MSM Media coverage is GARBAGE for ALL candidates -- Not only Hillary

[Armstead]

Frankly, IMO this whining about how poor Hillary is a victim of bad media coverage compared to Obama is tiresome and hypocritical.

The media has been on a steady downward trajectory in its standards since at least the early 90's. The Iraq War 1 started it, but at least that was about a real issue. Then the media descended further into the gutter with their 24/7 coverage of the OJ trial. And they completed their wallowing in the mud with the endless yak,yak,yak about the Clinton impeachment.

Then they made the leap to fascistic propaganda after 9-11, and their rah-rah cheerleading for Iraq War 2.

As recently as the early 90's, the mainstream media outlets kept their distance from Tabloid Trash TV. There was a wall that they at least pretended to maintain between "serious" journalism and shows like Hard Copy.

But today, Hard Copy is the template for ALL mainstream media. Flash and trash and glitz and glitter. Emotions over information.

Their coverage of politics reflected this downward slide. The earnestly boring approach to debates moderated by folks like Jim Leher were replaced by Debates as Show Biz Reality TV and WWE Wrasslemania. Rather than analysis, we get scorecards of who "won" or "lost" debates based on inflections in their voices.

Actual discussions of candidates and their platforms was replaced by empty yakfests by idiotic preening pundits who treat the politicians as if they were Brittany Spears, Brad Pitt and Michael Jordan. These pundits and "reporters" are fashionably cynical, and effectively convey the impression every night that none of the candidates are really worth a shit -- and that all politicians are inherently corrupt and incapable of doing anything based on principle.

In this environment, Hillary is no more a victim than any other politician. Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Richardson and ultimately Edwards were consigned to oblivion by the Punditocracy. They were not trendy enough for the Georgetown Cocktail Party Set.

Yes, Obama is the recipient of some outsized and unrealistic puffery by the pundits. Yes Hillary gets some bad raps.

BUT Hillary is merely another pawn on the chessboard of contemporary media coverage of Politics as Soap Opera, Politics as a Game and Politics as American Idol.

The current effort by she and Bill to demonize the media for their mistreatment of her is phony and TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It smacks of Clintonian Self Pity and cynical manipulation at the same time.

It could have been taken more seriously if THE CLINTONS had been fighting against the Media Climate in the past -- not just when their own oxe is being gored.

They USED these same rules to push the "inevitable nominee" meme earlier in the primaries. I don't recall them coming to the defense of the other candidates when they were being marginalized or ridiculed or ignored.

More importantly, I don't recall the Clintons calling for more responsible journalism and media behavior during their eight years in the White House -- except, of course, when Bill got caught with his pants down.

If the Clintons really want to fight the media's shallowness, misrepresentations and contempt for public service, they should have been in the forefront of the fight for Media Accountability all along, not just when it effects their own interests.

[Enrique]

1. shouldn't criticize media coverage on DU

DU's discussion of the primary is so stupid and meanspirited and dishonest, we should look at ourselves first.

[Armstead]

2. I don't disagree -- and am probably guilty of it at times myself

But this is like a raucous town square, where people get carried away by passions and emotions.

The media is the infrastructure that is supposed to provide the information and serious analysis. That's a different role.

[Enrique]

4. they do provide some good analysis and information

but that is ignored and their crap is highlighted here at DU.

[Armstead]

7. Again I don't disagree

But that's not really what I was addressing in the OP.

The majority of the mainstream media that people rely on for information is failing the whole political process. Hillary is no more or no less of a victim of this than anyone else.

[UALRBSofL]

3. MSM is much more negative towards Hillary

then any other candidate. There was a thread the other day that someone posted statistics on MSM negatives. There is a group that monitors negatives on MSM. Anyway, Hillary was the most negative but Obama had the highest of all candidates for positives.

[Armstead]

6. MSM ignored Edwards and Kucinich and Dodd and Biden

What is the press agent's old cliche? "I don't care what they say about you as long as they spell the name right."

[dansolo]

11. Bad coverage isn't only due to bias

The suggestion is that Hillary is doing as bad as she is because of the negative MSM coverage, when in actuality it is the other way around. Hillary's negative coverage only really started to take off after Super Tuesday. That is entirely Clinton's fault because she planned her whole campaign to be over on that day. When Obama was still standing after Super Tuesday, naturally he became the story.

I find the Clinton "blame the media" excuses eerily similar to the Republicans decrying that "only bad news is being reported in Iraq." When the news is only bad, what do you expect the media to talk about?

[Irishonly]

5. MSM Coverage Of Anything Is Garbage-Period N/T

[Cameron27]

8. That's incorrect,

the media coverage has been far more positive for Obama than for Clinton:

MEDIA BOOST OBAMA, BASH “BILLARY”
NBC Is Toughest on Hillary; FOX Has Heaviest Coverage

Hillary Clinton is getting the worst press and Barack Obama the best press of any major presidential candidate, and Bill Clinton is also getting negative reviews, while the gap in good press between John McCain and Mitt Romney is narrowing, according to a new study of TV news election coverage by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. The study also finds that FOX’s evening news show had the most coverage of policy issues and the least coverage of the campaign horse race.

These results are from CMPA’s 2008 ElectionNewsWatch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of 765 election news stories (22 hours 15 minutes of airtime) that aired on the flagship evening news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX (the first 30 minutes of “Special Report with Brit Hume”, which is most like the network news shows in content and presentation) from December 16, 2007 through January 27, 2008.

snip: Since mid-December, when the presidential candidates turned their full attention to the Iowa caucuses, Sen. Barack Obama has led the race for good press and Sen. Hillary Clinton has lagged the farthest behind. From Dec 16 through Jan 27 five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84%) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51%) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton.

snip: The gap in good press has widened since the New Hampshire primary, with Clinton dropping to 47% positive comments and Obama holding steady at 83% positive. NBC’s coverage has been the most critical of Clinton – nearly 2 to 1 negative (36% positive and to 64% negative) Conversely, ABC’s coverage was most supportive -- nearly 2 to 1 positive (63% v. 37%). CBS and FOX were more balanced – 50% positive comments on FOX and 56% positive on CBS.

snip: Once he hit the hustings for Hillary, Bill Clinton attracted more attention (27 stories) than also-rans Rudy Giuliani (21) and John Edwards (18). But 74% of comments were critical of him.

http://cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm

[Armstead]

9. You are not addressing my point

I'm not denying that on balance it is possible that in a short period of time Obama has been mentioned more favorably than Hillary.

But that's beside the point. The fluctuations of whether on balance more nice things are said about Obama or Hillary is a mere drop in the mudbucket of contemporary media political coverage.

It conveniently overlooks how relentlessly for the last eight years the meme that Hillary is the inevitable nominee, and it's hers whenever she wants it was pummeled into our heads.

The Clintons have had ample opportunity over the years to actually address the core issue of media responsibility, and have been silent in both their words and actions -- except when it affects them personally.

And, Bill helped to create this morass when he went along with the Media Monopolization and Deregulation Act of 1996.

The Clintons are now merely reaping what they have helped to sow over the years.

[VolcanoJen]

10. Well, I'm inclined to agree with you...

... after watching some crappy Jeannie Moss CNN segment where she compared Obama's campaign to that little beagle Uno who won the Westminster Dog Show.

[Bread and Circus]

12. kick for truth

[stillcool]

13. I'm shocked...

that people argue about the fairness, or 'bias' concerning the talk shows that some consider media. It seems to be a love/hate relationship. Watching it every day, and complaining about it. There is so much information available to me, that I do not have to listen to one word of that crap. I can not imagine, at this late date why anyone would base reality on what comes through the television screen.

[Armstead]

14. Unfortunately many people do rely on it

That's why its' content does matter.

[stillcool]

15. I understand to some degree...

why it matters, but on the other hand the more importance given a false reality the more unlikely it is that the false reality will fade.

[Armstead]

16. For me it's like eating Danish pastries

I know it's bad for me, but I still go for the sugar rush.

But more seriously, I believe we have to pay attention and point out its faults, because it is the nation's information infrastructure, for better or worse.