Couric Fears Clinton-Obama Battle Will Hurt in Fall, Schieffer Concurs

Photo of Brent Baker.
  • Bookmark and Share

A broadcast network anchor again worried Wednesday night about how much the ongoing Democratic primary battle “is hurting” the candidates and their chance to beat Republican John McCain in the fall. After CBS's Bob Schieffer pointed out how a new ABC News/Washington Post poll found the percent who consider Hillary Clinton to be “honest and trustworthy” has fallen from 52 to 39 percent over the past year, Couric fretted: “How much do you think this infighting is hurting both candidates?” Schieffer confirmed the fighting is “taking a toll on the Democrats” as he marveled at how McCain is even with the two Democrats despite Bush's very low approval rating:

Oh, I think there's no question about that. Look, Katie, 82 percent of the American people in recent polls have said they believe the country's headed in the wrong direction. George Bush now has his lowest approval rating yet. It's only 28 percent. And yet when you match either of these Democrats against John McCain, you show that they're running about even. There's no question that this is taking a toll on the Democrats. Both of them.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Three weeks ago, Harry Smith, filling in for Couric, and ABC anchor Charles Gibson (twice) worried about the impact of the continuing campaign on the likelihood of a Democratic taking back the White House.

My Thursday, March 27 NewsBusters posting, "Smith & Gibson Fret to Obama Protracted Race Will Hurt Party," recounted:

In interviews with Barack Obama aired Thursday night, CBS anchor Harry Smith and ABC anchor Charles Gibson both shared their concern over how the protracted Democratic race could hurt the party in the fall -- with Smith urging Obama to demand, "with some severity," that Hillary Clinton exit the race -- while Gibson hailed Obama's "extraordinary speech" on race before he wondered if Obama worries "race could become" the "central...issue." Smith told Obama: "If you're the presumptive candidate here, isn't it time that you say, with some severity, that we can't go on like this?" After Obama replied "well, no," Smith rued: "At the cost of losing the general election?"

Gibson lamented: "No matter who emerges as the nominee for this, is the eventual nominee hurt by the extension of this contest?" Gibson next raised the same poll numbers he highlighted the night before, "But you had to be sobered by that Gallup poll yesterday: 28 percent of her supporters would vote for McCain if you get the nomination, 19 percent of yours would vote for him."

My NewsBusters item the day before, "ABC Conveys Worries Obama-Clinton Battle Will Hurt Party in Fall," reported:

The broadcast networks rarely highlight poll numbers other than their own, but on Wednesday night [March 26] ABC's World News pegged a story to a Gallup survey which confirmed the ongoing Democratic presidential battle will harm the party's chances in November. With "HURTING THE PARTY?" on screen beneath pictures of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, anchor Charles Gibson warned: "Many Democrats have been worried that the protracted fight, between Senators Clinton and Obama, might start alienating voters and hurt the party's chances against John McCain in the fall. Well, now there is evidence that may, indeed, be the case."

Reporter Jake Tapper outlined the evidence: "The notion that the current tough tone could hurt the party against Republican Senator John McCain is a real concern among top Democrats. A new poll indicates that 28 percent of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain over Obama should she not get the nomination. 19 percent of Obama supporters say they'd go for McCain over Clinton."

Couric's exchange with Schieffer on the Wednesday, April 16 CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC: Six days before the Pennsylvania primary, a new poll [Los Angeles Times] of likely voters finds Clinton has just a five-point lead over Obama [46 to 41 percent]. But there are plenty of undecideds. In fact, 12 percent of voters have not yet made up their minds.

Bob Schieffer is our chief Washington correspondent and anchor of Face the Nation. Bob, do you expect Hillary Clinton to continue to pound on Barack Obama about the so-called bitter remark he made, or do you think she might pull her punches for fear of overplaying the whole thing?

BOB SCHIEFFER: You know, Katie, I think the answer to that question will give us some idea where she intends to go for the rest of this campaign. There's no question that this criticism that she has leveled at him has sort of halted the momentum that he was building in Pennsylvania. But she's paying a price for this and these other controversies that have come up, Katie. The Washington Post has a poll out now that shows that she is now considered honest and trustworthy by only 39 percent of the people they polled. A year ago she was polling around 52 percent. She's getting conflicting advice from within her campaign on how to handle this from here on in. What she answers -- and she'll surely asked that question tonight -- will tell us a lot about where her campaign is heading and what strategy they're going to follow.

COURIC: And Bob, how much do you think this infighting is hurting both candidates?

SCHIEFFER: Oh, I think there's no question about that. Look, Katie, 82 percent of the American people in recent polls have said they believe the country's headed in the wrong direction. George Bush now has his lowest approval rating yet. It's only 28 percent. And yet when you match either of these Democrats against John McCain, you show that they're running about even. There's no question that this is taking a toll on the Democrats. Both of them.

COURIC: Bob Schieffer, Bob, thanks a lot. And I like your tie, by the way.

SCHIEFFER: Well thank you.

COURIC: You're welcome.

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

When will CBS fire Katie

When will CBS fire Katie Couric so she can start her new career as the Living Infobabe at the Newseum in Washington DC?

