As the networks dwell on the tenth anniversary of the death of a troubled British princess this week, it might be worth remembering that at the time, we noticed the tabloid tendencies toward celebrity deaths at the time were a much bigger media trend than investigations into the scandalous fundraising tactics the Clinton-Gore team used in 1996. Our MediaWatch study at the time noted:
MediaWatch analysts examined fundraising scandal stories in August and September on the Big Three morning shows and evening shows, plus CNN's The World Today. The networks broadcast 686 stories on Diana between August 31 and the end of September compared to just 113 stories about the fundraising scandal. That's a ratio of more than 6 to 1. Isolating the morning shows, collectively they aired 407 stories on Princess Diana's death, while devoting just 36 to the scandal. That's an astonishing ratio of 10 to 1.
...Like most other months this year, most networks skipped fundraising stories on a majority of their broadcasts. In September's 30 days, with the Thompson hearings in their most dramatic stage, the morning shows were all guilty (CBS 28 days with no story, NBC 24, ABC 22). In the evening, CBS, ABC (both 20 nights off) and NBC (19) took more than half the month off, while only CNN (12) didn't.
In the August issue, MediaWatch had noted how compelling details of the Senate fundraising hearings in July were buried by the media frenzy over the Miami murder of fashion designer Gianni Versace, with a Versace-to-hearings ratio of 7 to 1 on the network morning shows.
This should be required reading for those of you who don't remember the Huang-Chung scandals.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Mother Teresa died the same
August 31, 2007 - 10:10 ET by motherbeltMother Teresa died the same day. It would be interesting to do a comparison of how much time was spent on her death, compared to Diana. I actually remember a CNN reporter (I think it was Judy Woodruff), after all the gushing over Diana, cue-ing up the story with: "Another good woman died today." How's that for a segue??
Nope, but...
August 31, 2007 - 10:20 ET by Tim GrahamMother Teresa died six days later, actually, on September 5. MediaWatch's article on that is here. See how Peter Jennings put on Christopher Hitchens for a two-minute nun-bashing diatribe.
I'm really off track
August 31, 2007 - 13:54 ET by motherbeltI'm really off track today..both feet in my mouth....I'd better take a break before I try to get someone else's foot in there too! LOL
Later.
sounds like a vast left-wing
August 31, 2007 - 10:17 ET by Free Thinkersounds like a vast left-wing conspiracy to me
You're filled with hatred.
August 31, 2007 - 10:18 ET by superconWhat is it with all you right-wing media types who insist on talking about what the Clintons did or didn't do.All that stuff was in the past and thus you are not allowed to bring it up again.Why can't you just MoveOn?
Victory in Iraq.
Newt for President.
The Clinton Formula
August 31, 2007 - 10:22 ET by Tim GrahamThere's a very simple formula: when the Clintons stop running for president, maybe we'll stop making an issue of the Clintons. But every sleazy thing they have done remains relevant as some people seriously consider putting this co-presidency back in the White House.
You know I'm kidding...right?
August 31, 2007 - 11:24 ET by superconHillary is a threat.She could win but is also very vulnerable.The weakness of her campaign is that she has never really had an opponent.Rudy dropped out of the first Senate race and was replaced by Ric Lazio.Nice guy but....you know.The second race was no better .I thought maybe that Pirro lady would give Hillary a go but she dropped out as well.This time she has Barack nipping at her heels.I don't know what will happen with him but I do know he won't be nominated.Hillary thinks that she can get elected by only speaking in front of supporters at friendly events.It's not enough.The dirt on her has become a mountain.The Clintons are masters at managing their media.That has always been their #1 strength.Having a former staffer with his own political show doesn't hurt either.The light of hope I feel is that she can't control all the media like her husband did in his campaigns.Sites like this and the Drudge Report,Michelle Malkin and others will pull aside the curtain of deceit and expose her to the public.
She's going down.
The right is gearing up.We are a little more quiet about it than the left.We have jobs and can't stand on street corners holding stupid signs all day.Remember the immigration rallies by the illegals.The press and Congress were running for the hills.
Then the right weighed in.
On the telephone and on their e-mails and with their computers at home we made our wishes known.
Didn't we?
The immigration reform act went down in flames and Congrees took a bruising.They didn't know what hit them.
McCain is finished as a candidate.
We're still here.We just need a good leader.
Victory in Iraq.
Newt for President.
Tim. The "Clinton scandal" or the "Hsu scandal"
August 31, 2007 - 11:42 ET by Gary HallTim. It's sad that it's up to the MRC and a few others to assist the news networks in bringing the news to the voters.
We live in a world in which one of the front runners has been surrounded by scandal, corruption, and lies (thank you David Geffen) and find herself protected by a media in which national political editors of national newspapers don't even know who James Riady was (see: DOJ - RIADY PLEADS GUILTY - LARGEST FINE IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE HISTORY ).
