Vox chief political correspondent Jonathan Allen issued an odd article on Monday titled “Confessions of a Clinton reporter: The media's 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary.” In Allen’s view, the media are ridiculously harsh on Hillary and the Clinton scandals. So naturally, Allen’s article was touted by leftist sites like Mother Jones, Daily Kos, and Crooks and Liars, where Susie Madrak cooed, “Jonathan Allen in Vox spells out what we've been trying to tell you for years: Yes, there really are different rules for covering the Clintons.”
Liberals believe Hillary’s burdened by much more negative coverage than the Republicans....in stark contrast to the actual record of Hillary coverage since 1992. See our book Whitewash for a long review of the first 14 years of gush. Allen summarized:
I've done a lot of research about the Clintons' relationship with the media, and experienced it firsthand. As an author, I felt that I owed it to myself and the reader to report, investigate, and write with the same mix of curiosity, skepticism, rigor, and compassion that I would use with any other subject. I wanted to sell books, of course. But the easier way to do that — proven over time — is to write as though the Clintons are the purest form of evil. The same holds for daily reporting. Want to drive traffic to a website? Write something nasty about a Clinton, particularly Hillary.
Before listing the alleged “Clinton rules,” let’s stipulate that Jonathan Allen wrote a syrupy book about Hillary Clinton called HRC that compared her to a rock star:
Navigating through a buttoned-down sea of Brooks Brothers and Talbots as she made her way to the podium, Hillary was surrounded by applause, and by groupielike bureaucrats waving camera-phones. It was a historic moment, at least in the world of State…If her debut was a rock concert, Hillary was Bono – a bona fide international celebrity, with credibility as a crusader for the disadvantaged. In that regard, she was one of a kind.
In other words, Allen is utterly typical among journalists in claiming they have hounded this candidate when they've actually puffed this candidate. The idea that Allen follows his own silly “Clinton Rules” that unfairly punish the candidate is false on its face. This is the Allen list of rules:
1) Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," and mainstream media outlets.
2) Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world.
3) The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise.
4) Everything is newsworthy because the Clintons are the equivalent of America's royal family.
5) Everything she does is fake and calculated for maximum political benefit.
These complaints are overwrought, and no one would take them seriously if we reversed them, even if it sounded more accurate, as in "The media assumes that Clinton opponents are acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise." Allen concluded:
I take a dim view of the idea that journalists successfully anoint political winners. The media might have been in the bag for Barack Obama, but he didn't win because he got positive coverage. He won because he had better strategy, a better message, and better skills at delivering that message — in the 2008 primary and in the two general elections he won.
That said, the media can definitely weigh down — and even destroy — a candidate. The emphasis on a candidate's flaws — real or perceived — comes at the cost of the candidate's ability to focus his or her message and at the cost of negative attention to the other candidates. This is a problem for Clinton, and it seems unlikely to go away.
