The Media's Katrina?

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:55 AM

Tom Brokaw, like virtually everyone on television, went on the air Tuesday night expecting Hillary Clinton to get whipped in New Hampshire.

"I was buying into all the conventional wisdom as well," says the former NBC anchor, who was struck by how quickly his colleagues backed off their bombast about Barack Obama's imminent triumph.

"The pirouettes are amazing," says Brokaw, who was analyzing the campaign on MSNBC. "The utter confidence with which everyone had been wrong 20 minutes earlier, they have the same utter confidence about what produced this surprise. It's intellectually dishonest."

Clinton's come-from-behind moment came on the same evening that John McCain -- all but buried by the press last summer -- was winning New Hampshire's Republican primary. And it was five days after Mike Huckabee, all but ignored by the media for most of 2007, won in Iowa.

The series of blown calls amount to the shakiest campaign performance yet by a profession seemingly addicted to snap judgments and crystal-ball pronouncements. Not since the networks awarded Florida to Al Gore on Election Night 2000 has the collective media establishment so blatantly missed the boat.

The reasons are legion: News outlets are serving up more analysis and blogs to remain relevant in a wired world. Many cash-strapped organizations are spending less on field reporting, and television tries to winnow a crowded field for the sake of a better narrative. Cable shows and Web sites provide a gaping maw to be filled with fresh speculation. Tracking polls fuel a conventional wisdom that feeds on itself. The length of today's campaigns provides more twists and turns long before most voters tune in. And there is a natural journalistic tendency to try to peer around the next corner.

"Look at this cycle," says CBS correspondent Jeff Greenfield. "McCain front-runner, McCain dead, McCain is back. Hillary inevitable, Hillary toast, Hillary is back. There is no defense for this. It is built into our DNA."

Greenfield fell into the trap with a Slate piece Tuesday on how Clinton and other candidates could recover from early losses, leading to a hastily added postscript: " OK, Hillary won tonight. Oh, waiter, two orders of crow, please. This is what happens when you ignore your own advice to let the people vote first."

Once it was enough to cover and analyze a campaign. Now, in an age of endless blogging and blabbing, journalists rush to declare winners and losers in advance. They rely on a plethora of polls that sometimes miss late shifts in sentiment, driven by events such as the endless replays of Clinton choking up in a coffee shop Monday. Gina Glantz, Bill Bradley's 2000 campaign manager, says female voters resented the way mostly male pundits handled the incident.

"Women watched the media treat her in almost demeaning ways -- not for what kind of president she would be, but whether she looked angry or practiced tearing up," Glantz says. "It was really quite obnoxious."

In the post-Iowa euphoria over Obama, the narrative was set. Consider a front-page piece about the Clinton campaign in Tuesday's New York Times: "Key campaign officials may be replaced. She may start calling herself the underdog." Or Tuesday's Washington Post: "Obama has opened up a clear lead, and a second victory over Clinton would leave the New York senator's candidacy gasping for breath." Or Tuesday's Chicago Tribune: "With a cluster of new polls in New Hampshire showing Obama building a substantial lead . . . the state appeared poised to play its storied role in humbling perceived front-runners."

The New York Post went with one word over a Hillary picture: "PANIC."

The message was similar on Tuesday's newscasts. "Democrat Barack Obama may be heading for his second big victory in less than a week," said CBS's Katie Couric. "There is talk and evidence of an Obama wave moving through this state on the eve of its primary," ABC's Charlie Gibson said. His colleague George Stephanopoulos said the Clinton camp wanted to "squash any calls for her to get out of the race."

After MSNBC called the primary for Clinton at 10:31 p.m., the news business was left scrambling for explanations, such as whether some New Hampshire residents had misled pollsters about their intention to vote for a black candidate.

The comeback by McCain, who took a swipe at "the pundits" in his victory speech, was equally remarkable in light of the media's earlier verdict on his candidacy.

In recent days, the world was reminded that:

McCain had been "left for dead," in the words of Chris Matthews, among others. "This is a guy who was left for dead," Chris Wallace said. "Left for dead months ago," said New York's Daily News. "Left for dead politically this summer," said The Washington Post. "Pretty much considered all washed up," Couric said. "Largely written off," said the New York Times. "Nearly written off just a few months ago," said Tucker Carlson.

And who, exactly, had been burying, writing off and otherwise performing last rites on the Arizona senator? It was, of course, America's journalists.

"With his presidential campaign in a state of near-collapse," the Los Angeles Times reported in July, "Sen. John McCain accepted the resignations of two top advisers Tuesday, then quickly named a new campaign manager in a bid to put his candidacy for the Republican nomination back on course."

The Washington Post said then that "the campaign's mounting problems have raised doubts about whether McCain can survive in the crowded but still-wide-open Republican nomination contest."

Did journalists go too far? "There's this world of Georgetown chatter and fun-house mirrors, then the voters show up six weeks out and drive the reality, and the media's shocked and annoyed," says Mike Murphy, a former McCain strategist. "Two-thirds of the press are caught in the cliches of the moment and the groupthink of the echo chamber in Washington and New York."

CBS's Greenfield disagrees, saying: "His whole staff imploded and he was broke. The press was covering McCain in deep trouble because he was in deep trouble."

With 18 White House wannabes at the outset, news outlets had to rely on triage, based in part on who is raising big bucks. If McCain is viewed as faltering and Rudy Giuliani is leading the Republican polls -- despite media predictions that conservatives would reject him -- the former mayor gets more coverage. If Huckabee is deemed a hopeless long shot, most reporters spend their time chasing the anointed front-runners. John Edwards got a fraction of the coverage lavished on his celebrity rivals, Clinton and Obama, even though he wound up finishing second in Iowa.

Mark Feldstein, a George Washington University journalism professor, describes political reporters as "superficial sportswriters. Covering the campaign is almost like joining a cult, with a cocoonlike bubble as you travel from event to event. There's a lemminglike quality."

The urge to forecast political outcomes is not unlike a gambling addiction, with a record that would bankrupt most Vegas high rollers. Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign compiled a video of all the pundits who had written him off. In the fall of 2000, Slate's William Saletan said candidate George W. Bush was "toast" (the preferred food item for predictions of political death). In late 2003, some columnists urged John Kerry to withdraw to spare himself a humiliating defeat by Howard Dean.

"When you have a campaign-in-disarray story, that is one of the juiciest stories in presidential politics," says Tad Devine, who was a senior strategist for Kerry and Gore. "Everyone is intoxicated by that. It's a tremendous distraction for a campaign, but voters could care less."

There is little sign that this behavior is going to change. No newspaper will run a correction saying, "The Daily Blab incorrectly reported in July that Sen. John McCain's campaign lacked a pulse, despite an absence of medical evidence." No anchor will read a statement saying, "We regret our unseemly rush to judgment about Hillary Clinton's chances." The news business corrects inaccurate titles and mangled quotes, but rarely overheated reporting.

After the 2000 election fiasco, the networks grew more careful about calling races based on exit polls. But such caution did not extend to pre-election speculation.

Marty Kaplan, a journalism professor at the University of Southern California, wrote on the Huffington Post that the mainstream media had been humiliated and that this "could be the MSM's Katrina. Political media, you've done a heckuva job."

Brokaw, who became NBC's anchor at the dawn of the cable era, says his colleagues must be wary of the demands of modern technology.

"This is the age-old curse of pack journalism," Brokaw says. "These conversations that used to be held in the bar late at night, about who's going to win or lose, now play out on the air because there's so much time to fill."

All right. While we're scraping the egg off our faces, here's the aforementioned Marty Kaplan sticking it to the MSM: "No matter what you think about Hillary Clinton, no matter how this campaign turns out, there is undeniable satisfaction in watching the pundit class being forced to eat the words of its premature obituaries. The strategists who were called morons are suddenly geniuses again. The candidate and her husband, who were the subject of such undisguised journalistic venom just 24 hours ago, are suddenly worthy of awe again. The donors who dissed her are wondering whether they can retract with impunity. The White House staffers-in-waiting who danced on her grave are hoping they said nothing incriminating on the record."

The media, of course, have to reduce everything to one thing, one event, one incident we can all argue about. Preferably with video. Gore sighing. The Dean scream. The macaca moment. So now, the entire New Hampshire primary comes down to Hillary's choked up moment in a coffee shop.

Salon's Rebecca Traister is fed up with the media:

" 'I'm not a Hillary supporter, but . . .' has been an oft-heard preamble in the five days since the New York senator's Iowa defeat, usually followed by a description of how aghast the speaker is at the treatment Clinton received from a media anxious to throw a hoedown on her political coffin. To my surprise, it's a phrase I've heard myself uttering, before launching a tirade about the premature death certificate signed by pundits for a candidate I have never really wanted to win.

"As it turns out, my sudden, almost primal defensiveness about Hillary Clinton may not have been unique, but part of a larger wave of sentiment that swept her to a surprise victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday night. Others like me, who were 'not Hillary supporters, but . . . ,' were downright mortified by the eagerness with which cable news networks, the New York Times, the Boston Globe and even her opponents felt free to declare Clinton yesterday's news. Their dismay and disgust may have been just the boost she needed to pole-vault to today's triumphant headlines, as not liking Hillary took a back seat to hating those who would summarily eject her from a race even more. On Tuesday, New Hampshire voters served up a major '[Blank] you' -- not to Barack Obama, whose numbers were terrific, and who gave a great concession speech, but to those who revealed their pent-up resentment of Hillary and showed her the door way, way too soon."

At Firedoglake, Christy Hardin Smith unloads on Chris Matthews by quoting a transcript from the Scarborough show:

Matthews: Let's not forget, and I'll be brutal, the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around.

Mika Brzezinski: Yeah, but . . .

Matthews: That's how she got to be a senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, "My God, this woman stood up under humiliation," right? That's what happened . . .

"What is wrong with Chris Matthews? With all of these media people? I mean that, in all honesty, what in the hell is wrong with them? Their personal loathing of Hillary Clinton shone through in every sniggering, overwrought report this week."

Maureen Dowd is, shall we say, a tad skeptical:

"There was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing."

And Michelle Malkin is downright disgusted by HRC's show of emotion:

"It took a lifetime of lies, deception, hypocrisy and hardball power grabs before Hillary and Bill's political fa¿ades disintegrated. But now, finally, the empty dummy molds underneath have been laid bare completely. Many will point to Hillary's watery-eyed performance at a Portsmouth rally on Monday as a watershed moment. Down in the polls and facing imminent defeat, the erstwhile anti-Tammy Wynette turned on the spigot and played damsel in distress: 'It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don't want to see us fall backward, you know?'

"The steely voice -- infamous for uttering profanities at staffers, state troopers, and her Secret Service detail, bellowing at the Bush administration and Rush Limbaugh, and imitating a fiery southern drawl -- turned drippy: 'You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political; it's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it.'

"Insert heartfelt pauses and choke-ups as directed. So long, feminist hero. Hello, weeping willow. Anyone who believes Hillary spontaneously teared up and got emotional on the campaign trail has been in a coma the last three decades."

Great footnote, from Washington's WMAL radio:

"Marianne Pernold tells 630 WMAL's Chris Core she truly believes that Senator Hillary Clinton's emotional response to her question at a meeting in New Hampshire was genuine . . . Pernold tells 630 WMAL she still voted for Barack Obama, because she had attended one of his rallies earlier in the week, and she claims Obama's stirring speech brought HER to tears!"

Looks like the right celebrated Hillary's demise a bit too quickly. The Weekly Standard's cover--"The Fall of the House of Clinton"--appears a tad premature.

"That was quick," says Fred Barnes. "The Clinton era was over for a grand total of five days. It was nice while it lasted."

Blogger AJ Strata is rooting for her:

"Hillary's win in NH was a squeaker -- but what it actually does is breathe new life into the GOP. The Obama juggernaut was going to be tough to take on. The 'change' fever sweeping the nation is not going to want to see Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton . . . I, as an impure conservative, prefer the GOP battle Clinton. Or at least I would like to see Obama take some hits before he wins the nomination. So win for Hillary is a win for the GOP."

At the New Republic, Jonathan Cohn sees Hillary in a new light:

"Over the last few days, I've heard more than one person suggest that Hillary Clinton is Barack Obama's perfect foil -- old to his young, establishment to his insurgency, shrill to his smooth, and so on. In other words, her weaknesses almost perfectly highlighted his strengths. I think that's all true.

"But watching Clinton speak to her supporters just now, it struck me that the opposite holds, as well. This was the best speech I've seen her give, maybe ever. It was clever, for sure -- the way she managed to hit 'reset' on the entire campaign by declaring she 'found her voice' in New Hampshire. But it also presented her as a clear alternative to Obama -- substance to his style, down-and-dirty work to his lofty inspiration, and so on . . .

"I certainly won't predict how it all ends Like all those geniuses you hear on the talk shows, I had figured this race was over. Obviously, it isn't."

Obviously.

Atlantic's Marc Ambinder poses a series of questions:

"The press eats crow; those who declared Clinton dead (me?) and Romney alive (me?) have some explaining to do. But the polls were right on the GOP side and wrong on the Republican side.

"Was there a racial premium in Obama's support? Did whites in New Hampshire overstate their actual support for him?

"Was the press really unfair to HRC? Can the events of one news cycle change an entire race? (HRC crying) . . . Did women revolt as women?"

And maybe, says Dick Polman, it's as basic as this:

"Whereas the Iowa caucus participants may have felt that Hillary was behaving like an entitled royal on route to her coronation, and rejected her accordingly, the New Hampshire voters may have warmed to Hillary because they sensed she had been rendered human."

Mark Halperin's advice to Obama includes:

"Do not go into 'four corners' like he did in last 48 hours in New Hampshire - especially when it comes to access with the press (access or lack thereof is how the press determines whether a candidates is or is not likeable regardless of whether one is in fact indeed likable - see George W. Bush in 2000."

Oh, and Bill Richardson is out.