The presidential nominating contest keeps creeping earlier and earlier into the election year. The Iowa caucuses are 16 days earlier than in 2004. The New Hampshire primary is 19 days earlier than in 2004. Before the first results, the media were already pushing the contenders around, predicting that most presidential campaigns are toast if they don’t win in one of these states, and in so doing, are only advancing that perception.
All the talk of reforming the primary system – to make it more logical, more rational, more regional, more representative, less tilted to traditional first states like Iowa and New Hampshire – all of these do less for a rational nomination process than reforming the reporters and pundits who want to declare the whole race over from the first shot of the starting gun.
In 2004, John Kerry was estimated to have sealed the winning number of convention delegates by March 11, and the conventional media wisdom was talking him up as the nominee after the primaries on February 3. By the 6th, the Reuters wire service put out a story headlined "Kerry Presidency Seen [As] a Boon for U.S. Markets." Soon, CBS and other media outlets started investigating and attacking the National Guard record of President Bush, as if they were following the orders of Kerry advisers. The general election seemed already under way.
Voters should almost root for indecisive results in early states, so as to avoid the general election campaign starting right after Martin Luther King Day. As it is, it will be hard to fail to see clear winners after the 22 states that vote on February 5.
Reporters might protest that primary voters don’t want a messy nominating battle or a brokered convention, so that once a candidate strings together a few primary wins, the later states just pile on to assure a smooth ride. That’s a logical assumption. But the media’s jackrabbit speed in declaring the race over helps accelerate the whole process and take the old-fashioned patriotic appeal out of primary elections where voters matter. If the networks truly want to foster political debate and electoral turnout, why can’t they stop their incessant crystal-ball chatter and let the game unfold a little more naturally?
In Iowa in 2004, the pre-caucus polls showed an extremely fluid and close four-way Democrat race – which turned out to be wrong. But the Tim Russerts of the world announced with great fanfare that this was too close to call. The supposed fantasy of a four-way tie gave way to a very different reality: John Kerry took 38 percent, followed by John Edwards with 32, Screaming Howard Dean with 18, and Dick Gephardt with 11.
The media didn’t get up in the morning and pronounce themselves completely unreliable. They didn’t suggest their crystal balls or mood rings were going in the garbage can. They simply moved on and declared a "huge win" for Kerry and a "miserable" night for Dean.
The "game" of the campaigns is all about defying the media’s own expectations instead of simply impressing voters. Every calculation is fixated on capturing the media’s imagination, and securing the media’s official recognitions of momentum. They reward candidates who "beat expectations" and shove aside those who underwhelm them. The whole spectacle displays how the media wants to have more power than the voters in picking our presidents.
The titans of the major media don’t see themselves as in need of reform. They think the voters have to be reformed, not the media. In Newsweek magazine, Evan Thomas mourned the "Closing of the American Mind," and regurgitated the faddish media analysis that we live in a world of "hyperpartisanship," and most voters are either angry, partisan political junkies or disaffected voters who tune out the news media and obsess instead over Xbox, the Home Shopping Network or "Girls Gone Wild" videos. Apparently, Thomas believes that if you’re going to insult the disaffected voter, you might as well go for it.
The complaint of "hyperpartisanship," of a political system with no charity in it, is is an odd complaint from a news magazine that disses Vice President Cheney a few pages earlier in that same issue as a "secretive, trigger-happy, fossil-fuel lover."
In the coming primary elections, voters ought to vote on their own instincts and not listen to the liberal media’s instant judgments of which candidate is golden and which candidate is toast. If the media elite really thinks that the casual voter is an Xbox-obsessed simpleton or an air-headed TV home-shopper, why should he or she heed the media’s unceasing advice?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
No Doubt...
January 3, 2008 - 15:01 ET by WildBillThere's no doubt that the media wants a couple liberal states to choose the next president for us. I saw George Stepha-knowsnot-polis talking about how exciting it is that Iowans get to choose the next president of the United States! I'll bet they wouldn't be quite as excited if a Red State wanted to become the first primary battle ground.
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln
You're wrong....
January 3, 2008 - 15:41 ET by fonzie2178Wild Bill. Iowans do not choose the next president. And we do have Republican caucuses too... we're not all libs. Anyway the Hawkeye Cauc-eye are overhyped because the people who get chosen here almost never end up as the party nominee. It's really just our ol friends the MSM making a big deal out of something that has little value towards electing the next president. It's just their way of trying to advance their favorite lefty. If there were no democrat caucuses you probably wouldn't know us hayseeds from flyover country even had the right to vote.
The media undermines the
January 3, 2008 - 15:11 ET by greenfairieThe media undermines the process by overhyping Iowa and New Hampshire, crowning the candidates (and the political donors responding likewise) long before the primary process is over and before much of the country has its say. We all know candidates who have won either state in the past do not necessarily go on to be the party nominee. Pat Robertson in 1988? Pat Buchanan in 1992? John McCain in 2000? I hate it when they call a second or third place finisher as "over" when it's not the case at all.
Ad revenue
January 3, 2008 - 17:04 ET by celatorGreenfairee, you are onto something. Here's my theory: The media hyping of Iowa and NH is driven by the desperate need the MSM have for ad revenue.
This two-year campaign is preposterous but, boy, does it generate $ for the networks. It's the equivalent of the weather people who stand out in a snowstorm all dressed up in their LL Bean jackets and hats and yell, "IT"S SNOWING, IT'S SNOWING! BE VERY CAREFUL DRIVING OR YOU WILL DIE!".
The reporters are told to create conflict (What do you say about your opponent calling you an idiot?"), drama ("Will Thompson run or not? STAY TUNED!!!!"), and suspense, )"WHO'S AHEAD, HILLARY OR OBAMA? ROMNEY OR HUCKABEE? TUNE IN TONIGHT AND WE WILL TELL YOU!!!")
It's politics meets soap opera meets ad placement.
What if the primaries leave a stalemate?
January 3, 2008 - 15:20 ET by KC MulvilleThe media's conventional wisdom is that the early primaries will determine everything. A while ago (self-pat on the back), I predicted that the early primaries probably won't come up with a clear winner. Therefore, the advantage will shift to the candidates who didn't sink all their money in the beginning: Giuliani, maybe Thompson. Like a poker game, the smart money lets the fools drive each other out.
However, I'm also a suspicious soul. I suspect the media doesn't want a clear winner either. After all, the money is spent ... on the media. All that money is going to the outlets who broadcast the ads. Naturally, those outlets have a vested interest in having as many candidates as possible. The media makes a lot of money, and they profit by having a bunch of people (who have no chance) blowing their fortune out of vanity. Who collects all that hope-starved cash? The media. They want to keep as many candidates going as possible.
And I suspect your
January 3, 2008 - 15:59 ET by JerAnd I suspect your suspicions are correct, KC. But it would also explain why the harsh glare of the media spotlight is often shifted regardless of ideological considerations.
Jer
Agreed
January 3, 2008 - 18:22 ET by KC MulvilleMcLuhan was never more right: the medium is the message.
The MSM
January 3, 2008 - 15:22 ET by c5thenThe MSM want to be in the position of selecting the candidates from the two main political parties. After they are sucessfull in that endeavor, they will try and be the ones to decide the outcome of the general election.
Their bias is obvious, blatant and conmtemptuous of the American voting public
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Yep.
January 3, 2008 - 15:24 ET by sarcasmoI absolutely agree.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
FOX news is trying
January 3, 2008 - 15:34 ET by JayTeeFox news points out that only 10% or so of the registered voters in Iowa actually participate, and even the Democratic Caucus is differenet from the way the Republican Caucus is performed in Iowa. The MSMS should report less on the Candidates, and more on the "Process" in each state and what "voter" weight it really carries.
The only useful Function that Primaries and Caucus's provide is an insight into what would happen if we didn't have a Two party Primary system,. We would end up with 12 Candidates and no clear Majority winner, and confusion would reign.
If a losing Primary Candidate tosses his votes to another Candidate, they should give a long speech as to WHY, and what platform issues his voters should demand for their votes. Somehow this is missing, it's more of a "good 'ole boy" voter grant from one candidate to another, not a platform influencing passing of votes and voters.
It's an imperfect system, but the MSM doesn't have to ignore it, and not offer up possible improvements, or fail to "Factually" recap the Reality of each state's process.
The agenda is MSM's, and does not "Report" the details of the States methods of chosing/casting votes for Candidates. The MSM fails us once again, and only gives us their Fictional predictions of a MSM Future, as envisioned by the non-deity MSM.
