View this email in your browser ([link removed])
FAIR
For Media in New Hampshire, Losing Is Winning and Winning Is Losing ([link removed])
by Alan MacLeod
[link removed] results from the New Hampshire primary are in—mercifully quickly ([link removed]) —showing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders victorious with 26% of the vote, ahead of former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg with 24%. However, it was third place Amy Klobuchar, with 20%, who seemed to draw the greatest media buzz. The Minnesota senator has received a lot of press attention of late—almost all of it positive.
** Why losing is actually winning
------------------------------------------------------------
Vox: Amy Klobuchar is the thinking moderate Democrat’s electability candidate
Vox's Matthew Yglesias (2/11/20 ([link removed]) ) praised Amy Klobuchar's "kind of charming dorky Midwestern shtick."
CNN’s election panel (2/12/20 ([link removed]) ) heaped praise upon her; former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe described her performance as “spectacular,” while Democratic strategist David Axelrod claimed she “has a great personal touch.” Vox’s Matthew Yglesias (2/11/20 ([link removed]) ) called her “the thinking moderate Democrat’s electability candidate.” The Week (2/10/20 ([link removed]) ) said she had “clearly touched a chord” with the electorate, and NPR (2/12/20 ([link removed]) ) claimed her third place was a victory that “shocked the establishment.”
The Christian Science Monitor (2/11/20 ([link removed]) ) suggested her rise was a win for Midwestern values and pragmatism, portraying her as the “kinder,” “forgiving” and “empathetic” candidate. This might surprise some readers, as Klobuchar presents herself as a tough-on-crime former prosecutor, and is known for previously assaulting her staffers (Vanity Fair, 3/15/19 ([link removed]) ).
Other outlets went even further. Bloomberg’s headline (2/10/20 ([link removed]) ) insisted that “In New Hampshire, a Third-Place Finish Could Still Be a Win,” with the organization tweeting (2/12/20 ([link removed]) ) that “Bernie Sanders may have come first in New Hampshire, but Amy Klobuchar won.” CBS Minnesota (2/12/20 ([link removed]) ) also declared that the “third place finish for Sen. Klobuchar was a ‘win.’” MSNBC commentator Adrienne Elrod (2/11/20 ([link removed]) ) explained the thinking:
That key third-place finish…. Amy Klobuchar, the momentum is on her side, this would be a huge huge victory for Amy. In fact, I would almost argue that a third-place finish for Amy would be stronger and more important than a first-place finish for Bernie.
There you have it: Third is officially better than first.
The reason Klobuchar was “the story of the night,” NPR (2/12/20 ([link removed]) ) helpfully admitted, was because “the search is on for the Sanders alternative.” “If Bernie Sanders looks like he’s running away with it, for the Democratic establishment that’s almost as scary as losing to Donald Trump,” said MSNBC Morning Joe host Willie Geist (2/3/20 ([link removed] news) ), explaining that the Democrats could look to Mike Bloomberg as their “political savior.” “It may not be to get the 50%” of delegates, he said. “It may just be to stop Bernie and open the door for somebody else.”
** Why winning is actually losing
------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters: Pete Buttigieg finishes second in New Hampshire primary, Amy Klobuchar third
Reflecting the media presumption that winning is losing, this Reuters tweet (2/11/20 ([link removed]) ) didn't bother to mention who came in first in the New Hampshire primary.
This “stop Bernie at all costs” mentality explains why some of the media simply ignored Sanders’ victory altogether, part of a longstanding Bernie blackout strategy (FAIR.org,5/4/15 ([link removed]) ). Reuters (2/12/20 ([link removed]) ), for example, headlined its live primary coverage with the words “Pete Buttigieg Finishes Second in New Hampshire Primary, Amy Klobuchar Third.”
Meanwhile, the New York Times’ Trip Gabriel (Twitter, 2/12/20 ([link removed]) ) claimed that the two stories of the night were Klobuchar’s performance and Buttigieg gaining ground on Sanders, echoing the Onion take (2/12/20 ([link removed]) ): “Bernie Sanders loses to Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg in key battle for second and third place.” Sometimes life imitates satire.
