Media Hand Washing: "Objectivity" and Race

by: GlennWSmith

Wed May 14, 2008 at 13:29


Corporate media coverage of the 2008 presidential election has been rightly criticized for its inept analyses, frequent miss-readings of public sentiment, deep bias toward the status quo, and lazy habit of exploiting at-hand narratives that, in the end, are more like tales from another planet.

The progressive movement is all about the restoration of popular democracy, but the corporate media's acceptance of elite quasi-democracy remains a powerful obstacle. This is nowhere as apparent as in its discussion, or lack of a discussion, about racism, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

It is, maybe, the elite media's worst habit. They create or reinforce a public opinion environment and then step out of that environment and pretend they are covering something they themselves have not helped create. If politics is theatrical melodrama, it is as though they write the script, shape the action on stage, and then retreat to the audience and cover events as though they had no role in the production.

The West Virginia vote and the ongoing euphemism "white working class voters" is another telling episode from 2008, Act I.

GlennWSmith :: Media Hand Washing: "Objectivity" and Race
Take Adam Nagourney's analysis of West Virginia in today's NYT. The Clinton victory is presented as something that happened "out there" as a consequence of a voter consciousness which the media has absolutely no responsibility for creating in the first place.

..some of the resistance that he [Obama] continues to face is almost certainly racial. In West Virginia, 20 percent of respondents said that race was a factor in their decision and those voters, by overwhelming number, backed Mrs. Clinton.

But accepting the obvious racist element in this vote -- and in measuring Obama's possibilities in the fall -- without acknowledging that racial attitudes are shaped and reinforced by the media environment in which citizens swim, is irresponsible. It's deluded, even.

The elite media's hand-washing and retreat to the balcony leaves unsaid certain obvious facts, like, "Clinton received many votes because she is not black."

But, more importantly, a phrase like Nagourney's "almost certainly racial," serves to legitimize a dramatic turn in the play that should be scrutinized as illegitimate in a democracy of equal citizens. While acknowledging media perceptiveness about race, such phrases back away and distance the media from any responsibility for racism's persistence in American political life.

The media dutifully and obediently showcased Jeremiah Wright for weeks, and then stepped away and pretended Wright somehow entered the consciousness of Americans with no help from the media at all.

It's time the elite media understood that their "in it but not of it" fantasy is not responsible neutrality but deluded destructiveness. They help set up West Virginia by reporting, "Hey, West Virginia voters, we don't want you to forget that Obama is black, Clinton is white, and Obama had a black preacher we're sure you'll be alarmed about."

Then, safely tucked in the audience once again, the media smugly publish their reviews. "See," they say to themselves. "We were right all along."

Of course they could accurately predict the script. They wrote it.


Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This needed to be said. Thanks. n/t (4.00 / 1)


I can't agree more with this post, (0.00 / 0)
but I would hope that blogs do a lilttle soul searching concerning their own "deep bias toward the status quo, and lazy habit of exploiting at-hand narratives." I've seen enough of it this primary season to last a lifetime, thank you.

Me too, (0.00 / 0)
but the blogs also provide the kind of "peer review" that is never even considered by the M$M, so there's a balance in the larger scheme.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
you've got a problem (0.00 / 0)
in that when black voters are blocking voting 89%, 91% for the black candidate, race is obviously a factor in that vote.  So, while the blogs declare 20% of the WV is racist no one is allowed to even mention anything about Black voters acting as a solid block vote.  

So, let's look at this and assume if 20% of WV were not racists as it is now claimed all over the blogs and MSM in order to discount this major election thumping, all the while the MSM and the blogs declare Obama the winner...and to prove it, all supposed racists in WV, 20% voted for Obama, the results are still 47% for Clinton and 46% for Obama.  

Could it be that WV just plain doesn't like Obama's policy positions, especially on economics and actually believe that Hillary is the better choice?

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


Certainly possible... (0.00 / 0)
30% of those who voted for Clinton also voted for Bush in 2004, so it is certainly possible they prefer Clinton's policies over Obama's.

[ Parent ]
Policies (0.00 / 0)
I've spent a long time analyzing actual real policy positions and votes and Hillary is more of a Progressive/Populist in positions, votes and legislation than Obama is.  I believe this is why she wins the rust belt and there is nothing more about it than that.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


[ Parent ]
Wright (0.00 / 0)
To the best of my knowledge, Wright hasn't moved many voters.   Every poll I've seen indicates that the Wright effect is no more than a couple percentage points.  I may be uniformed on this point, and perhaps there is some evidence to the contrary.

Clinton was always favored to win WV, by about the actual margin - before Wright, and after.

The same is the case with PA - Clinton did about as well as she was expected to before Wright.

Interestingly, Obama was able to close the gap in Indiana, post Wright.

So, how can you say that the media wrote a racist script and watched it play out?   Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the racist element was, by all appearances, stable, before and after Wright?

I don't understand what "white working class" voters is a euphemism for.  Clinton's margin among those voters can't be solely attributed to racism.  You can't fairly substitute the term "racist" to those voters, because not all of them are.  So, what word do you want to media to use?


The media script went into rewrite post-NH with (0.00 / 0)
the introduction of the Bradley Effect as a possible explanation for the result that defied the media's expectations/surveys/CW/etc., and went downhill from there. Post SC the press had a field day painting Bill's  Fairy Tale and Jesse Jackson remarks, and Hillary's MLK/LBJ remarks, as racist, and there were a number of so-called progressive blogs who were more than willing to play along. That's why it was so easy to assimilate Wright into the script!


[ Parent ]
Two Things (4.00 / 1)
First, as has been widely noted in the blogosphere, Appalachian whites have a specific history vis-a-vis slavery and slaves that is not shared by all whites as a whole, and this has been reflected in Clinton's support.  While there is clearly a racial element here, it's origins are much more specifically historical than more general white attitudes, and because of this specificity there is more of a handle that one can at least imagine getting on them to bring about some changes.

This dovetails with point 2--that Obama really didn't do any worse than he was expected to do long before the media's Wright hatefest--to suggest a more nuanced conclusion: the main problem that this produced for Obama was shutting down an opportunity for him to improve his standing.  He didn't lose something he already had.  But he did lose a chance to have more.  And for someone in his shoes, that was a significant loss.  But it need not remain the case in the general election, which remains another chance.

But he has to get a lot more pro-active.  And we have to help him hold the media accountable for its role.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Correlation, or off-topic? (4.00 / 1)
Second time in just the last few weeks that I've heard/seen the concept that "Appalachians" have some distinct characteristics.  You comments here, and a recent article from PLoS Medicine

http://medicine.plosjournals.o...

That identifies a significant reduction is life expectancy for women in Appalacha (although covering a larger geographical region).  Such declines in life expectancy are not generally expected in the developed world.  These are very interesting observations.

These data have touched off something of a storm in the medical field - at least in the "diabetes/obesity" research world.  I won't get into the details, here - but the easy answer that, "poor people don't have access to good health care", doesn't seem to fully explain the observation.  Mostly because there's alot of poor people living outside of this geographical region, and they don't seem to have the same reduction in life span.

Could be a matter of concentration - could be a localized environmental effect - could be a cultural effect.  

Of course, correlating health disparities with voting patterns is a stretch, but I can't help but wonder whether some common theme underlies these.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
It's not only what Obama should do (4.00 / 1)
My point is that the action on the stage -- where Obama is trying to become leading man -- is in part determined by media who then pretend they have nothing to do with the play's context.

You are no doubt right about Obama. But part of the problem is acceptance of the circumstance, and then saying to (an) Obama or any other player:  Here's your problem. Now we're going to watch how you deal with it.

It's exactly like the challenges set up in Survivor. The media is responsible, in part, for their construction.


[ Parent ]
My Bad! (0.00 / 0)
I should have begun by saying, "Of course, I agree with Glenn's point about the media's involvement in shaping what it's 'reporting' on.  Here's what I think about how that works."

My only excuse is that I was at work, time was tight, and I wanted to say something quickly.

But I think it's important to get the "how" right, or else we make it possible to "refute" our argument by pointing to things like the overall relative lack of change in the level of support that Obama got.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
And you are right about the "how" (0.00 / 0)
For instance, I read somewhere today that 30 percent of the Dem primary voters in West Virginia voted for Bush in 2004. Must have been an exit poll data point.

So, in this instance the press is reconfirming its script by not reporting out-of-script data. That makes it even worse.

On issues of race and racism this media habit is dangerous, I think, because of the potential violence lurking within issues of race. Reading Rick Perlstein's Nixonland and being reminded of the press approach to the civil rights movement is making particularly sensitive to the issue..


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search