Monday was a TV night. The LSU Tigers were playing for the national championship, and so I budgeted my evening for nothing else. In the dead hours running up to the kickoff, I cruised the cable news channels to see what the pundits were saying about the upcoming New Hampshire primary.
I was aghast at what I saw, and considering how much shoddy journalism is on cable these days, this was saying a lot. All of the political experts were going over the latest polling data, which showed Hillary Clinton trailing Barack Obama by an average of eight points. Some polls, they were saying, suggested a double-digit victory for Obama. If the pundits simply stopped with reporting the facts, this would be acceptable, but this was not the case. Everyone agreed that since Clinton was going to lose New Hampshire, she would lose the next state, South Carolina, as well, and then get wiped out in the massive 20-plus state primary on February 5. Hillary Clinton's political career was over. She'd be lucky if she won her home state of New York.
I watched with continued amazement as these so-called professionals viciously competed to write Clinton's political obituary. Certainly reporters have a right and even a duty to call it as they see it, but this crossed a line. It crossed way, way, way over the line. Hillary Clinton was still the favorite in many national polls to win the Democratic nomination. She had millions of dollars in campaign money in the bank. She is arguably one of the most famous women in the entire world. And this clan of idiots was calling her career over when less than one fifth of one percent of Americans had even had a chance to vote, on the eve of an election, before a single voter in New Hampshire had even cast a ballot.
There has to be a rule of journalistic ethics that says reporters cannot attempt to influence elections. Yet clearly, this is what they tried to do. Over and over they played a video of Clinton tearing up as she answered a question on Monday morning. They speculated that Clinton was falling apart, that she was too weak to win an election, that she was not tough enough to be president. A few stray comments about this video might have been appropriate. To prattle on about it for hours was cruel, and in my opinion, an intentional effort to make Clinton look weak.
Ordinarily I am not the type to accuse the media of conspiracy. And it is not my intention now to argue that all the pundits got together on Monday afternoon and decided to torpedo Hillary Clinton. But in a national primary season in which 50 states are supposed to be heard from, it is outrageous for a bunch of bloodthirsty semiliterate punks to spend hours trying to explain why the Clinton campaign had already failed when over a hundred million people had yet to be heard from. I don't get to vote in a primary until March. By then the nominee may already be decided, but in the interest of democracy I would hope the election stays competitive as long as possible. Democracy is about choice. It is not about declaring a major candidate dead after a single primary. The pundits were trying to kill off Hillary Clinton and hand the crown to Obama. In short, they fancied themselves kingmakers, and Monday night they collectively tried to exercise their power.
The ugliness of this competition to embarrass Clinton is truly offensive. Some of the media outlets offered a half-apology today, admitting that the polls were wrong and perhaps they had overplayed their importance. On the other hand, they also defended themselves by arguing that all the polls were in agreement -- Clinton was going to lose -- and they were simply stating facts.
Except that they weren't. Saying that Clinton would likely lose in New Hampshire is stating facts. Saying the Clinton's campaign was dead was an extrapolation of facts that was truly irresponsible. Even if Clinton had lost New Hampshire, what right did they have to say that it was impossible for her to come back?
What kind of journalistic neutrality is this? Mike Huckabee was running at 11% in all the polls, far below the 30% or so Clinton was expected to get, and no one was saying Huckabee's candidacy was over. No one shoveled dirt on Bill Richardson, who ran a distant fourth, or even Rudi Giuliani, who barely got 2%. But Clinton, at 30%, was finished forever.
There is no other way to interpret this than as blatant character assassination masquerading as journalism. I can't remember seeing a worse night of political reporting. Ever.
Hillary Clinton deserves an apology. More that that, we the voters deserve an apology. I am not saying I will definitely vote for Clinton if I get the chance; I am only saying I want the chance to cast a vote for her if I want to. This can't happen if the national press keeps trying to brand her as a failure before the polls even open. Think about it. How many candidates could endure that kind of pressure and come back to win? That kind of pressure would have knocked a weaker candidate, an Edwards or a Richardson or a Ron Paul, out of the race entirely. If the media can pull that garbage once, they can do it again -- and probably will.
If you want to see how unapologetic and cruel the media remain even after Clinton showed them up by winning in New Hampshire, check out the awful, irresponsible editorial Maureen Dowd wrote for the New York Times today. Entitled "Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?" this pathetic piece of trash argues that Clinton won New Hampshire because the voters felt sorry for her. Aside from the fact that this article sneers at the idea Clinton could have won because she was a good candidate, it insults voters by implying that they are stupid enough to be manipulated by a woman's tears.
But that is exactly the point isn't it? The media think we the voters are stupid, and that it is up to them to choose our president for us.
Yes, we deserve an apology. Right now.
I was aghast at what I saw, and considering how much shoddy journalism is on cable these days, this was saying a lot. All of the political experts were going over the latest polling data, which showed Hillary Clinton trailing Barack Obama by an average of eight points. Some polls, they were saying, suggested a double-digit victory for Obama. If the pundits simply stopped with reporting the facts, this would be acceptable, but this was not the case. Everyone agreed that since Clinton was going to lose New Hampshire, she would lose the next state, South Carolina, as well, and then get wiped out in the massive 20-plus state primary on February 5. Hillary Clinton's political career was over. She'd be lucky if she won her home state of New York.
I watched with continued amazement as these so-called professionals viciously competed to write Clinton's political obituary. Certainly reporters have a right and even a duty to call it as they see it, but this crossed a line. It crossed way, way, way over the line. Hillary Clinton was still the favorite in many national polls to win the Democratic nomination. She had millions of dollars in campaign money in the bank. She is arguably one of the most famous women in the entire world. And this clan of idiots was calling her career over when less than one fifth of one percent of Americans had even had a chance to vote, on the eve of an election, before a single voter in New Hampshire had even cast a ballot.
There has to be a rule of journalistic ethics that says reporters cannot attempt to influence elections. Yet clearly, this is what they tried to do. Over and over they played a video of Clinton tearing up as she answered a question on Monday morning. They speculated that Clinton was falling apart, that she was too weak to win an election, that she was not tough enough to be president. A few stray comments about this video might have been appropriate. To prattle on about it for hours was cruel, and in my opinion, an intentional effort to make Clinton look weak.
Ordinarily I am not the type to accuse the media of conspiracy. And it is not my intention now to argue that all the pundits got together on Monday afternoon and decided to torpedo Hillary Clinton. But in a national primary season in which 50 states are supposed to be heard from, it is outrageous for a bunch of bloodthirsty semiliterate punks to spend hours trying to explain why the Clinton campaign had already failed when over a hundred million people had yet to be heard from. I don't get to vote in a primary until March. By then the nominee may already be decided, but in the interest of democracy I would hope the election stays competitive as long as possible. Democracy is about choice. It is not about declaring a major candidate dead after a single primary. The pundits were trying to kill off Hillary Clinton and hand the crown to Obama. In short, they fancied themselves kingmakers, and Monday night they collectively tried to exercise their power.
The ugliness of this competition to embarrass Clinton is truly offensive. Some of the media outlets offered a half-apology today, admitting that the polls were wrong and perhaps they had overplayed their importance. On the other hand, they also defended themselves by arguing that all the polls were in agreement -- Clinton was going to lose -- and they were simply stating facts.
Except that they weren't. Saying that Clinton would likely lose in New Hampshire is stating facts. Saying the Clinton's campaign was dead was an extrapolation of facts that was truly irresponsible. Even if Clinton had lost New Hampshire, what right did they have to say that it was impossible for her to come back?
What kind of journalistic neutrality is this? Mike Huckabee was running at 11% in all the polls, far below the 30% or so Clinton was expected to get, and no one was saying Huckabee's candidacy was over. No one shoveled dirt on Bill Richardson, who ran a distant fourth, or even Rudi Giuliani, who barely got 2%. But Clinton, at 30%, was finished forever.
There is no other way to interpret this than as blatant character assassination masquerading as journalism. I can't remember seeing a worse night of political reporting. Ever.
Hillary Clinton deserves an apology. More that that, we the voters deserve an apology. I am not saying I will definitely vote for Clinton if I get the chance; I am only saying I want the chance to cast a vote for her if I want to. This can't happen if the national press keeps trying to brand her as a failure before the polls even open. Think about it. How many candidates could endure that kind of pressure and come back to win? That kind of pressure would have knocked a weaker candidate, an Edwards or a Richardson or a Ron Paul, out of the race entirely. If the media can pull that garbage once, they can do it again -- and probably will.
If you want to see how unapologetic and cruel the media remain even after Clinton showed them up by winning in New Hampshire, check out the awful, irresponsible editorial Maureen Dowd wrote for the New York Times today. Entitled "Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?" this pathetic piece of trash argues that Clinton won New Hampshire because the voters felt sorry for her. Aside from the fact that this article sneers at the idea Clinton could have won because she was a good candidate, it insults voters by implying that they are stupid enough to be manipulated by a woman's tears.
But that is exactly the point isn't it? The media think we the voters are stupid, and that it is up to them to choose our president for us.
Yes, we deserve an apology. Right now.