A Classic Case of Casual Anti-Hillary Media Spin

[Her Sister]

ANALYSIS: A Classic Case of Casual Anti-Hillary Media Spin

By Peter Daou
March 31, 2016
724
shares
http://bluenationreview.com/classic-case-of-casual-anti-hillary-media-spin/

A mainstream media headline about the New York primary (“Clinton Moves Goalposts Again”) is unsupported by the facts of the article.

Last July, HillaryMen warned that insidious process stories in mainstream publications constituted a risk to Hillary’s public image:

Process stories – and the potent anti-Hillary frames they deliver – were one of the single most effective weapons against Hillary in 2008, painting a nefarious image that she was unable to alter or escape. Although Hillary is subjected to the most vitriolic language imaginable, the majority of negative coverage she endures comes in this form: a seemingly innocuous news article, editorial or blog post that manages, paragraph after paragraph, to deliver character-destroying frames.
The overarching point was that these articles are more harmful because they are less obviously negative:

To the casual reader, it may not be entirely obvious how damaging this type of reporting is for Hillary’s candidacy. But in aggregate, articles like this that appear regularly in major media outlets paint a portrait of a scheming, unprincipled politician. That portrait is often reflected back in polls and interviews – and ultimately at the ballot box.
Eight months later, with Hillary closing in on the Democratic nomination, we get this:

cnn spin

Here’s what the article says:

When Hillary Clinton lost the New Hampshire primary to Bernie Sanders in February, Robby Mook, her campaign manager, took the long view and declared the nomination would “very likely be won in March, not February.” The campaign is now taking an even longer view, with April now being the month they hope to put Sanders away.
How exactly does that support the headline Clinton Moves Goalposts Again? It doesn’t say she moved the goalposts twice. The subheader only shows one projection change. So the accurate title would be Clinton Moves Goalposts.

But why even frame this piece so negatively? “Moving the goalposts” is a term typically reserved for someone who is losing and making excuses for their loss. Hillary is clearly on track to win the nomination.

If anything, Bernie Sanders has gone from revolution and momentum to trying to flip superdelegates. If anyone has moved goalposts, it’s the Sanders campaign. But I can’t seem to find a headline about Bernie “moving the goalposts again.”

The reflexive media urge to paint everything as bad news for Hillary continues unabated. It is best illustrated by the pervasive myth of her so-called “enthusiasm gap,” a demonstrably false frame that has been repeated incessantly and now passes for truth.

The damage done to Hillary’s image by these types of stories is hard to measure. It is a testament to her tenacity and her supporters’ dedication that she continues to win.

[CalvinballPro]

1. Let them have their headlines. We're too busy being happy, because we #FeelTheMATH nt

[Her Sister]

3. ah perfect!!!

lovely!!!

[Her Sister]

2. Has any one seen this Facebook for HRC for prez 2016?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/hillaryclinton2016president/

It's new to me! but has lots of updated info. Looks good

[BlueCaliDem]

5. Haven't seen it myself, but have requested to join. They vet people because of the

Westboro Baptist-style trolling that Bernie supporters do on any FB page, Twitter account, and blogs that doesn't bend their knee to the Great White Hype.

So thanks for the link, HS!

[Iliyah]

4. Ya know corporate media have to keep up the illlusion that it's a race

Thanks for the FB info!

[BlueCaliDem]

6. Peter Daou keeps it real. My god, but the Hillary bashing by M$M (while using kid gloves

with everyone else - especially Trump and Bernie) is spiraling out of hand.

M$M isn't only interested in the horse race. They're interested in getting a Republican in the White House, too. Unfortunately, their preferred Repubs have bowed out already, leaving unpopular candidates like Cruz and Trump, so they need a weak candidate on the Democratic side in order to be defeated - and that weak candidate, clearly, is Bernie.

Being so far behind in both delegate counts and the popular vote, yet getting so much positive coverage seven days a week, tells me this is M$M's way of helping the Republican Party. I don't buy it, not for a single second, that this is just "for ratings". This is a concerted effort to defeat a strong and true Democrat who wants to actually get things done for the American people, and they can't have that. They want a Republican, and a Bernie candidacy is the path toward that.

[pandr32]

7. I spotted that article on CNN's main page this morning

...and was startled. When will this crap end? I thought that CNN was trying to be more centrist and 'legitimate', as opposed to Fox 'News'--they're main competitor.

[MSMITH33156]

8. It's click-bait for

Bernie Sanders' supporters. They scour the internet looking for anti-Hillary stuff. Sticking that headline on the front page is great for clicks.

And totally intellectually dishonest. No one was claiming that Hillary Clinton would have enough delegates to actually wrap up the nomination by March. The statement was made with regards to Hillary building a large enough delegate lead that the primary would essentially be over. That actually happened.

Most candidates in Sanders' position would have dropped out at that point. Obviously, he did not. That's his choice, good on him. but you can't hold Hillary's camp responsible for that. the massive delegate lead Hillary built in March is precisely why Sanders can't come close to catching her. If he chooses to take it to the Convention, as he has pledged, again, that's fine, but it's not her fault.

The reason Mook brought up April was not to move to goalposts, but to respond to Bernie's latest argument in his ever-shifting justification for how he'll win the nomination. He's essentially arguing "momentum" because he hit a friendly patch of states, to which Hillary's campaign justifiably responds with, "watch what happens at the end of April," because she's going to win a bunch of states there.

This whole thing is a result of Bernie not dropping out, and nothing else. He certainly doesn't have to, but context is important.