Clinton & The Media: "Media People are Living in Fear.. It's Affecting News Coverage."
Many Obama supporters have voiced the concern that the press coverage of Obama has changed dramatically since the SNL fiasco, not that the coverage is bad.. it is that it is nonexistant. I've received PMs and seen messages in other places but GD where people are wondering if it is their imagination.. has the narrative changed THAT dramatically or are we imagining things? Could the narrative have really changed enough to affect, even by a few pts, the vote? For those people, the Bill Mahr panel discussion last night will be extremely illuminating. Joe Scarbrough admits that the narrative has, indeed, changed. And while he tries to spread the "blame" to both camps, I personally found his comments enlightening in the way the Clinton Campaign and supporters are interacting with the media and affecting the news coverage.
This is Part 1 of the panel discussion on Bill Mahr last night. Scarbrough's comments begin at minute 7:30 and continue on the Part II video.
(start at minute 6:30 to hear comparison between Hillary/Obama debate performance)
Guest: "Obama is an incredibly thoughtful, literate person. The kitchen sink campaign theory of campaigning has brought out the many faces of Hillary Clinton.. she's acting more like a bipolar personality person, she seems genuinely troubled. Watching that debate with the two of them.. even his body language - he wasn't going to upset her. The more upset she got, the more level-headed he became and I think we have to look at that."
This led into Scarbrough's comments:
Joe: "There have been minefields for Obama the press has been tiptoeing through. If you attack Hillary Clinton, organizations will call and say, ' Get that person off the air'. Media people are living in FEAR.
Guest: "Do you feel after Clinton's campaign was uptting all this pressure on the media to adopt a new stance the media felt shamed into adopting that.. because the narrative changed so dramatically."
Joe:"They're playing the refs. The Clinton people say, "You're giving Obama a pass, you're kicking her, you're screwing us. So what happens? The narrative changes. Its from both sides. Network executives and editors are getting bombarded. They're making these complaints and its affecting news coverage."
5. We're definitely behind in the complaint department evidently. One thing I wondered..
is the Obama camp even aware that the narrative has changed? Do they sit around in front of a bank of TV monitors, watching this stuff 24/7? I am reminded of Howard Fineman saying that when he called Axelrod to ask him about the developments in the NAFTA story, Axelrod wasn't even aware of it. Do they know that coverage of Obama has not only been diminished, but that he is being totally discounted by the media while they're pumping up Hillary? Just wondering how tuned in they are to the overall narrative..
8. I agree he needs to create something the media will HAVE to cover.. I posted last night of
some rather pointed remarks he made in response to Hillary's attack. These remarks, made while in Casper at his rally, were not reported anywhere - no video, nada. It was as if he'd not even responded. If they refuse to cover him, I have no idea what can be done to change that trend. I have a feeling the WY results, if they favor him, will be minimized and marginalized. We'll see.
6. to add: The Press must be held accountable for squelching the access of the public to the events
They are allowed (and do) record the entire event, but choose to keep the record in a vault instead of publishing it. Their job is to project the event to the world and they do not. After the fall of the Bush regime, I think it's time to start looking at the public contract that media have violated.
11. I wondered about this. I thought I remembered that CSPAN was created
in order to give "equal coverage" to all campaigns, and therefore, the media could get away with not covering fairly. But can they REALLY get away with NOT COVERING one campaign at all while giving full coverage to another? Those are questions I do not know the answer to, but it is disturbing, especially after FL 2000 and OH 2004.. and what was done to Gore and Kerry at the media's hands.
7. The Clintons strongarm anyone who steps out of line
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 12:58 PM by Stephanie
They've been doing it in New York for years now. If a NY pol or operative steps out of line, they will get a visit. I have no doubt the press gets the same treatment. In fact we saw it with the cancellation of that Bill Clinton article a few months ago that was subsequently printed in another mag (forget the author, story was about Patti Solis Doyle's mismanagement of the campaign).
18. Where Do The Clintons Derive This Power From......
why are they so feared and at the same time hated - yet revered.
I don't understand it? This always draws me back to GHWB Sr. 4yrs + WJC 8yrs + GWB Jr 8yrs and now potentially HRC for 4 or 8 yrs. Why is all that power tied up in these to family names? What are the ties between these two families? Why does the media alway go along with them?
9. I saw this last night and was stunned at Scarborough's candor about
this. He is saying straight out that they are being told to report in certain ways and they are just acquiescing to that. I think it was obvious with the 3 AM ad. That was, originally, an ad buy only in Texas. But the Clinton's put it out in a press release before it aired and the media spent days reporting on it. Clinton got a ton of free advertising across the country. She didn't have to purchase ads elsewhere...they had the media doing their advertising for them. Very similar to the Swiftboat ads against Kerry. Small ad buy in one location turned into free advertising for days around the country.
and he doesn't give a fuck about speaking about about the Clintons. It won't hurt him in the least. Oddly though, he's been cheerleading for her on the morning show. Make no mistake, the GOP wants her as their candidate.
