GET ME REWRITE: In an early edition of the March 12 New York Times, an R.W. Apple article speculated about Pat Buchanan’s chances in Michigan: “He might also find support in Macomb County, north of Detroit, to which many white workers fled when their neighborhoods were taken over by blacks.” By the late edition, the race-baiting terminology had been removed: Macomb was now where “many white workers moved when blacks began to settle in their neighborhoods.” Apple deserves a Spin Doctor degree for writing (3/11) that “in some ways, Florida was a demographically ideal state for Mr. Tsongas.” Is a state where half the voters are over 60 “demographically ideal” for a candidate who has called for restricting Social Security cost-of-living adjustments?
FAVORITE SON: When the New Republic’s Hendrik Hertzberg asked “several dozen” national political journalists covering the New Hampshire primary who they would vote for if they were a New Hampshire Democrat, he got the same answer from every single one of them:
Gov. Bill Clinton. Hertzberg, who has conducted similar surveys since 1968, wrote (3/9) that “such unanimity is unprecedented” among the press corps. In ’88, “Babbitt nosed out Gore, Gephardt and Dukakis”; in ’84, Hart and Mondale were “about even.” (Hertzberg doesn’t mention any support for Jackson.)
Journalists’ personal preferences for Clinton do not translate directly into slanted coverage. But when those preferences coincide with the views of their sources in the political class (Democratic officials are overwhelmingly behind Clinton) and with the predispositions of media owners (who may perceive Clinton, like Paul Tsongas, as an acceptable pro-business candidate), reporters should be especially conscious about their views biasing coverage.
SOUTHERN COMFORT: Since the press had already done handsprings when Clinton won one state (Georgia) out of six on “Junior Tuesday,” hyperbole was inevitable when he won eight out of 11 on Super Tuesday. Tsongas suffered “crushing losses,” according to the New York Times (3/12); Clinton “swamped opponents” on the Washington Post’s front page (3/11). True, Clinton won big all over the South (taking from 51% to 73%)–just as Tsongas won big in New England on Super Tuesday (from 53% to 66%).
Little attention was paid to Clinton’s lukewarm showings in the North: In Rhode Island, Clinton nosed Out Jerry Brown for second 21 percent to 19 percent; In Massachusetts, he came in third (11 percent to Brown’s 15 percent); in Delaware, he trailed both Tsongas and Uncommitted.
Clinton’s only victory outside the South was in Hawaii, where he was supported by the state’s Democratic machine. Clinton’s non-South record is 2 wins, 14 losses.
WHO’S A REGIONAL CANDIDATE?: The lack of attention to Clinton’s pattern of defeat outside the South contrasts with the way other “regional” candidates have been treated in this campaign. Tsongas’ New Hampshire win was somewhat discounted because of the state’s proximity to Massachusetts. The victories of Tom Harkin (the only candidate, according to the New Republic’s Hertzberg, who “seemed to be actively disliked” by the press corps) were virtually ignored because they occurred in the Midwest. (NPR managed to place Idaho in the Midwest (3/4) so it wouldn’t count as a win in neutral territory for Harkin.) Brown’s wins are attributed to his being a “Western” candidate. Only in Clinton’s case is being a regional candidate seen as an asset rather than a liability.
Clinton now has “momentum”–which is often a euphemism for good press. And Illinois, the state outside the South where Clinton has the best organization, will be portrayed (if Clinton wins) as a bellwether state that ought to tell the rest of the country how to vote. Prophecies do sometimes self-fulfill.
LABOR PAINS: Clinton stands to do especially well on March 17 if the press continues to play down his anti-labor record. A Nexis search (3/12) turned up three lonely references to Clinton’s connection to Morrilton Plastics, an Arkansas company that tried to break a UAW local with the help of a $290,000 state loan–approved by Clinton. (See Deborah Orin, New York Post, 1/10; Michael Tomasky, Village Voice, 1/21.) With Harkin out of the race and Brown still treated as an oddity in much news coverage, Clinton has been able to present himself as labor’s alternative to Tsongas, a self-proclaimed pro-business candidate.
BLACK TURNOUT OR TURNOFF?: A large percentage of African-American primary voters have supported Clinton–hailed by reporters as a sign that Clinton is forging a “new coalition.” But the percentage of black votes for Clinton is arguably less important than the turnout, which is significantly lower than in 1988, when Jesse Jackson last ran. The Washington Post (3/12) provided some numbers, though not prominently: In Mississippi, black turnout fell from 165,000 to 81,000; In Louisiana, from 256,000 to 99,000. The question for Democrats is not whether African-Americans will defect to Bush in November, but whether they will feel that turning out at all is worthwhile. (How enthusiastically will Jackson get out the vote for a nominee who called him a “back-stabber”?)
QUOTE OF THE WEEK: From Senate chaplain Richard Halverson (Newsday, 3/8): “Gracious Father, investigative reporting seems epidemic in an election year–its primary objective to defame political candidates. Seeking their own reputation, they destroy another’s as they search relentlessly, microscopically for some ancient skeleton in a person’s life. Eternal God, help these self-appointed ‘vacuum-cleaner journalists’ to discover how unproductive and divisive their efforts are.”
Editor: Jim Naureckas
Contributing Editors: Dean Baker, Steve Cobble
FAIR/Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting:
130 W. 25th St., New York City, NY 10001
Phone: 212-633-6700 Fax: 212-727-7668
