Let’s Not Give the Republicans What They Want
***
I find it interesting to hear Clinton complaining lately that she is being treated unfairly by the mainstream media it’s as if she’s conveniently forgotten the months and months of news stories that assumed she would be the Democratic nominee. So as Barack Obama continues to gain steadily against her in the Democratic primaries and Clinton continues to complain about media bias against her, we should seriously consider the implications of a Hillary Clinton presidential nomination.
To believe the media pundits before primary season had even begun would have been to believe that Clinton would sail to a nomination victory. In fact, months ago the fact that Florida and Michigan were going to lose official delegates seemingly didn’t bother the party leadership because most apparently didn’t think the race would be close enough for those delegates to matter. Thankfully, Democratic primary voters decided to make up their own minds and Clinton no longer seems like the taken-for-granted candidate in 2008. In a primary season where the polls and the pundits have been so wrong so often we should ask ourselves, “Why was Clinton crowned the likely nominee before a single primary vote had been cast?”
If you paid attention to the pundits almost immediately after Hillary announced her candidacy, you probably noticed that the Republican/conservative pundit drumbeat was one assuring us that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. What we witnessed was a clear case of the media (particularly Fox News, but the other major cable news networks followed their lead to a great extent) trying to create a particular reality for Democrats that would later benefit Republicans. The media did this in two ways. First, through the process of agenda setting, the media helped create a projected reality by focusing story after story or talk show debate after talk show debate on Clinton’s campaign while failing to focus stories or create talk show debates suggesting other candidates had a shot. During this time, the public got many explicit and implicit messages about Hillary being the obvious nominee for the Democrats and few, if any, assuming any other candidate might be the eventual nominee.
Second, as the media continued reporting heavily on Hillary’s campaign, discussions also framed the story for the public, which possibly impacted the public’s perceptions of the race for the Democratic nomination. Stories about Hillary were often explicitly or implicitly about her inevitability. After it was decided (perhaps unconsciously by some media heads, but certainly consciously by Fox News) that stories would focus on Hillary’s inevitability, and hence also on what Republicans would need to do to beat her in 2008, it was difficult to see a program where people weren’t talking about Hillary as the eventual nominee. Indeed, when we did see the other Democratic candidates on cable news channels they were often defending their campaigns against the suggestion that they had no chance to beat Clinton.
To recap, the cable news channels put Hillary and her campaign at the top of their list of things to discuss with regard to the 2008 election. Not only did they make her the principal story, they then also chiefly discussed Hillary in a manner that suggested she would be the eventual nominee. Audiences were therefore invited to believe that she was going to be the Democratic nominee.
But why would Fox News, the haters of all things Clintonian, begin setting this particular agenda and then framing it this way? To me, the answer is as simple as what passes for journalism and argumentation on the Fox News Channel. Of course Fox News and their ilk want Hillary to be the nominee she’s pretty much the only one that they can beat in 2008! In the battle of “Who can beat McCain,” Obama is the clear winner. Polls (including the latest Zogby poll) regularly suggest that around 50 percent of those surveyed wouldn’t vote for Hillary under any circumstances. In addition, CNN reported that in Texas a majority of those Latino/a voters under 30 who voted for Obama say that they would not vote at all in 2008 if Clinton was the nominee. These numbers, along with the fact that McCain has the ability to woo independent voters, mean that we simply cannot risk a Clinton nomination. We shouldn’t give the Republicans what they want.
Why not? Because Hillary Clinton is part of the problem. Her willingness to vote for war in Iraq was political cowardice. Her excuse that she was acting on the only information available to her was insulting to those of us who know that alternative information was only a few clicks of the mouse away. Her refusal to admit that she made a mistake is arrogant and reminiscent of our current president. Thanks, but no thanks been there, done that.
With his willingness to sign NAFTA into law and deregulate the media (allowing for even fewer people to own the majority of the world’s media), Bill Clinton was indeed, as Michael Moore has crowned him, the best Republican president we’ve ever had. Hillary would simply be more of the same a president in the pockets of big business. Add to these facts that initially Clinton argued that superdelegates should be allowed to ignore the will of the primary voters, and I seriously worry about whose interests she has at heart.
Not beating McCain in 2008 means four more years of Bush policy, 9/11 fear appeals, and according to McCain himself, perhaps even 100 more years in Iraq! Clinton will have a very tough time beating McCain and the Republicans know it. They can rally people against Hillary who would normally probably vote for the Democratic candidate but who will vote for anyone but Hillary. Is it fair? Maybe not. Is it related to ridiculously old-fashioned gender politics? Undoubtedly. Can we afford (financially, morally, and in terms of our security and civil rights) to risk another four years of Bush-like policies by giving the Republicans the Democratic candidate they want? Absolutely not.
***
Voters should pay attention to what stories the media deem important enough to help set the agenda. We should think about what stories aren’t being told in order to tell and tell again the stories they deem important, as well as why have they decided that some stories are more important than others. We should also pay attention to how those stories are told how are the media framing one issue or another? Are there unstated assumptions that underlie a report and therefore quietly frame an issue for us?
Even as I’m angered by the obvious attempt of Fox to create the 2008 political reality that they want, and saddened by the willingness of the rest of the mainstream media to follow their lead, the fact that the Obama campaign has overcome the obstacle of a media initially determined to crown Clinton the Democratic nominee before a single primary ballot had been counted gives me renewed faith in our country.
stefan comments:
Just a few statements which I believe are patently false!
1.) The Republican Party is the party of big business.
Absolute nonsense. The Democratic and Republican Parties are BOTH parties that represent big business first and foremost. This has ALWAYS been the case too. Only a few elected Democrats and elected Republicans in our history have been otherwise at the federal level of government. Arguments consisting of who is the lesser evil don’t get nominees elected in November either… just ask Al Gore and John Kerry about that.
2.) That FoxNews is somehow worse then MSNBC or CNN.
Different indeed, but since they are all corporate shills representing the view of the board of directors for the parent corporation; they are all liars intentionally mis-leading the American public. Only a fool (in my opinion) argues over which corporate media outlet is worse then the others!
P.S.- FoxNews actually makes several valid points about the Democratic Party leadership, but everything they say is a lie, right?!
3.) I am not so sure that this political process is just a stage managed farce, much like previous party nomination processes. The system doesn’t work unless everyone except one drops out and hands the nomination over, because the Super-delegates make it impossible for any one candidate to achieve 50%+1 without Super-delegate support. I also am keenly aware that most Media coverage kept beating the notion that if not Clinton, then Obama. The media never once left it up to actual voters free from their propaganda. Corporate America is willing to allow us to have Obama or Clinton, but not John Edwards…
Also, for Christ’s sake am I the only one who finds it strange that the media sat on film coverage of Reverend Jeremiah Wright since the Sunday after 9-11-2001 in where the man was preaching from the pulpit, “God Damn America?”
I guess this was counter to the necessary propaganda of that period… that all of America was united and desired revenge against Halliburton’s enemies! Oh sorry, I meant America’s enemies… I keep confusing America’s interests and the interests of private investors.
All I have to say is I am not sure if Obama will truly reform anything wrong with our nation at the systemic level, but I am supremely confident that Hillary Clinton will not. There is at least some hope that Barack Obama actually does believe in Liberation Theology, for if it was certain, I would be his greatest supporter!
For more valuable information about Liberation Theology do a search on Archbishop Don Helder Camara of Brazil. He is the man who developed this. He was driven out of the Catholic Church by John Paul II, who accused him of being a communist. I will never forget Archbishop Camara’s official response to the Vatican.
“When I feed the poor and provide shelter to the homeless, you [Pope] call me a Saint. When I ask [public sermons] why the poor have no food or shelter, you call me a communist.”
A sad commentary on what the Church and religion in general has descended into.
~ Stefan
Iggy comments:
Stefan points out…
“Only a fool (in my opinion) argues over which corporate media outlet is worse then the others!”
Hmmm – then I best not mention Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward’s work for the Post concerning their Watergate scandal coverage in comparison to the esteemed Rush Limbaugh – they are all just the same – huh? And I certainly don’t want to appear to be a fool.
In fact, I guess I should avoid all news, in total – as “they are all liars intentionally mis-leading the American public.” – thus nothing of merit is anywhere to be found – Oh well – back to my zodiac horoscope – maybe that will inform me of what s going on…
stefan comments:
Only a fool would confuse the drivel of a PUNDIT like Rush Limbaugh with actual news from JOURNALISTs like Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward.
brenda comments:
I don’t really see that the media favors Clinton. All the NYT colunists except Krugman systematically trash her. Additionally the media sat on the Randi Rhodes performance for Obama supporters in which she called Clinton “a big fat whore,” something I doubt would occur had a radio personality publicly called Obama “a big fat pimp.”
Iggy comments:
Umm…
yes…
stefan comments:
In addition, Watergate was in 1974, the Media was far different then it is today. How can you possible compare this to what goes on in “news reporting” today is certainly beyond comprehension.
Investigative reporting is long gone, replaced by 24/7 reporting on Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Lindsy Lohan… basically tripe.
I believe the reason is obvious, that corporate boards turned all television newscasts into propaganda. Fox’s flavor appeals to ignorant right-wingers, while CNN and MSNBC’s appeal to the left. It is all about language usage, basically, and repeating the same old tired talking points.
I never came close to suggesting anyone should avoid news, to even suggest such is contemptible.
The Associated Press and Reuters are excellent sources of news, while every newspaper and television channel is a purpose driven FILTER that limits one’s perspective.
Finally, you errored greatly in this remark:
In fact, I guess I should avoid all news, in total – as they are all liars intentionally mis-leading the American public. – thus nothing of merit is anywhere to be found
Why did you conflate news with NEWS ORGANIZATIONS?
Clearly the “they” in my original statement is about individual news outlets, not news (information) per se!
Iggy comments:
Oh Stefan, I am sorry. You were being played, sort of my April Fools joke. My commentary is meant to be read in a mood of sarcastic humor. As for myself, I am pretty much ignorant. I only get my news from the John Steward show. But still, I am surprised that someone as seemingly educated as yourself states “the [news] Media was far different then it is today.” You honestly think that? You weren’t born yesterday, were you?
The only significant change to “news” throughout the years, decades, centuries, millenniums, has been its adaptation of new technologies. Surely you’ve seen those old “newsreels” they use to play in theatres before people had TV. Well, imagine what they did to town criers that yelled out bad things about the king. Oh sure now and then a reporter, or report, breaks the mold, and some purer news gets disseminated, and in turn remembered. Maybe that’s why you think that “news” media use to be different – because of what’s remembered.
Maybe long ago, for many decades a tribe of cavemen use to talk about two fellow caveman, Burnstone and Woodworker, who spread bad news about their chief, whom they eventually kicked out of the tribe. And promptly elected a clumsy new chief that had a tendency of falling down.
Note: it’s not that easy for me to type these comments with all my LOL’ing. “the Media was far different then it is today.” — kids, when will they learn.
But that aside, I should thank you for the argument you make concerning which news media outlets are better and which ones are worse – thank you
stefan comments:
Obviously, the NEWS CONTENT has drastically changed, but not all people are observant enough to realize!
There was a time in the 1960′s and 1970′s when we had fantastic investigative reporting and the people were generally well informed.
Today, most people are poorly informed.
Deny this if you must…
Today it is easy to find out what color underwear (if any) one of those whores I mentioned above was wearing last night, but good luck finding a detailed investigative report on military contractor fraud in Iraq.
During the Vietnam War, we had all kinds of investigative reporting on what was going on over there. We know little to nothing about what is going on in Iraq today, and that is with all these many fantastic advances in technology we have today. Plus we have 24/7 coverage now, but less news, because they just run 30 minutes of mostly garbage and then repeat the same spin cycle over and over all day long.
Sorry pal, but I’m not buying what your selling; and John Stewart is entertainment, not news!
Peace
Iggy comments:
LOL – I never insinuated that the John Stewart is anything but entertainment: none the less, it does contain some interesting news tid-bits. Like the crusty clip of Hillary stating “I’m not complaining, but have you noticed in all these debates I always get the first question?” WOW – what a telling clip, what a straight up clueless lie “I’m not complaining” as she totally goes off complaining. And I can’t help but wonder how she got so far with a characteristic of seeing such a minor thing as some sort of obstacle instead of an opportunity. I guess she saw such a thing destroying her debating strategies.
Now, of course, I can’t avoid some of the commercials airing for both Hillary and Obama. Also very telling. Sure they are aired regionally, and intended to hit the desired target audiences here in Pa. But even so, for Obama’s commercials to hit so directly on the pulse of the people in this area, and for Hillary’s commercials to somewhat overshoot, by a few miles, a voice that speaks to the “common man” – I’m not so sure who her target audience is. I kinda think that speaks tons.
So really, where else do I need to turn for “news” – LOL…
And sure, the “news” media has waves of varying quality throughout the years, but in general, if you only focus on the high points within its history, it’s understandable how the “news” of yesteryear can be perceived as something of a golden age.
Stefan, you speak of investigative reporting during the Vietnam War (was it even deemed “war” then?). If such was so unadulterated, clear and concise, then how is it that yet today the general public still has no clue what it was all about?
And what of the fabricated stories that aired during the sixties on the major network news with the sole purpose of discrediting Jim Garrison?
How about the story in the late seventies concerning the incident of how our nation was within a few minutes of launching a first strike of nuclear warheads on Russia due to some computer error. It was like 6 minutes before the launch when the error was discovered. Front page news for the London Times / buried as a blurb near the obituaries in the New York Times. There’s your esteemed investigative reporting during the 70’s…
Bigger headlines were given to Rock Hudson’s sexual orientation.
But all in all, I really do hear what you are saying. I was almost ill by the coverage of all things Paris Hilton. I finally kept switching channels till I found something totally unrelated to her: The launching of the space shuttle. A reporter was interviewing 2 NASA personel. And then “WTF”??? the reporter asks these two NASA guys what they think of all the Paris Hilton stuff. UG! I never saw anyone that worked for NASA look so confused.
stefan comments:
I certainly won’t quibble over the fact that the media was never perfect, but I must cite a glaring difference between then and now…
The Pentagon Papers.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/
Here is an astounding investigative report on how that Administration lied to escalate a war [Gulf of Tonkin Incident] and colluded with the Military-Industrial Complex to drag out that war to maximize profits from military contracts.
Were is the equivalent today?
As to the public not understanding the Vietnam War, especially today…
Are you seriously blaming the media for that?
Are you a public school teacher?
Sheez!
Iggy comments:
Oh this is getting far too silly for me. I can’t help but think of a Mark Twain quote. And perhaps the idea behind that quote gets compounded when discussing things with another fool. So I quit, concede, if that makes you happy. But for me to continue with someone that has the stupidity to attempt to offend for no real reason. I am not even close to being a public school teacher. I’d ask if you are a fool, but I know the answer to that – it’s evident in the manner you overstate so many ideas and opinions – and so often pull into your mannerism an offensive tone, perhaps unwittingly.
I leave you with this: that kind of arrogance and insensitivity only really makes you look bad, kinda pathetic really.
BYE BYE…
Have fun with your self-righteousness
stefan comments:
I accept that you have no viable argument on the subject of this thread… hell you didn’t provide any references to prove your point… if you ever had one other than to personally attack me.
You need to feel I am self-righteous, good for you, but it doesn’t change any of the factual truths I have presented for the public’s benefit!
P.S.- That is what distinguishes you from I.