The media's Clinton-Obama obsession -- make it stop!
The arrival of my year-end issue of Newsweek in December was accompanied by a palpable sense of dread. Featuring Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) on the cover with the headline, "The Race is On," the issue landed with a thud, like an unwanted fruitcake amidst the holiday season. How else to respond to a 2008 campaign preview package published 98 weeks before Election Day and nearly 400 days before a single registered Democrat would vote in a primary? That, plus the fact the 2008 drumbeat was sounding just six weeks after the all-consuming midterm elections had been completed.
Am I the only one who thinks it's madness to turn White House campaigns into 22-month press events? Or is it sacrosanct along the New York-Washington, D.C., media corridor, where pontificating about politics can pay very well, to suggest that there is such a thing as too much mainstream media election coverage?
The press truly has embraced the notion of the nonstop campaign and I think has done so for increasingly selfish reasons. For political scribes, presidential campaigns used to be the sports car their parents let them take out for a spin once every four years to show off. Now it's become a case of incessant cruising, with endless preening and posing. Specifically, White House campaigns can be career-making seasons, when high-profile promotions, book deals, TV punditry contracts, and teaching positions can be pocketed.
For news media companies, presidential campaigns meanbig business; relatively inexpensive content that can be endlessly rehashed. In other words, they're good for the bottom line.
The never-ending analysis for 2008, though, has already morphed into a deafening background noise. And the press' often shallow performance last week does not bode well for the long term.
We have an industry of media political pros who have surprisingly little to say (i.e., Clinton has more experience, but Obama represents a fresh face), yet insist on saying (or writing) it over and over and over. Raise your hand if you felt like you learned something truly insightful from the tidal wave of press coverage last week about Obama, Clinton, or the upcoming Democratic primary season.
And make no mistake, the media's flood-the-zone reaction to Obama and Clinton announcing they were forming presidential exploratory committees was unprecedented in American campaign journalism. Indeed, anybody who needs further proof that the Beltway press corps has surrendered to the cult of personality, last week's display of Clinton-Obama mania should suffice.
It's true that the press does not control the campaign calendar, and that more and more states are moving up their primary dates so they'll have more influence on the nominating process. But the press is clearly still driving the over-excited coverage and hyping the expanded campaign season. (CNN is already advertising its April debates from New Hampshire.) Meaning yes, the exploratory committee declarations are coming earlier. But what has not changed is the fact that no ballots are cast until early 2008. So why is the press treating the Obama and Clinton announcements as being so wildly important? (They're not even official candidates yet; that news cycle comes later.)
It's obvious that Clinton and Obama's stars burn brighter than some previous candidates such as Bill Bradley or Paul Tsongas. And I'll admit the spectacle of a former first lady running for president herself is extraordinary, as well as historic. But at this stage, Clinton's announcement hardly passes as unexpected. In fact, it was completely perfunctory.
And if Obama had made an audacious last-minute entry into the campaign one year from now, reminiscent of Robert Kennedy's belated decision to join the 1968 race (he jumped in after the New Hampshire primary) then, yes, there would be cause for the type of hyperventilating coverage that has been on display -- the urgent tone regarding endorsements and fundraising and the shifting political landscape. But forming an exploratory committee twelve months before the first primary and nearly 700 days before the general election -- that's Big News?
Apparently so. In the 36 hours surrounding Obama's move last week, "Obama" was mentioned more than 620 times on cable and network television newscasts, as well as National Public Radio, according to TVEyes.com. In the roughly 36 hours following Clinton's Saturday announcement, she grabbed more than 1,000 television and NPR mentions. Last week, Obama and Clinton combined to garner nearly 3,500 on-air mentions, which averages out to more than 20 references every hour for 168 straight hours, or an entire week. (I'm convinced MSNBC talker Chris Matthews goes to bed at night thinking about Clinton, mumbles her name in his sleep, and wakes up with Clinton on the brain.)
Think back to 1999 when then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush unveiled his presidential exploratory committee with a showy presentation in Austin. The next day The New York Times published a modest 900-word story on Page 14. The Washington Post was a bit more generous, giving the Bush story Page 1 treatment, with a 965-word dispatch.
Note that in 1991, the press barely even registered the fact that Bill Clinton had formed an exploratory committee. The New York Times published a 300-word wire item from the Associated Press, while the Post gave the news just 600 words, inside on Page 4.
By comparison, last week the two papers, swept up in Clinton-Obama mania, rewrote their rules. The New York Times played the Obama exploratory announcement prominently above the fold on Page 1, while the Post published no fewer than four articles, totaling 3,500 words, about the Illinois senator's White House plans. For Clinton, the Times also gave her A1, above-the-fold placement on Sunday, as did The Washington Post. In all, the Post printed six Clinton-related articles that day, totaling more than 5,300 words.
Too much of a bad thing
Some might suggest there's no such thing as too much political coverage because it's good for democracy -- it educates the citizenry. In theory, yes, but not the kind of coverage I fear we're going to get. And certainly not the kind of coverage news consumers were exposed to in recent presidential pushes, when the press concocted phony narratives about the candidates (i.e. Bush in 2000 was the more likeable, and that's why Americans wanted to share a beer with him).
In fact, instead of engaging the public, I fear the media's nonstop droning turns people off. There's little evidence that it's news consumer hunger that's driving the current orgy of political pontification. (As Mystery Pollster recently noted online, not even voters in Iowa, home of the first Democratic caucus vote, appear to be engaged in the campaign yet.) I mean, what are citizens supposed to do with this avalanche of chatter? Basically, Obama's running, and Clinton's running, and in 12 or 13 or 14 months from now, depending on where they live, voters might be able to cast a vote for one of them. (Or for another candidate.) How many voters, over the next 12 moths, really need a daily update about that? The answer, of course, is almost none. But the press, taking insider-dom to new extremes, seems more intent on feeding its own incestuous appetites.
More importantly, the media's over-emphasis on the candidates this early in the process distracts journalists from covering more pressing issues, while also warping their news perspective. This past weekend provided a perfect example of the troubling trend. On Saturday, Clinton announced she was forming a presidential exploratory committee. That same day, 25 American soldiers were killed in Iraq, marking the deadliest day for U.S. forces in nearly two years. Which story was more newsworthy? For lots of major American newspapers, the answer was easy: politics.
The Chicago Tribune, for instance, made the Clinton story Page 1 news in the Sunday paper but not the bloody news about troops in Iraq, which was reported inside the paper. So did The Hartford Courant, The Oakland Tribune, Portland Oregonian, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Meanwhile, The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Minneapolis Star Tribune all played the Clinton story above the troop story on their front pages. (The Washington Post published the stories side by side on its front page.)
The other real downside to today's early saturation coverage is that journalists, anxious to juice the narrative, are too often tempted to simply manufacture conflicts where none exist. For instance, there's been a constant buzz about the emerging rivalry between Clinton and Obama, despite the fact there has not been a single cross word publicly spoken between them or anyone directly associated with them. Still, journalists, desperate to advance the storyline, persist. Note this head-scratching bit of minutia disguised as analysis from a December 8 Washington Post article, headlined, "For Now, an Unofficial Rivalry; Possible Clinton-Obama Presidential Clash Has Senate Abuzz":
In the fishbowl of the Senate, interactions between Clinton and Obama are frequent and closely scrutinized. During a routine vote yesterday morning, Obama and Clinton brushed past each other on the Senate floor. Obama winked and touched Clinton on her elbow. Without pausing, she kept walking.
Meanwhile, last week, a lot of reporters simply made up the story that Clinton canceled a Capitol Hill press conference she was scheduled to give upon the return from her fact-finding trip to Iraq because it fell on the same day Obama made his White House announcement. The details though, were clear: Clinton postponed her press conference the night before, prior to Obama's announcement, because a congressional colleague of Clinton who also made the trip to Iraq had fallen ill. Yet reporters such a Dana Milbank at The Washington Post, pretended not to understand the facts in order to mock the Clinton campaign for "stumbling" and "getting defensive" over its postponed press conference.
Time.com's political blog also played the same bogus Clinton press conference game: The Clinton camp was "spinning" the facts of the canceled event even though the facts were completely accurate. (Time.com even slipped in a snarky Whitewater reference, because it's Clinton. Get it?)
In a post last week on The New York Times' political blog, The Caucus, Anne E. Kornbut (who this week got her first byline as a staff reporter for The Washington Post) reported, "Brushing past reporters in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton -- conspicuously talking into her cell phone; whether there was anyone on the other end of the line, or not, could not be confirmed." Yes, Kornblut, based on nothing but a snide hunch, suggested Clinton was faking a phone conversation.
The Beltway press is extending the campaign into a prolonged silly season so news consumers have to suffer through nonsense like that? It hardly seems fair.
there's no way a senator representing one of the largest states in the union, and getting ready to announce a presidential bid, there's no waaaaay she might actually be having a cell phone conversation.
... that pre-empted the news this weekend that 25 Americans lost their lives in Iraq. CNN also had expanded coverage of the ongoing pseudo-feud between "The Donald" and the women of The View, and Larry King was busy interviewing the parents of that formerly missing teenager in Missouri. Both stories endlessly repeated themselves like a cheesy porn loop throughout the entire weekend.
I don't really disagree with the item's diagnosis of the fashionable "media's" obsession with '08 in general, and Obama/Clinton in particular, but I think it's even worse than simple "obsession"... I think it's more malignant than that.
The item's diagnosis "that the Beltway press corps has surrendered to the cult of personality" is preceded by the observation of the symptons; which the item's headline terms "obsession", the second paragraph "madness", and further down a "tidal wave of press coverage" and a "flood-the-zone reaction"...
...and then "the cult of personality" as a cause of such a fixation.
And I don't doubt that to be a contributing factor to what we're seeing.
But I'd point out also, that there's no doubt at all that the "media's" business is, in part or total, to support the administration, and all it's supporters (which include the ownership of that "media")... and that unless something positive can be said about the administration in general, or Iraq in particular, then what that "media" seeks to say is nothing at all.
Because if no news is good news, then it also follows: That no news is not bad news either...
...and Iraq these days is bad news to the administration... and so therefore the "media" that supports that administration, would just as soon say nothing at all about Iraq (whenever they can get away with that), than report on it...
...than report on the bad (and getting worse all the time) news of Iraq.
Now it's undeniable that the "obsession" with Hillary/Obama etc., is at the same time saying nothing at all about Iraq.
And what I'd point out about this peculiar sympton here, is that the Hillary/Obama etc. noise could indeed be about Iraq (their stance on that issue could indeed be considered, at least in part, as the substance of any talk about their presidential candidacies), but of course it is not...
Big ears, middle name, last name sounds like a bad word, went to a Muslim school as a little kid, maybe did a line or two as a bigger kid... and that she's behind that talk of his nose, she's a shrew and a witch, she's angry and everybody hates her...
Are these or are these not U.S. Senators we're talking about here... and as U.S. Senators and presidential candidates, do they or do they not have a stance on the single most hot political issue of the day, Iraq?
Do you see what I'm saying?
That it's peculiar how Iraq as an issue is lost amongst all the talk of ears and noses and middle names...
...but then again it is not peculiar, if you consider what I had observed: That the "media" that supports the administration would as soon say nothing at all about Iraq (whenever they can get away with that) than report on it.
In this manner then, does this sympton of "obsession" about Hillary/Obama/'08 etc., resemble all those other "obsessions" with runaway brides and weird freaks in Thialand who make vague statements about a little dead girl and WWIII on the Israeli-Lebanese border...
