By Brendan Loy
Anonymous Liberal makes an interesting analogy that rings true to me:
If you believe, as I do, that it is imperative that a Democrat be
elected president in 2008, you have to consider how media coverage will
shape the election. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I suspect that
the dominant media narrative will be the dynastic element of the
election (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton). I suspect the media dynamic will
be very similar to campaign 2000, where press coverage was overwhelming
tilted in favor of the Republican candidate. If Obama is the nominee,
however, I suspect that the dominant media narrative will be the
historic nature of the election. Coverage will revolve around America's
willingness to take a giant leap forward as a country and elect its
first black president. And I think the mainstream press corps--who are
political junkies at heart--will be rooting for that outcome, in much
the same way sports fans rooted for the Red Sox in 2004. They wanted to
see history being made. The Republican candidate, whoever it turns out
to be, will have to try very hard not to be seen a merely a footnote to
history.
I realize that many of my readers will respond that the "mainstream press corps" will "root" for the Democratic candidate anyway, as they always "root" for the Democrats. And there's some truth in that. It is an undeniable fact that journalists overwhelmingly tilt to the left, and it is similarly undeniable that, because journalists are human beings, their personal biases impact their work product. However, I have long believed, and continue to believe, that, conspiracy theories aside, the effect of the MSM's liberal bias on elections, especially national ones, is -- for the most part -- far less pronounced than its impact on the coverage of issues, particularly issues where there is a strong belief among liberals that their belief is the only moral one (immigration, gay rights, the environment, etc.). The MSM bias in covering those issues, as issues, is barely concealed at all. But when it comes to covering elections -- and indeed, in general, to covering individuals -- most journalists make an effort (somewhere between concerted and cursory, depending on the journalist) to keep their biases out of the picture, and play it down the middle. (I said "most," not all. I'd venture to say the percentage is declining. But I think it's still "most.") Sometimes this results in overcompensation, and thus reverse bias; sometimes it fails utterly, and the liberal worldview still shines through; often times, and worst of all, it results in the elimination of all nuance from a discussion (because everything must be either "left" or "right," which must be kept in perfect "balance") and/or the dumbing-down of politics into what Mickey Kaus calls "Neutral Story Lines" (or "NSLs"), which may or may not have anything to do with the issues that actually matter (usually not), but which are convenient for lazy journalists to focus on.
The dynamics of political journalism are, admittedly, changing drastically and rapidly in this New Media age. But for at least this cycle, the old MSM dynamics still have a good bit of life left in 'em -- and those dynamics are such that, IMHO, liberal bias matters much less than is commonly supposed, and Neutral Story Lines matter much more. And that's why I find the Obama-Red Sox analogy so compelling. Although the "first black president" meme seems obviously nonneutral on its face, as it focuses specifically on the (hypothetical) Democratic nominee, it qualifies as a NSL because there's nothing overtly ideological or even really issue-related about asking, "Will America elect its first black president?" (just as there's nothing ideological about asking, "Will America perpetuate the Bush-Clinton dynastic cycle?"). I absolutely agree that the MSM would eat that storyline up, and focus on it a great deal -- much moreso than the "first woman president" issue, because the media is far more race-obsessed than it is gender-obsessed. And it would certainly help Obama and hurt the Republican candidate.
In sum, I think Anonymous Liberal is right: entirely aside from the liberal bias issue, journalists will be "neutrally" rooting for Obama, if he's the nominee, because of the first-black-president NSL, and that "neutral" rooting will probably impact the dynamic of the race a lot more than any ideological rooting ever could. A brilliant observation. (Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.)
P.S. By the way, in case anyone was wondering, I find myself, in terms of the Democratic race, increasingly souring on Hillary and leaning grudgingly in Obama's direction. I don't trust him on national security, at least not yet, but I think he might be able to win me over, especially if he picks the right running mate (Biden!!). With Hillary, I increasingly feel like the upside just isn't as big as I thought it was, and the downside -- well, the downside is obvious, starting with the dynastic thing. But I can't fully articulate the logic behind this change of heart; I'm just reporting that it's happening. It's by no means fully crystallized yet.
I'm very much an undecided voter, both among the parties' choices and between the parties, but if you put a gun to my head and made me rank them right now, I think the outcome would be something like: Biden, McCain, Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, Romney. (Don't ask me to defend those rankings intellectually; I can't. That's just my vague sense of things right now.) I don't know where to rank Thompson; haven't really formed an opinion of his candidacy. Same goes for Dodd and Gravel, though they're far less consequential, obviously. Edwards, Richardson, Huckabee, Kucinich, Hunter and Paul are non-options. Is that everyone? Oh, and Keyes. Heh. Yeah, also a non-option.