Surely almost every voter whom has ever read or watched the news knows who Jack Abramoff is, and of his visits to the Bush WH, but I suspect that had a poll been conducted during the heat of the Riady scandal, fewer than 5% of Americans would have even recognized the name of the Clinton's friend, who followed them to Washington from Arkansas and found himself a fixture in the Clinton WH.
The LA Times has taken over the presentation (the WSJ broke the story) of this current Clinton scandal - Clinton fugitive donor Hsu. However, in several days of rather surprising coverage - it's become quite obvious, that the scandal is being presented as a Mr. Hsu scandal - not a Clinton scandal. It would be interesting to count how many people the LA Times have pulled in an solicited statements in which either they defended Hillary, other Democrats, or as in today's defended the honor of the fugitive Hsu, himself. I see the entire effort by the LA Times as one, while they are pained to be in the position of covering the story, to be one of getting it out of the way, so that Hillary can be freed to move forward.
LA Times: Wealth, mystery surround donor Hsu - Yea, well maybe, but the real mystery surrounds HRC.
David Geffen on the Clinton's, "Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clinton's] do it with such ease, it’s troubling."
Fundraising scandal doesn't
August 31, 2007 - 11:52 ET by balboaFundraising scandal doesn't generate near the same interest level as coverage of Princess Di's tragic death. They're not the same level story.
Perhaps, to a pop culture
August 31, 2007 - 11:55 ET by RJgroupie like you, bal, the cachet of The Princess is irresistible, but to thoughtful Americans living in the real world, the Clinton donation scandal is FAR more important.
I'm willing to bet that
August 31, 2007 - 12:01 ET by balboaI'm willing to bet that TONS more Americans were interested / watched the Princess Di story than the fundraising one. TONS.
Well, duh, bal
August 31, 2007 - 12:03 ET by RJWell, duh, bal. Which story was hyped by the media? That's the point here.
Hyped because more people
August 31, 2007 - 12:31 ET by balboaHyped because more people were interested, it was a tragic story of a figure loved by many, it had the paparazzi angle.
Tabloid journalism, bal
August 31, 2007 - 13:46 ET by RJFollowing the paparazzi around is now considered responsible journalism?
Tim is talking about which is more important, not which has more pizazz.
Yes but the public isn't
August 31, 2007 - 16:19 ET by balboaYes but the public isn't always interested in what's more important. Why do you think Britney, Lohan, Paris, get so much coverage? Because people watch it.
well, duh again, bal
August 31, 2007 - 20:16 ET by RJThanks for stating the obvious...over and over.
The point of the thread is that Americans aren't well served by the MSM's tabloid journalism, and as a result Hillary skates....again.
And here I thought the
August 31, 2007 - 22:06 ET by balboaAnd here I thought the point was that Tim can't understand how Lady Di's death could garner so much more attention than the fundraising scandal.
Bal a line from Citizen
August 31, 2007 - 15:31 ET by Dan The Man 2Bal a line from Citizen Kane is priceless wher he tells Emily says The people will think" and Kane says "what I tell them to think". And there you have the MSM in a nutshell.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Correction
August 31, 2007 - 11:55 ET by Sergeant ROCKDemocRAT fundraising scandal doesn't generate near the same interest level as coverage of Princess Di's tragic death. They're not the same level story.
Rally online Paul/Kucinich '09
Begging the question...
August 31, 2007 - 12:18 ET by jmtSince the MSM are the ones that determine what is covered and what is not covered, and they provide information in a push format (delivered to the consumers) rather than a pull format (requested by the consumers) comparing the amount of coverage of one story to another simply shows the bias of the folks providing the story, not the predelictions of those reading the story.
If all restaurants sell pickled pigs feet, does that mean that all diners prefer pickled pigs feet?
One could argue that the MSM are simply reacting to what the public wants - that they publish stories that people are interested in. If that was the case, then there would be a general trend to increase circulation/audience of the MSM. A quick survey of the circulation and audience numbers show this is not the case.
As has been amply documented on this site and others, those in the MSM have a decidedly leftist bias, this bias influences their selection of what to publish and what not to publish, and they will deprecate any story that puts their preferred candidated/party/position in a bad light in favor of one that puts the opposition in a bad light. For example, the Newsweek squelching of the Monica Lewinski story; it was the pull media (much more responsive to consumer demands)that broke the story.
Thus endeth the lesson. :-)
jmt
http://www.jmichaelt.org
"Hillary Donor Surrenders To Police"
August 31, 2007 - 14:39 ET by RJ(sorry for the C&P, but I gotta go - no time to write something)
(CNSNews.com) - "A top donor to New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign turned himself into California law enforcement Friday, after evading his prison sentence for 15 years for grand theft."
"I don't think we should give Sen. Clinton the benefit of the doubt, considering that for her and her husband, this is not a first-time offense," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group, which investigated the 1996 fundraising scandal that involved contributions from Chinese nationals to President Bill Clinton's re-election campaign."
"Hsu and Paw were both new money donors," Fitton said in an interview with Cybercast News Service. "To think they didn't vet or weren't excited about their donations seems a stretch."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200708/POL20070831c.html