Ganging up on Hillary
Rob Price

Mary Cardaris, a freelance television journalist for CNN, was unsparing in her criticism of her own employer when she appeared this week at Alfred University to talk about the media's coverage of the presidential campaign.

CNN, Cardaris charged, has perpetuated the national media's hostility toward anything involving the words "Hillary Clinton." Watch CNN's coverage of the Obama-Clinton contest, she said, and you'll see a stream of editorially loaded video images that present Obama in a positive light and Clinton in a negative. The media editorial commentary also has been slanted against Clinton, Cardaris charged, pointing as evidence to a member of the audience using the word "dynasty" when describing the prospects of another Clinton in the White House. Use of the word "dynasty," Cardaris said, is national media rhetoric generally used to signal disapproval of another Clinton presidency.

It was an interesting lecture, and I even agreed with parts of it. It's no secret many members of the national media have disliked the Clintons as a political couple and HIllary and Bill as politicians over the past decade. How did all this enmity start? Cardaris speculated the national and Washington, DC, media responded negatively toward the Clintons from the get-go, simply because they were out-of-towners and not members of The Club.

This would be music to the ears of anyone supporting Hillary Clinton, and, as I've said before, there are plenty of circumstances under which I can see myself voting for Hillary - just as there are circumstances under which I can see myself voting for someone else. And since Cardaris' lecture, I've been keeping my own tally of media swipes at Hillary. Believe me, there is no shortage of gratuitous Hillary shots.

You see them all over the place, like buckshot scattering through the air. Tuesday night, with the Wisconsin primary results coming in, an Associated Press article announced: "Barack Obama won the Wisconsin primary Tuesday night, his ninth straight triumph over a fading Hillary Clinton in their epic struggle for the Democratic presidential nomination."

Just a point from Journalism 101: Use of the word "fading" in an article about politics, as opposed to sunlight, is editorial slanting. It's a case of the reporter injecting his own opinion into what should be a factual report. Hillary Clinton may be losing primary elections, but her candidacy still has lots of life. Journalistically speaking, it's irresponsible to suggest she's a sinking ship. Tip to journalists: Don't tell us what's going to happen in the future. It will be here soon enough.

Let's agree, at least for today, the media is slanting its coverage of the Obama-Clinton campaigns and that slant is in Obama's favor. The bigger issue is, why? Is the media just ganging up on the new kids on the block, as Mary Cardaris asserted at Alfred University?

I'm skeptical it's that simple. The Clinton administration began bungling its media relationships early on, starting with its firing of all White House Travel Office personnel - who happened to White House press corps. The media responded negatively, and the Clintons forgot, or never knew, the first rule of media relations, which is: Let the media kick you whenever it wants while continuing to be friendly with reporters and their editors and publishers. A recent Newsweek piece observed: "How presidents handle the ordeal of press coverage can be revealing of character. Some pretend to shrug it off better than others. The Clintons have been theatrical in their resentments and aggressive about pushing back ."

The Clintons, and Hillary in particular, have another problem working against their media relations. Simply put, they're old news, and Barack Obama is a fresh face. The media's characterizations of Hillary Clinton may be unfair, but guess what: If Barack Obama becomes the country's next president, the media will be taking pot shots at him after a few months on the job. Suddenly we'll be reading about Obama's "intellectural remoteness," or some such thing, and then some pundit will write a piece that says, for all her faults, Hillary could be awfully sweet in private.

All the same, Mary Cardaris was correct in drawing her audience's attention to the fact of media bias and manipulation. Her best piece of advice: Don't let the media think for you. Do your own research. Read the candidates' websites. Be on the lookout for slanted news reports. Above all, think for yourself.