G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
New Hampshire, the press, and incompetence
By Eric Boehlert
Created Jan 16 2008 - 9:23am
The dismal truth about New Hampshire was this: Never has a Granite State
primary received so much media attention and been covered by so many
journalists. And never has the press so badly botched a New Hampshire vote.
Recall that one of the apparent turning points in the New Hampshire primary
came during the January 5 ABC News-Facebook debate, broadcast by ABC News,
when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) launched a passionate soliloquy
about her accomplishments and her desire to "make change" after an opponent
tagged her as being "status quo." Her forceful response created an immediate
buzz in the debate's press room.
And for good reason. Election observers often love these kinds of unscripted
outbursts since they not only break up the campaign trail monotony, where
tightly controlled messages are the norm, but they can sometimes define a
candidate and a race. It was Ronald Reagan's famous New Hampshire debate
eruption [1] back in 1980 -- "I am paying for this microphone!" -- that
established him as a fighter.
Not so for Clinton. At least not among the press corps, which immediately
pounced. Time's Karen Tumulty claimed [2] Clinton's "flash of anger" had
reporters "gasping in shock." Time.com's political blog, Swampland, quickly
posted an item [3] about how Clinton's debate response might be the moment
observers looked back and pinpointed when Clinton "lost" New Hampshire and
the nomination. ABC News' Jake Tapper claimed [4]
Clinton became so enraged onstage that he couldn't even "understand what she
was saying," and either way, it was likely to "recoil" voters. NBC's Chuck
Todd announced [5] that the exchange was "not good" for Clinton. The New
York Observer asserted [6] that Clinton was "almost screaming." (She was
not.) And after watching the debate, The Washington Post's Joel Achenbach
suggested [7] that Clinton's campaign needed to fit the former first lady
with an electric shock collar that could zap her when she went astray --
when she became "screechy" -- like a dog being trained on an invisible
fence.
It was quite amazing: A roomful of mainstream journalists, representing a
host of different backgrounds, ages, and perspectives, all watched the
debate and they all came to the exact same conclusion about Clinton's
signature response: She blew it big time.
What was also telling was that none of those pronouncements were based on
what voters in New Hampshire thought of the debate, or of Clinton's
response. They were based solely on what journalists thought of the debate.
And they hated Clinton's show of passion.
It turns out ABC News had assembled a focus group of voters to watch the
debate and, according [8] to Time, "hooked up voters with electrodes to
monitor their brain activity. [Clinton's] flash of anger when the boys
ganged up played well with all of them." But again, what did Jake Tapper do?
Without checking in with any New Hampshire citizens, he immediately posted
an item, which was then linked on the Drudge Report, that announced that
Clinton's anger would likely cause voters to "recoil."
In today's campaign coverage, what journalists think about unfolding events
takes precedence over what voters think. Voters have become essentially
secondary, props in the background that are occasionally queried for a color
quote. And that's a big reason why the press missed the New Hampshire
story -- that, and the fact that the press was so anxious to write Clinton
off as "toast [9]."
It's true that most of the polling data failed to predict Clinton's strong
showing in New Hampshire, which also explains why the press corps was caught
so off-guard. But the fact remains that there appears to have been a massive
voter shift [10] within the New Hampshire electorate in the 72 hours before
the vote, a massive shift that nobody in the media detected.
As Media Matters for America's Eric Alterman noted [11] last week, virtually
all the corporate press does these days is shallow, polling-based horserace
coverage, and now it can't even get that right.
I agree that, normally, the statewide shift that took place in the Granite
State might be difficult for journalists to detect. But this was New
Hampshire, and a) it isn't that large, or populous, of a state; and b) it
was crawling with journalists.
I mean, isn't that why an army of reporters, pundits, and producers
numbering in the thousands descended upon New Hampshire, to put their ears
to the ground and canvass the state like no other? To get an X-ray-like read
on the voters and their concerns? Or did journalists simply descend upon New
Hampshire to follow candidates around in a herd while complaining about a
lack of access, to read the same polling results they could have read in
Washington, D.C., or New York City, and to cling to the same Beltway
narrative about the unfolding election?
Where was the journalism? After watching the New Hampshire returns come in,
Butch Ward at Poynter Online, a journalism think tank, wrote [12]:
I was struck by how little anyone told me about why people in New
Hampshire voted as they did. At one point, I heard the briefest of snippets
on one channel that exit polls showed New Hampshire voters had been most
concerned with the economy. ... But no one was telling me why. Why? With all
of this polling power, why couldn't someone tell me why? After almost a year
of nonstop coverage, why can't someone tell me what the most important
players in this election -- the voters -- are thinking?
Yet even after the New Hampshire press debacle, editors at the Politico, the
Beltway house organ for conventional wisdom, insisted [13]: "Things are not
all bad. Politico is part of a broad, technology-inspired movement that has
led to more open and more exhaustive coverage of this presidential race than
ever before."
The only thing the Politico has covered exhaustively is meaningless tactical
campaign nonsense. To read the Politico is to understand that its writers
and editors are practically allergic to actual voters. But that's today's
media norm.
Here's a perfect example: When Clinton arrived to campaign in New Hampshire
following her Iowa loss, she made an obvious tactical adjustment and began
engaging with voters more directly, sometimes hours at a time during
marathon Q&A sessions. The press dutifully noted the change and then
promptly ridiculed it. At washingtonpost.com, Dana Milbank narrated a video
piece [14] that thoroughly mocked a New Hampshire rally Clinton hosted, in
which she answered questions for hours, declaring the Clinton candidacy
effectively over. (The video came complete with a wildly unflattering photo
of Clinton.)
Not one voter was interviewed in the three-minute-long video. Instead, it
was the journalist who declared Clinton's performance to be a "torpid"
"bore." Turns out, voters, based on the final New Hampshire tally, had a
very different take on things. Had Milbank bothered to interview some actual
voters, maybe he could have saved himself the embarrassment of so badly
misreading New Hampshire. (I suppose the word "embarrassment" only applies
if Milbank actually cares he was so wrong. I have my doubts.)
Meanwhile, ABC's World News last week described [15] a detailed answer
Clinton gave to a voter regarding real estate insurance as "tedious." And
according [16] to Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, while listening to
one of Clinton's issue-driven New Hampshire stump speeches, "a colleague in
the press section leaned over to dismiss her for offering nothing but 'a
laundry list of wonkery.' "
Note the press' catty performance [17] during this January 5 Clinton
campaign event, where the candidate met with undecided young voters and,
according to The New York Observer, answered questions in eight-minute
intervals:
Reporters sandwiched together in the scrum studied their BlackBerrys and
rolled their eyes. One whispered to another sarcastically, "Can you feel the
excitement?" Another asked: "Can you please pour some Drano in my mouth?"
They began taking bets on who in the audience would fall asleep first.
Former CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer said to the rest of the pack:
"This event is taking so long we could all grow beards by the end of it."
We know now that as Clinton connected with undecided voters over
kitchen-table issues, the critical New Hampshire vote was literally changing
right in front of campaign reporters. But they were too busy deriding
Clinton -- cracking jokes about drinking Drano -- that they failed to notice
the shifting political landscape.
One of the few examples of temperature-taking among voters that I came
across last week was posted [18] by Tumulty at Swampland on the day of the
primary; after she talked to a waitress named Katie, who, after watching the
New Hampshire debate, switched her vote over to Clinton because "she stands
her ground."
Perhaps more old-fashioned interaction with voters would have clued the
press into the outcome.
Should we be surprised by the media's incompetence? This is, after all, the
same modern-day press corps that is still [19] writing about John Edwards'
haircut, and during the autumn months, thought Hillary Clinton's laugh was
an issue of monumental importance [20]. Perhaps it was not unexpected that
when it came time to cover an actual primary vote, the press corps seemed
woefully unprepared.
The press has literally forgotten how to do its job, forgotten how to simply
be spectators instead of trying to insert themselves as players. As Tom
Brokaw famously mentioned [21] on MSNBC on primary night, (arrogant)
journalists need to remove themselves from the process and stop trying to
affect the outcome. Elections are about voters, not journalists.
Meanwhile, what was mostly overlooked among the media chattering class [22]
as it went through the motions [23] of post-New Hampshire faux hand-wringing
was that the press was wearing blinders that kept journalists from
accurately capturing the temperature in New Hampshire.
Looking back on the New Hampshire debacle, Matt Bai conceded [24] on The New
York Times' political blog, The Caucus, "In retrospect, we should have
guessed then that the ground was shifting in New Hampshire."
Y'think? Bai blames the media's blindness on an obsession with polling. The
truth is the press didn't want to acknowledge the ground was shifting
because it liked the erroneous storyline that the Clinton campaign was
imploding. (Paging Matt Drudge [25].) The press was practically celebrating
it on the eve of the New Hampshire vote. That's a result of the open
contempt many journalists express for Clinton and her campaign. It was that
same contempt that produced at-times overtly sexist coverage [26] of the
candidate, "a nearly pornographic investment in Clinton's demise" by male
pundits, wrote [27] Salon.com's Rebecca Traister.
The disdain for Clinton has been openly broadcast by journalists. Appearing
on CNN's Reliable Sources on December 30, The Washington Post's Milbank
announced [28]: "The press will savage [Clinton] no matter what."
And just hours before primary day, The New Republic's Jason Zengerle filed
[29] this dispatch from the campaign trail:
I was at a dinner tonight with various political reporters who are up here
to cover the happenings, and it was pretty funny how giddy/relieved they
were at the prospect of a McCain-Obama general election campaign, as opposed
to, say, a Romney-Clinton one. Suddenly, the next 11 months of their lives
look a whole lot more enjoyable.
That's right, on the eve of the New Hampshire vote, there were mainstream
journalists announcing that the press would "savage" Clinton no matter what
she did, as well as acknowledging that "giddy" reporters were gathered
around dinner tables toasting the demise of her candidacy.
That's how you would expect Clinton's political opponents to react to the
news of her faltering campaign. Since when do journalists -- reporters --
think it's OK to mobilize themselves and actively oppose a presidential
campaign?
Another dismal truth from New Hampshire: The press is no longer up to the
task of helping us pick our next president.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Eric Boehlert
Created Jan 16 2008 - 9:23am
The dismal truth about New Hampshire was this: Never has a Granite State
primary received so much media attention and been covered by so many
journalists. And never has the press so badly botched a New Hampshire vote.
Recall that one of the apparent turning points in the New Hampshire primary
came during the January 5 ABC News-Facebook debate, broadcast by ABC News,
when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) launched a passionate soliloquy
about her accomplishments and her desire to "make change" after an opponent
tagged her as being "status quo." Her forceful response created an immediate
buzz in the debate's press room.
And for good reason. Election observers often love these kinds of unscripted
outbursts since they not only break up the campaign trail monotony, where
tightly controlled messages are the norm, but they can sometimes define a
candidate and a race. It was Ronald Reagan's famous New Hampshire debate
eruption [1] back in 1980 -- "I am paying for this microphone!" -- that
established him as a fighter.
Not so for Clinton. At least not among the press corps, which immediately
pounced. Time's Karen Tumulty claimed [2] Clinton's "flash of anger" had
reporters "gasping in shock." Time.com's political blog, Swampland, quickly
posted an item [3] about how Clinton's debate response might be the moment
observers looked back and pinpointed when Clinton "lost" New Hampshire and
the nomination. ABC News' Jake Tapper claimed [4]
Clinton became so enraged onstage that he couldn't even "understand what she
was saying," and either way, it was likely to "recoil" voters. NBC's Chuck
Todd announced [5] that the exchange was "not good" for Clinton. The New
York Observer asserted [6] that Clinton was "almost screaming." (She was
not.) And after watching the debate, The Washington Post's Joel Achenbach
suggested [7] that Clinton's campaign needed to fit the former first lady
with an electric shock collar that could zap her when she went astray --
when she became "screechy" -- like a dog being trained on an invisible
fence.
It was quite amazing: A roomful of mainstream journalists, representing a
host of different backgrounds, ages, and perspectives, all watched the
debate and they all came to the exact same conclusion about Clinton's
signature response: She blew it big time.
What was also telling was that none of those pronouncements were based on
what voters in New Hampshire thought of the debate, or of Clinton's
response. They were based solely on what journalists thought of the debate.
And they hated Clinton's show of passion.
It turns out ABC News had assembled a focus group of voters to watch the
debate and, according [8] to Time, "hooked up voters with electrodes to
monitor their brain activity. [Clinton's] flash of anger when the boys
ganged up played well with all of them." But again, what did Jake Tapper do?
Without checking in with any New Hampshire citizens, he immediately posted
an item, which was then linked on the Drudge Report, that announced that
Clinton's anger would likely cause voters to "recoil."
In today's campaign coverage, what journalists think about unfolding events
takes precedence over what voters think. Voters have become essentially
secondary, props in the background that are occasionally queried for a color
quote. And that's a big reason why the press missed the New Hampshire
story -- that, and the fact that the press was so anxious to write Clinton
off as "toast [9]."
It's true that most of the polling data failed to predict Clinton's strong
showing in New Hampshire, which also explains why the press corps was caught
so off-guard. But the fact remains that there appears to have been a massive
voter shift [10] within the New Hampshire electorate in the 72 hours before
the vote, a massive shift that nobody in the media detected.
As Media Matters for America's Eric Alterman noted [11] last week, virtually
all the corporate press does these days is shallow, polling-based horserace
coverage, and now it can't even get that right.
I agree that, normally, the statewide shift that took place in the Granite
State might be difficult for journalists to detect. But this was New
Hampshire, and a) it isn't that large, or populous, of a state; and b) it
was crawling with journalists.
I mean, isn't that why an army of reporters, pundits, and producers
numbering in the thousands descended upon New Hampshire, to put their ears
to the ground and canvass the state like no other? To get an X-ray-like read
on the voters and their concerns? Or did journalists simply descend upon New
Hampshire to follow candidates around in a herd while complaining about a
lack of access, to read the same polling results they could have read in
Washington, D.C., or New York City, and to cling to the same Beltway
narrative about the unfolding election?
Where was the journalism? After watching the New Hampshire returns come in,
Butch Ward at Poynter Online, a journalism think tank, wrote [12]:
I was struck by how little anyone told me about why people in New
Hampshire voted as they did. At one point, I heard the briefest of snippets
on one channel that exit polls showed New Hampshire voters had been most
concerned with the economy. ... But no one was telling me why. Why? With all
of this polling power, why couldn't someone tell me why? After almost a year
of nonstop coverage, why can't someone tell me what the most important
players in this election -- the voters -- are thinking?
Yet even after the New Hampshire press debacle, editors at the Politico, the
Beltway house organ for conventional wisdom, insisted [13]: "Things are not
all bad. Politico is part of a broad, technology-inspired movement that has
led to more open and more exhaustive coverage of this presidential race than
ever before."
The only thing the Politico has covered exhaustively is meaningless tactical
campaign nonsense. To read the Politico is to understand that its writers
and editors are practically allergic to actual voters. But that's today's
media norm.
Here's a perfect example: When Clinton arrived to campaign in New Hampshire
following her Iowa loss, she made an obvious tactical adjustment and began
engaging with voters more directly, sometimes hours at a time during
marathon Q&A sessions. The press dutifully noted the change and then
promptly ridiculed it. At washingtonpost.com, Dana Milbank narrated a video
piece [14] that thoroughly mocked a New Hampshire rally Clinton hosted, in
which she answered questions for hours, declaring the Clinton candidacy
effectively over. (The video came complete with a wildly unflattering photo
of Clinton.)
Not one voter was interviewed in the three-minute-long video. Instead, it
was the journalist who declared Clinton's performance to be a "torpid"
"bore." Turns out, voters, based on the final New Hampshire tally, had a
very different take on things. Had Milbank bothered to interview some actual
voters, maybe he could have saved himself the embarrassment of so badly
misreading New Hampshire. (I suppose the word "embarrassment" only applies
if Milbank actually cares he was so wrong. I have my doubts.)
Meanwhile, ABC's World News last week described [15] a detailed answer
Clinton gave to a voter regarding real estate insurance as "tedious." And
according [16] to Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, while listening to
one of Clinton's issue-driven New Hampshire stump speeches, "a colleague in
the press section leaned over to dismiss her for offering nothing but 'a
laundry list of wonkery.' "
Note the press' catty performance [17] during this January 5 Clinton
campaign event, where the candidate met with undecided young voters and,
according to The New York Observer, answered questions in eight-minute
intervals:
Reporters sandwiched together in the scrum studied their BlackBerrys and
rolled their eyes. One whispered to another sarcastically, "Can you feel the
excitement?" Another asked: "Can you please pour some Drano in my mouth?"
They began taking bets on who in the audience would fall asleep first.
Former CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer said to the rest of the pack:
"This event is taking so long we could all grow beards by the end of it."
We know now that as Clinton connected with undecided voters over
kitchen-table issues, the critical New Hampshire vote was literally changing
right in front of campaign reporters. But they were too busy deriding
Clinton -- cracking jokes about drinking Drano -- that they failed to notice
the shifting political landscape.
One of the few examples of temperature-taking among voters that I came
across last week was posted [18] by Tumulty at Swampland on the day of the
primary; after she talked to a waitress named Katie, who, after watching the
New Hampshire debate, switched her vote over to Clinton because "she stands
her ground."
Perhaps more old-fashioned interaction with voters would have clued the
press into the outcome.
Should we be surprised by the media's incompetence? This is, after all, the
same modern-day press corps that is still [19] writing about John Edwards'
haircut, and during the autumn months, thought Hillary Clinton's laugh was
an issue of monumental importance [20]. Perhaps it was not unexpected that
when it came time to cover an actual primary vote, the press corps seemed
woefully unprepared.
The press has literally forgotten how to do its job, forgotten how to simply
be spectators instead of trying to insert themselves as players. As Tom
Brokaw famously mentioned [21] on MSNBC on primary night, (arrogant)
journalists need to remove themselves from the process and stop trying to
affect the outcome. Elections are about voters, not journalists.
Meanwhile, what was mostly overlooked among the media chattering class [22]
as it went through the motions [23] of post-New Hampshire faux hand-wringing
was that the press was wearing blinders that kept journalists from
accurately capturing the temperature in New Hampshire.
Looking back on the New Hampshire debacle, Matt Bai conceded [24] on The New
York Times' political blog, The Caucus, "In retrospect, we should have
guessed then that the ground was shifting in New Hampshire."
Y'think? Bai blames the media's blindness on an obsession with polling. The
truth is the press didn't want to acknowledge the ground was shifting
because it liked the erroneous storyline that the Clinton campaign was
imploding. (Paging Matt Drudge [25].) The press was practically celebrating
it on the eve of the New Hampshire vote. That's a result of the open
contempt many journalists express for Clinton and her campaign. It was that
same contempt that produced at-times overtly sexist coverage [26] of the
candidate, "a nearly pornographic investment in Clinton's demise" by male
pundits, wrote [27] Salon.com's Rebecca Traister.
The disdain for Clinton has been openly broadcast by journalists. Appearing
on CNN's Reliable Sources on December 30, The Washington Post's Milbank
announced [28]: "The press will savage [Clinton] no matter what."
And just hours before primary day, The New Republic's Jason Zengerle filed
[29] this dispatch from the campaign trail:
I was at a dinner tonight with various political reporters who are up here
to cover the happenings, and it was pretty funny how giddy/relieved they
were at the prospect of a McCain-Obama general election campaign, as opposed
to, say, a Romney-Clinton one. Suddenly, the next 11 months of their lives
look a whole lot more enjoyable.
That's right, on the eve of the New Hampshire vote, there were mainstream
journalists announcing that the press would "savage" Clinton no matter what
she did, as well as acknowledging that "giddy" reporters were gathered
around dinner tables toasting the demise of her candidacy.
That's how you would expect Clinton's political opponents to react to the
news of her faltering campaign. Since when do journalists -- reporters --
think it's OK to mobilize themselves and actively oppose a presidential
campaign?
Another dismal truth from New Hampshire: The press is no longer up to the
task of helping us pick our next president.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson