Campaign Desk

Bill Clinton: Media Critic

Is Hillary getting a “raw deal?”

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

Let there be no illusions. Bill Clinton is not exactly the most objective arbiter of how fair the media has been to his wife. And yet, his harsh critique of the press coverage of Senator Clinton the other day is worth at least parsing for a bit of insight into how the media are perceived in Hillaryland. (It should be noted, though, that Hillary herself has disavowed Bill’s comments, saying, with excellent faux sheepishness, “I would never ever accuse the media of anything. I wouldn’t even think it.”)

Answering a question about why campaigning had become such a blood sport, the former president said:

Nobody would be happier to see all this go away than us. But you can’t ask somebody who is at a breathtaking disadvantage in the information coming to the voters to ignore that disadvantage and basically agree to put bullets in their brains.

That’s breathtaking disadvantage.

Bill has also argued, on Charlie Rose, that Barack Obama is being given a virtual free pass by the press, and that the media will be complicit if Obama gets the nomination and then loses in the general election because he was never vetted properly during the primaries.

Again, this is an argument born at least in part of bitterness. But there are plenty of other smart pundits out there who have come to a similar conclusion, including Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic, who says the junior senator from New York has gotten a “raw deal.”

Of course, this type of analysis - about how the press as a whole sees a candidate—is always impressionistic. It depends on what papers and blogs you’re reading, what news shows you’re watching. But—to be blatantly, self-consciously, subjective for a moment - I, too, have been a bit surprised by the dearth of sympathetic coverage of Hillary as compared to the ecstatic treatment of Obama’s ascension. Consider, for just one example, how skewed the reaction was to the roundtable-style debate in New Hampshire on Saturday. Hillary took a lot of heat for letting her anger get the best of her in an exchange that left her huffing and puffing. The pundits pounced, calling this a revelatory moment, her very own Dean scream. But in the same debate, Obama had what could, and perhaps should, have been seen as a revealing moment himself. In reaction to a question about her lack of like-ability compared with Obama, Clinton frowned and said her feelings had been hurt. Obama’s face then made what could best be described as an eye-rolling scowl. “You’re likeable enough, Hillary,” he said. Now, he’s got every right to not like her. But this brief glimpse into Obama’s temperament - one that suggested something a bit more petty than what comes through in his transcendental speechifying - didn’t nearly get as much play the following day as Clinton’s anger.

Toss in the warm embrace Obama has received after his Iowa win - this fawning piece in the Times stunned me—Drudge’s dubiously-sourced report Monday that “Talk of Hillary Exit Engulfs Campaign,” which was happily picked up by the cable networks, and the ugly shots of Clinton plastered on the tabloids yesterday, and there is no shortage of evidence, if you wanted to make the claim, that the media are engaged in a moment of schadenfreude when it comes to Hillary.

There are, of course, concrete reasons—beyond the poll numbers—that Hillary would be more closely scrutinized than Obama in this election. For one, she has simply been in the public eye longer. There is more to pick at and a more complex relationship that has been established over the years with both individual reporters and news organizations. The new kid always benefits from our attraction to freshness and clean slates, to the power of possibility. (Don’t think Bill Clinton didn’t get some of that in 1992.) Also, if you look at the approach of the two candidates, Hillary’s simply lends itself to more criticism. While Obama delivers short, punchy speeches in broad, inspirational terms, Hillary’s events turn more wonky (before I’m accused of bias, take a look at this account, one of many, that describes this fundamental difference). Reporters looking for a foothold for their stories tend to slide off Obama’s rhetoric, while Hillary’s, by nature, provides plenty of nooks and crannies—things that can be disputed, interpreted, etc.

Let me be clear. I don’t agree completely with Bill. For one thing, Hillary could not have enjoyed such a long reign of inevitability if reporters were overtly hostile to her. It’s just important to remember — as we often try to here - all the various ways the press can shape perceptions of candidates in an election. When even the smallest stumble or misperception is coupled with the herd mentality that has always been an integral part of political reporting, the narrative can shift seemingly overnight—and it’s not such a stretch to see how a struggling candidate can blame the press for her plight. The question I try to ask when the storyline seems to have turned so dramatically - without ever arriving at any truly satisfying answer — is whether it’s the candidate himself (or herself) that has sprung a leak, or whether they’ve been thrown overboard.

CJR

If you enjoy this kind of press criticism please consider a subscription to our magazine, Columbia Journalism Review—a deal via the Web site at $19.95.

To subscribe, to give CJR as a gift, to renew, or to check student and CJR in the Classroom rates, click here.