Accidental Blogger

Glen Greenwald wrote a piece a couple weeks ago at Salon about media hostility toward anti-establishment candidates.  I think this is an important and interesting article which is very much worth reading.

It should be obvious to anyone who paid attention to the Democratic nomination process for the 2004 election that the mainstream media killed Howard Dean’s campaign.  Coverage started out with by asking, "Who is this guy from Vermont and how did his grassroots movement become such a fundraising giant?"  The narrative then shifted to, "This guy’s unhinged and unelectable."  Senator Kerry, the establishment candidate, of course went on to win the nomination despite a distinct lack of electability.

The Greenwald article looks at the press coverage of Edwards, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul.  I think it’s basically correct, and I think the fact that the press is systematically failing in a particular and anti-democratic way is important, even apart from my desire to shill for John Edwards.  An excerpt follows:

There is no question that the media has paid far less attention to Ron
Paul and Mike Huckabee than the respective successes of their campaigns
merit. To that list, though, I would add a third candidacy that has
received far less media attention than it merits by all objective
metrics (polls, stature and money): the John Edwards campaign. In 2004,
Edwards was the party’s Vice Presidential nominee, came closer than
anyone else to beating Kerry, and has continuously been very near the
top of Iowa’s polls. Yet the media has all but ignored him — it’s
Clinton v. Obama in their World — except to mock him on the pettiest
of grounds, from his hair to his house.

[ . . . ]

It is very striking how little Edwards’ substantive critique of our
political system has penetrated into the national discourse. That’s
because the centerpiece of his campaign is a critique that is a full
frontal assault on our political establishment. His argument is not
merely that the political system needs reform, but that it is corrupt
at its core — "rigged" in favor of large corporate interests and their
lobbyists, who literally write our laws and control the Congress.
Anyone paying even casual attention to the extraordinary bipartisan
effort on behalf of telecom immunity, and so many other issues driven
almost exclusively by lobbyists, cannot reasonably dispute this
critique.

Yet because that argument indicts the same Beltway culture of which our
political journalists are an integral part, and further attacks the
system’s power brokers who are the friends, sources, and peers of those
journalists, they instinctively react with confusion, scorn and
hostility towards Edwards’ campaign. They condescendingly dismiss it as
manipulative populist swill, or cynically assume that it’s just a ploy
to distinguish himself by "moving left." In the eyes of our Beltawy
press, the idea that our political system is "rigged" or corrupt must
be anything other than true or sincerely held.

As Digby notes, Ron Paul is going to raise more money than any
Republican candidate this quarter; he just topped the record for most
money raised in a single day; and has now exceeded Howard Dean’s 2004
quarter total when Dean was at the peak of his online fundraising
prowess. Huckabee is now tied for the lead in national polls and is
leading in several of the key early states. Yet our establishment media
stars continue to sneer at these anti-establishment candidates as
though they are aberrational jokes, and there is virtually no serious
effort to understand the meaning of their success.

Worse, whenever these candidates are discussed, it almost never entails
any discussion of the critiques they are making. Is Edwards right that
corporations and lobbyists dictate legislation in Washington and that
this state of affairs is profoundly anti-democratic and corrupt? Are
Paul’s criticisms of our bipartisan imperial policies and his warnings
of resulting financial unsustainability (and increasing
anti-Americanism) accurate? Is Huckabee’s claim true that the GOP has
obliterated the economic prospects of its own middle- and
lower-middle-class followers? Who knows. Who cares. One searches any
media discussions in vain for mention of such matters. [ . . . ]

But
even within the framework of the media’s pettiness, not all candidates
are treated equally. While anti-establishment candidates are virtually
ignored (except when held up for ridicule), the candidates who are
treated as Legitimate and Serious are those who are creatures of the
political establishment, or who at least attract the establishment’s
support. Both Obama’s campaign and Clinton’s campaign
are the recipients of enormous amounts of cash from our nation’s
largest corporate interests which control much of what happens in
Congress. The same is true for Giuliani and Romney. By contrast, the three candidates whose candidacies are steadfastly downplayed if not scorned by the press — Edwards, PaulHuckabee
— have received very little money from those realms, and instead, the
vast bulk of their contributions are from small donors and individuals
(plaintiffs’ lawyers — who represent generally poor individuals
against those same corporations — donate heartily to Edwards).

(emphasis added)