home

Dog Bites Man: Media Unfair To Hillary

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:42:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Eric Boehlert has the details:

How dreadful was the news coverage last week surrounding the official release of Hillary Clinton's public White House schedule from her eight years as first lady? So bad that I found myself in rare (unprecedented?) agreement with at least two prominent conservative bloggers who noticed the same thing I did: The Beltway press corps is, at times, a national embarrassment.

. . . Surveying the news coverage, conservative blogger Rick Moran posed the same question I had last week, "Do we really need to know where Hillary was when Monica Lewinsky was with her husband? Or where she was when Vince Foster committed suicide? ... And does it deserve this feeding frenzy from the media?"

Only a virulently anti-Hillary site (I am looking at TPM on this) could deny this obvious fact. Yes, Josh Marshall has denied that Clinton has gotten unfavorable Media treatment. I kid you not.

< TPM Comes Clean: Accepts Its Partisan Obama Site Status | My Advice To Pelosi >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dog Bites Man: Media Unfair To Hillary | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    BTD, you're a little late (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:47:07 PM EST
    to this party, that was put up a week ago at media matters.

    anyone who claims, with a straight face, that sen. clinton is treated equally by the media is either stupid or a liar. there is no other possible choice.

    this isn't news, it's been going on for nearly 20 years.

    Um, he's been saying it for months (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:49:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:01:46 PM EST
    But it is a good post and a good excuse to beat up on TPM a little bit more.

    I am an anti-TPM partisan.

    Parent

    I have... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:58:03 PM EST
    ...gradually been winnowing down my 'news' sources during this campaign specifically for reason of blatant bias.  Even more disheartening is the entry of Democratic pols into the fray.  Sen. Leahy - who should know better - calls on Clinton to drop out because 'we all know who is going to win' ... ?

    I expect Republicans to ambush election results and tilt the argument in their favor.  But I'm shocked that Democrats are actually being proactive in jawboning the results of their own primary.

    Parent

    You are having fun (none / 0) (#19)
    by themomcat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:09:30 PM EST
    aren't you? I can almost see a smile in your posts.

    Parent
    Always nice to see someone who enjoys his work (none / 0) (#29)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:26:06 PM EST


    Parent
    "Dog bites man" means (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:58:12 PM EST
    not news. :-)

    Parent
    It's the Britney Spears treatment (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Neal on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:50:29 PM EST
    for the media there is no difference between politicians and movie stars.

    ...and media pundits (none / 0) (#21)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:18:13 PM EST


    Parent
    it is pure sexism at its finest IMO.... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by athyrio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:52:58 PM EST
    Hillary is twice as qualified as Obama ever thought of being....

    Not only the Media (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by themomcat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:53:35 PM EST
    but the Democratic Party itself. They are bashing a former 2 term president (the first since FDR, IIRC) and a popular First Lady and second term Senator from a populous Blue State that used to be Purple. What are Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi thinking?
    I am not surprised at the media, they have never been kind to the Clintons because they are not Republicans. And Republicans control the corporate media.

    And it is rubbing it seems (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by hopeyfix on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:58:07 PM EST
    I was very happy to be linked by Slate to this poll here that shows Obama not so far on unfavorability from Hillary. Too bad CNN and NYT, who rushed to cover the pool that shows Hillary down, won't rush so much to cover this new one.

    Stop the presses! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Claw on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    The media's unfair to Clinton?  Not being snarky, I just think it's funny we even have to discuss this...and that someone will inevitably try to debate this point.  I really never understood the real, visceral hatred heaped upon Clinton by the media.  It's kind of unusual.  Usually you just get a laziness bias that leads to jumping on stupid non-stories.  I guess it's most likely a combination of sexism, hatred of the Clintons in general, her refusal to just be Bill's dutiful wifey, the republican revolution...who knows?  

    Erm (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:59:56 PM EST
    Dog bites man?

    Parent
    No I get it (none / 0) (#62)
    by Claw on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:14:07 AM EST
    My point was that people will, with a straight face, try to argue that Hillary hasn't endured some of the worst press in memory.  I chuckled at the "Dog Bites Man."  Good post.

    Parent
    The media's been unfair to Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Lahdee on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:07:01 PM EST
    So (/channeling cheney).
    I deliberately stayed away from MSN after the release of those documents because I knew, I knew they would focus on the crap.

    As to TPM. Look over on the right side of the current page, under the Pelosi pix:
    # Dean to Superdels: Choose By July 1st
    # Sen. Casey Endorses Obama
    # Leahy: Hillary Has "Every Right, But Not A Very Good Reason" To Stay In
    # Obama Official: Let Hillary Decide

    Nice and balanced, yes?

    Where is the Hillary attack video (none / 0) (#23)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:20:27 PM EST
    on the page? Just wondering-I refuse to go there.

    Parent
    can't always tell a book by its cover (none / 0) (#26)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:22:17 PM EST


    Parent
    He admits that they are hard on her (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:23:54 PM EST
    Based on the link I just read, Marshall agrees that the media have been hard on Clinton. What he disagrees with is the idea that they have been unfairly harsh on her. Even the most anti-Clinton partisans don't pretend that the media have not been harsh on Clinton. They simply hate Clinton so much that they see any attacks on her as justified, while they admire Obama so much that they see any attacks on him as unjustified. It's an interesting twist. Along the lines of "Yes, he beats her regularly, but she deserves it".

    Perfect summary in the last sentence (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:29:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kmblue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:46:07 PM EST
    Hillary just makes them do it.
    Maybe it has something to do with what she's wearing...
    But most likely, it's because she's a tough woman who won't back down.
    An interesting (though 3-week-old) break-down (none / 0) (#1)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:46:12 PM EST
    Of who admits the media is unfair to Hillary -- from TPM Horses Mouth.

    women are livid (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:54:30 PM EST
    on an iPhone.  That is all.

    Unfairness (none / 0) (#11)
    by BethanyAnne on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:59:25 PM EST
    I know that there is plenty of unfairness to go around.  I know that there is plenty of evidence that several media people are biased against HRC.  But, I do also think that if anyone but her had lost that many contests in a row, or was as far behind as she is, there is no way that awful Media would treat them as a serious candidate.  Where you see bias, I just see a buncha idjits.

    Bethany

    Please point out (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:20:58 PM EST
    somewhere where the media does treat her as a serious candidate.

    As far as I can see, they've all jumped on the "Why won't that stupid b---- quit?" bandwagon.

    Except maybe Krugman and Gene Lyons.


    Parent

    Um, both Gore and Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:28:47 PM EST
    lost most states in the November election. So what?

    Parent
    Pffft (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:31:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Its that kind of eloquence (none / 0) (#53)
    by JakeBryant on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:53:18 PM EST
    That gets you on the front page.

    Parent
    Obama did... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:05:15 PM EST
    ...lose NY, CA, TX, FL, NJ, MA.  Of course had you flipped the results entirely, had Obama winning those states and Clinton winning IA, SC, WY, ID, NE, etc. rest assured the media would crow that she can't win the big states and is just picking up the red states.

    A priori logic at its finest.

    Parent

    minor point (none / 0) (#46)
    by BethanyAnne on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:30:26 PM EST
    We'll know who won Texas next week, but things do look good for Obama.

    Parent
    There's no dispute... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:39:43 PM EST
    ...that she's won the primary.  The caucus is a very minor subset of those voters.

    Parent
    if that string of victories manifested (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:04:22 PM EST
    a response from tracking polling the way it did for mccain you might be right.

    Parent
    And! (none / 0) (#35)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:47:05 PM EST
    Did you know what Obama was (is?) a smoker?!?!?! OMG!  What does that say about his judgement?  Won't someone please think of the children!

    I could give two patooties about a candidate's personal life.  Rezko involves public as well as private dealings, so it's fair game.

    Parent

    right... (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:02:09 PM EST
    Because bill having an affair affected her official duties.  Piffle.

    Rezko used public officials to get what he wanted and corrupted the process.  And that was in the newspapers when obama was still "dealing" with him.  That's different.

    And really?  Not to be rude, but I sure hope that everyone who says that monica shows something about hillary's "judgement" has their marriage dissected at their next job evaluation.  Starting with sally quinn.

    Parent

    TPM (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jaman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:00:55 PM EST
    Only a virulently anti-Hillary site (I am looking at TPM on this) could deny this obvious fact.

    I wrote ABC when I first saw this the story by Brian Williams about Mrs. Clinton's proximity to the DEED!  That was the lowest, any story about sex will get pushed.  That is the sad state of most of our media. But they run it because they know people will watch and watch, even if they act disgusted.

    TPM is not a virulent anti-Hillary site, get a grip!  This is the most passionate site I regularly read.  

    TPM is indeed (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:02:45 PM EST
    a virulently anti- Hillary site. I suggest YOU get as grip.

    BTW, Brian Williams works for NBC.

    Parent

    och! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jaman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:21:49 PM EST
    OK, whatever, the white haired dude at ABC--anyway if TPM is your enemie and worthy of your disgust than you are burnin down the house.

    Parent
    Get a grip (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:31:05 PM EST
    Critiquing is not hating.

    You Obama supporter demand complete worship, on EVERYTHING.

    BTW, cool your jets or take the rest of the day off.

    Parent

    Kos and TPM are "burning down the house" (none / 0) (#36)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    emulating the media that's manipulating the election for Obama.
    TPM's attack video on Hillary!  and biased articles against John Edwards.
    Kos called John Edwards an "ass"!  His vitriolic comments and videos mocking and disrespecting the Clintons are too numerous to list.

    Parent
    Delusional (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by nell on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    if you think TPM is not anti-Hillary/pro-Obama. I have no problem with partisan sites, but one should say if they are partisan...Marshall doesn't so I consider him to be intellectually dishonest.

    Parent
    Who else? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jaman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:16:16 PM EST
    So you have ostracized TPM.  How about Salon?
    The Editor is an admitted Hillary Supporter. Yet the facts on the ground reported by progressive reporters gives you the same stories you see on TPM.   Big Tent and TalkLeft are insular and bitter about what has happened in the race.  

    You are completely (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by eric on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:24:36 PM EST
    missing the point.  Please try to pay attention:

    The problem with TPM is that it claims to be neurtral, it aspires to be a journalism site.  If JMM were to come out and admit he is anti-Hillary (very anti-Hillary, that is) then BTD and the rest of us would lay off of him.  But he persists with this facade of neutrality.

    We don't have anything against partisans, just hypocrites.

    Parent

    If you're talking about Joan Walsh (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:49:24 PM EST
    That is not true.

    She tries to be fair and neutral. Because she does not worship Obama sufficiently, she is called blasphemous.

    Because she does not criticize Hillary sufficiently, she is called a heretic.

    But like anyone else who does not adore Obama unreservedly, she gets accused of being a rabid Hillary supporter.

    Parent

    TPM (none / 0) (#38)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:58:05 PM EST
    did a pretty good job of staying neutral until JM posted a week or two ago (when the Politico piece came out) that the primary was basically over.  Now he seems to feel (like me) that Clinton and her supporters just need to smell the coffee and look toward November.

    Hillary gets treated harshly but OTOH the media's done her huge favors by protraying the race as closer than it is...By reporting close popular vote numbers without mentioning how many of the caucus states that Obama won don't report pv totals...By not even mentioning how Clinton's superdel lead is based on back-room deals made before any popular votes were cast.

    And what's unfair about the Bosnia reporting?  Many of the reports I saw cut Clinton a break, giving her "misspoke/sleep deprived" defense prime time without mentioning that she said the same exact thing several times over the course of several weeks.

    Mob rule... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:08:14 PM EST
    ...the demand to 'smell the coffee' is coming from the same blowhards who lamented Clinton's 'inevitability' some 6 months ago.

    She's unworthy when she's light years ahead and she's now unworthy because she's marginally behind.

    How about smelling the coffee and acknowledging that there are plenty of folks who don't care about a full, fair election and are simply backing into any argument which supports Obama?

    Parent

    Note (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:13:07 PM EST
    "By reporting close popular vote numbers without mentioning how many of the caucus states that Obama won don't report pv totals"

    Of course caucus state numbers will be relatively small anyway, and they're mostly for small states in any case.

    And I think the argument that Obama isn't running like someone who has wrapped things up is very strong.  It's hard to understand, given that he has a nearly prohibitive lead given the mood of the party and the disenfranchisement of MI/FL.

    Re the Bosnia thing, contemporary reporting lauded her bravery.  If JMM is all over that, I'd appreciate a link.

    Parent

    It's worth noting that... (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:26:44 PM EST
    ...at least she's been to Bosnia...

    Parent
    hmmm (none / 0) (#39)
    by almondwine on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:58:33 PM EST
    Is it really an attack ad if there's nothing in it that's false or if it points out total prevarication on her part?

    I'm sorry, I just don't recall getting the "objective coverage of factual misstatement = anti-Hillary bias" memo.

    TalkLeft is almost as good at doublespeak as the much-ballyhooed R.A.M.

    It's not... (none / 0) (#42)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:12:41 PM EST
    ...the objective assessment - it's the characterization of it.  To wit, the Bosnia quote apparently proves she's untrustworthy and will do or say anything to win.  That's an opinion, not an objective assessment.

    Neither is it objective to sift through 11,000 pages of schedules and focus coverage on the events of a half dozen days which coincide with Bill Clinton's Lewinsky affair.

    Meanwhile, Clinton supporters point out facts every day which are, on their face, unflattering to Obama.  These facts - let alone even the most neutral and benign connotation - are simply not allowed.

    Parent

    If (none / 0) (#44)
    by clapclappointpoint on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:15:26 PM EST
    I run over my neighbor's dog, hit on his wife, and steal his newspaper, I'm probably not going to be a popular guy at the block party.

    Ah, finally, it's all clear (none / 0) (#47)
    by Camorrista on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:34:03 PM EST
    Senator Clinton ran over your dog, hit on your wife and stole your newspaper!

    In your position, I'd be just as bitter, resentful and tending towards pathological.

    Parent

    Aha! (none / 0) (#55)
    by clapclappointpoint on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:46:56 PM EST
    You admit that Hillary hit on my wife and stole my newspaper!

    But more seriously: The Clintons were treated unfairly in the 90s and the media has had it's really unfortunate moments (like the First Lady schedule-Monica business).  That said, Hillary's campaign (especially Mark Penn and Harold Ickes) have done some really unfortunate things this primary season (like saying that every contest they lost didn't matter) and they should be called on it.  The candidate of hope hasn't had to (and probably couldn't) go as negative and this has been reflected in the media narrative.

    Not everything in life is fair, but crying about how "unfair" the media is while unleashing the "kitchen sink" of negative attacks isn't going to help you make any friends.

    Parent

    I do find it... (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:42:42 PM EST
    ...shocking that a political candidate would try to minimize the importance of the contests they have lost(!)  Egads, she should be called on such a travesty.  Can't be going around claiming that a win among 6,000 Wyoming caucus-goers is somehow not all that significant.

    Meanwhile, "Missouri, Wisconsin, Virginia -- in many of these states we've won the white vote and the blue-collar vote and so forth. I think it is very important not to somehow focus on a handful of states because the Clintons say those states are important..."

    Then how about saying California and New York are important because...they are important as the two biggest states in the union.  Apparently such a thought must be denounced simply because a Clinton said it.

    Parent

    Duhh... (none / 0) (#48)
    by FedUpLib on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:38:58 PM EST
    Of course media treatment of Hillary is unfair.  There is and always has been a pecking order.  

    McCain has been the darling for over a decade.  I swear they still see him as a "maverick" instead of the but kissing shill that he is.  He is the undisputed champ as far as favorable media coverage.

    Obama is an eloquent speaker, smart, self made and yes, he is black.  The only things that they know of him so far are the good things.
    Of course they are going to want to root for him as well.  

    Hillary has been in the public eye for 20 years and has had a huge amount of time to get used to it.  We got to see her good, and her bad over 8 years of fighting with Newt and the GOPers.  They don't like her...it isn't fair, and it isn't going to be.

    That all being said, I am an Obama supporter.  She brought a lot of this on herself with the 3am commercial and with that little snark about his speech in '02 a few months ago.  If you are gonna run on Foreign Policy experience, you should pretty much expect to get your @ss handed to you if you get caught embellishing it.

    just my $.02

    You would be hard pressed... (none / 0) (#50)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:48:33 PM EST
    ...to argue that Obama hasn't engaged in similar tactics and hasn't committed similar - if not more severe - gaffes.

    He has his own long list of incorrect statements; claims he was a law professor (actually a lecturer), claimed he passed nuclear legislation which never passed, said his parents fell in love as a result of sentiments over protests in Selma (which occurred years after he was born), etc. you get the idea...

    Now fit these statements into the Hillary narrative and you'd see a piling on of magnitudes greater than the mere fly swatting that these statements precipitated from the media.

    Parent

    Yeah, Hillary is evil (none / 0) (#52)
    by stillife on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:52:27 PM EST
    She brought all this on herself.  Blame the victim.

    Funny, but the anti-Hillary bias pre-dates the 3 a.m. commercial and her comments about his '02 speech (which were IMO totally justified).  

    Thanks for clarifying that you're an Obama supporter.  I never would've guessed it from your post!

    Parent

    The media treats (none / 0) (#54)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:28:06 PM EST
    her bad because she deserves it.  Ha! Ha!

    Gasp, you're an Obama supporter?  You don't say!

    Parent

    Hillary Bashers (none / 0) (#60)
    by bernarda on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:08:15 AM EST
    My nomination for the worst and most dishonest Hillary bashing blog is America Blog.

    More than half its threads are anti-hillary.

    http://www.americablog.com/

    Get a grip (none / 0) (#61)
    by FedUpLib on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:40:59 AM EST
    I didn't say she deserved it, I just said it was nothing new.

    Specifically talking about the Bosnia blowback, yes, I think the "victim" of fact checking brought that little mess on herself.  What she actually did on that trip was historic and noble, there was no need for her to embellish it to puff up her credentials.

    Flame me if you want, I like my candidate...and surprise surprise...I like yours too.  If she manages to pull out a victory, I will have no problem pulling the lever for Hillary.  Your candidate is a great leader, I just happen to prefer Obama.  It is the so called "supporters" on both sides of this little battle that are pissing me off.

    Dog Bites Man: Media Unfair To Hillary | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment