The media's 2020 election coverage correction

[question everything]

The dirty little secret of 2020 election coverage is that major media outlets across print and television are taking responsibility for their disastrous 2016 election reporting. They just aren’t owning it publicly. There are many reasons Hillary Clinton lost the election, but the magnification of stories that ended up being meaningless was indisputably a prominent factor. It is also one factor that we can place squarely at the feet of media hungry for stories that rate, with little concern for the long-term implications.

(snip)

Consider the Ukraine “quid pro quo scandal” that may lead to Trump’s impeachment in the House. Reporters consistently have been shoehorning into their articles and on-camera appearances that the charges Trump and his defenders lob against former vice president Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, are unfounded. They openly call out Republicans for peddling conspiracy theories about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. For example, NBC’s Chuck Todd told Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.): “I have no idea why a Fox News conspiracy, propaganda stuff is popping up on here” in an on-air dustup. Can you imagine a scenario in which a reporter came to Clinton’s defense like that in 2016 about her private email server scandal?

There were thousands of articles and countless TV segments dedicated to Clinton’s “crime” with a spike around former FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to bring charges against Clinton in August 2016 and then again when he announced the FBI was reopening the investigation just days before the election. This story was the original impetus for then-candidate Trump’s rally cry of “lock her up.” A Los Angeles Times analysis in August of 2016 found that “liar” and “corrupt” were the top two words most used when describing Clinton. And FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver argued that the Comey letter probably cost Clinton the election. Fast-forward to just a few weeks ago, when the State Department released a nine-page report concluding that there was no deliberate mishandling of classified information. One would expect this report to get huge coverage, especially in the New York Times since it broke the story in 2015. But alas, it was buried on page A16. And according to Media Matters, only 56 minutes of cable news coverage was spent discussing the State Department report.

Another important example is the question of “electability” in 2016 versus 2020. It’s no secret that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is the favored candidate of many in the media. Reporters soak up her folksy style, fist pumping and energetic presentation, while often letting her skate on the tough questions. This is all despite her consistently low approval with black voters, Democrats’ key voting bloc, as well as very real concerns over her health care plan that would eliminate private health insurance for 153 million Americans, costs $52 trillion to fund and is less popular than Biden’s proposal to improve upon ObamaCare and create a public option.

(snip)

This isn’t the only instance of media about-face in coverage of Warren versus Clinton’s. The media would have us believe that Warren is the first candidate to have a plan for just about everything, but before Warren, Hillary Clinton was that grandma with plans for it all. Despite very real missteps, including a failed attempted defense of her Cherokee heritage, Warren is not subjected to the dreaded “Is she likable enough?” debate. Warren, a former professor whose main sell is that she studied the issues and created comprehensive plans for every subject area, is heralded as refreshing and electric. Comparatively, Clinton was portrayed as professorial in an elitist and disconnected way. She was “too prepared,” which I didn’t think was possible, especially when running for the highest office in the land. Major publications and pundits openly mused about why Clinton was almost as disliked as Donald Trump.

Maybe the coverage had something to do with it? Clinton was the most admired woman in America for 17 years, for crying out loud.

More..

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/468854-the-medias-2020-election-coverage-correction?mod=article_inline

[guillaumeb]

1. Recommended.

One of the enduring right wing myths is that the US media is liberal. But it is actually corporate owned, with over 90% of the outlets owned by a handful of corporations.

And it is this far right controlled media that decides what is newsworthy. And HRC was well qualified, but the media ignored her policies and qualifications focused on the likeability issue while ignoring how thoroughly unlikeable Trump himself actually was and is.

Because HRC was so qualified, the corporate media decided that qualifications were irrelevant as they promoted the myth of "Donald Trump, self made success". A myth that the US media created and enabled

[question everything]

4. At least, there was a progress from 2008, when Cllinton was "analyzed" by her makeup

her hair style, her "thick ankles" - Carl Bernstein.

Yes, Hillary broke the glass ceiling that women candidates - and we have had six - are now being taken seriously and not something for the male of she species to dismiss with offensive jokes.

[guillaumeb]

7. Indeed.

We know that most of the attacks on HRC were motivated by misogyny.

[blm]

2. That was a transparent attempt to use Clinton to bash Warren. Transparent and

INSANE. Used every raw emotion Dems have about what was done to HRC in 2016 and manipulated it to attack Warren.

[guillaumeb]

8. Recommended.

The US media is right wing and corporate controlled. Add in a heavy dose of racism and misogyny and we see the results.

[PhoenixDem]

3. It wasn't just the media and republicans

Many on our side were complicit in it as well. I have seen it right here an DU when I was not a member back then and was shaking my head.

[BlueMTexpat]

6. This. Sadly.

[betsuni]

5. K&R