| |
Mediamatters.Org - Within the fast-forward world of campaign journalism, it's not considered
cool to examine the recent past in order to provide context for today's
events. (We know it's not cool because nobody
does it.) Nonetheless, here's a very brief history lesson that
the political press prefers to ignore.
At the Democratic National
Convention in 1992, Jerry Brown, who finished a
very distant second to the party's nominee, had his name placed into nomination and addressed
the assembled convention. After seconding his own nomination (true story),
Brown delivered a fiery speech that thrilled his unruly supporters inside Madison Square Garden.
Brown's ill will
toward nominee Bill Clinton was so legendary that The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution considered it newsworthy that Brown's convention
address "avoided a direct attack" on the
nominee, while the Los Angeles Times
noted Brown "did not specifically endorse presidential nominee Bill
Clinton."
Indeed, for weeks leading up to the convention, Brown refused to back his
party's nominee, complaining to The New York Times in
June that supporting Clinton
was like buying a ticket for the Titanic.
Four years earlier, the Democratic convention in Atlanta witnessed even more tumult from the second-place
finisher when Jesse
Jackson, furious at being passed over for the vice-presidential slot by the party's nominee, Michael Dukakis (who failed
to call Jackson
and tell him the VP news), threatened to withhold his delegates' support
from the party's nominee. In fact, just hours before the convention began,
Jackson's supporters threatened to place the candidate's name into
nomination for the vice
presidency, which would
have created a massive floor fight between Jackson and Dukakis' pick, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas.
Pre-convention tension grew so heated that the mild-mannered
Dukakis was quoted as saying, "I
don't care what Jesse
Jackson does. I'm going to this convention and I'm going to win." During
his convention
keynote address, which lasted nearly an hour -- much longer than expected, Jackson did not specifically endorse Dukakis.
End of history lesson.
Now, take those historical nuggets from 1992 and 1988 and
transport them to Denver
this week, and try to imagine what the press reaction
would be (not the political reaction, but the
press reaction) if Hillary Clinton delivered her address Tuesday
night and did not endorse the Democratic Party's nominee.
Honestly, I have trouble even picturing the response, mostly because there has
already been such an unhinged media response (see Maureen
Dowd, if you must) to Clinton's finishing second,
speaking at the convention, and supporting the
party's nominee. If she snubbed the nominee? We'd probably see a
media-credentialed riot, with hordes of pundits and reporters roaming the
late-night streets of Denver
(Pitchforks? Probably)
in search of Clinton
and looking to inflict long-term pain.
Fact: Many in the press have portrayed Clinton's planned convention address,
as well as the fact that her
name is being placed into nomination, as an unprecedented, heavy-handed
power grab.
Fact: It's not. In years past, Democratic candidates who won lots of
primaries and accumulated hundreds of delegates (sorry, Howard Dean and Bill Bradley) have always been allowed to
address the convention and very often place their name into nomination.
It's the norm. It's expected. It's a formality.
This newly
manufactured media attack on Clinton
is just the latest in a long line of press grenades thrown her way this
year. But this time,
she's not the only
victim, because the
media's concocted story line
is being used to unfairly skewer Barack Obama, too.
Consider New York magazine: "Obama Agrees to Roll-Call Vote for Clinton. Does That Make
Him a Sissy?"
What's so startling in watching the coverage of the Clinton convention-speech story has been the complete ignorance displayed about
how previous Democratic conventions have dealt with runners-up like Clinton. It's either
complete ignorance or the media's strong desire to painstakingly avoid
any historical context, which,
in turn, allows the
press to mislead news consumers into thinking Clinton's appearance (as well as the
gracious invitation extended by Obama) represents something unique and unusual.
Something newsworthy.
Based on previous conventions, if a candidate had accumulated as many
delegates and votes as Clinton
did during the
primaries and then did not have
her name placed into
nomination, that would represent a radical departure from the convention norm.
But,
boy, in 2008, an awful
lot of media outlets have played dumb. When covering the August 14 announcement
about Clinton's role in Denver, they miraculously forgot to make any
historical reference to similar names-placed-in-nomination at previous conventions.
Instead, readers and viewers were left with the obvious
impression that what was scheduled to happen in Denver was remarkable, an anomaly. And I suppose if you look at the
events through a soda straw,
it does look unusual. But if you include the slightest bit of context, the
story changes into something normal and routine.
But that's not the story the press wants to tell (the
Clintons are not normal!), so the press simply erased the context and stuck to
its preferred story line
that Clinton's appearance in Denver and the placing of her name in nomination are one for the record books.
Searching the recent news archives, it's hard to find many articles or
television segments that reported on Clinton's
symbolic nomination and also mentioned that runner-up Jerry Brown had been
nominated in '92
or that Jesse Jackson
had been nominated in '88
or that Gary Hart had
been nominated in '84.
(You get the idea.)
When The New York Times
reported
on Clinton's
pending nomination, it made no reference to historical precedents. Neither did The Boston Globe,
nor The Wall Street Journal,
nor The Washington Post.
And on and on and on.
On CNN, Jack Cafferty commented, "The Democratic
National Convention is now shaping up to be quite a
party for Hillary Clinton. Her name will be placed in nomination. She'll give a
prime-time
address." He made no mention that that's what previous runners-up
had done at conventions.
Let's give credit to the Los Angeles Times, though. In the final two sentences in an article
reporting the Clinton
convention story, the Times
miraculously found space to note that Brown, Jackson, and Hart all had their second-place names placed into nomination.
Actually, the real credit goes to CNN polling director Keating Holland (figures, he doesn't work in the newsroom), who posted a lengthy analysis at CNN.com. Holland's piece not only put Clinton's role in Denver into historical perspective ("Overall, between 1972 and 1992, 10 Democratic candidates who lost the nomination in the primaries went on to have their names formally placed in nomination at the convention."), it also pointed out that Clinton represents the only runner-up to speak at the convention who formally endorsed the party's nominee months before the convention; i.e., all the others grudgingly held out on endorsing their rivals.
But not Clinton.
Yet she's the one slimed by media venom.
Even after all these months, I still don't completely understand
why Clinton's essentially centrist campaign for the White House ginned up
so much open contempt from the press corps, which has felt completely
comfortable addressing her in an openly derogatory and condescending manner.
The issue of her convention involvement simply allowed the press to whack her
around like a piñata one more time, regardless of the facts.
Just take a look at a recent
edition of ABC's CW-worshipping daily bulletin The Note as it mocked Clinton's convention
role with barely containable
contempt:
Maybe it was
better for the Obama campaign to invite you inside, since you would have made
an ugly scene outside. Surely Sen. Barack Obama can afford to be gracious, even
to you, since he'll leave Denver
with the only prize that counts.
"Even to you." That's a nice touch, coming
from the same press corps that erupts with indignation whenever somebody
suggests Clinton
might have been tarred with sexist campaign coverage. (Y'think? National
Review Online, August
15: "Sure, Hillary's fat and waddly and screechy and gives
pantsuits a bad name.")
And this from Radar
magazine:
Barack Obama has approved Hillary Clinton's dubious
campaign to put herself up for nomination at the upcoming Democratic National
Convention. We have to ask: Is it because she's a woman or just power-hungry?
Note that Clinton's
convention campaign was "dubious," which was accurate if Radar, y'know, ignored facts and
precedent and history and all that annoying stuff.
Meanwhile, what was The Note's proof that Clinton would have
"made an ugly scene outside" the convention if not included? The
Note had none. And that's what's been so amazing about watching the
brazen, Clinton's-trying-to-steal-the-convention-with-a-speech
coverage: The narrative is built on a
swamp. The press has provided virtually no facts, not even anonymous quotes, to
support its beloved narrative that Hillary Clinton's planned speech
ignited some kind of civil war inside the Democratic Party.
What's curious is that journalists who have actually
bothered to cite campaign sources about her speech and symbolic nomination came
away with a very different picture of what was unfolding behind the scenes.
Writing at his Atlantic
blog, Marc Ambinder, who seems to enjoy regular access to Obama sources, noted that "reports of strife between negotiators
for Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are exaggerated" and that
"multiple sources in both campaigns have described the negotiations as
relatively free of acrimony."
The next day,
Ambinder returned to the topic perplexed, wondering
why so many members of the press were pushing the clearly inaccurate story line that the Obama and
Clinton camps were practically at war over the convention schedule.
Ambinder was either being naïve or playing nice with his
Beltway colleagues. (My guess is the latter.) Because it was obvious the press
didn't care whether the rift about Clinton's
speech was real or imagined.
The story helped journalists advance their beloved narrative that Clinton is a political-party wrecking ball and that Obama is too weak to control her. So even if the
evidence ran counter to that, the press was sticking with its story line.
Like Ambinder, another journalist who actually reported the
story was Joan Walsh at Salon.com,
who wrote,
"My sources say the
Obama campaign was enthusiastic about the idea of putting Clinton's name in nomination, having
independently reached the conclusion that it was the best way to honor her
achievement and do more to win over her supporters."
She then included a quote from Obama spokesman Bill Burton:
"The
conversations with her folks were very cordial and we've been able to work very
closely with them as we unify this party. ... We
couldn't be happier about how things are going with Senator Clinton and her
team."
Burton made several public pronouncements like that
regarding the Denver convention schedule, but New
York Times columnist Gail Collins mocked the idea that the
scheduling had been cordial and easy, instead comparing the convention task to
negotiating a Middle East between "enemy forces."
And then there was Washington
Post columnist Jeff Birnbaum who announced Obama never should have allowed Clinton
to be nominated,
suggesting it was a huge political mistake. How did Birnbaum know? He just knew. The fact that polling found Democrats by an almost 2-to-1 margin thought
Clinton's nomination would be good for
party unity was of no interest to Birnbaum or anyone else in the press spinning
the event as a Democratic catastrophe.
FYI, Birnbaum told
The Wall
Street Journal he was "grateful" for "Hillary Clinton's attempt tacitly
to take over the Obama victory" because it was a great story that the
press could cover throughout the convention. (Oh, goody.) As one blogger wrote after reading
Birnbaum's quote, "I thought journalists were supposed to uncover
the facts and report the story, not decide on the story and then interpret the
facts to accommodate their storyline."
Meanwhile, let's be clear: Clinton isn't the only injured party
here. After the press constructed the phony premise abut Clinton's
convention speech, critics then used it, unfairly, to tag Obama as
a softie who can't even stand up to a woman. (Gasp.)
"Russia rolls over Georgia, Hillary Clinton does the
same to Barack Obama. Now we know who's boss." (Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News)
"If Hillary Clinton can ride [roughshod] over this guy
what do you think bin Laden will do?" (Dick
Morris, on Fox News)
"Russia invades Georgia. Hillary invades Obama's
convention. Obama does nothing constructive on either count." (Amanda
Carpenter, at Townhall.com)
Why were critics able to get off those cheap shots? Because
the press, strenuously ignoring facts and recent history, was determined to
paint Clinton
as the ultimate party crasher.
Media Matters - Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story {...} Published: August 26, 2008, 5:13 pm - Indexed: August 26, 2008, 9:29 pm - Page Size: 29KB |