KISSED BY THE GODS: There’s more than a little truth to Garry Trudeau’s satirical portrayal in “Doonesbury” of a reporter who can’t keep himself from writing that Gov. Bill Clinton has been “kissed by the gods.” Strangely, the media’s admiration for Clinton is combined with a conviction that it has somehow done him wrong.
A Christian Science Monitor election piece (3/23) wrapped up with the observation that “the press,” along with Jerry Brown and the Washington political community, “may be judging Clinton too harshly.” Quoting a Brookings Institution analyst, the paper noted, “As the primaries have shown, ‘The country likes Clinton more than the elites do.’”
The reverse is closer to the truth. While Clinton won the “invisible primary” among pundits and fundraisers by a landslide, his performance with real voters outside the South has been lackluster. Clinton had been given so much extra credit by the press that when he finally won about 50 percent of the vote in two major Northern states (Illinois and Michigan), the race for the nomination was declared to be over. No one in the press should have been surprised that Clinton, who has placed behind Brown in other non-Southern primaries, would be beaten by him again in Connecticut.
BAGGING BROWN: If the national media’s affection for Clinton is clear, their irritation with Brown is overwhelming. ABC’s Ted Koppel called him “annoying,” while CNN’s Bernard Shaw referred to him as a “pain in the you-know-what.” NBC’s Lisa Meyers’ led off a segment (3/25) on Brown with, “He’s been called the Pied Piper of Protest and the political equivalent of a drive-by shooting. He’s both.”
AP (3/24) defined the two possibilities for Brown’s campaign: “protest or problem for Clinton’s nomination march.” NPR’s Cokie Roberts dismissed Clinton’s loss in Connecticut, comparing the voters to a bridegroom with last-minute jitters about going down the aisle–with Bill Clinton.
One of the most hostile articles came out on the day of the Connecticut primary (3/24), when the New York Times’ R.W. Apple described Brown as “flailing about, spewing out charges like sparks from a Fourth of July pinwheel, in a last-ditch effort to establish himself…as a credible alternative” to Clinton. In Apple’s mind, Brown seemed to have already lost the Connecticut primary, and all that the voters could do was determine the margin: “Even if Mr. Clinton wins big, Mr. Brown is unlikely to desist.”
IN DENIAL: Major news outlets seem to be in denial about their treatment of Brown. In a New York Times article (3/26) assessing coverage of Brown, Bill Carter had a revealing quote from ABC vice president Robert Murphy: “He’s still in the race. It can’t have affected him too much.” In other words, since the press hadn’t driven Brown out of the race, what’s the fuss about? Murphy went on to explain that Brown was covered less than other candidates because he “went door to door and did a real grassroots campaign.”
But the most absurd claim in Carter’s article was the assertion, credited to network executives, that “much of the news coverage of [Brown’s] candidacy had been determined by editorial judgments based on the results of the early primaries.” If that were true, what would explain the massive coverage devoted to Clinton–a candidate who didn’t win any primaries or caucuses until Georgia, on March 3, the same day that Brown won his first primary in Colorado?
ODD BUT TRUE: It’s funny how Citizens for Tax Justice seems to appear in the media whenever Jerry Brown’s flat-tax proposal is discussed. We don’t recall that group being given much prominence to discuss tax justice when Ronald Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent.
It’s also remarkable how every candidate who drops out of the race says it’s because he can no longer raise funds–yet Brown still gets treated like a crank or a hypocrite for saying that money had too much influence in campaigns.
“WHO’S PAYING THE BILL?”: Here’s a suggestion to journalists who feel abashed about reporting that Clinton had the nomination all wrapped up: You’ll be embarrassed less often if focus less on horse races and more on the substance and interests behind the candidates. Journalists might take a look at the March 11 issue of In These Times as an example, where John Judis looked at some of Clinton’s funders in an article headlined, “Clinton and the Lobbyists: Who Is Paying the Bill?” Using FEC records, In These Times estimated that one- quarter to one-third of Clinton’s $7 million war chest comes from Wall Street fundraisers, while another quarter comes from Washington lobbyists. Judis names specific lobbyists and investors who are key to Clinton’s fundraising strategy, and discusses what these ties might mean to a Clinton administration.
Thomas Ferguson in The Nation (4/6) does the same thing for George Bush’s contributors’ list, showing that the Fortune 500 is still solidly behind the president. The article is the first of two parts, with Part II promising to look at where the Democrats get their money. Why is the formidable job of looking through fundraising records failing largely to the alternative press, when it’s the TV networks and the national press that have the real resources?
Editor: Jim Naureckas
Associate Editor: Jeff Cohen
Consultants: Dean Baker, Steve Cobble
FAIR/Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting:
130 W. 25th St., New York City 10001
Phone: 212-633-6700 Fax: 212-727-7668
