How the Media Cover Presidential Politics
On all vital topics, major media sources produce a daily flow of disinformation masquerading as real news. It's their role as "Guardians of Power" the way Davids Cromwell and Edwards explained in their powerful critique of professional journalism. They and others show that the media are in crisis, and a free and open society is at risk. Trivia substitutes for substance and fiction for fact. News is carefully filtered, dissent suppressed, and supporting the powerful undermines the public interest.
As a result, wars of aggression are called liberating ones. Civil liberties are denied for our own good. Patriotism means supporting lawless governments, and electoral politics are just kabuki theater and horse race journalism. It shows up noticeably in presidential years as spectacle when saturation coverage goes round the clock. Horse race trivia substitutes for real information, and undisguised partisanship favors Republicans over Democrats mostly getting short shrift or attacked. No wonder the public is uninformed and half of eligible voters opt out. Why bother when their issues go addressed. Cases in point: Elections 2000 and 2004.
In the run-up to Election 2000, it was painful following the one-sided coverage for George Bush — especially on television and right-wing talk radio. But that paled compared to the unprecedented post-election partisanship to halt the Florida recount, ignore the popular will, support an electoral power grab, and back the illegitimacy of an unelected president. Working journalists became tools of power, apologists for their actions, and co-conspiratorially responsible for the outcome.
They cheerled the dismantling of democracy. Supported George Bush's illegitimacy, and editorialized like The New Times about his "unusual gracious(ness)" post-election, his "hopeful (offer) of conciliation (and) Despite the bitterness of the last five weeks, and indeed the last year, Americans are ready to turn the page. George Walker Bush....must lead the way." The Washington Post noted that "Mr. Bush achieved his narrow victory in part by putting a softer face on his party — by his promise to be a uniter....We congratulate him on his 'victory.' "
Post-election, a consortium of large US news organizations (including The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and others) enlisted the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago to conduct a Florida Ballot Project comprehensive review of all machine-uncounted ballots in Florida, including "undervotes" and "overvotes (175,000 in total)." The former were ballots initially registering no vote while the latter were marked ballots for Bush or Gore with the candidate's name also written in or circled.
On November 12th, 2001 (10 months after Bush took office), they released NORC's results in an attempt to suppress the truth and boost the administration's legitimacy. Unsurprisingly, they showed that Bush would have won (Florida) by 493 votes even without the High Court's intervention. They also claimed he'd have had a 225 vote margin if recounts in four disputed counties had been completed. The New York Times hailed the result as proof that the "Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote," and the other consortium members went along. But it was false, and they knew it.
Their own study showed that if all Florida "undervotes" and "overvotes" had been counted and added to the final tally, Gore would have won. This was so explosive that a New York Times journalist on the project reportedly told a colleague they'll be "major trouble for the Bush presidency if this ever gets out." But it didn't because consortium member managements quashed it under heavy Bush administration pressure.
Yet not entirely. The NYT went both ways on November 12th, but buried the bad news on a back page most readers never saw. Reporters Ford Fessenden and John Broder wrote: "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount....to go forward." Then further down they said: examination of all rejected ballots "found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount." The Times also reported that Bush netted about 290 votes from illegally cast absentee ballots, and the consortium estimated that various disparities cost Gore tens of thousands of Florida votes compared to Bush's narrow 537 victory margin. Nonetheless, they acquiesced to his power grab and share major responsibility for its fallout.
And it continued during the 2004 campaign, most notably in collaboration with the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Despite their unfounded accusations about John Kerry, the media jumped on them. They left military records and eyewitness accounts unexamined that would have exposed them, and took the lead in spreading spurious disinformation a little checking would have debunked.
Back in 2000 as well as 2004, they also downplayed Bush's Air National Guard record. His admission of abusing alcohol until age 40. Allegations of drug abuse. His explosive temper, and his unimpressive Yale and Harvard Business School records.
Also his dismal business performance, and the way he made a fortune nonetheless. Oil exploration company Arbusto lost money but got millions from family-connected investors to keep it afloat. Then Spectrum 7 Energy bought Arbusto in 1984. In 1986, it was failing when oil prices collapsed. Harken Energy bought out Bush's equity in exchange for company stock. A 1991 SEC document suggested he violated federal securities law at least four times by selling Harken stock while serving as a director. But GHW Bush was president. The case was quietly dropped, and the media never bothered to expose the kind of shenanigans they'd have jumped on against Democrats.
Nor in 2004 to highlight Bush's early administration years that coincided with the biggest corporate scandals and bankruptcies since Teapot Dome in the 1920s. It's no wonder that author Kevin Phillips expressed fears in his new book, Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism." He's worried that we may be on the edge of the abyss because of "three profligate decades," an orgy of excess under GW Bush, and though he's not prone to predicting, he leans heavily on an unpleasant outcome. But you'd never know it from the way media touts protect Republicans, including the worst of the current incumbent's record.
Well into Election 2008, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting notes that the same 2000/2004 script is in play in its May/June and July/August issues. They feature stories about "The Press Corps' Unshakeable Crush on McCain" and "Obama's Elitism." Here's a sampling of what Professor Henry Higgins called "[quotes] that would make [an honest observer] blush."
On McCain:
- MSNBC host Chris Matthews — "The press loves (him). We're his base."
- Newsweek's Howard Fineman — "McCain('s) as joyously combative as Popeye and as earnestly confessional as Oprah."
- Charles Lane in the New Republic — "I'm falling for John McCain."
- CBS 60 Minutes host Mike Wallace — so enamored with McCain that "I'm thinking I may quit my job if he gets the nomination."
- CBS host Bob Schieffer — (McCain's the) most famous maverick of the last half of the 20th century,"
- the Washington Post's Dana Milbank — "He's the bravest candidate in the presidential race. While his rivals pander to primary constituencies, the former prisoner of war gives audiences a piece of his mind."
- Time magazine Michael Scherer — McCain's nomination will transform the GOP and "shift its priorities on key domestic issues ranging from global warming to the cheap importation of prescription drugs. Does this sound too good to be true?" Not according to Scherer.
- The New York Times David Brooks — McCain is allergic to blind party discipline and builds radically different coalitions depending on his views on each issue."
- The New York Times "liberal" columnist Frank Rich — "Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain," in reference to their comments on McCain saying it's "fine with me" if US troops stay in Iraq for 100 years.
- The Washington Post's David Broder (on Meet the Press) after the Caucasus crisis erupted: this was "particularly a moment where John McCain can claim to have been prescient, because....he draws a very sharp line when it comes to Russia." In contrast, "Obama's basic message on foreign policy is it's better to talk to our enemies than to get ready to fight them. And here's a case where, clearly, talking did not dissuade Russia from this act of violence," and
- the major media response to McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate; pundits and reporters hailed it as proof of his "maverick" nature; reclaiming it; asserting it; recapturing it; a reference to a "maverick" choosing a "maverick;" and McCain returning "to the original John McCain.;" not a hint that it was done to placate the most extremists Republican elements.
On Obama:
At the start of his campaign, "whispers about his religious beliefs," questions about his patriotism, and "Is he one of us" came up. Then there were days of controversy over Rev. Wright and whether Obama still belonged to his church. Back in 2000, it was Gore the exaggerator v. Bush the uniter and compassionate conservative. In 2004, it was Kerry's "flip-flops," his "distorted" war record, stiffness, unlikability and inability to "connect" with voters.
Now it's Obama the elitist or snob with AP reporter Ron Fournier warning that he had "better watch his step (since he's) bordering on arrogance (and) can be a little too cocky for his own good." He and his wife "ooze entitlement."
- MSNBC's Chris Mathews (again) in an obvious racial slur — "the fact that's he's good at basketball doesn't surprise anybody, but the fact that he's terrible at bowling does make you wonder." He also questioned Obama's choice of beverage at an Indiana campaign stop; orange juice over coffee he called "weird."
- the New York Times Maureen Dowd contrasted her just-plain folks upbringing with Obama's "detached egghead quality." She also characterizes him the way she went at Gore and Kerry by calling them "girlie men" and equating Democrats with "desperate housewives perceived as the party in skirts."
- the New York Times David Brooks (again) - does Obama "really get the way we live? Voters want a president who shares their values and life experiences," implying Obama doesn't so why vote for him.
- numerous media outlets attacked Michelle Obama on not being patriotic, and CNN and others characterized her husband the same way and accused him of having a "cultish following."
- Slate's John Dickerson has had enough of Obama's euphoria — "Isn't there a natural limit to our enthusiasm for this kind of sweeping phenomenon."
- the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan called the Obamas self-centered "snobs" who can't relate to "normal Americans."
- The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol echoed the theme.
- Time.com's Ana Marie Cox played up the liberal media bias by reporting that McCain's camp is complaining that the media are being too easy on Obama.
- The National Review's Lisa Schiffren argued that Obama's mixed-race parents had communist leanings because back then that's the only reason blacks and whites married.
- Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid — "Obama admitted (a) relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA."
- CNN's Carol Costello suggesting that an audience at an Obama rally was "a scene some increasingly find not inspirational, but creepy," while the on-screen graphics read: "OBAMA-MANIA BACKLASH (and) PASSION CULT-LIKE TO SOME," and
- commentators, reporters and pundits ranging from ABC's Charles Gibson, MSNBC's Chris Mathews, PBS News Hour's Mark Shields, NPR's Scott Simon, the Washington Post's David Broder and others misrepresenting Obama's pledge to take public financing when, in fact, they knew he made no such unconditional promise.
Sum it up and there's no surprise about the media's one-sided loyalty. Their bias for Republicans over Democrats, and their willingness to shape stories for their own self-interest. Regardless of the campaign's outcome, reporting is deplorable because of today's professional journalism. Media giants are dominant. Bottom-line considerations are primary, and what passes for news, information and campaign coverage is shaped by commercial considerations. Republicans are seen as more accommodative so full-court press coverage backs them. But if elections aren't legitimate and working journalists aren't for truth, what good are they? As "Guardians of Power" not much.
