ITS ALWAYS SOMETHING! While we wait for the juice to come on, we flesh out Judis piece: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, MAY 23, 2008
ITS ALWAYS SOMETHING: Darn it! Electrical work has kept us from posting our planned essays today. They will be posted later today or tomorrow, dated Saturday (preview below). In the meantime, a brief review and an amplification of our reaction to John Judis TNR piece.
THE CLASSIC DOUBLE STANDARD: Partisans often accuse the press of maintaining a double standard. Its an easy claim to makeand usually, a hard claim to establish. But sometimes, journalists step right up to the plate and announce that theyre running a double standard. Thats what Judis seemed to do in this part of his remarkable piece (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/22/08):
In that passage, Judis describes a classic double standard. Clinton, McCain and Romney proceeded under one set of rules. But a second standard obtained for Obamaand Judis says that members of the media put it into practice. They recoiled when Clinton treated Obama the same way everyone else was being treated. Result? In Judis astounding account, they then threw their support to him.
Lets be frank: It has been abundantly clear, in the past twenty years, that your press corps really does function this way. But its rare, and historic, when someone like Judis comes forward and says that it does. We can think of one clear precedentthe admission by a string of reporters about the coverage of McCain back in Campaign 2000. When McCain would say dumb or inappropriate things, they would take him off the record, a list of reporters publicly said. It was fairly clear that Candidate Bradley was getting a very similar treatmentbut they openly copped to this groaning double standard in their approach to The Worlds Greatest Man.
Judis statement was astounding. Astoundingly, he seemed to say that, due to journalists private assessments, one of the candidates has been playing under a different set of rules. You could treat Romney/McCain/Clinton one waybut if you treated Obama that way, members of the media would strike back. Well ask again what we asked in 1999: When journalists openly cop to such conduct, why arent they instantly fired?
In 1999 and 2000, most voters had no way to know that McCain was being favored this way. If Judis assessment is right (and he should explain what hes talking about), a similar situation has obtained with Obama. Lets be clear: This is the doing of journalists (people like Judis), not of candidates (people like Obama). But its your democracy that gets fried in the processunless, of course, you believe in rule by a group of journalist kings.
IS THIS HOW THE RECOIL LOOKED: Members of the media recoiled and threw their support to Obama? Again, this wasnt Obamas doing. But lets ask ourselves how reporting looks when journalists engage in such recoil.
As we noted yesterday: Even in his current piece, Judis is still misstating the contents of a Clinton ad in South Carolina (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/22/08). To its credit, the Washington Post quoted the ad in real time, on January 24. But Alec MacGillis and Anne Kornblut could hardly have been more argumentative. Heres the first paragraph of their news report. Is this how news reporting looks when journalists recoil and throw their support in the way Judis seemed to describe?
Truly, thats gruesome reporting. MacGillis instantly stated his viewthe charge in question had previously been discredited. And of course, some Democrats said the ad was hardball, he saidfailing to note that some Democrats thought different. In our view, Clintons ad made an underwhelming complaint; we doubt that it changed many voters minds. But as MacGillis and Kornblut plowed ahead, their thumbs pressed down hard on the scale:
This news report was pure propagandagruesome, glaring advocacy. The claim that Obama was really describing the dominance of Republican ideas in the 1980s and 1990s was pure poppycockan absurd attempt to reinvent the (relatively innocuous) thing he had actually said. (In the interview from which his statement was drawn, Obama said one thing about President Reaganand he said this second thing about the past 10-15 years.) Obama has never advocated the positions in question, MacGillis saidbut the ad didnt make such a claim, and the instant resort to this rebuttal was another bit of lightly-varnished advocacy. As a news report, this was pure propaganda. For ourselves, we thought Clintons ad was underwhelming. But again, our question: Is this the way journalism starts to look when members of the media recoil and throw their support?
In fact, theyve behaved this way for a very long time. Most dramatically, they have favored McCain and favored Bradley, disfavored Gore and Hillary Clinton. (Until he had nearly destroyed the known world, Bush was mostly molly-coddled.) But simply put, that piece wasnt news reporting. One has to ask if Judis piece explains what it actually was.
How they simplify the game: MacGillis quoted what Clintons ad said. Then, he absurdly tried to claim that Obama was really discussing the 1980s. In yesterdays piece, Judis made the game easier: As so many of his colleagues did in real time, he simply misstatedmisstated again!what Clintons ad actually said.
Theyve played you that way for a very long way. When will you force them to stop?
TOMORROW: Aw what the heck, maybe its all for the better! In tomorrow post, well offer a grisly companion to Judis piece. And well finish our report from Wednesday: How does the world start to look when journos start taking your side?