Recently, the suggestion has been made that the media is having a “love fest” with Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign for president. During the 20th and final Democratic debate last night, Sen. Clinton referred to a Saturday Night Live skit when suggesting that in the last several debates, it has been she, rather than her opponent, who gets pitched the first question. For some, this is an argument of merit. For others, this is a ludicrous statement–an oxymoron of sorts. The media going easy on a person of African descent with an Arabic name? Are they serious?
First of all, contrary to what Sen. Clinton suggested in the last debate, she does not always get the first question. According to ABC news, she has received the first debate question in 14 rounds, and Sen. Obama has received the first question in 11 rounds. I appreciate the witty humor of SNL like the next person, but Sen. Clinton’s decision to use a skit to support her feeling of vulnerability in this campaign was not lighthearted or funny. It just sounded desperate.
Print, radio, web and television media–like the rest of the nation–are responding to the significance of this historic moment. Beyond the significance of race and gender in this election, this is the first significant grassroots campaign that nation has seen in years, making it a true sea tide for change, rather than just another spin on administrative approaches that have been part and parcel to a corrosive political climate generating high gas prices, growing poverty, polarized access to wealth, the lack of affordable health care, and an increasingly pervasive criminal justice system. Is the media going easy on Barack Obama? Let’s see, in the last week, there have been questions raised about his (and his wife’s) patriotism, suggestions that he is inexperienced in foreign policy, and attacks against him for not be “forceful enough” against Louis Farrakhan. Easy? I don’t think so.
Frankly, I don’t think it is the media at all–it is society. Media, in all of its forms, have been vessels through which analysts have been highly critical of Barack Obama and every other candidate, making for a rigorous discussion of who is most fit to be the next leader of this nation. But because of the way in which the public has been conditioned to see the media berate or mock people of African descent, positive news coverage might be seen as preference. Perhaps Sen. Clinton and her supporters should examine their own biases where “fairness” is concerned.
To her credit, Sen. Clinton has weathered a storm of gender-based innuendo suggesting that she is unfit to lead. But is the media being unfair to her, and covering the election in ways that are favorable to Barack Obama? Hardly. This is politics, and according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, Sen. Obama is now preferred over Sen.Clinton among Democratic voters 48 percent to 42 percent, so he may very well become John McCain’s opponent in this presidential race. If that happens, we’ll have plenty of opportunites to gauge the degree to which the media present objective and fair coverage of this election, and the degree to which we (as consumers of news) are able to interpret fairness not as preference; but rather, as a first step in balancing media portrayals of people of African descent.
Given the racist rhetoric spewing from the McCain campaign (despite his lifeless and unbelievable apology), tougher roads are ahead.
Write a comment