Media’s Powerful Anti-Obama Bias in March 4 Coverage

by Randy Shaw, 2008-03-06

In hours of CNN and MSNBC election coverage Tuesday night, the most important fact of all was virtually ignored: how votes translated into delegates. We heard all night about Clinton’s alleged success in the “big states,” and about how she had to “win” Texas to keep her newfound “momentum,” but the definition of “winning” and “momentum” were not explained. It was like a football game whose announcers extolled the number of hard tackles and great catches without explaining that it is the team that scores the most points that wins.

Since the Democratic nomination game is all about getting the most delegates, this should have been the chief focus. But promoting this reality would have reduced excitement about Clinton’s success, since even before the Texas caucuses she only picked up a net eleven more delegates across the four states, and Obama’s projected seven delegate victory in the caucuses reduced this to a net four. Focusing on the delegate count would have also confirmed the Obama campaign’s insistence that the March 4 primaries had actually reduced Clinton's chances of securing the most elected delegates. If the roles had been switched, the media would have described Obama’s popular vote wins as “too little too late,” and focused on the mathematical impossibility of him securing the most delegates by June. But the media became so vested in the storyline of Clinton as the “comeback kid” that it ignored the truth.

What if Roles Were Switched?

There is no question that Hillary Clinton won Ohio and Rhode Island by larger than expected margins, and that she won narrowly won the popular vote in Texas. But there is a reason that the Clinton campaign’s email to supporters -- subject line “Stunning” -- ignores the delegate count: it is hard to keep people excited after they learned that the best night you had in a month netted a whopping four delegates.

The folks at CNN and MSNBC knew the truth about the few delegates Hillary’s “success” would bring; after all, the latter’s Chuck Todd predicted she would only gain five delegates as a best case scenario. But Todd’s words were the exception, and were drowned out by the insistence that Clinton was now the “Comeback Kid” and had the “momentum.”

Nearly every media outlet trumpeted Clinton’s “victory” in Texas, despite Obama winning more delegates in the state. True, the primary vote preceded the caucus outcome, but reporters a) rarely if ever mentioned that the Texas primary vote allocated delegates based entirely on districts, b) failed to adequately inform viewers that Clinton’s popular vote win would translate into a handful of net delegates at best, and c) concealed the fact that Obama’s victory in the caucus was never in doubt, and that whatever gains Clinton would make in the popular vote would be lost through the caucuses.

If Obama and Clinton had switched roles, these a, b and c items would have been front and center.

The Momentum Myth

Momentum was a favorite word last night, but virtually nobody linked this momentum to anything but Pennsylvania on April 22. An honest appraisal would have said that Pennsylvania was too little, too late, and that Obama would gain more net delegates in Wyoming and Mississippi in the next week than Clinton won on March 4.

How is losing the net delegate count in Texas “momentum”? In terms of delegates, Clinton split four states on March 4 -- yet the media makes her the “Comeback Kid.”

The media did not discuss Clinton’s inability to capitalize on her alleged “momentum,” since there is no primary in the month between Mississippi and Pennsylvania. Instead, commentators acted like the majority of contests were still to be waged, and that Clinton was primed to win states that she has already lost.

Chris Bowers, the respected blogger of Open Left noted yesterday “the eventual nominee needs to be on a winning streak.” He cited Walter Mondale’s defeats at the end of the 1984 primary season as hurting his general election campaign.

Well, Jerry Brown beat Jimmy Carter in the last six primaries of 1976, and the media never framed Brown as a credible candidate or ascribed to him the type of “momentum” it now gives Hillary. And Carter went on to win the general election.

If Obama and Clinton switched roles, the media would describe the Pennsylvania primary as “too little to late.” And would note that even an Obama victory would make little dent in Clinton’s huge delegate advantage.

Blame the Media, not Obama’s Team

By all accounts, Clinton benefited from a series of late anti-Obama news stories that led voters who made up their minds in the last 72 hours to break heavily against him. A constant theme in the CNN and MSNBC election coverage was Obama’s failure to handle the adverse media, in contrast to Clinton’s dominating the news cycle.

I did not hear a single commentator ask why CNN and other media jumped on anti-Obama stories while ignoring those critical of Clinton or McCain. Three clear examples.

1. Despite Obama having addressed the Louis Farrakhan issue at the prior Tuesday debate, CNN pounded his alleged “relationship” with the Nation of Islam leader for days. In contrast, McCain’s refusal to reject the support of an anti-Catholic minister who said Katrina was a response to sin was a non-story.

2. After Clinton said that she and McCain had a lifetime of experience whereas Obama had “one speech,” only Keith Olberman at MSNBC criticized Clinton. No other media made an issue of Clinton’s alliance with the Republican, preventing what could have been a public relations disaster for Clinton.

3. The fallout in Ohio over the false Canadian-NAFTA memo was repeatedly blamed on Obama’s media team. The television talking heads never asked why the media pushed the story, nor why it allowed Clinton to lie about her own support of NAFTA. When a questionable memo surfaces on the eve of an election, the media should be on the alert; instead it blamed Obama’s team for its own complicity in running with the false story that Obama told Canada he would not alter NAFTA.

Obama has always said it would not be easy. And with the media transforming a minimal Clinton delegate edge into a political tidal wave, it is clear he was right.