fun, while it lasted: the press and its old tricks

For maybe two months, at most, it seems the U.S. was seeing some mainstream press coverage that leaned on the more balanced, at the least in terms of our own elections. (I am not talking about international politics or anything of the like, and I am not talking about the Clinton mouthpiece, the New York Times) The new experiment in some sort of U.S. democracy – where for once in a long, long time, there was a slew of candidates markedly different from each other and to some degree, from their predecessors – risks being limited even further from its already limited scope by the mainstream press. Give time for corporate interests, for pressure from an old, entrenched political elite, to take full effect, and the mainstream press seems to be saying: yes, the fun has been had, but ain't no change on the horizon.

Starting with the lead up to the Iowa caucuses in January, it seemed for a second that the energy of the new breed – the Obama, Edwards and, sigh, even Huckabee camps, even the new “clean” McCain strategy, all of these – could captivate and distract the press for the briefest moment. Don’t get me wrong; this was a modest shift, but combined with the actual politics changes on the ground, it was somewhat encouraging. The press was saying things like, “Which universal healthcare plan works,” and asking about real strategies to end the war, shift away from oil, and promote healthier foreign policy.

But no more than three months later than these events, the press has taken hold of it’s old patrons and darlings, the Clintons and the Republican old guard, to lead us back to politics as usual, as dangerous.

Today’s Los Angeles Times presents a clear example of the press’ turn for the worse. The Top of the Ticket political blog took the Obama’s comment that its “premature” for him to speak of becoming vice president to Hilary on the Democratic ticket as Barack Obama “refus(ing) the notion of becoming vice presidential candidate.” Obama suddenly appears to be the grand refuter of the “dream ticket” of a woman and a black man, two birds, one stone, for simply stating that he is still running for President and will follow his intended course. This seems natural, particularly given he is and continues to be, following today’s primaries, the lead contender and yes, a presidential candidate. Clinton is meanwhile positioned as the saintly reconciler for offering Obama the position of VP twice in one week, re-iterating in both instances she would be “on top.”

The main article on the Wyoming victory makes a clear point in the lead paragraph that Wyoming is “sparsely populated” (i.e. meaningless). The article also re-iterated Clinton’s victory in Ohio and Texas, which is not so much a problem except for the fact that at present, the caucus results in Texas are still only partially counted and Barack Obama stands to win an overall victory in the state following the results. (Apparently no one has learned from the early prediction issues caused by the news networks during the 2004 elections.)

Add in the press that Obama supposedly walked off the March 3 press conference in response to "tough questions," while he made it perfectly clear he was simply staying on schedule and took the time to answer all the press' questions on Tony Rezko and other supposed scandals as best possible. The press, meanwhile, took it as a chance to say Obama could not handle the real power of a tough press.

These small examples are only the latest in a process that can be traced back to numerous shifts, or more appropriately, returns to the old ways. Many say the press all of a sudden feels the need to take such a negative tone across the board because of Clinton’s reiteration that the media has been so easy on Obama, a fact she hammered in through her appearances on Saturday Night Live and her other messaging. The key problem in this argument is in its assumptions, but the mainstream media has nonetheless used the argument as a segue into politics-as-usual.

What Exactly is Vetting?

The first disturbing assumption that jumps to mind is that this statement assumes that Obama has some secret harsh past that no one knows about, one similar to that of Clinton’s. If she had some clear point to speak on her opponent, let her bring it up; all she has found to do attack her opponents lack of time in government and his policy, not his integrity (all but for the Tony Rezko scandal, still impossible to link to the candidate). The press, never lazy for scandal, has dug without recourse. Is this a bad thing?

Clinton also acts as if the press has vehemently assaulted Hilary by being straightforward about the fact that Obama, a relatively young political figure, has come out to prove himself a formidable contender in the race and mobilized a formidable movement by running without the utilization of traditional negative campaigning. The other option would be to completely discount Obama’s grassroots campaigning and success and spew more clichés about “is America ready for..?”. The press was quite honest where it needed to, and gave Clinton credit where it was due: that Clinton controls the big states, that the union establishments support her (such as in Nevada), that she has held her own on Super Tuesday. Did she just want reporters to echo her exact words, to parrot her “maybe Obama is not experienced enough” and “maybe Obama is just a big talker?”

But more importantly, and more broadly relevant, the press played its usual “vetting” game with Obama; he has always taken every question with stride since his early campaigning, to the point where he even admitted that yes, he inhaled and “that was the point.” The same with Edwards, Huckabee and sadly, even McCain, who at the onset also campaigned without turning to negative slander. The problem is that none of these campaigners really have spent more than a few minutes of airtime answering to this and spent a lot more time early on speaking to their platforms.

Clinton’s was not a call to ask tough substantive questions: it was a call for the press to get back to the fun ol’ celebrity-image slander and distracting non-politics. It was a call for the press to move away from a potential direction addressing policy – healthcare, a collapsing economy, globalization– to the same political reporting that has dominated the U.S. at least since Reagan. Let’s avoid real politics and focus on the empty, with the occasional reference to terrorism and the threat from the outside. More “It’s 3 A.M. and the phone rings at the White House,” less questions on how to make healthcare accessible.

It’s the same call the Limbaughs and Coulters made to McCain: we do not play a fair game and will not allow any fresh, new ideas to dominate the airwaves or campaign trails. Repeat the word terrorism, abortion and Islam and shut the hell up.

And alas, the press (and Mr. McCain) took the bait. Maybe that Saturday Night Live skit was just that compelling. More likely, the behemoth corporate advertisers who also support the Clintons and the Bushes and the current state of things finally dug their fingers in and asked press to tow the line.

Whatever it is, the mainstream press has demonstrated it has no interest in politics-as-new and much more interest in protecting the status quo. It has now cowed down, erasing Edwards and Huckabee quickly (far too complicated to have more than two people in any race), pressing McCain publicly to become a good ol’ conservative again, and now making Obama look like he is barely hanging on. They even went for the third-partier-America-loves-to-hate, Ralph Nader, ignoring the fact that the Green Party is not even running him and is instead putting forward Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.

Another Missed Opportunity

The present elections would have been the perfect opportunity for the mainstream media to exhibit the fact that it responds to the needs of the masses and can ask real questions, instead of veering from any conversations on substantive political change. There are a million questions that could be asked that hit all sides: What exactly does “renegotiate NAFTA” mean? Are white college educated liberals looking to Obama because they want to appease racial guilt or is there a genuine belief in his platform? Is McCain going to stand his ground on immigration and torture or bow to his party’s old guard? What do the largest turnouts in recent history really mean, and what complexities are being caused in state after state by this unprecedented voting?

The first step in this path was to move away from the usual slander and talkshow politics and then really start pressing candidates further in regards to policy. The last stretch of primaries, in the gap time before the conventions, would have been the perfect time to go further and ask the tougher questions mentioned above, utilizing intelligently what may be the last chances before the “real thing.”

The only audacious hope is that the U.S. is wise – or fed up enough with its collapsing economy, infrastructure, and standing in the world – to tune this out.

Sidenote:
The one bright spot in the Los Angeles Times today was Meghan Daum’s opinion, titled “Why we still need Clinton,” positing that she represents an old sofa we cannot get rid of. What is most important, though, and where she could not take it, is that though a good portion of the U.S. seems damn ready for new furniture in a collapsing house, those who own the house, and their mouthpieces, seem unwilling to let us make any change to the décor.


Select Sources and Further Reading:
Slate on the slow results of the Texas Caucus: http://www.slate.com/id/2185920
LA Times “Top of the Ticket” on Democratic VP spot: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/obamasays-novp.html
LA Times on Wyoming primary: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-nuwyoming9mar09,0,544094.story
Meghan Daum in the LA Times, “Why we still need Clinton” (op): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum8mar08,0,5282321.column