Idiots....

I love how they act like everyone wants democrat rule on one hand and on the other they admit democrats have a chance of losing. Could it be that their "dosaproval" poll is really just ambigous BS? Saying that you dont like the direction the country is going could mean any number of things. Implying it means people want Democrats is just silly.

I fail to see this as any

I fail to see this as any evidence of bias. Whether or not the battle is helping or hurting poll numbers is a factual issue, and asking whether it is true is no indication of bias. In fact, if these anchors were worried and looking for a way to help the democrats, they wouldn't talk about the issue at all, since saying something on TV seems to make it more likely to happen.

If McCain was duking it out with another Republican they'd say the exact same thing. In fact, take a look at those quotes and substitute McCain for either of the two candidates names. NBers would probably accuse the anchors of trying to stir up a controversy to hurt him!

The only evidence of bias I see here is in the post itself. You describe the newspeople as "worried" "fretting" "lamenting" "concerned" without any reason to use those words except to paint a misleading picture. I didn't see those broadcasts, though. Maybe Gibson was wailing and gnashing his teeth. Maybe Couric sobbed and whined. Did Scheiffer tear his hair out? I doubt it.

Reporting that Democrats are worried is true and unbiased. It is not the same as being worried yourself. Whether they are or not is irrelevant as long as their reporting is fair. I fail to see what is unfair about this coverage.

Of course you do

But thanks for the humourous comment.

Those of you, with your unbiased bias, are fodder here.  Keep it up, clever. 

Laughing.  At you and yours. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

If you think this is biased

If you think this is biased coverage, perhaps you could give me an example of what you would consider unbiased coverage of the issue?  What should the media be saying, in your view?

Clever

Instead of all of the editorializing...perhaps the news outlets just ought to report.  Of course, content is everything.  But, it might be interesting, to have a (ONE) journo ask one question of each of the candidates, on the same day.  And then have them answer.   

Envison this:

Barack says:  "Quote"

Hillary says: "Quote"

McCain says: "Quote"

Keep it up tho...if you think the media is fair.

You sometimes have some good things to say here, but when you endorse media bias, you just shoot yourself in the foot....like you didn't get that already.

 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

You know I'm not endorsing

You know I'm not endorsing bias, I'm arguing that I don't think it's present in this case.

I agree that your scenario is very cut and dried. Definitely no bias in simply repeating the words that others say. But overall I don't think there's that much editorializing here. I think the only place they run into potential trouble is making statements about how worried democrats are without any polls or statistics to back that up. But really, do we think they're wrong? I don't.

The only bias I see here is in how Brent Baker describes the media. Take this passage as an example:

"Smith told Obama: 'If you're the presumptive candidate here, isn't it
time that you say, with some severity, that we can't go on like this?'
After Obama replied 'well, no,' Smith rued: 'At the cost of losing the
general election?'
Gibson lamented: 'No matter who emerges as the nominee for this, is the eventual nominee hurt by the extension of this contest?'"

Smith is described as "telling" Obama, and earlier as "urging" Obama, despite the fact that he is asking a question, not making a statement. You don't tell someone a question, you ask them a question. By using the term "told" Baker makes it sound like the questioner is advocating a position, which he clearly is not. He's asking a provocative question.

Same thing with the use of "rued" and "lamented." Those are not terms that are generally used to describe queries. By using them, he adds an emotional content and ascribes a motive to the speaker that I just don't see in the actual text. To be honest, the question he describes as "rued" sounds pushy to me, not rueful! He's pressing Obama further on an earlier answer.

It is possible to be biased in the way that you employ questions, but I don't think anything asked in these examples is leading or unreasonable, and I still maintain that if they were asked of a republican you would be complaining right now that they were unfairly melodramatic and designed to make the situation look worse than it is!

The bias is there, cleverpig

but Mr. Baker didn't highlight it correctly, IMHO.  Why did the bring up Bush's approval rating?  This just in, Bush isn't running.  But they're trying to paint with a broad brush and tie McCain to Bush, which is the Democrat strategy right now--have you seen Howard Dean ranting lately?

But let's say that Bush's approval rating is somehow relevant, why not bring up Congress's approval rating, which is much worse?  Both Obama and Clinton are members of the majority party and this negative rating has a lot to do with them and their divisive politics.

Also, their analysis of the statistic of 82% of us believing that the country is on the wrong path belies an anti-Bush/anti-Republican slant.  They cite this poll as paradoxical to McCain running strong.  In other words, they can't imagine how 82% of folks in the US think that the country is too conservative but won't vote for a socialist.  Of course this is not what the poll question was, unless you're some biased hack so removed from reality that common word usage is beyond you--you know, a reporter.

Now, if this exact same

Now, if this exact same story were done about two Republicans, what would the reaction be?

There is no bias here

Everything they are saying is true, the Dems are falling apart and that it will stay that way until they pick a nominee.

When the msm says they worry about how the GOP is going to do in the election it is bias, but for the Dems its bias???

82% - USA in wrong direction

28% - Bush = bad

0.1% of America watching CBS News

pot, kettle, black