Does Tim Russert Treat Black Politicans Different Than White Politicians?

Media Matters has a very interesting piece by Jamison Foser up comparing Tim Russert's questioning of Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan's support of his candidacy to his questioning of white, Republican politicians of support for their candidacies by people like Pat Robertson.

This is from Foser's article:

The double standard couldn't be clearer. The only question is, what it is about Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani that makes Tim Russert treat them so differently?

Why does Tim Russert think Barack Obama and Colin Powell are uniquely required and qualified to talk about Harry Belafonte? Why does Tim Russert think Barack Obama has to explain praise from Louis Farrakhan that he did not accept, but Rudy Giuliani doesn't have to explain an endorsement from Pat Robertson that he did accept?

Foser doesn't answer the question he poses, but we will: Obama is a black, Democratic politician and Guiliani is a white, Republican politician. Now, maybe we are doing Russert a disservice. Maybe he would answer that Robertson is not as inflammatory as Farrakhan.

Well, here is a simple test for Russert. John McCain sought and got the support of John Hagee, a white, evangelical preacher from Texas. Now Hagee says some very interesting things about the Roman Catholic church. This is from a CBS News story about Hagee:

He has also denounced the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore of Babylon" and "a cult." He blames it for the Holocaust and predicts its imminent demise.

"This is the apostate church," Hagee said. " … this false religious system is going to be totally devoured by the anti-Christ."

So when Russert has McCain on Meet the Press in the near future, will he pressure McCain to renounce and reject Hagee, or, once again, will he treat a white, Republican politican different than he treats Barack Obama?

How Media Treats Republicans and Democrats Differently

Jamison Foser of Media Matters has a very interesting article up on the Media Matters website concerning how the treatment of John McCain differs from the treatment given to Democrats like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or John Kerry. The article is titled "John McCain and the Clinton Rules." He analyzes how there were three such "rules" used by the media when discussing Democrats, but which aren't used by the media when discussing John McCain or other Republicans.

Those rules are:

If any part of an alleged scandal turns out to be true, the media behaves as though the entire story is true.

Media parse every statement by progressives in response to controversy, looking for something to ridicule -- whether the ridicule is fair or not.

Allegations that turn out to be unproven, or even false, are used by the media as evidence in support of future allegations.

Foser points out that if the same rules had been used in covering George W. Bush, he probably wouldn't have won the 2000 election, even with the help of his friends on the United States Supreme Court. Foser also wonders if the media is starting to apply the Clinton Rules to Barack Obama, noting the news story that appeared that seemed to criticise Obama for not using drugs as much as he suggested in his book, Dreams of My Father.

This is how a writer from the New Yorker saw the Times story:

The news here is—what, exactly? That Obama, who now appears grounded, motivated, and poised, formerly appeared grounded, motivated, and poised? That his inner uncertainties, such as they were, were more apparent to himself than to others? That he was marginally less of a pothead than he has made himself out to be?

If the national media applies the Clinton Rules to one side, but not the other, then that side is under a big handicap, indeed, you could argue that such one-sided application would be a fatal handicap, given the elections of 2000 and 2004.

Media Matters' Jamison Foser Asks: Why Are Only Progressive Politicians Accused of Hypocrisy

In this post by Jamison Foser of Media Matters asks why are only progressive politicians like John Edwards tagged by the media as hypocrites while conservative politicians who advocate for the rich are ignored? MCDAC has also wondered about this and we have come to two conclusions.

One is that it is far easier for the media to cover personal issues such as a politician allegedly being "hypocritical" than to cover policy issues. The media justifies this because they say that revealing a politician's personal character tells us how that person will behave in office.

First of all, that is a debatable premise. Bill Clinton obviously had some issues regarding his marriage, which the media explored ad naseum. Yet, that didn't stop him from advancing programs that were supported by a huge majority of the American public. Did that fact that Clinton was involved with Jennifer Flowers or, for that matter, Monica Lewinsky, tell us anything about the policies he pursued as president?

Second, the American public cares more about substance than personality. There is a lot of increasing dissatisfaction with the media and a lot of it is driven by the content of today's media. This is true of the news media as it is of the entertainment media.

The other reason why the media focuses on the alleged "hypocrisy" of a politician like John Edwards is that a lot of them make a lot of money and don't want to pay more taxes. We are not talking about people who cover your local city hall. We are talking about the blowhards who pontificate on the cable news shows or who have executive positions in news organizations. These people are doing alright financially. People like Edwards will raise their taxes and, in the process, make them feel guilty about not doing enough to help the poor. It is a common human reaction when someone's positions make you feel guilty to try and tear that person down. Attacking the person for hypocrisy is one way to avoid the issue the person is raising.

So, that's our take on why the media treats progressive politicians one way and conservative politicians another way. It is easier and it protects their financial interests.