You see what I'm saying: That all this madness of Hillary/Obama/'08 etc., is nothing at all about Iraq and the ever-worsening news there...
...ever-worse for the administration, which is why it's not getting reported on (or at least reported on as little as possible)... which is why we get Thia freaks and dead little girls and runaway brides and has-been movie actors-turned-wife-killers and...
Hillary/Obama/'08 etc.
Although why that particular "obsession" excludes also the subject matter of Iraq, does not make much sense to me, as it should definitely include the single hottest political issue of the times, Iraq...
...but it does not; as it is as plain as the nose and the ears on Obama's face, that all this obsession about '08 is no talk at all...
...about Iraq, or the administration whose scheme of lies and greed and death Iraq is...
...just like the "obsession" with a freak in Thialand and a dead little girl, or frozen guys too dumb to safely hike high altitudes was.
So I think the diagnosis not to be completely that real malady, and a real condition of this "media", the "cult of personality".
In this case, I think the cause of the symptoms to be more malignant than that... to be more deadly, like Iraq...
To be Cancer.
That if a contributing factor to the present "media" madness over Hillary/Obama/'08 etc. seem as though it should be the ridiculously early dates at which these candidacies and "exploratory committees" are being announced, then I'd agree...
...but as a contingent factor only, one that simply "enables" the madness, but does not cause it.
Because we would have all this distractionary noise (distraction from reporting on the administration and their scheme in Iraq) even were we not to have these ridiculously early presidential candidacies.
Which is to say, we would still have freaks in Thialand and dead little girls, and runaway brides and WWIII on the border, etc.
As for the ridiculously early pronouncements of presidential candidacy, they are illnesses all their own, and are not the major cause of the '08 madness we are seeing in the "media" right now.
The illness that causes such a nauseatingly early declaration of candidacy for president, has to do with fund-raising...
Fund Raising: An obsessive illness found to have spread throughout the body of the Democratic Party nationally...
...an illness that keeps that Party from it's best Health, that keeps it's Policy weakened by extreme habits ("moderation in all things", the best Doctors say).
An illness that keeps the Democratic Party nationally from forming it's Policy in accord with the American People only... and in as great numbers of those People as is possible.
Great numbers of People not found in the raising of funds, just great numbers of dollars (and whatever other currency).
That's the name of the illness, Fund Raising, that causes such a madness as presidential candidacies 22 months before the danged election...
...which is right nauseating, we report.
Thanks for your comments on premature presidential electioneering, also, I see Obama as not nearly mature enough nor visibly committed to anything really important to be running for POTUS,
As for Hillary, she seems to be pretty much a part of the problem and again stands for nothing but the latest poll findings.
And heck, since we ARE being premature here, I already have committed funds for Edwards, he has guts, brains, and experience, and he saw through the Iraq war swindle from day one, and is actually trying to get us the hell out of there.
edwards voted for the authority to go to war resolution. so did hillary. he has been more adamant in his anti war positions lately but it's not true he was against it from the beginning. gore and dean were.
Alas, I am a Kucinich supporter.
What bothers me most about this sort of reporting is that pundits and reporters, rather than just telling us who is out there, are actually choosing candidates for us. They completely ignore Kucinich's campaign because THEY, in their infinite wisdom, think he can't make it. But it's really a self-fulfilling prophecy. The reportorial and pundit class are essentially telling the Democrats that their only options are Obama, Clinton, and maybe Edwards. This isn't reporting. This is rigging elections.
Kucinich in 2008 for peace, justice, and the American way!
I'll drink to that. Actually I don't drink.
But if he's on the ticket, he has my vote.
Talk about overkill. What bothers me the most is that the media focuses more on politics than the issues that shape politics. If the press insists on starting its presidential coverage this soon, the least it can do is talk about where the candidates stand on the important issues of our time (healthcare, education, the job market and THE IRAQ WAR).
President PELOSI -- NOW ! IMMEDIATELY !
And then none of all the hate-talking heads are saying, matters at all.
Which is what those hate-talking heads are trying to preempt, by sensationally talking hate.
They say, 'only don't look at' ... the fact is Pelosi, and relief, is there right NOW, and what'shername and what'shisname are years away.
Maybe the vast right wing conspiracy has warped my brain and viewpoint, but every time I read the Letters to the Editor section in my newspapers (Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times) there seems to be strangely "to-the-point" anti-Obama and/or Hillary letters already. I tend to believe that the Rove Ministry corrals their Repub contributors or shadow puppets and write the smear letters for these people using their names (they tell them, of course, so when the newspaper calls they can confirm that they are, indeed, Ed Repub from Hinsdale). The letters tend to be sardonic put-downs of the media's "obsession" with BO, as if they are a liberal cadre on bended knee (yet no comparative analysis of the BushieCo capitulation). Does anybody else notice this?
It occurs to me that if indeed all this '08 obsession so early is simply the "media's" latest low-cost/no-cost freak show to peddle, in place of the bad news they'd rather not report... bad news that is, to their lord and master the administration...
...then MMFA can't help but to reflect this distraction, and give us the freak show second-hand... or at least the more misinformative parts of it.
Because how can MMFA cite what's not being reported by the "media"?
I guess they can't... I guess MMFA has to go right along, like it or not, and echo the barker of the freak show... too bad.
I see the '08 freak show, or a reflection of it, on MMFA's front page this morning:
Six items yesterday regarding '08... only two are Hillary (one of which has her stabbing Obama, so that item counts as being about him too)... a halfrican item (does that mean half African, or half Puerto Rican? You know, half-Rican? I don't know myself, because I just can't work up the interest in the matter enough to find out what the term is supposed to mean, or even what the Senator's ethnic and/or racial heritage is)... another item also "kill two birds w/ the same stone", where Edwards is behind smears of Obama... and an item that has the words 'Fox' and 'Giuliani' and 'balanced' in it's headline (I didn't click it, so I don't know the punchline to that joke).
Well, I guess MMFA can't cite anything, unless it's in the "media"... and I guess the rather serious and important matter (to the American People right now) of the Senate Foreign Relation's Committee settling on a Resolution that proclaims the president's plan to increase troops in Iraq as contrary to the national interest ('increase' is the word they settled on... synonomous enough I guess, with 'surge' or 'escalation')...
...if such important stuff as that isn't reaching the light of the "media's" news day, then I guess that's that... we get what they give us...
Freaks on parade '08... Hillary as Lizzie Borden... a half an African (not Rican I take it?)... Edwards the smear merchant... and something about the joke Giuliani...
...also, the sideshows of Foley emails and Soros v. o'reilly and the "childless" being "belittled" and something "goldplated" and other cool stuff.
The president, as I understand it, greatly fears this Resolution that will be debated by the Senate, on the floor as part of it's serious business... and for good reason he does, as it rolls the ball along greatly, this Resolution does... rolling it right over his reputation, his approval ratings (however low already), his legacy... it paves the way also, this Resolution, to the introduction and passage even, of more binding measures, such as the funding of Operation Iraqi Freedom...
The funding of Operation Iraqi Freedom...
Hey, did anybody hear that defense contractor Lockheed Martin just announced 2006 earnings of $2.5 billion dollars? That's profit, mind you... analysts expect 2007 revenues of $41.6 billion. All this good news caused their stock to top out at 98.25, which is pretty much at a two-year high.
Where do those billions in profits and revenues come from anyway?
I can see whose money it is now, but whose did it used to be?
Did that money come out of the U.S. Treasury? And if so, under what expenditure was it drawn out?
Oops, sorry... I get easily distracted sometimes... what was it I was saying...
Oh yeah: The president sure is fearful of this Measure that now moves to the floor of the full Senate.
It's the voice of the American People, and it could initiate an action on a much larger scale.
It's not quite as entertaining as '08 freak show, but we'll take whatever the carnival barker gives us, I guess.