5.3.08

Hey, Wha' Happened?!

“For now, this is all working nicely to Barack's advantage as anchors actually joke, in large numbers, about the media conspiracy Saturday Night Live accused them of being in on against Hillary. But the media giveth and the media taketh away. They did to Hillary, and they could just as easily, and at any time, to Barack.”

- All Al. February 29, 2008

I told you so.

I didn’t think they’d be able to reverse all that negative momentum Hillary had in a handful of days. But if Americans are anything, they’re impulsive. Oh, and also they’re attracted to an easy narrative like a cheap hooker to a half-full bottle of E&J Brandy… and they’re not concerned about pesky things like facts or who is creating the narrative they’ve chosen to follow like scripture on that particular day.

Note Maureen Dowd’s column in the NYT today: “Three Hillary volunteers, older women from Boston, approached a New York Times reporter in an Austin, Tex., parking lot on Tuesday to vent that Hillary hasn’t gotten a fair shake from the press. They said that they used to like Obama but now can’t stand him because they think he has been cocky and disrespectful to Hillary.”

Where did that come from? It couldn’t have actually come from anything Obama said or did because nothing he said or did was cocky or disrespectful. It can only come from watching the press discuss the race – and SNL – and deciding second-hand that Barack is cocky and disrespectful. And if Hillary hasn’t gotten a fair shake lately, which was true, people have forgotten that the press had her booked for the White House, ’08 – ’12, for most of the campaign until Iowa.

Americans in Ohio and Texas saw the young, smart black man trounce the white lady for eleven straight contests and responded with a singular, “Boy, back’a the line!”

What is amazing is no one claims responsibility for it. The members of the press report on themselves, thereby changing the dynamic momentum before the primaries but acting as though when one who is a journalist talks about the press, one is able to act as though not a member of the press. That’s some strict objectivity.

Americans gobble down the press line because it’s easy, tasty, well-packaged:
“There was evidence that the attacks had some effects. Mrs. Clinton did well among the 20 percent of voters in both states who said they made their decision in the last three days. She won about 60 percent of those voters in Texas and about 55 percent of those who voted in Ohio, according to exit polls conducted statewide by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool,” wrote the NYT.

They let their emotions swing wildly – “Barack is arrogant and ignoring Hillary! I’ll show him!” And racism and misogyny is at the fore in this debate. Ohio – distinctly racist (uneducated, lower-middle class, xenophobic; these are the people that carried Hillary). Texas – too big to categorize but the hispanic vote down there does not like Barack Obama, Clinton won it 2-1. Why? NAFTA? I don’t know, I don’t understand the hispanic vote and I don’t think anyone else does either. Especially that woman on MSNBC last night who categorized them as “the new soccer-mom vote.” Right. But someone better figure them out fast, this is a dangerous group for Democrats not to understand while their opinions are maleable.

But this race is not about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It’s about Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Brit Hume, Andrea Mitchell, Keith Olbermann, Anderson Cooper, Pat Buchanan, David Gregory, Wolf Blitzer, George Bennett, Dana Milbank, Chuck Todd, Mark Halperin, Matt Drudge, Maureen Dowd, Gloria Steinem, Tina Fey…

It’s about the oncoming McCain Presidency at which point the press will play dumb, left like that guy in "A Mighty Wind" asking, "Hey, wha' happened?!"

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I think you've got it, "while no one was looking" the press decided that they had not only to report the status but also interpret the un-interpretable and tell the consumer what they saw. No need to leave the uninformed un-edacated.