Media coverage of anti-establishment candidates (Joe)

Glen Greenwald wrote a piece a couple weeks ago at Salon about media hostility toward anti-establishment candidates.  I think this is an important and interesting article which is very much worth reading.

It should be obvious to anyone who paid attention to the Democratic nomination process for the 2004 election that the mainstream media killed Howard Dean's campaign.  Coverage started out with by asking, "Who is this guy from Vermont and how did his grassroots movement become such a fundraising giant?"  The narrative then shifted to, "This guy's unhinged and unelectable."  Senator Kerry, the establishment candidate, of course went on to win the nomination despite a distinct lack of electability.

The Greenwald article looks at the press coverage of Edwards, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul.  I think it's basically correct, and I think the fact that the press is systematically failing in a particular and anti-democratic way is important, even apart from my desire to shill for John Edwards.  An excerpt follows:

There is no question that the media has paid far less attention to Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee than the respective successes of their campaigns merit. To that list, though, I would add a third candidacy that has received far less media attention than it merits by all objective metrics (polls, stature and money): the John Edwards campaign. In 2004, Edwards was the party's Vice Presidential nominee, came closer than anyone else to beating Kerry, and has continuously been very near the top of Iowa's polls. Yet the media has all but ignored him -- it's Clinton v. Obama in their World -- except to mock him on the pettiest of grounds, from his hair to his house.

[ . . . ]

It is very striking how little Edwards' substantive critique of our political system has penetrated into the national discourse. That's because the centerpiece of his campaign is a critique that is a full frontal assault on our political establishment. His argument is not merely that the political system needs reform, but that it is corrupt at its core -- "rigged" in favor of large corporate interests and their lobbyists, who literally write our laws and control the Congress. Anyone paying even casual attention to the extraordinary bipartisan effort on behalf of telecom immunity, and so many other issues driven almost exclusively by lobbyists, cannot reasonably dispute this critique.

Yet because that argument indicts the same Beltway culture of which our political journalists are an integral part, and further attacks the system's power brokers who are the friends, sources, and peers of those journalists, they instinctively react with confusion, scorn and hostility towards Edwards' campaign. They condescendingly dismiss it as manipulative populist swill, or cynically assume that it's just a ploy to distinguish himself by "moving left." In the eyes of our Beltawy press, the idea that our political system is "rigged" or corrupt must be anything other than true or sincerely held.

As Digby notes, Ron Paul is going to raise more money than any Republican candidate this quarter; he just topped the record for most money raised in a single day; and has now exceeded Howard Dean's 2004 quarter total when Dean was at the peak of his online fundraising prowess. Huckabee is now tied for the lead in national polls and is leading in several of the key early states. Yet our establishment media stars continue to sneer at these anti-establishment candidates as though they are aberrational jokes, and there is virtually no serious effort to understand the meaning of their success.

Worse, whenever these candidates are discussed, it almost never entails any discussion of the critiques they are making. Is Edwards right that corporations and lobbyists dictate legislation in Washington and that this state of affairs is profoundly anti-democratic and corrupt? Are Paul's criticisms of our bipartisan imperial policies and his warnings of resulting financial unsustainability (and increasing anti-Americanism) accurate? Is Huckabee's claim true that the GOP has obliterated the economic prospects of its own middle- and lower-middle-class followers? Who knows. Who cares. One searches any media discussions in vain for mention of such matters. [ . . . ]

But even within the framework of the media's pettiness, not all candidates are treated equally. While anti-establishment candidates are virtually ignored (except when held up for ridicule), the candidates who are treated as Legitimate and Serious are those who are creatures of the political establishment, or who at least attract the establishment's support. Both Obama's campaign and Clinton's campaign are the recipients of enormous amounts of cash from our nation's largest corporate interests which control much of what happens in Congress. The same is true for Giuliani and Romney. By contrast, the three candidates whose candidacies are steadfastly downplayed if not scorned by the press -- Edwards, PaulHuckabee -- have received very little money from those realms, and instead, the vast bulk of their contributions are from small donors and individuals (plaintiffs' lawyers -- who represent generally poor individuals against those same corporations -- donate heartily to Edwards).

(emphasis added)

Comments

[Anna]

I think there is much too this, though I think the analysis that the media doesn't cover anti-establishment candidates solely because they're anti-establishment simplistic, if not monomaniacal.

All that aside, though, the idea that "plaintiffs' lawyers" are somehow a poor, populist entity (donating "heartily" sounds positively Tiny Tim like) that "represent generally poor individuals against those same corporations" and not a big money interest with its own policy-distorting agenda, is laughable.

If you buy the ActBlue PAC as a collection of individual donors (I do), then, yes, Edwards gets a lot of individual support. It's a logical fallacy, though, to argue that this means the he does not attract establishment support. In terms of "attracting the establishment's support" the top contributor list for Edwards http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008
looks a whole lot like Obama's. In fact, several of the same investment banks and law firms, such as Goldman Sachs and Skadden Arps, have contributed to both. Obama has Lehman Brothers and Edwards has Deutsche Bank (yawn).

Both candidates seem plenty establishment to me.

[Anna]

Apologize for the various typos and for any snippiness-- it's not intended. Still at work, and tired.

[Ruchira]

Markos "Mr. Kos" Moulitsas has thrown in his support for Obama. He is not exactly MSM but pretty close. He is warning those of us who are being snarky about Hillary to restrain ourselves (including Obama's "You are likable enough" misstep). He thinks that a couple more "teary" moments from Hillary and she will be unbeatable.

Well, I myself believe that the sudden welling of Mrs. Clinton's eyes was not staged. She was tired and frustrated. But she was not crying for the "beloved country." If you paid attention to what she actually said, (“I just don’t want to see us fall backwards. But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not.”) you'd have noticed that through her hushed tone and soft expression, she was still beating her own drum and putting down her opponent. She said that she didn't want to see the country which had given her so much " fall backward." What did that mean? She couldn't have been talking of the Republicans because at that moment her mind was on the primary and therefore on Obama. So Obama will take the country backward? Why didn't we see HRC shed a single tear in the last seven years when Bush-Cheney gleefully dragged the country backward and through the dirt?