The hilarious SNL post we saw in class last Tuesday brought to light a key point in the Deomcratic presidential primary: the media's relationship with the candidates. It seems as if now more than ever, the media has taken a side in this close race. While Obama is, in the words of a NY Times article, arguably "cottled" by the media, Clinton is "throttled." I find this extemely ironic considering the relationships that they have established thus far. Obama has a very detached relationship with reporters, holding few press conferences and paying little attention to media, while Clinton tries to get on their best side (I still can't believe she -herself- served them peach cobbler on one airplane trip), holding frequent press conferences and interviews.
Even in the recent debate, the moderators put the heat on Clinton, asking her to name and pronounce President Vladimir Putin's successor in Russia, Dmitri A. Medvedev. I can barely pronounce that when its right in my face, let alone hit it off guard in a debate! Now obviously, I am not as knowledgeable in these matters as she is - but my point is that they are playing hardball with her and T-ball with Obama, who slid by mispronouncing Massachusetts (“Massatoosetts”) twice. Could he have answered that same question? (We'll never know...)
"Mrs. Clinton was under attack, but the toughest blows came not from Mr. Obama but from Mr. Russert [the moderator]." It's hard enough to challenge the force that is OBAMA - imagine trying to do it while handling the media as well. The article details some other biases that were present in the debate...She was cut off to go to commercial breaks, unflattering clips of her were "accidentally" shown much more than those of Obama (for which they "apologized"), the list goes on...
"Because Mr. Obama now appears to have overtaken Mrs. Clinton in the polls, the clips on news shows match, all too literally, that narrative: reports show his huge rock concertlike rallies, not his more wilted moments after a debate or in between speeches, when the camera has caught him looking drained and speaking haltingly. And clips of Mrs. Clinton increasingly illustrate the tale of a campaign derailed. "
It is obvious that the media want to tell a story here, and they are continually shaping the candidates so that they fit into neat, predictable characters. I know it is much more complex than that, and Americans deserve to get a better scope of what is really going on. I disagree with a lot of things that the Clinton campaign has done in this race, but I cannot help but be sympathetic towards her. Maybe because I feel that Obama is glorified - a right place at the right time kinda deal. I guess this is just a part of politics and Clinton got the short end of the stick.
Are the media reporting what is happening like they are supposed to or are they choosing sides?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I really liked reading your post, and I agree that it does appear that the media is favoring Obama in its coverage. To what extent and to what effect they are doing this is up for debate, but I think it's a worthy topic of discussion, for sure. I like your analysis that the media is selecting footage and stories of the candidates that best fit into the storylines that they want to tell. Obama has surged into the lead and speaks very well to his supporters, so those are the clips that are shown in order to support that narrative. And Clinton's campaign is in shambles and she is willing to try any trick in the book to catch up to Obama, so, again, those are the clips that are shown of her.
As for the issue of the questions in the Clinton/Obama debates, it is possible to see how in the most recent meeting in Ohio, the moderators ran over Clinton's remarks and tripped her up at times. Asking about the future Russian leader's name definitely seemed like an unnecessary attempt to stump Clinton and make her look foolish after she had already spoken about what kind of government this leader would be a part of. The name had no significance, but it is hard to think that Tim Russert wouldn't have asked Obama to follow up with his name as well if he had been asked the question first. As for the clip they played of Clinton criticizing Obama "in error," I believe it was a worthy issue to bring up at some point during the debate, as it did speak to Mrs. Clinton's new theme that Obama was all words and no action. And as for Mr. Williams interrupting Mrs. Clinton, I think this spoke more to her strategy to be aggressive in this debate and point out differences between herself and Mr. Obama as frequently as possible.
Therefore, I agree that the media may be treating Obama better than Clinton overall, but I did think this most recent debate was rather fair overall, despite a few peculiar moments.
I am glad that people notice that our democratic and fair press can also sometimes be biased. By now, there were many articles written discussing reporters who "caught Obama fewer", so at least people acknowledge it. However, most of the reporters and readers do not seem to see the problem in the unequal treatment of the candidates by the media. Some of them even went further and claimed that the media as regular people and voters have a right to take sights. I strongly disagree with that statement and think that media’s primary responsibility is to provide clear, reliable, and unbiased information so that voters can make informed choices. Otherwise, media would transform from a critical political observer to another political games player. If it happens, then there would be no reliable source of political information.
I do think that it is unfortunate that Clinton is getting the short end of the stick when it comes to media attention. However, in light of her recent skit on SNL, I am beginning to think that she resembles that annoying kid in your Kindergarten class that was constantly trying to suck up to the teacher by complaining and tattle-tale-ing on everyone else in the class.
She now knows that her "peach cobbler" strategy is not working, so at this point she needs to figure out a new way to fight back against the Obama movement. Unfortunately, I am not seeing any real, positive changes in her campaign or image. She is appearing as shrill and agressive as ever, and her cameo on SNL looked somewhat forced - I personally I just felt awkward for her watching it. If her campaign is fortunate enough to somehow pull out wins in Texas and Ohio, I hope she realizes she needs to shift gears if she wants to improve her image.
Post a Comment