"The Dog That Didn't Bark" and Other Things
With Hillary's campaign not going as expected, two things are apparent with pundits and the media: (1) they don't really feel like covering John Edwards, and (2) they don't know how to handle Barack Obama.
Edwards came in second in Iowa, but you wouldn't know it with the lack of coverage. It's hard to say what the root cause of this is. Maybe it's Edwards' populist message, which essentially paints big business (who owns a majority of the news networks) as the bad guy. Maybe it's because he's a rich, white southern lawyer and the press feels that we've "been there done that." Maybe it's because the media feels that the "two-person race" between Hillary Clinton and Obama is more interesting. Maybe they think Edwards slighted them sometime during the campaign and they want revenge.
Whatever. I personally think having a three-person race is better because one of them is bound to bring up a topic or issue that the others either would ignore or not hold to a high priority. In other words: having all three going at it keeps them on their toes, and makes them more prepared for the general election.
But at least the media is handling Edwards' success (when they mention it) in a somewhat competent manner. With Obama, it's like they've never encountered a black person in politics before. There are stories about how he can't bring the parties together (at least that's what the GOP thinks). There's the story on how Republican candidates are so freaked even John McCain is framing his campaign around beating Obama. Glenn Greenwald went over some neo-Conservative theories of what Obama's race may mean for society, and the best I can tell, they're relating it to the reaction over the Rodney King verdict.
Then there's the outright absurd: a (non)story on who isn't giving Obama money. But as Media Matters member Tex says:
Amen, Tex. And if people think Clinton's done, remember: she'll always have Chris Matthews to obsess over her.
Edwards came in second in Iowa, but you wouldn't know it with the lack of coverage. It's hard to say what the root cause of this is. Maybe it's Edwards' populist message, which essentially paints big business (who owns a majority of the news networks) as the bad guy. Maybe it's because he's a rich, white southern lawyer and the press feels that we've "been there done that." Maybe it's because the media feels that the "two-person race" between Hillary Clinton and Obama is more interesting. Maybe they think Edwards slighted them sometime during the campaign and they want revenge.
Whatever. I personally think having a three-person race is better because one of them is bound to bring up a topic or issue that the others either would ignore or not hold to a high priority. In other words: having all three going at it keeps them on their toes, and makes them more prepared for the general election.
But at least the media is handling Edwards' success (when they mention it) in a somewhat competent manner. With Obama, it's like they've never encountered a black person in politics before. There are stories about how he can't bring the parties together (at least that's what the GOP thinks). There's the story on how Republican candidates are so freaked even John McCain is framing his campaign around beating Obama. Glenn Greenwald went over some neo-Conservative theories of what Obama's race may mean for society, and the best I can tell, they're relating it to the reaction over the Rodney King verdict.
Then there's the outright absurd: a (non)story on who isn't giving Obama money. But as Media Matters member Tex says:
This is not a story about NEWS. It's a Sherlock Holmes-style investigative expose' using the famous "dog that didn't bark" technique.
Think about the mental calculus the reporter must have gone through to arrive at this "reporting".
FIRST: Must find a NEGATIVE Obama Story.
SECOND: It would be great if this story involved Obama being REJECTED by black folks.
THIRD: Oprah supports Obama, with appearances and money, and his rallies reflect a broad spectrum of support from average citizens; It HELPS Obama to report this support ... we need a story about REJECTION.
FOURTH: Has any prominent, celebrity black person publicly dissed Obama, criticized or rejected him? looking ... looking ... looking ... DRAT! No OVERT rejection to report.
FIFTH: How about the "dog that didn't bark" approach? We know who IS contributing ... let's list those who have NOT contributed!
SIXTH: So, what CELEBRITY Blacks have NOT contributed to Obama's campaign? This is the story we want: one of REJECTION of Obama by the black population, by famous black folks. BY HIS OWN KIND!
SEVENTH: Not contributing means rejection, in the minds of our audience, right? THIS IS A STORY! This is THE story that fits our criteria!
EIGHTH: Best of all, there's Oprah's support on the one side, and a LONG LIST of black folks REJECTING Obama on the other! By sheer numbers, we can show Obama OUT OF FAVOR with his own people! Brilliant!
----------
That's the calculus, and we must note several things. (A) it starts with the specific AGENDA to smear/diminish Obama. (B) it focuses on black folks, attributing to them a REJECTION by virtue of the single criteria, NOT contributing means rejection (a criteria so flawed on so many levels it is ludicrous on its face), and it is overtly racist (where's the list of rich, famous white guys who have not contributed to Romney? Hmmm?)
This is the MSM, folks. Biased, bigoted, and without any ethical underpinnings. This is GOP propaganda, and it's very ugly indeed.
Amen, Tex. And if people think Clinton's done, remember: she'll always have Chris Matthews to obsess over her.
Comments