Democratic ‘Meta-Narratives’
[Guest post by DRJ]
I want to start off by saying that I know the Democratic Party will eventually unite behind one Presidential candidate and run a formidable and maybe even a winning race, but it’s nevertheless fascinating to watch the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Here’s an example that really tickled my funny bone — John Heilemann in the New York Magazine analyzes how and why the media treats Hillary Clinton so much worse than Barack Obama:
“[F]or the better part of a year, [the Clintons] have complained to any reporter who would listen about what they regard as a manifest pro-Obama, anti-Hillary tilt in the press corps. With the contretemps over David Shuster’s “pimped out” comments about Chelsea Clinton, this line of argument has become more heated, to be sure, especially as it pertains to NBC and MSNBC. (“A horror show” is how one Clinton adviser describes her nightly treatment by Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, and even Brian Williams.) But it’s connected to a long-simmering sense of grievance that’s deeper and more subtle.
That the campaign exaggerates its degree of outrage, and Hillary her victimhood, in order to gain a tactical advantage is obvious. But that doesn’t mean their critique is meritless—quite the contrary. The more interesting question, however, is what role each campaign has had in fostering a media dynamic that has clearly favored Obama and plainly damaged Clinton. And also whether that dynamic will come back to bite Obama if he’s the Democratic nominee.
It’s worth pointing out, to begin with, that the Clinton forces are hardly alone in noting the disparity. “Both of them have gotten an enormous amount of play,” says Marion Just, a political scientist at Wellesley who has made a systematic study of the coverage of the race. “But the coverage of Hillary has been primarily negative, while the coverage of Obama has been so positive that you have to call him, though I really hate this term, a media darling.”
Got that? The Clintons are upset they aren’t the media darlings and that (gasp!) the media even attacks them. It’s not surprising they think the nightly news is a horror show. Welcome to the GOP’s world, Billary.
Heilemann then turns to the ‘meta-narratives’ the campaigns and the media have created for each candidate:
“Theories abound as to why the media has treated Clinton and Obama so differently. The simplest is that reporters simply like Obama better; that he’s new and fresh and unburdened with anything resembling Clinton fatigue. Another theory revolves around cultural bias. “The fact is that the national press is a bunch of northeastern liberals,” says the adviser to an erstwhile Democratic runner, “and they just love the idea of this post-racial black dude being the nominee.” A third revolves around the respective dramatic arcs embodied by Clinton and Obama. Citing the Times primary-beat reporters assigned to the candidates, a competitor of theirs observes, “Pat Healy’s job is to challenge the Clinton myth and machine. Jeff Zeleny’s is to write the epic rise of Barack Obama. That’s generally the media’s approach—Clinton and Obama are just at different points in their stories.
All these theories contain at least some truth, but it’s the last one that edges closest to what I think has actually gone on. Campaigns are, at bottom, a competition between memes: infectious ideas that gather force through sheer repetition. The most powerful of these memes are what Just refers to as meta-narratives, the backdrops against which everything plays out in the media. “Clinton’s meta-narrative,” she says, “is that she’ll do anything to win; she can’t be trusted, she’s ethically challenged; she’s manipulative, calculating, and programmed.” Obama’s meta-narrative is decidedly otherwise. “It’s the same, in a way, as John McCain’s,” says Just. “He’s authentic, honest, free of taint. Then you add in new, charismatic, and an agent of change.””
This almost sounds like Hillary was asking to be disrespected. And here I thought the conventional liberal wisdom holds you can’t blame the victim.
In any event, I have a fondness for the term ‘meta-narrative.’ It’s so chic, so in, so … meaningless. Some might even say it’s so easy to blow it to pieces:
“The trouble for Obama is that the Republicans aren’t terribly likely to let that dismissal stand—nor the polite avoidance of discussing his controversial minister, his wayward youth, or, indeed, his blackness itself. Again and again, as Clinton often points out, the GOP has proved painfully adept at taking compelling, carefully honed meta-narratives and blowing them to pieces. In ways too numerous to mention, Obama has been toughened up by the primary process. But no matter what his handlers say, the notion that he’s been subjected to the most withering press scrutiny imaginable is—how to put this?—a fairy tale. His success has turned in no small part on his skill at avoiding such flyspecking, and on his rival’s inability to muster the same kind of dexterity. If Obama winds up facing John McCain, a man whose meta-narrative is spun from pure gold, he is unlikely to be so fortunate again.“
We’ll see — It’s too early to know what surprises this election will bring. In the meantime, read the whole thing.
— DRJ
There is virtually no substative difference between his policies or Hillary’s or the majority of democratic office seekers. Virtually all believe in socialism, appeasement and the subserviant role the US should play in world affairs. Unfortunately, the media has so little understanding of history or economics. The only substative difference between hillary and obama is that ability to present a fresh face.
Joe - Dallas (d29492) — 2/17/2008 @ 10:34 amIf Obama winds up facing John McCain, a man whose meta-narrative is spun from pure gold, he is unlikely to be so fortunate again.
Poppycock. That’s what the liberals in the media want us to believe, in order that we might forget their deep-seated biases. The reality is that McCain’s “meta-narrative,” no matter whom he faces, will suddenly turn into “He can’t unite the conservative and moderate wings of his own party.” This way they can help grease the skids for a Clinton or Obama electoral victory.
JVW (b03dfa) — 2/17/2008 @ 11:55 amThe Obama line has changed just over this weekend. A lot of center, left of center, and one nutroots maniac with a talk show are now vigorously going after Obama, particularly on the fake fainting women, his religious approach to his speeches, the complete lack of substance in his speeches. I’ve posted a reasonably thorough piece HERE, and some actual specifics gleaned from a website (not his BTW)right HEREconverting massesTrance
Howard Veit (cc8b85) — 2/17/2008 @ 1:28 pmPer JVW #2, McCain is getting a pass from the mainstream media’s trend-setters at this point in the campaign. He’s the darling because he’s the most liberal of the Republicans, at least as seen through many writers’ and editors’ “northeastern liberal” eyes. (Arguably it’s Huckabee who deserves the Lefty Repub title, at least on economic grounds, but that’s too much of a stretch for those NE scribblers.)
But “meta-narrative spun from pure gold”? Um. Poor academic performance, Keating Five, reputation for vindictiveness, anger management, McCain/Feingold, illegal alien amnesty, position flip-flops.
Somehow I don’t think McCain’s gold is going to hold much of its luster once the conventions are past and there’s a horse race on… with most of the political journalists quite clear on which candidate should win, and who should place. Prepare to be shocked, shocked! at what the NYT, LAT et al will discover about their erstwhile favorite.
AMac (de8bd0) — 2/17/2008 @ 4:33 pmAMac–I don’t remember the Keating Five being mentioned by the MSM recently; never heard about the poor academic performance (which didn’t seem to disqualify GWBush, and after all what does that matter because after all he was TORTURED! ). And the MSM will think his record on campaign finance and immigration is a GOOD thing.
I do agree with you that the MSM likes him because he’s the most liberal of the candidates. (Huckabee’s religion automatically means the MSM won’t see him as anything other than conservative.)
Since the MSM is salivating over Obama, they probably will turn against McCain if Obama is the nominee–but don’t be so sure that they won’t turn against him if Clinton wins out in the end. Her complaints about the media are at least partially correct. I’ve heard Chris Matthews say things about her which are normally heard only on conservative talk shows, and which seem to originate from nothing more than the fact that he’s apparently developed a crush on Obama.
kishnevi (e2eeba) — 2/17/2008 @ 5:23 pm…never heard about the poor academic performance (which didn’t seem to disqualify GWBush…
McCain’s academic performance was on NPR this morning, although admittedly downplayed and even treated graciously, but it won’t be for long.
And the point is not that GWB’s performance did or did not disqualify him… the point is that it was used relentlessy by the MSM in an attempt to do so, while his opponent Kerry’s even less impressive academic performance was studiously ignored by the same sources.
sherlock (b4bbcc) — 2/17/2008 @ 9:16 pmMcCain served honorably during torture so “poor academic performance” by a 71 year old when he was in his late teens won’t matter.
What will is McCain vs. Obama on handgun confiscation (Obama is for it), “Global Tax on America (ditto), no listening to AQ abroad without a warrant from a court (ditto), and Obama’s “Muslim Summit” (what will he give up to make Muslims happy)?
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 2/17/2008 @ 11:06 pmkishnevi #5 —
McCain has more-or-less gotten a pass from the bien-pensant crowd while the primaries were taking place. My prediction is that McCain’s flaws (we all have ’em, except for you and me) will be held up for examination in the MSM, breathlessly, once the nominating conventions are over. Such searching scrutiny might be a good thing, or a bad thing (good, I think). But it’s hard to argue that his skeletons should be ignored when he’s the (primary) candidate that we-like-most, then highlighted when he becomes the (general election) candidate that we-like-least.
AMac (de8bd0) — 2/18/2008 @ 5:29 amThe gleaming hopes of both Obama and Hillary have been mightily enhanced by the merciless dinning for six years, by said media, of the meta-narrative of the Horrible Bush Administration And Its Illegal, Cruel, Corrupt and Mendacious Behavior. The media appointed itself the Opposition almost at the outset and has been working 24/7 to prepare us for a reverse 1994, to include the Presidency.
Small consolations in the face of this savagely biased ‘news’ performance are realized when the Hillary/Obama contest presents us with the very rare view of that savagery aimed AT one or another of the Democrats.
Insufficiently Sensitive (b0db09) — 2/18/2008 @ 8:20 amBush 41 endorsed McCain this morning. One of the first (and it may even have been the first) questions to McCain was whether he would accept an endorsement from Bush 43.
DRJ (3eda28) — 2/18/2008 @ 8:43 am