From: pinky@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Burbank)
Subject: A look at who pays for elections
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:20:27 GMT

** Topic: COUNTERSPIN: FAIR's Campaign Memo **
** Written  8:59 am  Mar 27, 1992 by fair in cdp:media.issues **
No. 4: March 27, 1992

KISSED BY THE GODS: There's more than a little truth to Garry
Trudeau's satirical portrayal in "Doonesbury" of a reporter who
can't keep himself from writing that Gov. Bill Clinton has been
"kissed by the gods." Strangely, the media's admiration for Clinton
is combined with a conviction that it has somehow done him wrong.

A Christian Science Monitor election piece (3/23) wrapped up with
the observation that "the press," along with Jerry Brown and the
Washington political community, "may be judging Clinton too
harshly." Quoting a Brookings Institution analyst, the paper noted,
"As the primaries have shown: 'The country likes Clinton more than
the elites do.'"

The reverse is closer to the truth. While Clinton won the
"invisible primary" among pundits and fundraisers by a landslide,
his performance with real voters outside the South has been
lackluster. Clinton had been given so much extra credit by the
press that when he finally won about 50 percent of the vote in two
major Northern states (Illinois and Michigan), the race for the
nomination was declared to be over. No one in the press should have
been surprised that Clinton, who has placed behind Brown in other
non-Southern primaries, would be beaten by him again in
Connecticut.

BAGGING BROWN: If the national media's affection for Clinton is
clear, their irritation with Brown is overwhelming. ABC's Ted
Koppel called him "annoying," while CNN's Bernard Shaw referred to
him as a "pain in the you-know-what." NBC's Lisa Meyers' led off
a segment (3/25) on Brown with, "He's been called the Pied Piper
of Protest and the political equivalent of a drive-by shooting.
He's both."

AP (3/24) defined the two possibilities for Brown's campaign:
"protest or problem for Clinton's nomination march." NPR's Cokie
Roberts dismissed Clinton's loss in Connecticut, comparing the
voters to a bridegroom with last-minute jitters about going down
the aisle--with Bill Clinton.

One of the most hostile articles came out on the day of the
Connecticut primary (3/24), when the New York Times' R.W. Apple
described Brown as "flailing about, spewing out charges like sparks
from a Fourth of July pinwheel, in a last-ditch effort to establish
himself...as a credible alternative" to Clinton. In Apple's mind,
Brown seemed to have already lost the Connecticut primary, and all
that the voters could do was determine the margin: "Even if Mr.
Clinton wins big, Mr. Brown is unlikely to desist."

IN DENIAL: Major news outlets seem to be in denial about their
treatment of Brown. In a New York Times article (3/26) assessing
coverage of Brown, Bill Carter had a revealing quote from ABC vice
president Robert Murphy: "He's still in the race. It can't have
affected him too much." In other words, since the press hadn't
driven Brown out of the race, what's the fuss about?  Murphy went
on to explain that Brown was covered less than other candidates
because he "went door to door and did a real grassroots campaign."

But the most absurd claim in Carter's article was the assertion,
credited to network executives, that "much of the news coverage of
[Brown's] candidacy had been determined by editorial judgments
based on the results of the early primaries." If that were true,
what would explain the massive coverage devoted to Clinton--a
candidate who didn't win any primaries or caucuses until Georgia,
on March 3, the same day that Brown won his first primary in
Colorado?

ODD BUT TRUE: It's funny how Citizens for Tax Justice seems to
appear in the media whenever Jerry Brown's flat-tax proposal is
discussed.  We don't recall that group being given much prominence
to discuss tax justice when Ronald Reagan lowered the top income
tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent.

It's also remarkable how every candidate who drops out of the race
says it's because he can no longer raise funds--yet Brown still
gets treated like a crank or a hypocrite for saying that money had
too much influence in campaigns.

"WHO'S PAYING THE BILL?": Here's a suggestion to journalists who
feel abashed about reporting that Clinton had the nomination all
wrapped up: You'll be embarrassed less often if you focus less on
horse races and more on the substance and interests behind the
candidates.  Journalists might take a look at the March 11 issue
of In These Times as an example, where John Judis looked at some
of Clinton's funders in an article headlined, "Clinton and the
Lobbyists: Who Is Paying the Bill?" Using FEC records, In These
Times estimated that one-quarter to one-third of Clinton's $7
million war chest comes from Wall Street fundraisers, while another
quarter comes from Washington lobbyists. Judis names specific
lobbyists and investors who are key to Clinton's fund-raising
strategy, and discusses what these ties might mean to a Clinton
administration.

Thomas Ferguson in The Nation (4/6) does the same thing for George
Bush's contributors' list, showing that the Fortune 500 is still
solidly behind the president.  The article is the first of two
parts, with Part II promising to look at where the Democrats get
their money.  Why is the formidable job of looking through
fundraising records falling largely to the alternative press, when
it's the TV networks and the national press that have the real
resources?


Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive