CLINTON’S HORTON: Bill Clinton’s remarks about Sister Souljah were part of a clear, if somewhat peculiar, political strategy: identify those voting blocs most likely to support you, and alienate them. (It’s an approach that’s especially odd in a three-way race, where 35 percent of the vote could provide victory.) This strategy was outlined in a Broder/Edsall Washington Post piece (6/12) just before the Rainbow Coalition conference: “Some top advisers to Clinton argue that…he must become involved in highly publicized confrontations with one or more Democratic constituencies.”
Clearly, the Souljah flap was one of these deliberately staged provocations, and Clinton’s spin doctors were out in force making sure that reporters did not miss the significance: Clinton was “standing up” to Jackson. But as Michael Tomasky predicted in the Village Voice (6/23) — accurately, it turned out–“guess which one, Clinton or Jackson, will be called, as the convention approaches, ‘divisive’?”
Pundits nearly unanimously praised Clinton’s “courage” in taking on the rap singer. (Criticizing Murphy Brown is silly, criticizing Sister Souljah is statesmanlike.) The refusal to recognize what was going on was epitomized by a New York Times editorial (6/17) headlined “Sister Souljah Is No Willie Horton” — the distinction being that “these were hateful remarks.” It was as if Bush’s exploitation of the Horton case was objectionable because the convict was somehow not really a rapist.
In fact, the Horton and Souljah gambits were parallel–a politician attempted to win white votes by focusing attention on an irrelevant issue that resonated with white fears of black violence. As the Clinton handlers quoted above explained, the “confrontation” wasn’t with Souljah or Jackson, but with a “constituency”–i.e., blacks. Rather than critical coverage of this calculated race-baiting, the press offered praise: “Clinton Deftly Navigates Shoals of Racial Issues,” a New York Times headline read (6/17).
PARTY WRECKER: Jackson, on the other hand, was widely denounced as an “egotistical party wrecker” (Newsweek, 6/29) who will “not sleep well if another Democrat” wins the presidency (Time, 6/29). Some caricatures of Jackson were remarkably crude and vicious–a cartoon in the Oregonian (reprinted in Newsweek, 6/29) portrayed Jackson as a rapper demanding that Clinton “grovel like Mike in ‘88”; the New York Post (6/24) showed a snarling Jackson holding a gun to Clinton’s head, threatening to “waste him.”
The New York Post’s Deborah Orin, however, was one of the few commentators to point out a crucial fact (6/25) — that a recent CBS/New York Times poll (6/22) showed that Jackson, with 25 percent viewing him favorably, was significantly more popular than Clinton, at 16 percent.
WATCHING THE DETECTIVE: The media are covering the Perot campaign more aggressively now, but the issue many media have focused on shows a lack of perspective. Is the worst thing one can say about Perot that he investigated George Bush? Bob Woodward and John Mintz’s Washington Post piece, which sparked the flap, practically exonerated George Bush from charges that he was involved in Iran/Contra, associating such accusations with “conspiracy theories.” Special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, a Republican, is hardly a kook, yet he’s talking about handing down more indictments connected to a Nov. 22, 1986 meeting that Bush attended. Bush’s deceptions about Iran/Contra have been well-documented–see, for example, L.A. Times, 5/1/88. Aren’t illegal and unconstitutional activities by a high government official worth as much investigative effort as legal, albeit obsessive, sleuthing by a private citizen?
TIME WARNER/PEROT SYNERGY?: While many media have begun to seriously scrutinize Perot, he does have some powerful media friends–most notably, the hierarchy at Time Warner. Warner Books, after rushing out Ross Perot, In His Own Words, distributed 5,000 copies of the instant book to Time Warner employees, according to New York Observer (6/15). Observer reporter Helen Thorpe added that “magazine employees were puzzled to receive the unexpected gift…and suspicious of the motives behind it.”
Crain’s New York Business (6/15) noted that Time Warner’s in-house newsletter, FYI, contained a “glowing feature on Perot” and his meeting with top Time executives. Crain’s also noted (5/25) that the head of Electra Entertainment, a Time Warner subsidiary, serves on Perot’s finance committee. Warner Brothers chair Robert Daly is said to be among the Hollywood heavyweights “intrigued” by Perot (New York Times, 6/25).
HILLARY AND US: FAIR has become a campaign issue, with Morton Kondracke linking us (in Roll Call, 6/22) to Hillary Clinton, who four years ago served as chair of the board of a foundation that granted money to FAIR. Our “affiliation” with the Clintons will no doubt come as a surprise to regular readers of Counterspin, as will the fact that FAIR is an acronym for “Fairness and Accuracy in Media.” Did Kondracke study spelling with Dan Quayle?
MUST READ: Lynda Edwards’ Village Voice piece (6/23) on focus groups, which challenges conventional wisdom on the electorate. Edwards reported that, according to Republican research, “focus groups are obsessed with the S&L bailout and are wondering why the press isn’t covering it. Back in 1988, they were obsessed with Iran/Contra…. But the press deemed Iran/Contra too difficult for the public. Instead, the media fixated on the flag-burning amendment and the Pledge of Allegiance.” Edwards quoted Clinton’s top pollster: “No one in the heartland thinks the press has a liberal bias. The heartland thinks the press is a bunch of power toadies.”
Editor: Jim Naureckas
Associate Editor: Jeff Cohen
FAIR/Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting:
130 W. 25th St., New York City 10001
Phone: 212-633-6700 Fax: 212-727-7668
