The Media's Campaign
Has anyone else noticed that the press has seemingly decided that Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barak Obama are the only people running for the Democratic nomination? The amount of ink and film these two get is amazing considering the each only leads Sen. John Edwards by about 4% points in Iowa. Amazing considering national polls show Edwards winning in states neither of his opponents can really compete in against any Republican. In other words, Edwards will likely be a close third or second after the first contest,and there is evidence he is the most electable candidate in a few contested states -- yet he is rarely mentioned.
Explanations abound. Hillary v Barak is a good story of youth vs experience, old vs new etc. Hillary sees Barack as her number one nemesis ... etc. But I think the real reason he gets so little play is that Edwards campaign has positioned itself outside of the beltway accepted wisdom that Obama and Hillary rely upon. By adopting a more strident message about the influence of money in politics, Edwards has effectively cut himself off from the self congratulatory-bipartisan -seek consensus club that the press is part of and which keeps the range of political options in America pretty narrow. In a sense Edwards has made himself into the Ron Paul of his party. He has followers, money and no one will cover him.
Perhaps a second explanation is the stridency Edwards has adopted. He is really not beating around the bush much, nor is he falling back on feel good bromides like "negotiating around a big table" or "bipartisanship." He is very clear about his belief that there are forces in America who want to prevent his agenda from happening and that they will not give in lightly. This message is not a sunny as the other candidates' messages. They are at at pains not to offend. I suspect that makes it less attractive to journalists in the mainstream media. Let's face it, at the end of the day most of our mainstream media like to present stories in which right wins out, bad guys are punished, everyone pulls together, and optimism rules the day. Edwards may not give you as much of that as most would like.
Explanations abound. Hillary v Barak is a good story of youth vs experience, old vs new etc. Hillary sees Barack as her number one nemesis ... etc. But I think the real reason he gets so little play is that Edwards campaign has positioned itself outside of the beltway accepted wisdom that Obama and Hillary rely upon. By adopting a more strident message about the influence of money in politics, Edwards has effectively cut himself off from the self congratulatory-bipartisan -seek consensus club that the press is part of and which keeps the range of political options in America pretty narrow. In a sense Edwards has made himself into the Ron Paul of his party. He has followers, money and no one will cover him.
Perhaps a second explanation is the stridency Edwards has adopted. He is really not beating around the bush much, nor is he falling back on feel good bromides like "negotiating around a big table" or "bipartisanship." He is very clear about his belief that there are forces in America who want to prevent his agenda from happening and that they will not give in lightly. This message is not a sunny as the other candidates' messages. They are at at pains not to offend. I suspect that makes it less attractive to journalists in the mainstream media. Let's face it, at the end of the day most of our mainstream media like to present stories in which right wins out, bad guys are punished, everyone pulls together, and optimism rules the day. Edwards may not give you as much of that as most would like.
posted by Jack Reed at 3:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home