OK, I’ll take the bait. (Gore 2000 press)
John Stodder is offering a paradoxical challenge: First, asserting “I will say unequivocally that the following presidential candidates were hit by more media bias than Gore 2000,” following with a list of all elections from 1964 through 1996. Then he says (without having presented any evidence for the previous premise): “Stop being such wimps about the media! You’re wrong about 2000, but even if you were right, it’s the wrong thing to be talking about.”
http://johnstodderinexile.wordpress.com/
Well, thanks for your invitation to don the intellectual straight jacket, but I decline. While my blog is about drafting Gore in 2008 (and related subjects), rather than discussing campaign 2000, I will not let a specious assertion (that other campaigns in recent decades have exhibited greater press bias) pass by. It’s too easily disproven and history demonstrates that not attacking untruth leads to people believing that untruth.
One caveat: I did raise the issue in a comment to Mr. Stodder’s entry. I did it mainly to determine the intellectual honesty and awareness of Mr. Stodder. It is a side issue, granted, but now that he has thrown down the gauntlet, I have no intention of letting such uninformed comments stand unchallenged. So here goes:
Did Al Gore receive remarkably hostile coverage in 2000?
Of course. First, the press hated Gore in the 2000 cycle for whatever reason. Exhibit 1 is the public booing they gave him at the first Gore-Bradley debate on October 27, 1999:
At one primary debate with Bill Bradley, reporters watching in an adjacent room actually booed and hissed at Gore’s answers (although it should be noted that Gore’s responses were at their most pedantic in certain instances). Slate.com columnist Mickey Kaus, no liberal by any stretch of the imagination, was surprised when he went to New Hampshire during the primaries and began talking with other reporters. “What I underestimated,” Kaus wrote, “what, indeed, has startled me — is the extent to which reporters aren’t simply boosting Bradley for their own sake (or Bradley’s). It’s also something else: They hate Gore. They really do think he’s a liar. And a phony.”
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/24/waldman-p.html
Mr. Stodder does not deny he was booed. Rather he argues by bald assertion (and reference to cliches) that the coverage in other cycles was worse.
A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism gives evidence for my claim:
If presidential elections are a battle for control of message through the media, George W. Bush has had the better of it on the question of character than Albert Gore Jr., according to a new study of media coverage leading up to the Republican convention.
http://www.journalism.org/node/355
Finally, for now, I will close with a passage from Jane Hall, who studied the issue and concluded that the press had indeed showed bias against Gore. The full story is found at:
http://archives.cjr.org/year/00/3/hall.asp
A new study by the Pew Research Center and the Project for Excellence in Journalism underscores this. Examining 2,400 newspaper, TV, and Internet stories in five different weeks between February and June, researchers found that a whopping 76 percent of the coverage included one of two themes: that Gore lies and exaggerates or is marred by scandal. The most common theme about Bush, the study found, is that he is a “different kind of Republican.”
The survey (which included editorials and news stories) focused on The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Indianapolis Star, the San Francisco Chronicle, and The Seattle Times. It also included the evening newscasts of the major broadcast networks and talk shows such as Hardball, which alone accounted for 17 percent of the negative characterizations about scandal.
Drafting Gore 
johnstodderinexile said,
March 4, 2007 at 10:35 pm
We’re going to have to agree to disagree. There is no objective way to measure your claim, my refutation of your claim, or your refutation of my refutation. There is no study I’m aware of that compares negative or biased media with respect to presidential campaigns. And, the obvious problem with your assertion is that you are a Gore partisan, not an objective political scientist or communications analyst, so you will see the problem through that lens, inevitably. Scientific experiments require all bias to be removed, not just because of the conscious tilt but the unconsious tilt too.
My recollection of 2000 is Gore did get a lot of negative coverage, especially for things like his behavior at the debates, the Naomi Wolf matter, the Buddhist Temple fundraising controversy and the goofy alleged “I invented the Internet” claim. But I’ve watched a lot of presidential elections, and this kind of thing was totally par for the course. I won’t repeat my list, but just anecdotally:
— Dukakis riding in the tank
— George HW Bush allegedly not knowing what a supermarket checkout scanning device was
— Gennifer Flowers
— Reagan all but being called senile after his first debate with Mondale
Moreover, you are overlooking the positive coverage Gore got, and the negative coverage GW Bush got. You’re also ignoring the fact that the voters evaluate how the candidate reacts to negative coverage. Reagan and Clinton generally won those battles, and the public liked that about them.
The real point of my most recent post on this subject is that you and others riding this horse are doing Al Gore a disservice. You make it look like he can’t take the heat, and is oversensitive to the kind of media roughhousing that all candidates must take. Joe Conason takes it so far that he suggests Gore would be smart NOT to run, in order to avoid a repeat of this allegedly traumatic media mistreatment.
I want Gore to run, bottom line. All this talk about the mean old media makes it that much less likely that he will run. That’s what I think anyway, and you’re free to disagree. But there’s no resolving this; it’s all a matter of opinion and perception.
algoredotorg said,
March 5, 2007 at 12:46 am
I agree on the point of comparison. I, also, am not aware of any comparative study of bias in presidential campaigns.
Having said that, it does not follow that “there is no objective way to measure your claim.” My claim is simple. The level of journalistic misfeasance and malfeasance aimed at Gore in 2000 was unprecedented in modern times.
First there was the booing, an astoundingly unprofessional display on the part of “journalists” at the first Gore-Bradley debate. Please show me if you aware of any other modern candidate being booed by the press. It is so flabbergasting that I’m sure any other instance would probably also have been documented.
Second, the study I referenced in my post shows a clear disparity in coverage in 2000. No data on any election has been offered by you whatsoever.
Third, the archives of dailyhowler.com are replete with dozens of discrete stories evidencing bias, spin and fabrication. I have never seen anything like it. I invite readers to visit those archives and see if I’m telling the truth. It is an astounding media scandal.
fitnessfortheoccasion said,
March 7, 2007 at 2:55 am
Perhaps energy is best spent on the media of today.
If we widen our lense just a little and take in 2004, take a look at the debates. The desire to “even” the playing field was so strong that post debate spin took every opportunity to insist Bush somehow was able to compete with Kerry. Widen it still further and you will find that McCain is still, (still!) a Maverick.
I’m not speaking to intention here, merely to effect. What I think is an easily drawn conclusion (and easily defended) is that media narratives stick, and are hard to shake. Bush was a uniter for a long, long time.
Fortunately, with regard to a possible ’08 run, I think Gore has broken through previous images, and built up an authentic narrative with his work for the environment.
However, looking at current media trends, can we identify what attack narratives the right will come up with, and which ones the media is likely to harp on?
algoredotorg said,
March 7, 2007 at 3:14 am
And I must comment on your astounding examples of justifiable negative reporting. The debates? While Gore’s performance wasn’t near perfect, it was laudable. Gore won all three debates in the court of public opinion in real time. Bush lied about major issues on several occaisions, yet those ethical violations raised essentially no comment, while the Maureen Dowds of the world spun Gore into a cartoonish character.
Naomi Wolf? That was a nonstory. She consulted for Gore, just as she had for Clinton. The only scandal was on the part of the media. Her compensation was vastly overstated on a regular basis and the wild speculation about her advice to Gore had NO basis in fact.
Buddhist temple? Well at least that was a real scandal. Gore was completely exonerated, although the opposite was often reported in the “mainstream” press.
“Invented the Internet?” This closer is really too rich. I assume you are aware that quotation marks imply words actually uttered. Of course, Gore said no such thing, but the way your “quotation” came into the popular culture is illustrative of the way the GOP (especially Dick Armey) worked hand in glove with the “mainstream” media to produce a myth.
Gore’s extemporaneous comment to Wolf Blitzer, that led to the tsunami of misreporting, was perfectly accurate. Vincent Cerf, one of the most important technologists in the development of the Net, corroborated Gore’s pivotal role in Congress. Since then Gore has received a Webby, the Internet version of an Oscar, for his historic contribution.
So the press created a scandal out of their own hostility and/or incompetence.
algoredotorg said,
March 7, 2007 at 3:33 am
Fitness, All good points. As stated at the begining of this sole post on the topic, it isn’t something I raise voluntarily, but only in response to a specious remark. By all means, back to 2008.
The first attack seems to be that Gore has a carbon footprint and therefore he may not talk about climate change. Of course they adorn it with lies and distortion to jazz it up.
In this regard, I think the point is to return the discussion to the message and not dwell on the smoke screen directed at the messenger. I think it is a net plus because Keith Olberman, Bill Maher, etc. are defending him in a way absent in 2000. So, I would definitely agree that times have changed and we can exploit the Gore wind at our backs.
fitnessfortheoccasion said,
March 7, 2007 at 4:35 am
It may be worth tackling the topic, perhaps to harvest memes for today. For example, re-elect Gore. That has resonance (and baggage as well). One could imply the same without the baggage (and simultaneously use Bush’s baggage) by stating “Imagine the last 6 years with Gore”. This would bring up the 2000 election, and those who were receptive to the “Gore really won” argument would think of that anyway. Everyone would be reminded of how foul a job Bush has done, and that legacy would creep further into the shadows of the GOP front runners.
That first attack is pretty laughable. Who doesn’t have a carbon footprint?
(At least he didn’t try to charge taxpayers for his ecological imprint, unlike say, Cheney). If this is the strongest argument the right has, things are looking pretty solid.
All this talk makes me really wish he was running.
algoredotorg said,
March 7, 2007 at 5:00 am
Fitness, I have a somewhat different take on the draft Gore message, although I think their is merit to your ideas. Most of Gore’s negatives, although shrinking, are still related to campaign 2000, however unjustified. I like something such as: Al Gore is simply the best.
or: Al Gore has been right all along about the big issues.
This kind of message differentiates him from the current field of candidates on his major strengths, i.e. Iraq and global warming.
As to Gore running, the most exciting part is the empowering aspect of that topic. While I don’t believe he is anywhere near making a decision on running yet (I wouldn’t expect a decision until after Labor Day), I believe we have the power to affect his decision. Actually, I believe that if we build a robust grassroots movement on a scale comparable to Dean in 2003, his entry into the race is virtually assured.
If we build it, he will come!
fitnessfortheoccasion said,
March 7, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Focusing on the strengths is indeed nifty.
If we can convince him to run, the field would be much richer for it.
algoredotorg said,
March 8, 2007 at 1:46 am
Well, I figure we are about at 10% of the total meetup groups that Dean had at his apex. That’s probably about on track with where Dean was in early March 2003. The longer no front runner emerges, the stronger we get.