From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: THE MEDIA AND JERRY BROWN 
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 07:45:04 GMT

Topic 86        The media and Jerry Brown       1 response 
jjkeggi elections.usa   10:39 pm  Apr 10, 1992 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE MEDIA AND JERRY BROWN 
by Jeanne D. Schork 

   Because Jerry Brown's campaign strikes at the myth of a classless
America, it strikes at the pillars of the Establishment.  Brown does
not go away, and fury and frustration mount.  He chants his 800 mantra
and reduces Party luminaries to idiocies such as Jimmy Carter's "He
(Brown) attacks our country and our government and of course this has
great appeal!"

   It is interesting that the candidacy of H. Ross Perot draws no such
fire, even though he on the right echoes many of Brown's criticisms
from the left.  But Perot, one hears, is willing to spend one hundred
million dollars cash money of his own on the project.  The ultimate
privatization of the political process has sent the media into a
collective swoon.  They seem to think Perot is a swell idea.

   This tolerance does not extend to candidate Brown.  Having cast him
into the outer darkness, the "quality" press has now to confront the
specter of Brown redux rising before them like a creature from the
Black Lagoon.

   Strategies to contain "the designated beast, the target of choice",
as the Globe's Oliphant puts it, differ, although they seem to fall
into two general categories.

   One.  Continue to pretend Brown does not exist.  This "black hole"
strategy was such a success in the Gulf War that it has become the
weapon of choice.

   Public Broadcasting (both radio and television) is an expert
practitioner of Strategy Number One.  Here are two recent examples.

   One: National Public Radio on Wednesday April 1st, the day after
the Vermont caucuses had given Brown 46% and Clinton 17% of the vote,
did not mention these results on the evening news.  Instead, NPR
highlighted a tape of Clinton giving "a major foreign policy speech."

   Two: Public Broadcasting's McNeil-Lehrer News Hour, Friday April
3rd.  Resident pundits Gergen and Shields noted that Clinton had a bad
week.  He had been savaged by New York's tabloid press and had lost
both Vermont and Alaska.

Nevertheless, David Gergen dismissed these losses as "insignificant."
Brown was not even mentioned.  He did surface later.  Gergen observed
solemnly that Brown had been "given a free ride by the press" and at
last was being sub- jected to the same kind of scrutiny that had
unfairly concentrated on Clinton.

The commentary concluded with an animated discussion of H. Ross Perot,
a "serious" candidate.

   While Public Broadcasting continues to ignore Brown, the major
networks deny an anti Brown bias.  WAS TV SLOW TO TAKE BROWN
SERIOUSLY?  THE NETWORKS SAY NO (N.Y.Times 3-6-92): "The executives
conceded that early in the primary season he might have lagged behind
the other candidates in television exposure because he did not do
well.  'Has Brown appeared on the air as often as Kerrey or Harkin or
Tsongas did?  No he probably hasn't,' said Robert Murphy, the
Vice-President of news coverage for ABC.  'But it's a long primary
season.'  Mr. Murphy also said coverage of Mr. Brown had differed
because he consciously set out to 'run an unorthodox - and less
television friendly campaign.  The other candidates went to the kind
of events that attract the attention of television and written media,'
Mr. Murphy said.  'Jerry Brown went door to door and did a real grass
roots campaign.  That is very difficult to cover.'"

   This explanation was echoed by the Globe's John Milne in a
telephone interview.  Milne (unique among Globe reporters) has written
several pieces sympathetic to Brown.  He claims the media bias charge
is unfair.  "The policy, he says, was set in early Fall when the Globe
chose to take Brown seriously.  To cover him like everyone else."
Milne does not explain why Brown should NOT have been taken seriously.
The fault lies apparently with Brown, who, Milne says, "doesn't care
about reporters catching up with him.

He cares about his volunteers drawing crowds."

   It is true the Globe has not ignored Brown totally.  But the Globe
can and does betray bias in a variety of ways.

   An analysis of the Boston Globe for the week of March 22nd (before
and after the Connecticut primary) shows the following patterns.

   One: On the average, Clinton's name shows up twice as many times as
Brown's.

   Two: Page placement.  Clinton appears almost exclusively on the top
of the page or in a more prominent place than Brown.

   Three: Brown's name is invariably coupled with negatives in both
headlines and stories.

   Here is a Globe sampler of March 25th (a day after the Connecticut
primary).

   Top, page 13.

   "Clinton Criticizes Rival's Flat Tax As brown Exults In Upset
Victory"

   Yes, Brown's name is spelled with a lower-case "b"!

   Top, page 14.

   "Clinton Aide Calls Brown Irrational"

   This four-column "news" story by Curtis Wilkie is based on a
telephone interview with Clinton's campaign chairman.  Some excerpts.
"Jerry Brown has become increasingly irrational and irresponsible and
does not deserve a one- on-one debate with Clinton.... Jerry Brown is
not in it for anything other than his own self-indulgence.  He
deserves to be ignored... He is no longer serious and he has no
prospect of winning."

   Editorial, March 26th.

   "Connecticut And Things To Come"

   Commenting on Connecticut's "upset" victory for Brown, the Globe
says, "Former California Governor Jerry Brown got some air back in his
balloon of a candidacy by topping the ticket, however marginally."

   The major part of this editorial is devoted to Perot's candidacy.
He is described as "a one-man powerhouse -- rich, daring, dogmatic,
outspoken and tough.  His appeal in a year of disaffected voters is
not to be lightly dismissed."  Perot, it is safe to assume, is
considered a "serious" candidate.

   Finally, the Globe's Op-Ed page has become a forum for anti-Brown
invec- tive.  Thomas Oliphant whose role as a Clinton cheerleader has
been remarked by the New York Times is the leading mudslinger.  He is
a very angry and a very mean man.  I would not like to be driving with
him on the Southeast Expressway.  And he enjoys a license-to-kill that
makes you wonder what Jerry Brown has done to him.

   Here is a sample of Oliphant from the Globe of March 18th.
"(Brown), the biggest fraud since Lyndon LaRouche, is polluting
democracy, a slime merchant who would make David Duke blush, a
delusional phoney who give hypocrisy a bad name..."

   On April 1 Oliphant is no less overwrought.  "Jerry Brown, he
shrieks, is nothing more, also nothing less, than a convenient trash
can for an Anybody- but-Clinton vote."  (Here Oliphant takes a
different tack, and the trashing takes a more sinister turn.)  "There
are, of course, a few demented excep- tions.  My current favorite is a
crackpot who haunted a Clinton rally in Westchester County, passing
out Brown handbills and screaming at Clinton because he would not call
George Bush a racist...  Except for those few whose eyeballs move
individually, Brown is nothing more than a vehicle."

   Insanity is the explanation.  Brown supporters can join Governor
Moonbeam and other designated loonies-of-convenience outside the pale.

   Exit polls from the New York and Wisconsin primaries prove that the
demonization of Brown worked.  Despite how they voted, 70% of the
Democrats polled said they agreed with Brown's attack on the political
system. But in our collective cuckoo's nest, best not be caught
mumbling "distributive justice."


(This article will appear in the current issue of the Boston Media
Action Newsletter, "Media Action Bulletin."  For information about
Boston Media Action, contact Jeanne Schork, 62 Crest Rd., Wellesley,
MA 02181.  Or leave E- mail on IGC to JJKEGGI.)


Conf?  



Topic 86        The media and Jerry Brown       Response  1 of  1 
harelb 

elections.usa   12:08 am  Apr 11, 1992 

Excellent piece! 

While I have been, and continue to condmemn Jerry Brown's complicity 
in the exclusion and black-out of the candidate the Village Voice 
called "on every issue...more specific, more consistent, and more 
progressive than Jerry Brown," Larry Agran, I condemn just as 
strongly the media's treatment of Brown.(*) 

I've been collecting newspaper stories for an article much like this 
one. I'm afraid it won't be as comprehensive and I won't have the 
time to do such a good job, but I'll post (and encourage everyone 
to make their "contribution") some examples at some point -- and 
in the meantime I'm very happy to have this, which I will post to 
the newsgroup I co-moderate, misc.activism.progressive (MAP), 
and also to other UseNet newsgroups which will reach not MAP's 12,000 
but tens of thousands of other (albeit more "mainstream") readers. 

Job well done! 

Harel 

(*)Indeed, had Brown started the race being as much of an unknown 
as Agran, without any name-recognition, he would have been subjected 
to the same media treatment -- a virtual black-out of any coverage -- 
as Agran now faces; and conversely had Agran been a nationally 
known personality impossible to ignore, the media would have resorted 
to the ugly tactics now employed against Brown. 


Conf? 

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive