If reporters laugh off a scandal, does it still hurt a candidate?

In response to a post I had over the weekend, the Daily Howler’s Bob Somerby took issue with what I wrote, arguing that I underestimate the ineptitude of the political media. I thought I’d take a moment to consider Bob’s point, because I think in this case, he and I are both right.

My post, headlined, “Worst. Week. Ever.,” highlighted Rudy Giuliani’s scandal-plagued, error-ridden week, starting last Monday. Before running through a list of humiliating setbacks, I asked, “[C]an we all agree that Rudy Giuliani has seen the worst week of any candidate in recent memory?”

Bob responded that we “can’t” agree on this, because when push comes to shove, the media won’t pursue Giuliani’s multiple controversies like it should. As evidence, Bob points to the coverage Meet the Press gave to Giuliani’s hellish week. It spanned a total of about two minutes.

ROBINSON: I think you’d have to say the worst moment of the week was when Bernie Kerik came out and said, “Oh, it was just fine,” and, you know, in support of Giuliani. That’s not what you want to have happen, you know. You don’t want Bernie Kerik as your character witness, I think. [laughter]

BRODY: And, and I think it’s all — it goes to the authenticity issue. Because Giuliani has said all the time on the campaign trail that this is what he’s about. “I’m not going to lie to you. I’m a straight-shooter.”

RUSSERT: “I’m not perfect.”

BRODY: “I’m not perfect.” But if this is a trickle, trickle, trickle story, and all of a sudden we’re talking about this in a month, then all of a sudden, you know, all bets are off on that argument. And that could be the most problematic thing here.

GREGORY: Again, it becomes a practical argument as well. In the general election, are evangelical voters who punished George Bush for his drunk driving record and sat home—are they going to do the same to Rudy Giuliani? Are women going to migrate toward a candidate who has an estranged relationship with his adult children? These are questions that I think Republicans have to ask in the primary process as they look forward.

RUSSERT: And yet, Michele [Norris], Rudy Giuliani’s campaign believes that if Mike Huckabee beats Mitt Romney in Iowa, and Giuliani can come in a strong third, that will give him some momentum going into New Hampshire…

And with that, Meet the Press was off to a new topic.

Despite a series of potentially campaign-ending scandals, the five-person Meet the Press panel barely mentioned the Shag Fund controversy, made a joke about Bernie Kerik, brought up an unrelated point about Giuliani’s kids, and then moved on.

In light of this, Bob thinks I’m wrong. I disagree — I think Meet the Press is wrong.

My point was that Giuliani’s week was objectively, almost ridiculously, awful. There were controversies surrounding his lack of character, his lack integrity, his ties to terrorists, his blatant dishonesty, his lax ethical standards, etc. If common sense still had any meaning, it was the kind of week that would drive a candidate from the campaign trail in disgrace.

Bob’s point seems to be that it doesn’t matter how objectively bad Giuliani’s week was; what matters is what the media emphasizes — and Meet the Press’ brief, inane, and substance-less exchange highlights the problem.

But can’t both Bob and I be right? Maybe Giuliani’s week really was the worst ever, but the consequences of the disaster may not have their full effect because the chattering class is so irresponsible and negligent in their journalistic duties?

Post Script: I’d just add that the Shag Fund scandal has been driven to fore by a lot of quality journalism. Meet the Press was ridiculous, of course, but some terrific work by the Politico’s Ben Smith got this ball rolling, and there’s been some strong coverage at a variety of outlets ever since. But in order for a scandal like this one to establish roots, talking heads have to convey the seriousness of the controversy. Yesterday’s Meet the Press was a reminder that, too often, that’s just not possible.

Meet the Press yesterday was one of the lamest spectacles I have seen in a parade of lame programing. I think that might have been a good program once, when reporters actually had the opportunity to ask a question or two. Tim Russert sees to it that such an event never happens again. What a joke that program has become.

  • It would have been nice to have more detail in the Meet The Press account, but still, the acknowledgement was good. Two minutes can be a long time, in TV, and especially in TV political news.

    That they have to acknowledge it is a very good sign for us, and a very bad sign for Giuliani. Meet The Press is one of the worst media violators, so when something gets through them, I think that means Giuliani’s campaign isn’t doing too hot.

    I would have written a comment like Bob Somerby’s on the post you were talking about, except I found all the sources you were linking to were fairly various and mainstream. We need to get the most mainstream coverage we can for stuff like this, but if it’s not just one AP or McClatchy article- if it’s a bunch of big-name corporate websites and TV news outlets picking up on it- then the stories are going to get through to the people, even if the news doesn’t trumpet it.

    Still, there is room for improvement.

  • meet the press is to allow people to schmooze with the press, not for the press to DO anything

  • I know that none of you pay any attention to Intrade.com but the real money bet at intrade is better than any poll. Look back at 2004 and you can see that intrade got every state correct in the presidential election. It did a great job on the senate too.

    Last week hurt Rudy but it didn’t hurt him as badly as you would have guessed.

    I lived in New York and I was impressed how he handled the disaster after 9-11. I was impressed that he reduced crime more than anyone thought possible.

    Having said that, I can’t imagine a worse person to be elected president. Democrats will be longing for the good old days when Bush 43 was president if Rudy wins.

    Of course, I could be completely insane

  • Timmy the Tool is scared that Rudy might stay away if he let the bobbleheads actually talk at any length about Rudy’s issues.

    RUSSERT: “I’m not perfect.”

    No. Kidding.

  • I am encouraged that the MSM is willing to state the Giuliani is frequently less that truthful. They still don’t criticize Bush as a liar and an incompetent despite years of evidence.

  • Rudy Giuliani is ufit to be president of the United States. Russert has merely failed to get the memo. -Kevo

  • neil says: “I can’t imagine a worse person to be elected president. Democrats will be longing for the good old days when Bush 43 was president if Rudy wins.

    Of course, I could be completely insane”

    You’re not insane. Rudy’s got advisors who were too insane for even Bush to hire.

  • If a scandal falls in the forest, and the MSM doesn’t report it, is it still a scandal?

  • I think that you can’t measure how this will affect Rudy’s numbers, or his campaign by what the cocktail weenie set thinks – are these guys ever right about anything?

    I mean, do they really think that Rudy saying from the get-go that he wasn’t perfect inoculates him from anything that proves that he’s not perfect? (“What, he hid hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses for security that included his mistress, and he had cops walking Judi’s dogs and chauffeuring her friends and family around town, and his company had ties to a sheik who reportedly helped hide KSM? Oh, that’s right – it’s okay, he did say he wasn’t perfect.”)

    I guess what hacks me off so about Russert and all the other overweaning sycophants that anchor news shows or call themselves reporters, or write opinion columns, is that they want so badly to be liked by people like Rudy and Romney and McCain, want so desperately to be part of the inner circle that they don’t dare do their jobs honorably, ethically and with integrity.

    And we all lose because the information they could be providing, the oversight they could be using to keep the politicians somewhat honest, the questions that could be asked – it’s all sacrificed for the most self-serving of reasons.

  • I don’t watch the Sunday talk shows anymore. They have become irrelevant. Russert still thinks he is king of the hill. He probably still is in the DC circuit, but in my small world, I have better ways to spend my time on Sunday than listening to his claptrap.

  • There’s montage video on TPM that casts doubt on Somerby’s analysis — it seems like most of the shows (Fox included) did pursue this story.

    Here’s the real criminal part — Rudy’s being tossed off the Iraq Study Group for playing hooky (to reap $$$ off of 9/11) was really ignored by the traditional media. To me, that’s much worse that Sex on the City. Yes, the ISG story is not about sex and money, but it sure goes to the heart of Rudy’s terra-fighta based campaign.

  • What a comfort it is to hear someone in the press speculate that the press can be relied upon not to do their job. Just before Christmas is the ideal time to thin out the employment roll, and sack the deadwood.

  • Not that long ago I thought David Gregory was a fine reporter who asked relevant questions. Then I saw him dancing with Karl Rove. I don’t listen to him anymore. Sucking up is not journalism. Telling us what a bill says, when the “reporter” hasn’t even read the bill, is not journalism. Telling a questioner that she must ask about diamonds and pearls instead of nuclear waste is not journalism. Blaming polarization in politics on the internet is not only stupid, is is also not journalism. Bob Schiefer (sic) is the only one in the MSM worth a tinker’s damn and his comment about politicians thinking we are stupid was on the mark. He did forget to add that reporters think the same as politicians. It’s no surprise the MSM seldom misses a chance to hammer the internet news. That’s where the truth is and they are too busy kissing butt to find the truth themselves. They are afraid and seem hell-bent on making their jobs go away.

  • I was watching Russert, but as usual, i had the remote in my hand and changed channels just about the point where David Gregory finished. It’s as if they are saying, “what’s behind the curtain? is it a scandal? will they trickle, trickle, trickle…”. These people actually believe they dole out reality as they decide its worthiness, then they tell us what we think about it. Right now, they are repeating at every opportunity that the American voter cares about gay marriage, illegal immigration, and national security, pretty much in that order. Russert, Gregory, Cokie, and Stephy will all insist those topics will decide this election. Schieffer will croak that he can’t figure why all this is so important, “but since everyone else thinks so…I’ll go along and that’s another week on F**k the Nation, folks, see you next week with Sen Graham and Gen Petraeus on improvements in Iraq, thank you.”

    Meanwhile, real voters care about ending the war, some sort of fair and usable health care system, and the cost of living, pretty much in reverse order. Where are the shows for us?

  • Rudy will be on MTP next week. Will Russert finally become a real journalist? It will be interesting viewing.

  • Ben Smith is still on probation for the John Edwards’ haircut story though, along with a couple of other Halperinesque pieces he’s done since that added more time to his sentence. We can take his Shag Fund scandal work under consideration as a mitigating factor of course, but I’m not making any promises.

  • I definitely think the influence of the elite media is greatly exagerrated. Otherwise people would have supported Clinton’s impeachment (making it more likely that he would have gotten convicted by the Senate), and Bush would still be popular. Most people don’t watch those shows. While I do think that the Rudy story should be louder, the idea that this will come of nothing is surely mistaken.

  • Comments are closed.