan(my state) primary: Hillary did worse in the more urban and educated counties than she did in the rural and less educated(with middle class-to-wealthy Macomb County being the odd duck). In Washtenaw County-arguably the best educated county in the state, home of the University of Michigan- Hillary was beaten out by "uncommited".
Tommy Gunn @ 83:
Tommy, you wouldn't like it if the MSM gave Paul the time of day. Once they started investigating and exposing Paul's policies other than foreign, your boy wouldn't poll 1%. Better for you guys to throw your
pity partiesrecord on-line fundraising swarms.Afraid to post for fear of gangland Obama supporters? Yawn, the status quo lives on!
Steven @ 60:
While i wont try and convince you one way or another, i will however tell you one aspect that Obama brings that no other candidate brings. and that's governmental transparency (open government). This one issues to me is more important then all others, in order to create future change, and improvements in the long run. However this is leaving all other aspects aside right now (since most of the issues they seem to hold very similar positions, except for the small details, which are never set in stone). Through transparency we can have real policing of our government, get involved sooner, and root out corruption, inefficiencies, and plain old stupid policies. This isn't even an empty promise on his part, he has past experience and examples of doing just this.
http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/ here's a link that also explains it.... so far this is one of the only other places i've seen mention the importance of open government.
So please take this into consideration, and keep in mind that what is said on the campaign trail is always overblown.... You will have to work w/ the republican to get any of the progressive measures passed. I don't see Clinton as someone who can do this. No matter what you think about Obama, you have to admit that he's able to inspire people (this seems to be half the reason so many progressives disliked him at first, because he was someone they thought had wishful thinking, and pandered to people emotions.) but given that you have to logically look at that as an ability that he hold (an asset) this can be VERY useful when trying to persuade the people to back progressive measures.
Now if you combine those two aspects of Obama i hope you will find him (as a candidate for the position to lead) more appealing.
Joseph @ 79:
Joseph...Lieberman?
Seriously, has anyone here crying "Anti Hillary Bias!" actually LOOKED at her voting record. As for this post, it's patently a non-story. Obama won Iowa, his press coverage increased. What was the media supposed to do, ignore the primaries/caucuses until Hillary won one? As much as corporate America would love a Clinton presidency, even they have to maintain some illusion of impartiality.
I am so glad to finally be seeing some new faces among commentators on cable news instead of the same tired, puffed-up old pundits. I watch Olbermann and Abrams now because it is so refreshing to see new people who don't fall back on the same memes and sound bites that have been polluting the air on cable news for 15 years.
full disclosure: i'm a big hillary fan.
i've written a little about the media coverage in this campaign here, but i doubt there's any conspiracy. you may be interested in seeing these, though, which bolster abrams' question, here and here.
in dem strategist james carville's words about running bill clinton's 1992 campaign, from "all's fair: love, war, and running for president":
"No one understands the power of the media in this country. I went into this campaign believing they were powerful. I didn't know. The power they have is staggering. And they really do guard it. They like to think of themselves as learned and insightful and thoughtful and considered. They claim the mantle of truth. Hell, truth is they make instant snap judgments and after that all of their time, all of their energy, all of their creativity is spent on nothing but validating their original judgment. Something happens and three minutes after the event they all talk to each other and decide 'This is the story,' and the story must remain thus in perpetuity. They claim the moral high ground; their job is to report facts and tell people the truth. But information is secondary to them, self-justification is primary. Once the collective media mind is made up, it will not change. Until you understand that, you can never understand the media. Their original take is the one that's going to last."
and btw, his wife mary matalin (republic strategist) agrees with all of this.
so i think it's not outlandish to suggest that the media's collective, "original take" in this campaign is that they will not let hillary win, i.e., they want to take her down at all costs. just like they did with dean in 2004. i wouldn't call it so much a conspiracy as simply that they're a bunch of assholes. just my personal opinion. :)
kangeroo @ 90:
so is the MSM supposed to be liberal, conservative, or what? because Dean and Clinton could not be more different in terms of the policies they support
it seems that the writers and reporters are often liberal, while the execs are often conservative, but in any case i don't think they decide coverage of issues in ideological terms. at least not always, anyways. i think it's more that they like playing god.
p.s. i don't know about your comparison of dean and hillary. i supported him proudly and now i'm supporting her proudly. i think they actually have a lot in common. the most important of which is a fierce heart of democratic warrior. she's just politically savvier than dean was.
kangeroo @ 93:
But really, she has no interest in single-payer health insurance (I was banned from her official blog for asking about it), and she's fervently pro-war. They're ying and yang.
Dhalgren @ 14:
But the primary isn't winner take all. She may win, but it's not like victories in those states will give her an insurmountable lead.
"But really, she has no interest in single-payer health insurance (I was banned from her official blog for asking about it), and she’s fervently pro-war. They’re ying and yang."
well, i have to admit in 2004 i hadn't studied health care law and reform yet, and now that i have.... well, let's just say that since he's a doctor, i'm not surprised. the medical associations (doctors) have been holding the system hostage from reform for a long time now.
but in any case, to me it's not necessarily the substantive decisions that dean or hillary has made on individual issues as their overall approach to solving problems in the first place. they're both very much into empirical evidence-based judgments, on down-to-earth pragmatic solutions, and they're both solid on their principles. you don't see any chameleon in them. (at least i don't, anyway.)
i can't exactly say the same for obama. something about him makes me feel uneasy, like he can be reagan one day and the most liberal senator or jfk the next. there's something missing that makes it all seem shaky.
Talk about stay with me here...It's time for people to face the truth. Obama will not win the general election. Reason? Just ask Harold Ford. War-loving, GOP-controlled networks want to push Obama over Clinton because Obama represents the only chance pathetic Repubs stand of winning. So for more than a year now, they've reported ZERO good news about Clinton, while playing up St. Obama. (Why no reports on Obama's snarky remarks on how Clinton supporters would support him, but he's not sure if his supporters would support Hillary. Or on Ms. Obama's "how can she keep the country in order is she can't keep her house in order.") Wake up, Dems, you are being snookered into nominating another loser.
loubie, i've been noticing that too. dick morris has taken obama's side in bashing the clintons. i suspect they want dems to nominate obama, just like we want repubs to nominate romney.
BTW, Clinton kicked his butt up and down the block in the California debate. Not that CNN would report that.
kangeroo @ 96:
uhm, Dean was decidedly way more pro-single payer than Hillary ever will be
i'm saying single payer is arguably bad policy-wise, travis. but i didn't know it at the time because i didn't realize how strong the doctors' lobby is. in other words, i imagine there's a possibility dean was biased, since he himself is a doctor. but i don't regret supporting him. i think he would've made a fantastic president. too bad the media decided to take him down.
Kangeroo, I think everyone needs to notice. When the New York Post endorses Obama, it's time to ask "why?" Funny who no one cares about womens' issues all of the sudden. Anyone who scares the GOP like Clinton does has my vote.
hear, hear. oh man, loubie, i was thinking the same thing when i heard. when the ny times goes for clinton and the ny post goes for obama, imho you know which one represents the democratic wing of the democratic party. :)
East coaster hitting the sack here. Parting thought: This is not the first time Ted Kennedy has left a woman in a ditch.
Andy K @ 84:
I live in Washtenaw county and work for U-M. Everywhere I turned (at least it seemed) were folks pressing for "vote uncommitted". In at least some cases it was folks or organizations who supported the candidates not on the ballot but I ran into at least one guy who simply wanted to make a statement to the DNC and oddly enough was a Hillary supporter. Folks will continue to dismiss the votes in Florida and Michigan, but the facts remain suprisingly high numbers turned out and little to no coverage by any of the candidates.
Nicole, ignore folks who posting who need to declare you a Hilllary pimp. You've voiced your opinion at least a few times in other directions, they obviously can't be bothered to check the facts. Frankly I like what posters #69 and #72 had to say.
I generally have a sick feeling in my gut around and after elections as entirely too many people vote based soley on party, appearance and appeal... not facts, substance and occasional pragmatism.
The hostility voiced on this site at each other and the candidates is truly sad and pathetic
kangeroo @ 103:
The same New York times that has employed Judy Miller, William Kristol and William Safire? The "omglibrul NYTimes" meme is so outdated and discredited at this point.
NY Post? Obama? No, no ulterior motive there.
well c'mon, every media outlet has to provide balancing coverage. still doesn't make the overall tenor less skewed. i'm a solid dem but i turned away from the ny times because i don't want to hear op-eds on the front page; i want my news as neutral as possible. unfortunately it's practically impossible to get that, though.
ಠ_ಠ
"Something else thats really bothering me as well is this lockstep way in which the right wing are endorsing Obama.I cannot shake this feeling that he is being set up as the Sacrificial Lamb.I’d like to believe that America is truly ready for “change”(be it in the form of a Black or female President)but I just can’t buy it."
"Pinkobait" says
I agree with you a 100%. They are raising him for the fall if we elect him. It's as if the media is part of the Obama campaign most of the time.
They ask Hilllary the hard questions but treat Barrack with kid gloves, most of the time even rushing to his defence in most cases. Even an idiot who has no sympathies for either candidate can see that.
I agree with you with Pinkobait a 100%. They are raising him for the fall if we elect him. It’s as if the media is part of the Obama campaign most of the time.
They ask Hilllary the hard questions but treat Barrack with kid gloves, most of the time even rushing to his defence in most cases. Even an idiot who has no sympathies for either candidate can see that.
The media tried to ignore half the candidates in the debates by not asking them questions and not reporting on them. The media grossly under reported John Edwards despite his 2nd place finish in Iowa and up until he dropped out. The media is hurting worthy candidates by making them all but invisible. I don't have any evidence it's conspiratorial I just see the coverage and draw my conclusions.
I wish I could remember exactly how Alan Keyes put it in a speech I heard awhile back. He said that it is damaging to put elections in the context of a horse race because a bet is choosing by who you think will win whereas a vote is supposed to be choosing who you want to win.
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) should at least be a part of the primary process (with Diebold fraud eliminated) and public financing to put the focus on the message itself rather the war chest. Even the secondary choices would give insight into the mind of the electorate in much the same way as polls do.
Ah! A blog about a voting season turned into a horse race?
A virtual meta-horse race.
There ya go.
Okay, imagine that Hillary Clinton is Seattle Slew and Barack Obama is Spectacular Bid.
If you can't do that, I'd better stop right there....
Travis @ 88:
If you want to disagree with what I have to note, go right ahead. You don't have to distort my name. Normally, I would take this opportunity to reply in turn with a very witty counter, but that would be counter to my point. Have a nice day.
Joseph
lopaloo102 @ 68:
How beautifullu ironic. I talk about conflating issues, and the first person to respond throws in a whole new issue to conflate too.
Maybe it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine that Reagan and his Neo-Cons did away with. When it was repealed Rush Limbaugh declared his Berlin Wall had come down.
This is from CommonDreams.org the link has a full history
"The FCC stopped enforcing the doctrine in the mid-’80s, well before it formally revoked it. As much as the commission majority wanted to repeal the doctrine outright, there was one hurdle that stood between them and their goal: Congress’ 1959 amendment to the Communications Act had made the doctrine law.
Help would come in the form of a controversial 1986 legal decision by Judge Robert Bork and then-Judge Antonin Scalia, both Reagan appointees on the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Their 2–1 opinion avoided the constitutional issue altogether, and simply declared that Congress had not actually made the doctrine into a law. Wrote Bork: “We do not believe that language adopted in 1959 made the Fairness Doctrine a binding statutory obligation,” because, he said, the doctrine was imposed “under,” not “by” the Communications Act of 1934 (California Lawyer, 8/88). Bork held that the 1959 amendment established that the FCC could apply the doctrine, but was not obliged to do so—that keeping the rule or scuttling it was simply a matter of FCC discretion.
