That “Liberal Media” at Work Again
Posted by
KTK
The Washington Post - once a crown jewel of the newspaper profession - has been slowly descending into sheer hackery. This is only more of the same:
About 44 percent of Michigan Democrats voted against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) yesterday in the party’s primary, with the vast majority of that group marking “uncommitted” on ballots that did not include any other major candidates. . . .
With 89 percent counted, Clinton captured 56 percent of the vote. Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio) placed third with about 4 percent, behind 39 percent for “uncommitted.”
As the story notes, the DNC voted not to seat the Michigan electors, in response to Michigan’s moving its primary date ahead of other states in the traditional schedule. As a result, most of the Dem candidates did not bother to put their names on the ballot there, so many voters had no way to vote for their preferred candidate. The ballot includes a line for “Uncommitted”, and many voters chose that either because they had no other candidate or as a protest vote against Hillary.
Given these distortions, the outcome isn’t that meaningful. But there was a vote, and it was overwhelmingly for Hillary. So what did the Post have to say about it?
Now, this is not just an obvious example of putting the worst possible spin on things - it isn’t even reasonably representative of what happened in political terms. Their 44% includes all the “Uncommitted” votes and any vote for any other candidate, write-in or otherwise - that is, everyone who didn’t vote for Clinton. But of course that means that 56% of the voters did vote for Clinton (as they do in fact report - in the last paragraph). This is a landslide by most reckonings. It’s hard to tell whether this represents her real level of support there, since it is distorted both by the fact that she was the only competitive candidate on the ballot (which would likely increase her support) and by the fact that her enemies were pushing the “Uncommitted” line as a way of hurting her (tending to reduce her total). But the fact remains that well over half the voters in the state voted for Hillary when they had other options on the ballot.
There are plenty of ways they could have expressed this:
“56% Vote in Favor of Clinton”
“56% Vote Against All Democrats Other Than Clinton”
“Over 90% of Voters With a Preference Chose Clinton”
“Hillary Fans Swamp Naysayers 3:2″
“96% Vote Against Kucinich”
But the Post deliberately put it in terms that reflected negatively on Clinton even when she overwhelmingly won the (admittedly pointless) race. They went as far as they could to find the most negative spin they could put on it, even to the point of absurdity (”Well Under Half of Voters Oppose Landslide Winner!”). And this is what still passes for a liberal paper.
[…] By pushing the very desperate “Clinton is racist and everyone hates her even black people” meme, and by blacking up Barack Obama, we get the Dream Ticket everyone’s been hoping for. […]
Pingback 1/16/2008
Well, if it’s the case that Hillary was the only major candidate campaigning in the state, then you could I think make the case that the primary was something of a referendum on her candidacy. And for a putative front-runner to only pull 56% against no organized opposition is a little bit weak.
So I do see a possible rationale for the hed. But I’d need to have been following the Michigan primary more closely to say more than that.
Comment 1/17/2008
Brooklynite:
the primary was something of a referendum on her candidacy. And for a putative front-runner to only pull 56% against no organized opposition is a little bit weak.
Yes, but I think there are two complicating factors.
First, the voters had the option of voting “Uncommitted”, which presumably would be the choice of everyone who wasn’t for Hillary. From that perspective, you could conceive of “Uncommitted” as being the same as “Obama + Richardson + Edwards + . . .”. If Hillary had polled 56% against the field with those names on the ballot individually, it would rightly be seen as a huge landslide; arguably, that’s what she did, except the opposition was lumped collectively. But still, she got 56% of all the votes while running against everyone in the entire world who isn’t her; that’s not bad.
Second, not only Obama and Edwards, but the official state Democratic party itself, were actively campaigning for Michigan Democrats to vote “Uncommitted”. In the former two cases, obviously, they were just trying to embarrass Hillary - and, as I have argued, failed. (This does suggest that the vote was more of a true election than it appears - Obama and Edwards were campaigning, just not with their names on the ballot.) But the Michigan Democrats’ reasoning was that they were hoping the DNC would relent at some point and allow the Michigan delegates to be seated at the convention, and that would be easier if they were not already committed to a particular candidate. So Hillary polled 3:2 against the field with her own party actively campaigning against her. Not too shabby.
But again, the Post slapped on a headline that implied a large minority of Michigan voters literally preferred no one at all instead of Hillary - in defiance of how the vote was actually conducted, and as if none of this backstory were true. And they had to work to get there.
Comment 1/17/2008
not only Obama and Edwards, but the official state Democratic party itself, were actively campaigning for Michigan Democrats to vote “Uncommitted”.
I guess I’d have to know the comparative intensity of their “…actively campaigning for [blah]…” and her actively campaigning for votes. I got the impression that she was stumping for her candidacy, and that the others were mostly ignoring it while encouraging folks who wanted to do something to go ahead and vote for Uncommitted.
If Hillary put a lot more energy into Michigan — money, staff, personal time, whatever — than the other (non-)candidates, and still only got 56%, that’s a rebuke to her, and the WP headline isn’t too bad, in my book. If the others were fighting as hard for uncommitted as she was for herself, I accept your critique.
Comment 1/17/2008
There seems to be a misunderstanding here, wrapped up in the reference to Clinton as possibly the “only major candidate campaigning in the state.”
As far as I’m aware, none of them actively campaigned in Michigan and the “vote uncommitted” was from the state party, not than Obama and/or Edwards. Rather, Clinton was the only one of the big three whose name was on the ballot, apparently because her campaign just never bothered to take it off.
Because there were no delegates at stake, the big three pretty much just let it slide. I don’t think the results mean much of anything at all - and, therefore, neither does the headline. (Note that a headline meaning nothing is not a neutral condition.)
Comment 1/18/2008
[…] Alternative News Sources wrote an interesting post today on PermalinkHere’s a quick excerptThat “Liberal Media” at Work Again The Washington Post - once a crown jewel of the newspaper profession - has been slowly descending into sheer hackery. This is only more of the same: About 44 percent of Michigan Democrats voted against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) yesterday in the party’s primary, with the vast majority of that group marking “uncommitted” on ballots that did not include any other major candidates. . . . With 89 percent counted, Clinton captured 56 percent of the vote. […]
Pingback 1/19/2008
Certainly a silly headline. I’d say 56% was a very strong result.
Comment 1/20/2008
Public notification of sex offenders will never protect any child. The list of offenders that the police have will never protect any children. The ONLY thing it can do is produce an instant list of suspects AFTER the child is already abducted. Does a person living 1 foot outside the restricted area make anyone any safer? Do you think they wont go somewhere else? There are no laws anyway that say an offender cant enter a school. How does residentcy laws prevent anyone from doing anything? Will someone inside the area who lived there before the law started make any decision to offend or not just because of where their house is located. Anyone who urinated outside because of stupid judgement while intoxicated is subject to the same laws as a criminal who raped a 2 year old baby. These laws must end now. Laws must be enacted to seriously punish repeat and violent offenders, not people who have mooned a bus, dove in a lake nude, or streaked across a sports field.
Comment 1/20/2008