March 15 2008 GatheringofEagles.org with MAF, FW, VFF, etc. will congregate in DC to Support Our Troops and Gen David Petraeus
The media never delivered
January 3, 2008 - 15:36 ET by Right2thePointThe media never delivered their promised 15 point advantage for Kerry.
This time they are pulling out all the stops to accomplish what they couldn't do back then.
NB is swiftboating the MSM
January 3, 2008 - 15:52 ET by JayTeeThe MSM is being "Swiftboated" by News Busters and others on the Web, The Drudge report has GROWN since Kerry was elected by the MSM (pre-maturely) , business will NOT be "Business as usual" for the MSM.
The first one now will later be last, The times they are a-changing.
March 15 2008 GatheringofEagles.org with MAF, FW, VFF, etc. will congregate in DC to Support Our Troops and Gen David Petraeus
Key Phrase
January 3, 2008 - 15:43 ET by mattm"The whole spectacle displays how the media wants to have more power than the voters in picking our presidents."
This has been the case as far back as I can remember.
A mediacracy.
January 3, 2008 - 15:53 ET by Chris NormanA mediacracy.
Mediocracy or mediacracy...
January 3, 2008 - 19:36 ET by ThalpyIt makes no difference whether its mediacracy or mediocracy; government or rule by mediocre people is all the same. The "press" does not live up to its obligation-to present the facts to us. Mrs. Clinton's statements about Mrs. Bhutto's children, the death or her father, and the election and Musharraf were all filled with errors. Where was the press on this? Their darling must not be damaged by truthful reporting, and she wasn't. We do find out about these things, but not through the conventional press. For the most part, they are mediocre and I have no use for them.
I hate to give the MSM any
January 3, 2008 - 15:57 ET by BruzillaI hate to give the MSM any credit, but I think they learned a thing or two in 2004... things they didn't want to repeat in 2008. Looking back at 2004, during the run up to the election, all of the conventional wisdom was that A: Americans want the war to stop and B: Howard Dean was the only candidate saying he would stop the war, ergo Howard Dean was going to be the winner. Many in the MSM did their typical polling... the big newsies in their big cities went out and did interviews of their big city neighbors, most of them Democrats, and surpise... all the poll results for months showed Dean cruising to victory. The higher the bogus polls went, the more hyped Dean got, and the media went right along with him. But when it came time to vote, it wasn't all big city Democrats in Iowa or New Hampshire who were voting. It was your basic rank & file Dems who didn't want a fire breathing cartoon of a candidate who showed a lot of wreckless behavior and instead wanted a more presidential and thoughtful candidate... so they voted for Kerry.
I think that between 2004 and 2008, a lot of MSM realized that people who are fired up about an election, and have a burning desire to have their voice heard, are the types who take the time to respond to polls. This is a large group, but a minority none the less. The majority are folks who rarely focus much on politics until right before election day, and who are out working or raising kids and too busy to waste their time answering polls. You can poll all the super-charged Hillary or Obama fans you want, but at the end of the day it's the rank & file types who determine the winner.
Hillary assumed the mantle left behind by Dean in 2004, and the more assertive and dominant her messages became, the MSM went right along with her, and did their best to amplify her voice. But as the election grows near, I think there's more than a bit of Deanaphobia cropping up, and the MSM has learned that a loud chorus of support in NYC, Chicago, DC, or LA does not a winner in Iowa/New Hampshire make. So instead of jumping on the Hillary bandwagon, I can see where they're being more cautious and really listening to what all the candidates are saying and how crowds are reacting. What they are seeing is that Obama is being soft-spoken, contemplative, and inclusive in his speeches, answers questions openly, and assigns blame for many problems to most all Americans and not just "the Bush Administration." And they notice that Hillary... just keeps being Hillary. They are seeing that Obama voters want to vote for him, while Hillary voters think they should vote for her. There's a huge difference between those two views as one leads people to the polls, and the other leaves them sitting at home watching TV.
So, I think the MSM is playing more of an observer role in thsi election than they did in 2004, and that'll play out more in the coming months.
Russert
January 3, 2008 - 17:38 ET by allanfTim Russert represents the worst of journalism. He treats a Presidential election as a sports contest. It is a disgrace.