“The decision contravened 25 years of FCC holdings that the doctrine had been put into law in 1959,” according to MAP. But it signaled the end of the Fairness Doctrine, which was repealed in 1987 by the FCC under new chair Dennis R. Patrick, a lawyer and Reagan White House aide".
A year after the doctrine’s repeal, writing in California Lawyer (8/88), former FCC commissioner Johnson summed up the fight to bring back the Fairness Doctrine as “a struggle for nothing less than possession of the First Amendment: Who gets to have and express opinions in America.” Though a bill before Congress to reinstate the doctrine passed overwhelmingly later that year, it failed to override Reagan’s veto. Another attempt to resurrect the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
So basically, the Obama peoples argument concerning Florida is that the Floridians are too stupid to hook onto the internet, too stupid to stupid to tune into the debates, too stupid to read a newspaper and acted ONLY on name? Therefore the 800,000 people who came to the polls should be disenfranchised because they did not have the chance to be educated by his 60 second ads.
It's nice that you Obama people are supporting a candidate who has such faith in the voters, such faith in the electorate and is so into bringing people together by insulting the 800,000+ Hillary voters.
Joseph @ 116:
You seem to want to have it both ways. Yes, they should pay attention to Obama's winning Iowa, but ignore the fact that Hillary's received more votes thus far and has won more states.
I am watching MSABC moore all the time they are asking the Questions that We the people have been wating to be ask for a long time,the CORP:., MAIN STREAM MEDIA only wainted you to have two people to VOTE for that was OBAMA or H. CLINTON THEY sidelined JOE BIDEN, CRISS DODD, KUCINICH, BILL RITCHARDSON, and JOHN EDWARDS, it was OBAMA, AND CLINTON (24/7) and for fillers they used PARIS HILTON, and others so they would not talke about these others. ABRAMS, and OLBERNANS were the only ones giving these other DEMOCRATS air time. It is time to brake this CORP:., MEDIA UP or WE the PEOPLE will never get our GOVERMANT back.
Why does Dan Abrams remind me of a left-wing Bill O'Reilly?
Different politics, same overweening ego, same cocksure certainty and whiny anger.
And now, complaining about media bias?
My god, listen to the fucker. Give me Keith Olbermann any day.
I don't know why people don't realize that it is all about money. Both Clinton and Obama have big war chest and they will be spending most of it on advertising. Guess who benefits from couple of hundred millions of dollars of advertising. Its the media stupid!!! If one of the candidate happen to drop out it will be a huge money loss for the media. Its in media's interest to keep the fight going as long as they can. Whoever can raise more money is MSM's candidate. Today its Barack but who knows things might change after Feb 5th..
"A pro Hillary post" Whats wrong with that.
Widespread @ 122:
Awww, let me guess who YOU'RE going to vote for, huh?
Looks like the left-wing authoritarians are comin out to play...
Travis @ 88:
OH PLEASE
Have YOU looked at her AND Obama's voting records?
THEY'RE IDENTICAL dumb dumb!
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
As far as anti-Hillary bias, how about THIS:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130004
Don't spout off what you don't seem to be informed on.
Get connected.
There wasn't a media blackout on Edwards. Quite the contrary, the rightwingmedia talked about him a lot.
And called him the "angry candidate". Every. Single. Time.
Edwards was Slowboated, as opposed to being Swiftboated.
JTM @ 22:
The reason why he gets good guests is because he is one of the heads of MSNBC.
As for the point here, I think that Rachel Maddow made the best point. Obama is on the move and Hillary's numbers are staying still. Also, Florida was not a democratic contest. It was not South Carolina where actual delegates were awarded. I am sorry, but I don't see how this merits front page headlines. Maybe in Florida, but in the New York Times. And, final thought, I am pretty sure that it was front page news so what is Abrams whining about?
I really could not care less at this point who is or is not being given fair time between Clinton or Obama. The media (particularly the right wing media, ironically enough) had been "touting" a Clinton candidacy as far back as 2000, and Obama was considered a golden boy right after the Democratic convention.
For the last year and a half, the media's been swinging from Obama and Clinton's collective johnsons, hyping the two candidates while giving short shrift to the rest of the democratic field. If the other candidates did get a mention by the press, it was about haircuts or UFOs, or things of that nature. There was never a substantive debate about the issues, only opining about who was "winning."
Yes, you can make claims about negative remarks about Obama and Clinton -- both had been bombarded with these sort of remarks, especially by the right, for an extremely long time. But at the end of the day, those two were almost granted exclusive coverage by the media. Don't forget the old adage --- any press is good press. It's like the Cola Wars all over again -- a fabricated debate between which tasted better, (or conversely, which sucked more,) Pepsi or Coke. But the big loser was RC Cola, because they were completely left out of the discussion.
Sure, the media would say, "but look at the polls." What is left out of this equation is that the polls are primarily driven by name recognition early on, some are skewed by Luntz-types, and some omitted candidates altogether. In this fashion, it became sort of a self-fulfilling, circular prophecy that these two would be winning -- the media drove the polls and the polls drove the media.
So, if there's a complaint suddenly about this "becoming a horserace," I can't really sympathize. This has always been a horserace.
If we're going to talk about the media, it has to bear mentioning that that was "teh worst" interviewing I have ever seen. The irony here is that Dan Abrams is concerned that the media is writing the story of the election, and so he's controlling the story of the interview to get his point across.
C'mon get real! The presidential elections are all rigged and have been for years. The Powers that Be determine who the candidates will be (though early on they allow others to be in the race), but by the the of the conventions it's been decided. And now, with all of the lovely computerized voting machines it makes it so much easier for them to come up with the right result - no more actual stuffing of ballot boxes by "dead" Chicagoans.
I definitely think that the media pushes people one way or another based on how they cover it. I think Edward's demise was partly due to the press leaving him out of pretty much all the coverage. It was always Hillary vs. Barack from day one. People are generally lazy & want to be told what to do vs. thinking for themselves. All these pundits pushing Obama to me reinforces in people's minds that they should vote for him. I am not saying that he is not doing better because of him but I do feel that all the pundit talking pushes people in a certain direction. I think they should all shut up & let people think for themselves for a change. It is very obvious, even for those saying that they are impartial, which way they are leaning. Andrea Mitchell is a perfect example of this!
A Horserace? I wish that's all they were doing. They have stolen democracy, by silencing and slandering any candidate, of either party, whose message they didn't like. They have prohibited discussion of the most pressing issues facing the country and engineered the dialog, the debate, and apparently the public's perceptions in order to assure that only candidates who can be counted to prostitute themselves on behalf of fascist corporatism/banking - above the interests of the nation, the Constitution or the People, had any chance. They have denied the citizens of this country a choice, they have denied them a voice, they have denied them a meaningful vote.
they haven't conducted a horserace. They've conducted a crime against the nation.
Lawrence O'Donnell is a piece of s***
OK, Obama blows the vote out of the water in South Carolina.
Everyone called it the minute the polls closed.....right? 7:01pm?
Look at last weeks Sunday Times, not a mention of Obama's blowout?
Every other paper here in NW Ohio had huge front page stories, Plain Dealer,
Toledo Blade, Detroit Free Press, Columbus Dispatch...etc.
That's ignoring the story... I'm just sayin'....
I totally agree ! I'm telling to all my friends if they notice the free campaign the media is doing in favor of Obama. In the other hand they are putting Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton in the bad seat. It's horrible all that sneaky questions trying to destroy Hillary and Bill GOODWILL. It is even NOT HONEST! They are making the make up to show Obama as president John Kennedy Ghost or something; the same way comparing him to Martin Luther King, Lincohn. etc....they don't talk at all about some bad points in Obama's life like the way he bought his house...better I don't talk about it !!!!
What about the debates ? When he was in the debates, he was so insecure talking about issues, he was looking so novice, anyway I am so sick with the media that i don't want to see the news in internet or TV. But I was so please when I heard Dan Abrams talking about the same issue. It is even SICK !
Login or Register to post comments.