Noam Scheiber has an excellent post on the fairly arbitrary manner in which the press deploys its considerable power over presidential primary campaigns. He notes this particularly with regard to the Huckabee campaign, and it's worth saying that this could start to play an especially large role if, say, Huckabee finishes a reasonably close second to Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucus. Will that be covered as "Romney wins, on to New Hampshire!" or will it be covered as "Huckabee Surging, Chaos on the Religious Right!"? The choice of narratives could have a big impact on the ultimate outcome, and it will be made by a fairly small number of reporters and editors who mostly refuse to even acknowledge that they're actors in the process and not just observers of it.
« Untroubled by Inequality | Main | Chain Reaction »
The (Weird and Arbitrary) Power of the Press
26 Oct 2007 09:22 am
Comments (11)
Another way to see it is to look at the storylines coming out of Iowa in 2004. Because there was only one party with a contest, you only got two real storylines:
1) Kerry wins!
2) Dean loses!
And the "Edwards rises!" storyline got lost, in the same way that Huckabee might get lost with a number two finish if the front-runner loses on the Democratic side, helping to suck up the oxygen with another compelling storyline.
This is true on the Democratic side as well. Pound for pound, Edwards has had the best policy proposals out there and yet Obama leads as the alternative to Hillary. Methinks it could have something to do with the press's love affair with Obama.
The Republicans don't allow the traditional media to shape their primary narratives. At some point Those With Power(tm) step in and give the trad media its marching orders on who the winner will be and how the coverage is to be shaped to assure that.
At least, that is the way it has been since 1984. If the controlling powers of the Republican Party are really in disarray and/or really can't make a choice, or if they have decided to throw 2008 to better prepare for 2012, then it could be a free-for-all. But I have serious doubts that they will let the media off its leash.
Cranky
And FWIW, Scheiber's not an idiot like Zengerle, but he's still not the sharpest knife in the drawer at figuring out the mechanics.
Schieber's PER is probably around 13 or 14. He's not a starter on an elite team. Think of him as a DeShawn Stevenson style plugger, perhaps. Zengerle is more of a Roger Mason type bench player.
This is not actually an argument about the weird and arbitrary power of the press, but rather of the weird and arbitrary behavior of the press.
After all, the press downplaying of Huckabee in Iowa did not prevent him from having success in Washington.
While the power of the press is likely real to some degree, one has to bring that in as an assumption to the linked article in order to get it out as a conclusion from it.
The Republicans don't allow the traditional media to shape their primary narratives. - Cranky
Part of it is perception of who's on whose side. Republicans of all stripes view the media as "liberal": and this is not just about working the refs; many media types are nominally liberal registered Democrats and the GOP knows it. Since they don't view the media as their friends, they don't trust the media narrative (and those who do view the media as friendly -- which, being odd for GOoPer behavior, gets them more media support than they deserve ... c.f. McCain, John -- are not trusted by the GOP establishment and are viewed, in fact, as insane), they don't let it affect their decision.
OTOH, while those of us in left-blogostan know better, many Dems. really do think that because they know Netty Anchorwoman is a registered Dem. and Ed Iter gives to certain (neo) liberal causes, they figure that they should heed the narrative those (fake) liberals are promoting.
Of course, the actual political agenda (largely subconscious) of the media has been well explored and need not take up space to repeat here ...
> Since they don't view the media as their friends,
> they don't trust the media narrative (and those
> who do view the media as friendly -- which, being
> odd for GOoPer behavior, gets them more media
> support than they deserve ... c.f. McCain, John --
> are not trusted by the GOP establishment and are
> viewed, in fact, as insane), they don't let it
> affect their decision.
That's a viable theory, but I disagree. As much megachurch pulpit and direct mail as the Republicans have they still need the traditional media and the entertainment industry to pump up the emotions and seal the final deal. It is just that the Republican Party managers get to control what that final deal will be; the Democrats don't.
Cranky
The two top stories out of Iowa are likely to be:
1) Clinton rolls over competition, Scheming liberal juggernaut moves on to New Hampshire. Gay weddings, socialized medicine, flag burning, and Caliphate to follow.
2) America's Mayor Giuliani shows that toughness and grit are what the US wants in a president. He cleaned up NYC and stood firm in the face of an Islamofascist attack. Now he's poised for victory on the world stage.
Details at 11:00
You know the media want it sooooo bad!
reading this item and thinking about the concept of the press contributing to the news in this way rather than just reporting it made me think of something else.
it's clearly a silly little issue in comparison, but a few years ago the AP demanded that the BCS stop using the AP Top 25 college football rankings as part of the calculation for national championships. They wanted to still publish their rankings but they didn't want them used to pick teams to play for the title because they didn't want to be associated in any way with making news rather than just reporting it.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2004-12-21-ap-bcs-withdrawal_x.htm
Comments closed November 09, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's not arbitrary. It just follows a logic you don't comprehend.
You only get a very limited number of storylines coming out of Iowa, and in a year with nomination races in both parties, there is even less oxygen.
Imagine the D's go Edwards-Clinton and the R's go Romney-Huckabee.
In that case, you'll have three main storylines:
1) Edwards wins!
2) Clinton loses!
3) Romney wins!
The stories of Huckabee coming in second will be mostly lost.
If Clinton wins Iowa, then you might get a second storyline out the R's.
1) Clinton wins!
2) Romney wins!
3) Huckabee rises!
The period between Jan 4 and Jan 8 is going to be wall-to-wall coverage, hyped beyond belief. But the number of storylines that will be hyped is quite limited.
And if you know the order of finish in both parties, you can basically suss out the storylines. It may be unfair, but it's not arbitrary.
Posted by Petey | October 26, 2007 9:41 AM