But I don't understand why the Obama campaign doesn't put the screws to the MSM and force them to out the Clintons on all the shit that has been floating out there about them. It makes Rezko look like a Sunday School Teacher.
They aired Hillary's attacks on Obama all day.. but no mention at all of his response. None. It is only fair if one candidate attacks, you air the response. Seriously. If the positions had been reversed, you better believe Hillary would have gotten air time for HER response.
Feminist organizations. The ones that got Imus thrown off the air, made Matthews apologize, got Schuster suspended. I think it's time some of us Obama people get zeroed in on OUR organizations and make sure we're pushing as hard as her people are.
25. What about just the reporting of the actual delegate and vote
totals, like say, from TEXAS? LOL. Obama won the delegate count. What about the new net delegates picked up from the recount in California? Or the votes that were not even counted for Obama in New York.
There was the attack on Obama yesterday by Hillary, Clark, et al, based on the false accusation that Samantha Powers said Obama wouldn't pull the troops out.. total misrepresentation.. and no outlet picked up Obama's response.
Otherwise, we'd have to do like Media Matters does and actually document from show-to-show the lack of coverage and/or disparity in coverage. One thing is certain, if people are talking about it and Scarbrough is admitting it, it is not our imagination.
Where she said she helped with the peace process and Trimble basically laughed at her.
I've been trying to think about women and emotional triggers and the only one I can really come up with is betrayal. Has she betrayed any women who were really loyal to her?? We've got to shake this hold she has on women.
33. Well, I don't know about personal relationships.. it'd be nice if
more people she has run roughshod over would come forward. And I've been hesitant to weigh in on this, but I'm actually surprised the story of the controversial case she took when she was a prosecutor hasn't gotten more coverage. Its a minefield, but that woman's story and the comments she made as an adult, with her life ruined, has haunted me since I heard it.
I had wondered at the time if there was any evidence to support her statement. There's two things there, one is whether she was willing to smear a 12 year old girl with nothing to back up the allegations. The other is whether she made a false claim to the court. I didn't really look to see how much of it is online, I'll see if I can find more court documents this week-end.
I wonder if she took credit for programs in Arkansas that she didn't really have much to do with, like she did with SCHIP. That's sure worth checking into.
Ya know, the Clintons busted the northern unions. Bill's "Arkansas Miracle" was completely based on opening up the state to companies that had traditionally used union labor in the north. That could be another avenue too.
22. It's doable: by Eric Boehlert, Bloggers go to bat for Obama
Bloggers go to bat for Obama Blogosphere | Media by Eric Boehlert | March 5, 2008
The Associated Press last week got a preview of how this presidential season is going to unfold, and how online liberal activists aren't going to stand down when the press takes cheap shots at Democratic front-runners.
After AP reporter Nedra Pickler wrote a news story highlighting how some fringe Republican operatives were raising questions about Sen. Barack Obama's patriotism, angry readers dispatched nearly 15,000 electronic letters protesting the piece. Why? Because instead of providing balance and context, which is what good journalism does, the article simply offered a platform for Obama's opponents to roll out their smears, to broadcast their dark doubts about the senator's character.
That kind of media shortcoming has become predictable; reporters love to quote partisan Republicans about how deficient Democrats are. And in the past it would have likely produced angry denunciations online within the liberal blogosphere -- a blog swarm, perhaps. In fact, within hours of the article being posted on the wires, John Aravosis at Americablog condemned the news agency for the way it regurgitated "right-wing lies about Obama lacking patriotism." (Aravosis was simultaneously irked by an interactive poll posted at CNN.com that asked readers if Obama was sufficiently patriotic.) Even without an organized effort, it's likely the Pickler article would have prompted scores of blog readers to send off a fistful of angry missives to the AP.
But nearly 15,000 letters sent in just a matter of days in response to a single news wire article? That's something else entirely and could mark the dawn of a new era in progressive media activism. The phenomenon has received very little mainstream media attention (journalists probably don't want to encourage this sort of thing), but make no mistake: It was a very big deal.
In part because it's become clear that if there's going to be an effective media pushback during this White House run, it's going to have to come from online. Even progressive pundits within the mainstream press corps remain reluctant to step out and criticize their colleagues in any meaningful way. That is still very much a closed Beltway club.
Also, this White House campaign is going to be the test case to see whether the more fully matured liberal blogosphere is able to alter the mainstream media landscape at all, whether it's going to be able to knock the press off some of its favorite, predisposed biases against Democrats. From the looks of the eruption the AP created, progressives have already made enormous strides since the 2004 campaign.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.