Does the Media Have It Out for Elizabeth Warren?Bb
by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
16 December 18
Sit back and watch how 2020 narratives shift after questions are raised
by the very people writing stories about raising questions
The headline in the New York Times reads: Sanders and Warren Meet and
Agree: They Both Are Probably Running.
At first, the story about Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and
Bernie Sanders of Vermont reads like standard election news. Dig deeper,
though, and you find signs of negative media campaigns already beginning in
earnest. Over the past few weeks, multiple outlets have published negative
pieces about Warren in particular, deploying coverage gimmicks used to
disparage candidates early in presidential campaigns before.
The gist of the new Times piece is that the Warren and Sanders, if they do
run, will not enjoy an easy path to the nomination. Both are described as
having political vulnerabilities that will force them to face questions or
concerns. (This is code for, theyll get beat up by the media.)
Its way too early for this nonsense.
Were 23 months away from Election Day. A baby conceived today will be
celebrating its first birthday right around the time of the first
general-election debate. From a betting standpoint, let alone an ethical or
journalistic one, its beyond premature to be fretting about electability
questions.
In December 2014, news that Jeb Bush would actively explore a run for
president put the onus on all the other GOP candidates to get their ducks
in a row in a hurry, according to the Washington Post. Bush ended up with
three delegates, beaten soundly by one of the last candidates to declare.
When Donald Trump appeared on the board for British odds makers in early
2016, he was a 339-1 bet. George Clooney, meanwhile was a 53-1 bet heading
into 2015.
Media critics like Adam Johnson of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
have pointed out that early campaign coverage is often an absurd tautology.
We get stories about how so-and-so is the presumptive frontrunner, but
early poll results are heavily influenced by name recognition. This, in
turn, is a function of how much coverage a candidate gets.
Essentially, we write the most about the candidate we write the most about.
We do this with polls, but also narratives. Is Howard Dean too liberal to
win? He is if you write 10,000 articles about it.
Youll often see this we think this because we think this trick couched in
delicate verbiage.
Common phrases used to camouflage invented narratives include whispers
abound, questions linger and todays golden oldie from the Times,
concerns (as in, the prospect of Warren and Sanders running has stirred
concerns).
Warren recently also has been hit with bad-coverage synonyms like a
lingering cloud (the Times), a darkening cloud (the Globe) and
controversy that reverberates (the Washington Post).
The papers are all citing each others negative stories as evidence for
Warrens problems. Its comic, once you lay it all out.
The Boston Globe earlier this week wrote: Its been a rough few weeks for
Warrens White House hopes. Does it matter?
The Globe cited an earlier negative article in the Times with the headline
Elizabeth Warren Stands By Her DNA Test. But Around Her, Worries Abound.
(Worries abound is another tired campaign-ism.)
The Globe cited the Washington Post article as part of Warrens darkening
cloud. Meanwhile, the Post article mentioned, as part of Warrens
reverberating controversy, an earlier editorial in the Globe. The Globe
then mentioned its own earlier op-ed, the same one the Post referenced (mix
that together with an unflattering editorial from her hometown paper, the
Globe wrote, about itself).
The paper went on to conclude:
The media had ingredients for countless other stories painting a picture of
a wounded Warren campaign before its even gotten off the ground.
The article went on to describe a candidate with a Hillary Clinton-like
problem that just wont go away.
Why wont it go away? Because we keep writing about it. The Globe
euphemistically calls this a media moment. The actual term is probably
circle jerk, but its a family paper.
The case of Warren is similar to the Wimp factor that dogged George H.W.
Bush or Al Gores Bore factor. We create a media narrative, then challenge
candidates to fight their way out of it.
The infamous wimp factor story in Newsweek led off with a tale about
Bushs college career as a light-hitting first baseman. It then declared
Bush now must show that he can hit political hardballs.
Translation: were going to keep throwing this pitch, until you hit it out
of the public conversation.
I dont have any particular feelings about Warren, though I suggested her as
a presidential candidate years ago. There is evidence she may not be the
best campaigner. The DNA test probably was a political blunder, and the
underlying issue is not trivial.
But Warren is the rare prospective presidential candidate with actual
knowledge of how Wall Street works who is not a billionaire, a private
equity chief or a bank lawyer.
She has something to say, which is what primary seasons are for. All
informed policy ideas should be welcome. Moreover, campaigns ultimately are
about how people respond to candidates, not how candidates deal with
negative press.
As for Sanders, the Times, which has a history of less-than-friendly history
with this candidate, is also engaging in the invented-narrative game already
with this in todays piece:
Since running an unexpectedly competitive race against Mrs. Clinton
[Sanders] has struggled to expand his appeal beyond his base of primarily
white supporters.
Gallup polls show Sanders actually has a higher favorability rating with
nonwhite voters (64 percent) than he does with white ones (49 percent). The
white base cliché may be a common trolling theme, but it would be nice if
papers worked a little harder to check things like this against reality.
The frustrating thing about all of this is that the national press just
spent two years praying for any president with the brains to stay off
Twitter after midnight, avoid talking about fine people at a racist
marches and eschew flirting with reporters during diplomatic calls. Yet
theyre already inventing frivolous reasons to toss people with good ideas
out of the race.
A recurring theme in coverage of the presidency in the Trump era is a
newfound discovery that the job is a profound and awesome responsibility. It
turns out that in a presidential candidate (heres a tautology for you), the
only qualities that matter should be qualities that matter.
We shouldnt be making up fake obstacles for people who can do the job,
especially not this early.
Email This Page
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner