Candidates Map TV Strategy

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 13, 2007 7:30 AM

Rudy Giuliani has appeared on only one Sunday talk show this year: "Fox News Sunday."

Fred Thompson has made eight television appearances in 2007, all on Fox News, six of them sitdowns with Sean Hannity, who sometimes campaigns for GOP candidates.

Mitt Romney has chatted on Fox 13 times this year, including yesterday's appearance in Iowa on "Fox News Sunday," while granting one other Sunday interview, to ABC's "This Week."

The leading Democratic presidential candidates present a mirror image, with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards granting no interviews to Fox since January, and Edwards now bashing Rupert Murdoch's network as unfair to his party.

To a striking degree, the candidates are picking their spots, carefully choosing which media operations they will court and which they will ignore. That leaves some of them preaching to the political choir, but also shields them from especially aggressive questioning.

The new media order has been spawned by a 500-channel universe and a polarized climate in which news organizations are increasingly viewed, fairly or unfairly, as leaning to one side or the other. And with a cornucopia of choices, politicians tend to gravitate toward what they see as friendly arenas.

"We've tried to get every one of them," says Bob Schieffer, host of CBS's "Face the Nation." "We've tried Giuliani over and over again. We've tried Romney." After Romney's camp initiated an off-the-record phone conversation with the candidate, Schieffer says, an aide invited him to an off-the-record picnic in New Hampshire.

"We're sort of in the on-the-record business here," Schieffer wrote back. The Romney camp did float the possibility of an interview for yesterday, but insisted that Schieffer travel to Iowa in the wake of Saturday's straw poll, which would have better spotlighted his victory. He declined.

The Democratic candidates, meanwhile, have refused to debate on Fox News, even for an event co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. In the last nine days, however, they were happy to face off before liberal bloggers at a convention staged by the site Daily Kos; at an event co-sponsored by Logo, a gay-themed network operated by MTV; and at an MSNBC debate moderated by Keith Olbermann, one of President Bush's fiercest critics.

"Republicans like Fox because it plays to their primary voting constituency, and Democrats like to boycott Fox because it brings cheap applause from their primary voting constituency," says Mike Murphy, a GOP strategist and occasional panelist on NBC's "Meet the Press." "The Democrats make a mistake by boycotting Fox because they're going to need red states to win. And Fred Thompson makes a mistake by communicating only through the medium of Sean Hannity."

Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist, says the rise of the Internet means that "there is much less of a premium on traditional outlets. In the past, Sunday shows were a great way to connect with the activist crowd and show that you're a credible candidate. Now you can do it through a blog, a Web chat, putting up your own YouTube ad."

With the accelerated primary schedule, he says, "people are being a little more cautious because they recognize that a small mistake on a Tim Russert show or a George Stephanopoulos show can become a two-week story."

The Republican candidates have been reluctant to join CNN for a YouTube debate, with Romney complaining that White House aspirants shouldn't have to field questions from the likes of a snowman, as the Democrats did on CNN last month.

Beyond his Fox appearances, Thompson has largely limited his unofficial campaign to postings on conservative Web sites and an interview with National Review.

Hillary Clinton, who grants few interviews, is even more elusive; she has not appeared on a Sunday morning program this year. Barack Obama, by contrast, has done interviews on "Face the Nation," "This Week" and CNN's "Late Edition." Edwards has done "Face the Nation," "This Week" and "Meet the Press."

While Obama has done three interviews on the road with Fox's Carl Cameron, he, like Clinton and Edwards, has not been interviewed by any of the network's hosts this year. To Democratic activists, says Lehane, "if you go on Fox you're consorting with the enemy." Second-tier candidates, though, are less selective: Dennis Kucinich has made 10 appearances on Fox this year.

John McCain has been the most available of the Republicans, appearing five times this year on the NBC, CBS and ABC Sunday shows, along with 11 appearances on Fox. Joe Biden has been the most talkative Democrat, with 11 visits to the five Sunday shows.

The top candidates have been more receptive to the network morning shows, where the questioning is often limited to six minutes rather than a sustained cross-examination about their records. Clinton has appeared three times on "Today," twice on "Good Morning America" and once on CBS's "Early Show"; Giuliani has stopped by a bit less often.

Occasionally candidates break out of their comfort zone. The Republican contenders, who have held one debate on Fox and one on CNN, have also faced off in sessions moderated by two onetime Democratic operatives, Chris Matthews on MSNBC and George Stephanopoulos on ABC.

A similar pattern of playing favorites extends to talk radio and the blogosphere. Romney and McCain, among others, have held conference calls with conservative bloggers, while Vice President Cheney is a periodic caller to Rush Limbaugh. In the same vein, President Bush has repeatedly invited conservative commentators, such as Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes and Rich Lowry, over for White House chats.

Clinton hired a Salon blogger to act as her ambassador to liberal Web sites, and Elizabeth Edwards, a key player in her husband's campaign, often posts comments on such sites.

The Democrats will debate yet again next month in an online-only forum sponsored by two liberal Web sites, Slate and the Huffington Post, along with Yahoo. The Republicans have yet to agree.

The new approach is reminiscent of the 1992 campaign, when it was considered radical for presidential candidates to go on MTV, Larry King and Arsenio Hall, and there was much teeth-gnashing about the bypassing of the traditional media. But eventually the candidates had to deal with the major news programs, and that will undoubtedly happen this season as well.

In the meantime, staying in safe neighborhoods not only prevents the candidates from reaching a broader audience, it deprives them of the chance to develop their reflexes by swinging at fastballs.

Fox Facts

Plenty of folks are down on the media these days, but Fox News viewers are in a category all their own.

While 44 percent of all Republicans in a Pew Research Center survey have an unfavorable view of network news, the figure rises to 56 percent among Republicans who say Fox is their main source of news. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans view national newspapers such as the New York Times and Washington Post unfavorably, compared with 71 percent of Fox viewers.

As for news organizations generally, 71 percent of Fox viewers say they're too critical of America, and 81 percent say they cover up their mistakes.

Another notable tidbit: 55 percent of Fox viewers have a favorable view of CNN, but 79 percent of CNN viewers give a thumbs up to Fox.

The numbers are less than surprising because Fox commentators--particularly Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and John Gibson--regularly rip the rest of the mainstream media as left-wing, unfair and inaccurate.

Among people whose primary source of news is the Internet--where bloggers often bash media coverage--38 percent have an unfavorable view of the cable news networks, compared with 25 percent of the general public. Pew says these wired consumers are, on average, younger and better educated.

A partisan split is particularly pronounced on Iraq. Thirty-four percent of Republicans have a great deal or fair amount of confidence that the media are providing an accurate picture of the war, while more than twice as many trust the military's accounts. Among Democrats, 56 percent have confidence in the press and 36 percent in the military.

No Pictures Please

When Linda Greenhouse, the veteran Supreme Court-watcher for the New York Times, showed up at a journalists' conference last week, she balked at the presence of a C-SPAN camera crew.

"There's a big difference between talking to people in a room and having a nationally televised event," Greenhouse recalls telling the organizer for the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. "I won't be able to speak with the same kind of candor that would make a good program if I have to watch every word." The group asked the crew to leave.

That stance prompted a scolding letter to the organization from C-SPAN Vice President Terence Murphy--saying it should "stand up for open media access to public policy discussions"--and the spanking of Greenhouse across the Web.

Greenhouse says she did not threaten to walk out but did complain that she felt "blindsided" by the lack of notification, having failed to receive an e-mail from the group the previous night about C-SPAN's plans.

Calling the flap "ridiculous," Greenhouse says: "I expressed my surprise and displeasure at having agreed to do one thing and being presented with something else." For the record, she has appeared on C-SPAN 51 times.

All right, you're dying to know how the straw-man poll is playing, aren't you?

The Chicago Tribune takes it very seriously: "Displaying the breadth and wealth of his campaign's organizing skills, Mitt Romney won Iowa's Republican presidential straw poll Saturday, giving him a needed bump to compete on the national stage while forcing others to consider whether to go forward."

It was Romney 32 percent, Mike Huckabee 18 percent and Sam Brownback 15 percent. But keep in mind: only 14,000 votes were cast.

NYT: "For all the hoopla and hype -- there were news crews here from around the globe -- the political significance of this event was questionable. Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, like Mr. McCain, said he would not compete in the poll, citing the early advantage that Mr. Romney had built.

"In addition, this was not exactly a textbook case of American democracy in action. It cost $35 to cast a vote, and most of the campaigns picked up the cost of the voting tickets. Mr. Romney dispatched a fleet of buses to bring in his supporters.

"Still, the victory was a welcome development for Mr. Romney given the huge resources -- his campaign would not say how much -- it used as it sought to replicate the strategy that won George W. Bush the nomination in 1999."

LAT: "Opponents had tried to raise expectations for Romney to the 40% level, which he'd be unlikely to meet. The anticipated win set back the former governor a lot financially; each ballot cost $35 per person plus more than 100 chartered buses to ferry supporters from around the state. He's also invested in months of TV and radio advertising, personnel and logistics.

"But the convincing victory, with nearly twice the votes of the second-place finisher, may well be worth the investment if in coming days it fuels more free media attention and a growing awareness of his candidacy elsewhere, and boosts his name recognition and ranking in national polls."

Get it? We the media say it's important because it may bring Romney more . . . free media.

Boston Globe: "Huckabee's performance was a disappointment for Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who had hoped to become the conservative Republicans would consolidate behind. Brownback finished in third place, with 15.3 percent of the vote."

The handicapping, of course, began days earlier, as Politico points out:

"Rudy Giuliani's camp is circulating a data-heavy memo seeking to heighten expectations for Romney at Ames on Saturday. 'Assuming Governor Romney's Iowa operation is as good as it is said to be and based on expected turnout, internal data, and polling trends, it is likely that Gov. Romney will have at least 24,000 supporters at the Ames Straw Poll,' they write, adding that Romney ought to win by an 8-1 margin over their nearest opponent. A Romney adviser scoffs at the gambit, calling it 'hysterical.' "

Had enough of this debate stuff? CBS's Brian Montopoli sure has:

"So, uh: Does anyone else have debate fatigue? We sure have had a lot of these things so far. And they're early. For a little context, consider this: Bill Clinton didn't even formally enter the race for President until October of 1991; Republican Fred Thompson, expected to be a serious contender for the nomination next year, still isn't in. And yet we seem to have a new debate just about every week, if not more frequently -- last week brought us two, with the Logo debate about gay and lesbian issues and the AFL-CIO debate on MSNBC, both featuring Democrats. Master of understatement Newt Gingrich, complaining that the campaign season is now much too long, recently said the debates have become 'almost unendurable' -- "a cross between 'The Bachelor,' 'American Idol' and 'Who's Smarter than a Fifth-Grader.'

"Is there a better way to do this? The ratings for the debates have been relatively high this time around, but the key word there is 'relatively' -- even the much-hyped YouTube debate, certainly the most publicized debate thus far, only attracted 2,622,000 viewers, and Tuesday's debate attracted less than a million . . .

"Count me among those getting worn out -- and I'm a political junkie, for heaven's sake."

After the Dems danced around the same-sex marriage issue at the gay and lesbian debate, the New York Sun's Ryan Sager offered his translation:

"My conclusion? There was not one candidate at the forum tonight who does not, in actuality, support gay marriage, or who wouldn't be willing to if it were the politically expedient position. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, of course, outright support gay marriage. Bill Richardson, in my view, is the next closest. He says he supports civil unions and expanded domestic partnerships because they're 'what's possible.' Well, if you support those things because they're possible, then it sure as heck sounds like you'd support going the next step if that were possible. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, likewise, sound like they're making the exact same calculation. John Edwards is the biggest question mark in my mind, but I'm just not sure I think he has any beliefs on the issue at all. He'd go along if the going were good, but he thinks it would upset his populist base."

For a lesson in the power of pork, let's turn to Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum:

"Loretta Sanchez is my mother's representative in Congress. Here's what she told some protest[e]rs who wanted her to vote against further funding for the Iraq war:

"Tuesday night Sanchez said she could not support the protesters because the $145 billion in Iraq war funding was in the same bill that would provide money to build the C-17 aircraft in California. 'I never voted for this war,' she said. But 'I'm not going to vote against $2.1 billion for C-17 production, which is in California. That is just not going to happen.'

"That's a real profile in courage. With anti-war Dems like this, I guess we're going to be in Iraq for a lo-o-o-o-ng time."

Canadians can be very sensitive. Check out David Frum:

"Barack Obama refers to the 'president of Canada,' the kind of misstep that would cost a Republican candidate for president dearly.

"Oh well, it's not as if a politician from Illinois would have reason to know anything about Canada. On second thought, here's this just in . . .

"* 304,500 Illinois jobs are supported by Canada--U.S. trade

"* Canadians made more than 383,000 visits to Illinois, spending $141 million. Illinois residents made 477,500 visits to Canada, spending $255 million."

There's more. Frum is right, of course. Not knowing that Canada has a prime minister is almost in the same league as Bush's failure to name Musharraf as Pakistan's leader.

And look what the Brits have done now:

"The Ministry of Defence has introduced new guidelines to prevent military personnel talking about their experiences as members of the Armed Forces.

"Soldiers, sailors and air force members will be prevented from blogging, taking part in surveys, speaking in public or posting on bulletin boards, according to The Guardian."