Running Against the Media by Howard Kurtz

Running Against the Media
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011100982.html

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 11, 2008; 12:12 PM

We have achieved a rare moment of consensus in the media.

Everyone hates us.

Or at least, everyone agrees that we have screwed up this election pretty royally.

Even Rudy Giuliani is running against the pundits with this ad. Dana Milbank appears twice.

But there's been a fascinating turn in the debate, which I briefly mentioned yesterday. It's not just the blown predictions, endless punditry and horse-race mentality that are aggravating people about the news business. Now some critics are saying that the pundits themselves have become a factor in this race, especially in the perceived piling on against Hillary Clinton.

To be sure, the press is an easy target for a candidate's campaign when things are going wrong. But I think there's something to the backlash argument. It may be a minor factor, but a factor nonetheless.

Salon's Joe Conason points the finger at his profession in trying to explain Hillary's win on Tuesday:

"What seems just as plausible as any other explanation is also the most ironic: that New Hampshire Democrats -- and especially Democratic women -- were sick of the corrosive hostility and naked slant of the mainstream media against her.

"The polls that had showed Barack Obama well ahead of Clinton were not so much wrong as misleading -- or at least badly interpreted by journalists too eager to write Clinton's political obituary. In fact, the polls correctly measured Obama's share of the vote. What happened during the contest's last few days was that the undecided broke for Clinton, and the question is why.

"Without depriving her and her campaign team of any credit they deserve for her late revival, it seems quite possible that all the cheap shots and hate bombs finally backfired on Clinton's aggressive adversaries in the media.

"Does anyone still doubt that many of the most influential members of the national press corps dislike Hillary Clinton and treat her accordingly? Bias is far too mild a term to describe the bullying she has endured on cable television as well as in print. Indeed, prejudice against her is evidently so ingrained in the culture of the political media by now that the most inflamed commentators and journalists no longer feel constrained to conceal their emotions in the name of objectivity. During the current primary season, the disparity in her treatment compared with that of her rivals -- especially the indulgent and even adoring coverage of Obama -- became simply too obvious to ignore."

Conason points to a comment by Dana Milbank on my show: "The press will savage her no matter what, pretty much. There's no question they have their knives out for her."

"Did voters take notice of this appalling phenomenon? More likely they have grown accustomed to the nastiness and pettiness of powerful anchors and columnists as a kind of background noise. But over the past several weeks, with Clinton seeming to slip and flounder amid the groundswell of enthusiasm for Obama, there came a crescendo of full-throated glee from the campaign press corps. Among journalists there, the intensity of schadenfreude over the stumbling of the Clinton camp, according to one observer in New Hampshire, was verging on 'sadism.' "

An important piece by the top editors of Politico, John Harris and Jim VandeHei, doesn't spare them from criticism -- and works its way around to Hillary:

"If journalists were candidates, there would be insurmountable pressure for us to leave the race. If the court of public opinion were a real court, the best a defense lawyer could do is plea bargain out of a charge that reporters are frauds in exchange for a signed confession that reporters are fools.

"Let's look back at some of the bogus narratives of this election so far. There was the 'John McCain is dead' storyline from last summer. Weak fundraising, poor polls, a backlash from conservatives and staff disarray had doomed his candidacy. Nevermind.

"Then there was Iowa. The caucuses, we wrote, are all about organization. Except they were won on the Republican side by Mike Huckabee, who had only the barest-bones organization. D'oh!

"Or Barack Obama. The reason his candidacy was not taking flight, as the wisdom had it last fall, was that he was preaching a bland message of unity and civility in a year when Democrats were eager for a sharper, more confrontational and more partisan message. Guess not. These were only appetizers to the main course of humiliation. After a barrage of coverage that all but anointed Obama as the New Hampshire winner and declared him the clear front-runner for the nomination, that exercise in group think was stopped cold by the actual votes. Whoops. Looks like we have a trend here.

"Our own publication, Politico, did its part in promoting several of these flimsy storylines. We used predictive language in stories. We amplified certain trends and muffled the caveat, which perhaps should be printed with every story, like a surgeon general's warning: 'We don't know what will happen until voters vote.' . . .

"Horse race frenzy: We are addicts. Do not listen to any reporter who says otherwise. It is why reporters leave their homes, spouses and families for long stretches to cram into crummy hotels and smelly buses to cover campaigns."

They also tackle the bias question: "Many are sympathetic to Obama's argument that the culture of Washington politics is fundamentally broken . . . [Hillary] is carrying the burden of 16 years of contentious relations between the Clintons and the news media. Many journalists rushed with unseemly haste to the narrative about the fall of the Clinton machine.

"On this score, reporters are recidivists. The Clintons were finished in 1992, when Bill Clinton's New Hampshire campaign was rocked by scandal. In 1993, when Time pronounced him 'The Incredible Shrinking President.' In 1994, when Hillary Clinton botched health care and Democrats lost Congress. In 1995, when Bill Clinton pleaded he still had 'relevance.' In 1998, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal sent the Clinton presidency reeling. Hillary Clinton's comeback in New Hampshire this week probably shared a trait in common with those earlier episodes: The media frenzy itself became part of the story, contributing to a sense of piling on and making people more sympathetic to the candidate."

Time's Joe Klein likes the New Hillary, and doesn't spare the media:

"If she is smart -- smarter about herself than she has been in the past -- she will continue to run her campaign in the open, as she did the last few days in New Hampshire, answering questions from the press and public, allowing her humor (and a bit of anger) to shine. She will, finally, trust her own instincts and stop relying so much on polls and market testing. A big election like this one is won on macrovision, not the microtrends that her strategist Mark Penn keeps touting . . .
"But we in the press have to be smarter too. We were wildly stupid in the days before the New Hampshire primary, citing Clinton meltdown after Clinton meltdown -- the tears, the flash of anger in the debate -- that never really happened. We really need to calm down, become more spin-resistant, even if our sleep-deprived sources tend to overreact to every slip and poll dip in the campaign."

Holding your breath? Neither am I.

Yet another line of criticism against the media, in this Pew survey:

"There are signs that some Americans are growing weary of the coverage. For the first time since the campaign began, about as many say the press has devoted too much coverage to the campaign as say the amount of coverage has been appropriate (40% vs. 43%). In previous surveys, sizable pluralities said news organizations were devoting the right amount of coverage to the campaign. More Republicans (45%) than Democrats (32%) say that the press is devoting too much attention to the campaign; a finding that has been consistent throughout much of the campaign."

I suspect many of the people complaining about coverage overload are really unhappy with the tone and breathlessness of the coverage.

And not everyone is paying attention: "Only about half of Americans (51%) could name Mike Huckabee as the winner in Iowa on the weekend following the caucuses. Many more people (71%) could name Obama as the Democratic victor in Iowa. Overall, only 49% of Americans could correctly identify who won both Iowa caucuses."

Here's one of the rush-to-judgment guys, Jonathan Chait, owning up in the New Republic:

"A year ago, I wrote an article making the case that Hillary Clinton was not the inevitable Democratic nominee. Unfortunately, the link is not available. Then last week I wrote a blog post saying she's toast. Unfortunately, that one is available . . .

"The odds of a Republican presidency suddenly got a lot higher. There's really only one potential matchup that would give the GOP a better than even chance of winning: John McCain versus Hillary Clinton. McCain is a popular personality who can attract the support of voters who aren't inclined to support his party. Clinton is an unpopular personality who loses the support of voters who are otherwise inclined to support her party. If she wins the nomination, it will be because she's a polarizing figure who rallies Democrats as the object of Republican attacks."

Talk about discounting her victory in advance.

At the Washington Monthly, though, Kevin Drum isn't losing sleep over McCain:

"There are two things that keep me from being worried about a Clinton vs. McCain matchup. The first is that this simply looks to be a Democratic year. Tick off the reasons: Americans don't like to keep a single political party in the White House for more than eight years (it's only happened once in the postwar era). The war in Iraq is unpopular. The economy is sinking. The 9/11 effect has worn off. Conservatives are tired and plainly lack new ideas.
"Second, I don't think McCain is nearly as attractive a candidate as a lot of people think. Again, tick off the reasons: He's 71 years old. He's a dead-ender for the war. (Do you think 'a million years in Iraq' will play well with moderates in November?) A lot of his independent cred has been shredded over the past couple of years . . .

"Press ardor for McCain will likely diminish as his campaign becomes less open, as it's bound to do."

