COLUMBIA, S.C. — All campaign long, Newt Gingrich has been known to knock the media, but at his victory party Saturday night in Columbia, having won the South Carolina primary by twelve points, Gingrich laid on especially thick his now-familiar criticisms of the press. During his twenty-four-minute speech, Gingrich returned frequently to his excoriations of the “elites in New York and Washington”—which he singled out as President Obama and the news media—who “have no understanding” of, and “do not represent,” the public.
Early in his speech, Gingrich noted the way voters had embraced his media-bashing debate performances in the days before the South Carolina primary (see Williams, Juan and King, John) and had reacted “so strongly to the news media” this past week. (Exit polls show that 88 percent of voters said that recent debates were “a factor” in deciding whom to support in the South Carolina primary).
At another moment in his victory speech, Gingrich hinted the press corps suffers from a cowardly political correctness—“this makes some of the elite media nervous”—when he repeated his riff on President Obama as “the most effective food stamp president in American history.” (A riff that last spring prompted NBC News’s David Gregory to ask Gingrich about insinuations of racism.)
Each time Gingrich went after the press, his crowd of supporters went wild—throwing up their arms, and hooting and hollering affirmative “yeahs!” At one point, the man in front of me, wearing suspenders and lots of pro-Newt campaign buttons, spun around, pointed his finger at the rows of cameras in the back half of the room, and yelled, “Remember that!”
The media kept their cameras trained, conveying Gingrich’s words while often being the target of them.
Indeed, much of the story this past week has been that Gingrich’s feisty exchanges with the media have pleased South Carolina Republicans and galvanized support for the candidate.
Here is what one Gingrich-voting South Carolinian on Saturday told The State, South Carolina’s largest newspaper:
One of the worst things in this country is the media. They have an agenda. And (Gingrich) is the only one, probably since Reagan, who stands up to them.
Or as Roy Linsey, the Orangeburg County Republican Party chair, told McClatchy of Gingrich’s pushback against Fox News’s Juan Williams, a moderator at Monday night’s debate:
I love it when Newt takes the media to task, and other people like it, too. Juan was worth 2-3 points, I guarantee you that.
Yet, as Politico reported on Friday, there is a performance element to Gingrich’s media-bashing: while Gingrich assails the press during debates and on the stump, he’s actually quite friendly and generous with the reporters following him on the campaign trail—apparently far more so than Mitt Romney.
Likewise, while supporters in attendance at Gingrich’s victory party Saturday night cheered the candidate’s swipes at the media, they were very willing to talk—at least with this particular member of the news media, even after being informed of my New York connections.
When I ran into Roy Lindsey, the 64-year-old farmer and Orangeburg County Republican Party chair quoted by McClatchy (above), it was 7:30 p.m. and he had already been interviewed three times at the victory party (he had also been twice interviewed in Orangeburg earlier in the week).
He called his interview experiences “fine,” and noted that reporters asked him the same general questions—“Why do you support Newt? What’s your opinion of Newt?”—which he was happy to answer. He thought the media had done a “good job” covering the primary in South Carolina, though when asked particularly about the fairness and appropriateness of reporting on the “open marriage” allegations made against Gingrich, he quickly said, “Well, that has been proven false.”
Lindsey gets his news from Fox, CSPAN, and occasionally MSNBC—which, he says, along with CNN and NBC, can be “automatically” counted on to have a liberal slant. He likes Fox because he says it “reports both sides of everything.”

What a list of outlets: "Patch, The American Prospect, The Daily Beast,
and Danish television" and CJR. The only one of those that's not openly left-wing is Danish TV and that's just an assumption. I'm sure if I knew Dannish politics, I'd say all five.(And Patch, for those following at home, is part of Huffington Post now.)
Is it any wonder conservatives question the media covering campaigns? The media outlets are staffed by libs who jump back and forth to openly liberal outlets like American Prospect, the Daily Beast and others or just straight to the Obama admin. The people in the field who cover the journalism profession are also liberal and, with CJR, funded by mega-lefty George Soros.
The allegedly neutral model of journalism is a TV fantasy.
#1 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 05:11 PM
I will agree that thee is no such thing as neutral journalism and certainly even less "neutral" TV. However, It seems to me the account above is not the best example of the lack of it.
The Republican candidates specially this year and their supporters are such a spectacle that many otherwise progressive people get mesmerized watching them, candidates and supporters alike. I think this is what would explain this reporting and the draw to the media referenced. Something like a little window has opened to the days of cannibalism or ritual human sacrifice and we are allowed to watch. We know its evil but cant tear our eyes away.
#2 Posted by wilbur larch, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 08:34 PM
If the Romney campaign had run a television ad featuring Gingrich's ex-wife discussing their sex lives, I expect Gingrich would have been, as Fry puts it, a 'Romney critic'. But it wasn't Romney's allies who aired this vital news. It was ABC News, solemnly presenting this as 'journalism'. Compared to mainstream journalism's coverage of the election seasons so far, the ads by the dreaded 'Super PACs' have been models of issue-oriented information. The garbage and ephemera - Gingrich's sex life, snarky comments about style points, psycho-babble - has been the product of the MSM.
What CJR and a lot of frozen-minded folks don't get is that ordinary consumers do not generally distinguish between a campaign ad and an MSM hit piece on '60 Minutes' or some other 'news' program. This is the insight that enemies of the 'Citizens United' ruling don't get about themselves. Dahlia Lithwick and NPR and The New York Times and Stephen Colbert are corporate voices, too - and any effort to restrict the speech rights of 'non-media' corporations are going to blow back on 'media' corporations as well, given the difficulty of writing and enforcing a law that makes this tortured distinction.
#3 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 3 Feb 2012 at 12:28 PM