Throughout the Democratic presidential primary, accusations of media bias have been flying around like feces in a monkey fight. But for both campaigns’ anger, the media’s laziness and self interest – not bias – have shaped the ever-changing narratives of this campaign. The media have used broad and misleading phrases to label Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY – and, similarly, the media have focused on various non-issues for the sake of exaggerating the drama of the presidential primary. Obama is labeled the “change” candidate even though his ideas are certainly not new or – especially in regard to his healthcare plan – not even all that liberal. Clinton is labeled the “experience” candidate even though no one in her campaign has been able to specifically quantify where her self-described “35 years” of experience actually come from. Not that these labels are completely untrue – each candidate at least partially represents them – but they do not reveal the whole picture. They do not illustrate media bias, just lackluster reporting. Clinton’s campaign has led the pack in accusations of media bias, claiming the press has given Obama a free ride. They like to throw around a Feb. 20 Pew Research survey that found – while both candidates received equal press coverage – Obama has received more favorable treatment. I won’t deny the media has exaggerated some of Obama’s success. After Obama’s victory in the Iowa caucus and his subsequent rise in polling, the media got lazy – and the coverage quickly shifted to Clinton’s media-ordained rapidly fading campaign. They discounted the oft-proven unreliability of polling, Clinton’s vast array of support from the Democratic establishment and her strength as a candidate. Regardless, Obama has overwhelmingly exceeded initial expectations, while in contrast, Clinton has overwhelmingly fallen short of her own. There are only so many ways to frame 11 straight losses. But what the Clinton camp does not like to admit is how the media’s flawed coverage has benefited them too. Clinton is the “experience” candidate, and she has no problem with that. She has consistently charged that Obama’s inexperience is cause for concern. Of course, Obama does have experience; it just does not come from the same sources Clinton’s does. It is easier to paint Obama as inexperienced rather than explain to people why being a community organizer, state legislator and the first black president of Harvard Law Review qualify as relevant experience. In fact, another Feb. 13 Pew Research survey found “inexperience” to overwhelmingly be “what comes to mind” to a majority of voters’ first impressions of Obama. Still think the media’s coverage only favors Obama? In the days prior to the March 4 contests in Ohio and Texas, Clinton, out of desperation, began focusing time and money on negative attacks. But negative campaigns are not self-sustaining. They rely on the media to recycle the drama they create. Fortunately for Clinton, the media happily obliged. Heavy emphasis was placed on Obama’s NAFTA flap. If you don’t know what NAFTA is or what Obama did to receive any vitriol, don’t worry. NAFTA, like Yucca Mountain in Nevada and ethanol in Iowa, is a regional campaign issue. Both candidates are unlikely to change anything about NAFTA, and I would be surprised if it came up in any great capacity again. In short, the whole Obama flap was a non-issue. But it was a sexy story: the infallible Obama finally screwed up, the media snagged the story – and it probably contributed to Clinton’s win in Ohio. None of this is to say that media bias does not exist; of course it does. But does that mean the media are engaged in a grand scheme to derail either candidate’s campaign? No. The media just know people like their news the same way they like American Idol – simple with plenty of drama.
—-Contact Nate Monroe at [email protected]