AN ODD ACCOUNT! Even Dems think they see liberal bias! Dionnes account helps explain why: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2007
TOMORROW: Pundit and Press Corps Event of the Year! Dont miss our grand gala!
NOT ROOTING FOR RUDY: On Sunday, the Washington Post put its thumb on the scale with a deeply unbalanced (and unflattering) biographical profile of Giuliani (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/17/07).
Three days later, the Post presented this front-part scandal report about the very same candidate. If youre inclined to dream conspiracy dreams about the way big newspapers work (were not), youd have a hard time avoiding this thought: For some reason, the Post wants its readers to think very poorly about this particular candidate.
Yesterdays report was authored by the often gruesome John Solomon; to our mind, the author line was the last part of this piece which made much clear sense. In the main, the piece concerns convicted felon Lawrence Ray; hes a former close associate of Bernard Kerik, who is a former close associate of Giuliani. But wheres the tie between Giuliani and Ray? The headlines and the opening paragraphs seem to suggest some such thing. But this weak passage, paragraph 4, seems to be Solomons nugget:
In short, Giuliani had his photo taken with someone who is now a felon! And not only that: Someone invoked Giulianis name in connection with a New Jersey construction company. Did Ray do thator was it Kerik? In context, wed have to say that this point is muddled. Maybe you can find the answer in the endless, bewildering piece which is built on this flimsy foundation. (We could not.)
In truth, this might be a worthwhile storyabout Bernie Kerik. Try though we might, we cant quite decipher the connection of Ray to Giuliani. If we were the suspicious type, wed think that this piece had less to do with its actual contents (and surely, few people read the whole thing) than with its prominent front-page placement and its surface insinuations. Giulianis photo was taken with a very bad man! So this huge, front-page piece seems to tell us.
That said, Solomon doesnt fail to entertain through his familiar vacuum cleaner approach. How bad a man is Lawrence Ray? This bad! No, peoplereally:
Readers, lets expand our indictment! Giuliani had his photo taken with a man who was denounced by his wife in divorce proceedings! (In fairness, Solomon fills more space by saying this: Rays expert provided a more favorable analysis.)
As we said, some of this might serve as an intriguing indictment of Kerik. But Rays connection to Giuliani is hard to make out from this pieceexcept in its insinuative placement, headlines and photos. If we were a Giuliani fan, we might form a conspiratorial view after Sundays bio and Wednesdays slam job. We might think the Post didnt like our guyand was now doing something about it.
WHAT SCRIBES ADMITAND WHAT THEY DONT: In this post, Greg Sargent provides a valuable synopsis of this important piece by Jamison Foser. Citing Foser, Greg lists a string of major scribes who have announced to the world, at various times, that reporters tend to tilt campaign coverage to make races close. they just love a good horse race, they say. Greg penned this reaction:
Greg is rightas far as he goes. Its bizarre to see pundits announce, on the air, that their cohort engages in this sort of conductconduct which would be a firing offense in a rational universe. Pundits tilt the coverage to make the race close? Do news consumers know this is happening? Do they know theyre getting skewed coverage because reporter want a close race? We noted this problem back in September 2000, when Howard Fineman told Brian Williams that this was why the mainstream press corps had suddenly gone after Vile Gore once again. Two statements from that important exchange are included in Fosers listings.
Greg is right; its amazing to see these nitwits go on the air and announce that theyre doing thisthat their colleagues are deliberately playing their readers, hoping to make the race close. But lets keep one more point in mind: This is actually the innocent explanationthe explanation scribes feel permitted to offer. Were reporters really trying to make it close when they began trashing Gore as a liar again, in mid-September 2000? (He lied about those doggy pills! And about that union lullaby!) In fact, the press was simply reverting to the conduct it had engaged in for most of the prior two yearsa period when Gore was generally behind in the national polls. (Where was their desire for a good horse race then?) Finemans statement to Williams was historic and shocking, because the press corps bogus new complaints were already driving Gores numbers back down. (Bush ended up in the White House.) But it almost surely wasnt the truth about what the press corps was actually doing. It was just the presentable explanationthe one which took the place of the truth. The truth? In large part, the press corps was calling Gore a Big Liar again because they just hated his guts.
Indeed, Tucker Carlson noted that fact just last evening on Tucker. Mark Halperin noted an obvious fact (understating wildly). Tucker then spoke more directly:
But if youre Howard Fineman in September 2000, you cant say that on cable TV. So you say youre just keeping it close. Thats why youre beating on Gore!
What Fineman told Williams was astoundingbut it probably wasnt the truth. Ditto for the gruesome Anne Kornblut, quoted by Foser on October 26 of this year. Basically, Kornblut said the press was about to knock Candidate Clinton down, because they were biased in favor of a good tussle. (Four days later, we got that debate.) But that was the acceptable story; they dont let you hear the truth in real time. Carlson kept quiet about the hatred of Gore when it might have actually mattered. Instead, we got the Fineman line; his line described a firing offense, but it was most likely bogus.
How corrupt is the national press corps? Greg is rightthese statements are striking. But omigod! Even when they make these appalling statements, they still arent telling the truth!
Not much to chew on there. Indeed, Eric didnt even bother to punctuate; most of that is a quote from Boehlerts piece, but Eric left out the quotations marks and a needed ellipsis. Lets be clear: Theres no reason why any particular individual (including those named above) has to react to a piece like Kurtzs. But Erics completely unhelpful post was the most detailed discussion of Kurtzs piece we found in our standard rounds.
We dont know why were so disinclined to tackle so basic a topicespecially after what happened to Gore and then, in lesser measure, to Kerry. (Although we could easily guess.) But the result of our endless liberal silence is evident in a recent survey about the publics view of the press corps coverage of Campaign 08.
Alas! As Boehlert notes in his valuable piece, Harvard's Center for Public Leadership surveyed 1207 adults; among other things, they were asked to state their views about the coverage of Campaign 08. At one point, they were asked this:
Do you think that the press coverage of the election is politically biased?
If yes, do you think it is too liberal or too conservative?
Perhaps you can see where this is going. According to the survey, 40 percent think the campaign coverage has been too liberal; only 21 percent think it has been too conservative. Incredibly, this judgment extended to many Democrats. In the survey, 28 percent of Democrats think the coverage has been too conservativebut almost as many, 25 percent, think it has been too liberal. (Republicans found the coverage too liberal by a wide margin68-10. Independents also said too liberal, 35-23.)
Has coverage of Campaign 08 been too liberal? In fairness, were not sure how wed answer such an imprecise questionbut wed be surprised if there were a way to back up such an impression. After all, the two Republican front-runners at the start of the year were men whom the press corps had endlessly lionized: Rudy Giuliani, Americas Mayor, and John McCain, king of the Straight Talk Express. Pundits had recited their slogans for years; its hard to believe that the press corps suddenly started trashing such icons. (Beyond that, Fred Thompson was treated like a rock star when he first said he might run.) Meanwhile, the Democratic front-runner was a woman whom many in the press have long despised. And pundits soon began to show their deep concern with a second Big Dems troubling haircut.
Forget about a sweeping entity like Campaign 08; has coverage of the candidates been too liberal? Youd have a hard time making that case. But its hardly surprising that the public voted too liberal by a two-to-one margin; conservatives complain about press coverage constantly, and we liberals have spent the past fifteen years running and hiding from the topicrefusing to complain about the treatment our major candidates get. Why would voters think that Candidate Clinton might be getting shaftedwhen we havent even bothered to tell them about the treatment of Candidate Gore? Yesterdays silence is very familiar. If you care about who wins elections, this seems amazingly foolish.
At any rate, even Democrats split down the middle as to whether the coverage has been too liberal. In our view, its astounding to see that this judgments is still being made in the wake of the past fifteen years, in which the mainstream press has waged an endless string of assaults on Major Dem leaders. But we liberals like to gambol and play when the matter of campaign coverage is concerned. In our view, this liberal silence was on display again in E. J. Dionnes Tuesday column.
Writing one day before Kurtzs report, Dionne described the recent problems encountered by Candidate Clinton. Here was his (typically) odd account of how her campaign hit the skids:
Surely, something is missing from this account. According to Dionne, Clinton was enjoying significant leads in the polls for most of 2007until she made a single mistake in that October 30 debate. But does that account even seem to make sense? Does it make sense to think that a single mistake, in a single two-hour debate, could have turned things around in this manner? Dionnes account is especially odd when we add a fact he chose to omit: In the next Democratic debate, on November 15, Obama gave an answer about drivers licenses that was amazingly similar to the answer Clinton had given two weeks beforethe answer which supposedly sent her campaign into a tailspin. In all honesty, there was nothing much wrong with Obamas statementbut then, there was nothing much wrong with Clintons statement, the one which brought her world crashing down. But Obamas statement was so similar to Clintons that it drew laughter from the audienceand fleeting comment in the press. This raises an obvious question, one Dionne avoids in his odd account: If Clintons answer sent her campaign into a tailspin, how could it be that Obamas answer produced no matching downdraft?
How did that happen? The answer is easy. But as he has done for years and years now, Dionne agreed to leave something out of his Tuesday column. He disappeared the remarkable conduct of his multimillionaire insider colleagues, including the pair of giant journos who ran that October 30 debate. In fact, at least three big names were MIA when E. J. typed his (latest) bowdlerized column. And uh-oh! E. J.s silence helps explain why voters assume, to this day, that Republicans get shafted by the press. It helps explain why Major Dems have trouble reaching the White House.
We liberals love to run and hide when campaign coverage is concerned. On Tuesday, E. J., one of our highest-placed liberals, showed this familiar cultural impulse. People like E. J. ran and hid during the nightmares of Campaign 2000. And omigod! Wouldnt you know it! On Tuesday, he did it again.
TOMORROWPART 3: In Kurtzs reportas in Dionnesthree huge players were AWOL.
POSTSCRIPT: Who told you this week that the press hated Gore? Of course! The assignment was left to Tucker Carlson. (Disgracefully, E. J. has never discussed his cohorts coverage of Candidate Gore.) When it comes to basic matters like this, we liberals display a bit of noblesse oblige. We sip sweet drinks on the big front porch, being careful to keep very quiet. We dont dirty our hands with such mess. We let our conservatives do it!