In a Wall Street Journal column, newly minted pundit Karl Rove does not sound like an Obama fan:

"The fourth and biggest reason why Mrs. Clinton won two nights ago is that, while Mr. Obama can draw on the deep doubts of many Democrats about Mrs. Clinton, he can't close out the argument. Mr. Obama is an inspiring figure playing a historical role, but that's not enough to push aside the former First Lady and senator from New York. She's an historic figure, too. When it comes to making the case against Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama comes across as a vitamin-starved Adlai Stevenson. His rhetoric, while eloquent and moving at times, has been too often light as air."

Has Bill hurt Hill on the trail? Andrew Sullivan, no Bubba fan, unloads on the former president:

"Bill Clinton has never been a classy person. But I think his conduct over the last couple of weeks is tacky even for him. Think about it for a minute. Here is a former president going out on the campaign trail in the early primaries and trashing one of his own party's greatest new talents. Can you recall any other president doing such a thing in an election campaign? The abuse he has heaped on Obama both tarnishes his former office and cheapens his role as an elder statesman in the Democratic party . . .

"It could be argued that an exception should be made because his wife is running. But that seems to me to compound the offense. Supporting your spouse is one thing; trashing his or her opponent from the powerful position as leader of his party is another. President George H.W. Bush supported his son in his campaigns but never came near the attacks that Clinton has unleashed."

Okay -- were these reporters at the same debate?

Washington Times: "Fred Thompson accused Mike Huckabee of being a threat to the Reagan Republican coalition, Mitt Romney said John McCain is ignoring the needs of Michigan voters, and Rudolph W. Giuliani said Mr. McCain isn't the only pro-Iraq-surge candidate."

Boston Globe: "Saving most of their criticism for the Democrats, six GOP candidates abandoned -- at least for the evening -- the critical language and sniping that characterized ad campaigns and debates in Iowa and New Hampshire. Instead, the six contenders at the debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., found large areas of agreement on foreign and domestic policy, and even managed to make a few kind personal comments to one another."

New York Times: "Fred D. Thompson tried to salvage his faltering presidential campaign at a debate Thursday night with a barrage of sharp attacks on the 'liberal' policies of Mike Huckabee, the fellow Southerner whom he clearly sees as a rival in the South Carolina primary."

Makes you wonder.
Does yesterday's Kerry endorsement help Obama?

Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times: "The Kerry endorsement is very big big. It's a rejection by Kerry of his 2004 running mate, former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.).

"It is surgically timed. Kerry's nod comes as the South Carolina primary is heating up--the only state Edwards won in 2004 and his last gasp to keep his candidacy alive. Kerry may be very useful to help shore up Obama on what has been his chronic weakness this year--questions by voters about his experience. Kerry vouching for Obama means a lot. It is also a bit of a snub to Clinton. It also helps push the New Hampshire loss into memory."

Captain Ed couldn't disagree more:

"Why announce this in South Carolina, of all places? Wouldn't this have helped more three days ago in Manchester, New Hampshire? If Kerry had done it there and then, it would have had much more influence on his neighboring state than a Yankee coming to Charleston. This seems like vintage Kerry -- a day late and a dollar short.

"Barack Obama may appreciate the sentiment, but he's not likely to get much of a boost from this endorsement. Considering the stink still coming from his 2004 campaign, it's more likely to repel voters than to attract them."

Tom Edsall mentions the possibility of a "Tom Bradley" effect in New Hampshire's voting -- some whites overstating support for an African American candidate to pollsters -- and says:

"If race has become a factor, it will challenge a central premise of this year's primary election: that the historic movement behind Obama reflects an electorate that has become sufficiently color blind -- 54 years after Brown v. Board of Education-- to elect a presidential candidate who happens to be black."

Here's why I'm skeptical: A voter who doesn't like Obama for whatever reason can easily tell a pollster he or she supports Hillary without being deemed racist.

Among those who blew the New Hampshire prediction: Markos, who called a 45-26 Obama win.

Is Romney too unemotional? Rich Lowry (whose magazine is backing Mitt) thinks so:

"One lesson we've had from Iowa and New Hampshire is unorthodox moves -- while scorned by the pundits (including me) -- have worked this year, whether it was Huckabee's ad press conference or Hillary's crying. They are those spontaneous (or spontaneous-seeming) moments that humanize a candidate and give him or her a certain depth. Romney hasn't had one, and his trouble as a campaigner is that he doesn't quite seem capable of having one. Unless he does, he just may never catch on with enough voters to win."