Another way to present a victory as a loss was to combine the vote totals of all the “moderate” candidates to show that “Sanders could lose the Democratic nomination to a unified centrist vote” (Business Insider, 2/12/20 ([link removed]) ). This is based on the assumption that supporters of particular candidates see themselves as belonging to ideological camps that don’t cross over—a dubious premise. For example, polling suggests ([link removed]) that if Joe Biden were to drop out of the race, the biggest bloc of his supporters would switch to Sanders as their second choice.
Nevertheless, Vox (2/12/20 ([link removed]) ) argued that the results “show Bernie Sanders still has an ‘electability’ problem,” claiming that exit polls showed that voters who prioritized beating Trump, rather than someone who they agree with on major issues, chose Buttigieg. But this is a false dichotomy that ignores the fact that words like “electable” and “pragmatic” have been coded for decades to mean “right-wing” or “pro-corporate” (Extra!, 9/1/92 ([link removed]) , 7/1/06 ([link removed]) ; FAIR.org, 1/1/95 ([link removed]) , 3/16/10 ([link removed]) , 8/21/19 ([link removed]) ).
It also ignores the reality that Sanders does better ([link removed]) in head-to-head polls against Trump than either Buttigieg ([link removed]) or Klobuchar ([link removed]) , who often lose to the president. If media analysts can’t seem to recognize this reality, voters increasingly do; in the latest Morning Consult poll (The Hill, 2/12/20 ([link removed]) ), more voters (29%) named Sanders as the most likely to beat Trump than any other candidate.
The press has also continued the tradition (FAIR.org,7/26/19 ([link removed]) ) of forgetting how to do basic math when discussing Sanders. A slew of outlets, including Bloomberg (2/10/20 ([link removed]) ), Forbes (2/12/20 ([link removed]) ) and the New Yorker (2/12/20 ([link removed]) ), presented Bernie’s New Hampshire win as a negative, noting he won 60% of the state in 2016 and far less this time around.
To grasp the absurdity of the comparison, let’s imagine you own an ice cream store. You sell only two flavors: vanilla and chocolate. Chocolate is the most popular, making up 60% of sales. You then start selling eight more flavors, making ten. Chocolate is still the most popular: 26% of customers choose it. Would anyone in their right mind think, “What the hell is the problem with chocolate? No one is buying it any more!” Would any functioning adult, let alone ice cream business specialists, be unable to grasp why you’re selling fewer bowls of chocolate than previously? Yet political journalists across the board have apparently failed to understand that 2016 was effectively a two-horse race between Sanders and Hillary Clinton, whereas at least ten major candidates ([link removed]) stood this time. And the fact that some people picked strawberry or pistachio does not necessarily equal a rejection of chocolate.
Of course, the actual reason journalists perform mental gymnastics worthy of an Olympic gold medal is that they are parts of large international corporations owned by the extremely wealthy, and funded (through advertising) by other extremely large corporations. Someone like Sanders, who promises to take on the power and influence of the rich, is an unwelcome intrusion into politics as usual. That’s one reason why we are deluged with stories about how Medicare for All is a really bad idea (FAIR.org,4/29/19 ([link removed]) ) or that billionaires don’t like socialism (FAIR.org, 2/3/20 ([link removed]) ).
Sanders is the frontrunner going into the next Democratic debate on Wednesday. But don’t expect the media to treat him particularly well. Chuck Todd, who this week referred ([link removed]) his supporters as the “digital brownshirt brigade”— referring to the Nazi paramilitaries who rounded up and executed people like Sanders’ family—is moderating ([link removed]) it.
------------------------------------------------------------
Featured image: Bloomberg column (2/10/20 ([link removed]) )
Read more ([link removed])
© 2020 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001
FAIR's Website ([link removed])
FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .
Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .
