Political Bandstand

The media has been a common scapegoat when it comes to instigating controversy about issues that have potential to provoke the public emotionally. In some cases perhaps justly so, in other cases perhaps not. In this case we have to take a good look at the nature of the media coverage from day one of the Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton race till now. In doing so we can determine if there has been any sort of bias. If so, what might be the reasons behind them.

Throughout most of the race Clinton has been the steady underdog. News sources have made clear choices about their portrayal of the nomination process. The Democratic race is made up of many small races, and news sources have their obligation to report at every stage of the process. But if there’s too much interpretation delivered we end up with biased news designed to assist one candidate or another. In this race the media has done everything they can to bolster Clinton’s progress.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton won the California Democratic primary on Tuesday, beating rival Barack Obama in the biggest contest of the day and boosting her claim to the party’s U.S. presidential nomination, media projected. - Reuters, February 6, 2008

Reuters February 6th article represented the collective sentiments of news sources all over the country. Reuters had release an article one day prior almost mocking Obama’s super Tuesday performance:

New York was the fifth state to go for the former first lady in voting on Super Tuesday, so called because nearly half of the U.S. states are holding contests to choose Republican or Democratic candidates for the November general election. Obama has won two states so far, projections show. -Reuters, February 5, 2008

But the article was misleading, as when the contest was finished Obama had taken 13 states compared to Clinton’s 10. Obama came home with 820 delegates compared to Clinton’s 814. Of course, Obama’s 11 streak run winning contests from American’s overseas to Wisconsin, there was nothing newsworthy to tell about Hillary Clinton save for the fact that she’s up at 3am every morning. But when Ohio and Texas sprung for Clinton the media erupted.

Big Wins for Clinton in Texas and Ohio -New York Times, March 5, 2008 Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) roared back into contention for the Democratic presidential primary race Tuesday night after claiming primary victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. -Washington Post, March 5, 2008 …Hillary Clinton pulled out game-changing wins in Ohio and Texas Tuesday night… -Daily News, March 5, 2008

Even then, Obama’s sweep of the Texas caucus handily mitigated Clinton’s gains. Yet Clinton has been referred to in countless news articles as “The Comeback Kid,” representing more examples of media source attempts to suggest that she was actually gaining on Obama with enough effect to overtake his delegate lead.

Later, in the Pennsylvania contest, media sources were constantly overstating the results. Nearly every analyst agreed Clinton needed to score a double digit lead even to stay in the race. Prior to the Pennsylvania contest analysts on NPR had said without a 20 point lead, really nothing in the race will even change, yet after the results came in from Pennsylvania precincts major news networks blew it up into apocalyptic proportion. Articles everywhere claimed a ten point lead on Clinton’s part. The media was exaggerating. The actual vote count in Pennsylvania showed Clinton with 54.6% of the votes and Obama trailing behind at 45.4%. That’s a lead of 9.2 percentage points. If we feel perception is so important in the race, as that seems to be what most of Clinton’s arguments have been implying for the last few months when she’s repeated she’s more capable of beating McCain in November despite the popular vote count, how would the public have perceived the Pennsylvania primary if major news networks had rounded down instead of up? With most analysts saying it wouldn’t be worth it for her to continue in the race without at double digit win, considering how she fell short, one could make a valid argument that it was over for her at that moment, yet the media convinced the public she had reached another milestone, and the people ate it up.

Even now, after a seething defeat in North Carolina and a near loss in Indiana Clinton’s name was flying high in the on CNN the night of May 6th. From the moment precincts began reporting till at least noon the next day CNN.com was rotating photos on the front page showing Hillary Clinton waving to her supporters, wearing a shit eating grin looking as smug and self-righteous as the night she came out victorious in the Ohio primary. With the help of big news networks, Hillary Clinton is trying to win by doing what she does best: gloating. She has gloated over each small victory with such ferver that some of her supporters believe she’s actually winning. The lesson she needs to learn is that gloating over small skirmishes doesn’t mean you are winning the war. Obama is in the driver seat and will likely remain so even when the final pledged delegate is counted.