Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TNR's Michael Crowley: "Bunker Hillary"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 08:26 AM
Original message
TNR's Michael Crowley: "Bunker Hillary"
The New Republic
Bunker Hillary by Michael Crowley

Clinton's strategy for crushing the media.
Monday, November 12, 2007

On June 1, The New York Times published a front-page article titled, ONE PLACE WHERE OBAMA GOES ELBOW TO ELBOW. The feature detailed Barack Obama's love for pickup basketball, his jersey-tugging style, even the time he hit a long game-winning shot after getting fouled.

The Obama camp clearly welcomed the humanizing glimpse at Obama's life; his rivals, probably not so much. In an ordinary campaign, that might have been it. But this is no ordinary campaign--not when Hillary Clinton is a candidate. And so, the Clinton team let Times reporter Patrick Healy, who covers the Hillary beat, know about their "annoyance" with the story, as Healy later put it.

If grumbling about a basketball story seems excessive, it's also typical of the Clinton media machine. Reporters who have covered the hyper-vigilant campaign say that no detail or editorial spin is too minor to draw a rebuke. Even seasoned political journalists describe reporting on Hillary as a torturous experience. Though few dare offer specifics for the record--"They're too smart," one furtively confides. "They'll figure out who I am"--privately, they recount excruciating battles to secure basic facts. Innocent queries are met with deep suspicion. Only surgically precise questioning yields relevant answers. Hillary's aides don't hesitate to use access as a blunt instrument, as when they killed off a negative GQ story on the campaign by threatening to stop cooperating with a separate Bill Clinton story the magazine had in the works. Reporters' jabs and errors are long remembered, and no hour is too odd for an angry phone call. Clinton aides are especially swift to bypass reporters and complain to top editors. "They're frightening!" says one reporter who has covered Clinton. "They don't see as a healthy part of the process. They view this as a ruthless kill-or-be-killed game."

Despite all the grumbling, however, the press has showered Hillary with strikingly positive coverage. "It's one of the few times I've seen journalists respect someone for beating the hell out of them," says a veteran Democratic media operative. The media has paved a smooth road for signature campaign moments like Hillary's campaign launch and her health care plan rollout and has dutifully advanced campaign-promoted themes like Hillary's "experience" and expertise in military affairs. This is all the more striking in light of the press's past treatment of Clinton--particularly during her husband's White House years--including endless stories about her personal ethics, frostiness, and alleged Lady Macbeth persona.

more...well worth a read

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6e01fdce-ad97-4dab-a07d-bf98dc52f681


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. The MSM learned how to be slaves to power under Bush
and, as the article points out, Clinton is just applying the lessons:

"...it may be because the Clinton machine, say reporters and pro-Hillary Democrats, is emulating nothing less than the model of the Bush White House, which has treated the press with thinly veiled contempt and minimal cooperation. The Bush administration changed the rules," as one scribe puts it--and the Clintonites like the way they look."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. It sounds like Hillary's campaign is doing what works.
What's sad is that the media are so pathetic that they let themselves get played like this. But you can't blame a political campaign for doing everything they can to give their candidate the advantage. They see that this has worked for Bush for the last seven years.

I rather think that all of our presidential candidates should be treating the media with contempt. After all, they deserve it.

It's enough to make you suspect that breeding fear and paranoia within the press corps is itself part of the Clinton campaign's strategy. And, if that sounds familiar, it may be because the Clinton machine, say reporters and pro-Hillary Democrats, is emulating nothing less than the model of the Bush White House, which has treated the press with thinly veiled contempt and minimal cooperation. "The Bush administration changed the rules," as one scribe puts it--and the Clintonites like the way they look. (To be sure, no one accuses the Clinton team of outright lying to the press, as the Bushies have done, or of crossing other ethical lines. And reporters say other press shops--notably those of Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards--are also highly combative.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
3. The MSM has hated the Clintons for years - and now they whine the Clintons don't love them???
:rofl:
Fuck the MSM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
4. I Suppose No One Loses Under This Scenario
Since the media certainly deserve to be slapped around for their slavishness, and the Clintons love to be treated slavishly. Its a win-win.

So long as you don't consider democracy important and public access to candidates a crucial part of informed consent.

I guess everything is permissable, since it is no longer "unprecedented." Bring on Willie Horton!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Great and salient point, Dr. Funkenstein.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terri S Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Well said! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
7. And this will change once Senator Clinton is President Clinton, how?
Is another 4 to 8 years of White House secrecy a good idea?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Froward69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. well put
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
9. There's a difference between "treating the media with contempt" and trying
to silence those who present positive views on the other candidates. When it gets past expressing displeasure at how one's self is portrayed in the media - to expressing displeasure about an innocuous positive piece on another candidate, that's absurd and a little frightening.

When pressure is put on the media - especially from a powerful source - that even further distorts the information we receive.

I find this approach extremely disturbing - and as stated, it's uncomfortably remindful of how Bush manipulates the media.

For some time I've felt this campaign is of the "just do what it takes" mind and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. To me, it's indicative that the most compelling motivation is to "win". It's almost as though she's lost sight of why she went into public service to begin with.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. agreed n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatSeg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I think you're right
I believe she went into public service years ago for the right reasons, but has become too defensive with the media. In many ways I can't blame her and the media is somewhat responsible, but she may have gone too far in the other direction. If you are a public servant in the spotlight, there is a price to pay. Trying to control and manipulate the media is not appropriate. As Hillary says, "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC