||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A BRIEF CATALOG OF MEDIA BIAS AGAINST EDWARDS
FAIR - By the time the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries passed
in early January, there had been several distinct cycles in the media
coverage of the fight for the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton
went from inevitable nominee to also-ran to comeback kid in the space of
a week, for example, while Barack Obama was transformed from hopeful
newcomer to sure-thing front-runner in one evening. One media trend
remained remarkably steady, though: the press corps' hostility to the
John Edwards campaign.
Edwards' anti-corporate rhetoric was clearly off-putting to many pundits
and reporters, who were shocked that the sunny optimist they covered in
2004 transformed into a serious critic of money-driven politics who
talked passionately about poverty. Rather than engage his arguments
about corporate control over the political system, the media caricatured
Edwards for having a large house, a brief stint working for a hedge
fund, and his expensive haircuts (the "three Hs," as they would become
known in the mainstream press). . .
On December 18, USA Today ran a story on candidates' electability that
essentially wrote Edwards out of the race. The piece opened with the
statement that "Illinois Sen. Barack Obama fares better than New York
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton against prospective Republican rivals," and
went on to report on the results of hypothetical match-ups with various
Republican candidates.
In a CNN survey of December 6รข€“9, 2007, Edwards beat Romney by 11
points more than Clinton and 9 points more than Obama. He beat Huckabee
by 15 points more than Clinton and 10 points more than Obama. Clinton
lost to McCain in this polling by 2 points while Obama and McCain were
tied, but Edwards beat him by 6.
If it's true, as USA Today's article reported, that "Democratic voters
increasingly are focused on nominating the most electable presidential
candidate," then the paper did those voters a real disservice by leaving
Edwards out of the equation.
Edwards' second-place finish in Iowa did little to change the media
message-namely, that he should just quit. As New York Times columnist
David Brooks boldly pronounced, "Edwards' political career is probably
over." David Gergen agreed: "John Edwards I think has nowhere to go now
. . . even with a second-place win, because he has no money."
The New York Times' Adam Nagourney argued that "the results in Iowa . .
. suggested that the Democratic and Republican contests were to a
considerable extent two-way races: Mrs. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama
of Illinois for the Democrats, and Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney for the
Republicans." How Edwards coming in second in his race and Mike Huckabee
winning his "suggested" that their candidacies should be dismissed,
Nagourney didn't explain. The Los Angeles Times, meanwhile, managed to
label Edwards as the third-place finisher in Iowa in two articles on the
same day.
A few days earlier, USA Today included this peculiar line: "The
Democratic contest is a two-person race, dominated by Clinton and Obama.
That leaves Edwards, a former North Carolina senator who is a close
third, and Richardson, New Mexico's governor who is a distant fourth,
waiting for a stumble or a political earthquake to create an opening for
them." How a "two-person race" can have a "close third" is entirely
unclear. . .
Washington Post reporter Dan Balz turned in a scathing assessment of the
Edwards campaign on January 12, labeling the candidate a "forgotten man"
in "a largely two-person race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton,"
before noting that "Edwards has offended many Democrats with his
candidacy. They question his authenticity and see his shift from
optimism to anger as the sign of an opportunistic politician."
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A BRIEF CATALOG OF MEDIA BIAS AGAINST EDWARDS
FAIR - By the time the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries passed
in early January, there had been several distinct cycles in the media
coverage of the fight for the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton
went from inevitable nominee to also-ran to comeback kid in the space of
a week, for example, while Barack Obama was transformed from hopeful
newcomer to sure-thing front-runner in one evening. One media trend
remained remarkably steady, though: the press corps' hostility to the
John Edwards campaign.
Edwards' anti-corporate rhetoric was clearly off-putting to many pundits
and reporters, who were shocked that the sunny optimist they covered in
2004 transformed into a serious critic of money-driven politics who
talked passionately about poverty. Rather than engage his arguments
about corporate control over the political system, the media caricatured
Edwards for having a large house, a brief stint working for a hedge
fund, and his expensive haircuts (the "three Hs," as they would become
known in the mainstream press). . .
On December 18, USA Today ran a story on candidates' electability that
essentially wrote Edwards out of the race. The piece opened with the
statement that "Illinois Sen. Barack Obama fares better than New York
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton against prospective Republican rivals," and
went on to report on the results of hypothetical match-ups with various
Republican candidates.
In a CNN survey of December 6รข€“9, 2007, Edwards beat Romney by 11
points more than Clinton and 9 points more than Obama. He beat Huckabee
by 15 points more than Clinton and 10 points more than Obama. Clinton
lost to McCain in this polling by 2 points while Obama and McCain were
tied, but Edwards beat him by 6.
If it's true, as USA Today's article reported, that "Democratic voters
increasingly are focused on nominating the most electable presidential
candidate," then the paper did those voters a real disservice by leaving
Edwards out of the equation.
Edwards' second-place finish in Iowa did little to change the media
message-namely, that he should just quit. As New York Times columnist
David Brooks boldly pronounced, "Edwards' political career is probably
over." David Gergen agreed: "John Edwards I think has nowhere to go now
. . . even with a second-place win, because he has no money."
The New York Times' Adam Nagourney argued that "the results in Iowa . .
. suggested that the Democratic and Republican contests were to a
considerable extent two-way races: Mrs. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama
of Illinois for the Democrats, and Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney for the
Republicans." How Edwards coming in second in his race and Mike Huckabee
winning his "suggested" that their candidacies should be dismissed,
Nagourney didn't explain. The Los Angeles Times, meanwhile, managed to
label Edwards as the third-place finisher in Iowa in two articles on the
same day.
A few days earlier, USA Today included this peculiar line: "The
Democratic contest is a two-person race, dominated by Clinton and Obama.
That leaves Edwards, a former North Carolina senator who is a close
third, and Richardson, New Mexico's governor who is a distant fourth,
waiting for a stumble or a political earthquake to create an opening for
them." How a "two-person race" can have a "close third" is entirely
unclear. . .
Washington Post reporter Dan Balz turned in a scathing assessment of the
Edwards campaign on January 12, labeling the candidate a "forgotten man"
in "a largely two-person race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton,"
before noting that "Edwards has offended many Democrats with his
candidacy. They question his authenticity and see his shift from
optimism to anger as the sign of an opportunistic politician."
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment