Following up on an item from yesterday, the Obama stock/blind trust “controversy” is part of a disconcerting pattern. Atrios referred to it as “Whitewater Journalism,” and noted this terrific post by Digby, written a couple of weeks ago.
These are patented Whitewater-style “smell test” stories. They are based on complicated details that make the casual reader’s eyes glaze over and about which the subject has to issue long confusing explanations in return. They feature colorful and unsavory political characters in some way. They often happened in the past and they tend to be written in such a way as to say that even if they aren’t illegal they “look bad.” The underlying theme is hypocrisy because the subjects are portrayed as making a dishonest buck while pretending to represent the average working man. Oh, and they always feature a Democrat. Republicans are not subject to such scrutiny because a craven, opportunistic Republican isn’t “news.” (Neat trick huh?)
No single story will bring down a candidate because they have no substance to them. It’s the combined effect they are looking for to build a sense overall sleaziness. “Where there’s smoke there’s fire” right?
That’s so right, it hurts. Consider the 1,300-word front-page expose the WaPo ran two weeks ago detailing a family foundation the Clintons created to donate generously to charities for several years. The tone of the article suggested that there’s a real controversy, without pointing any actual wrongdoing. The casual reader/news consumer assumes Clinton has done something untoward. Indeed, she must have — otherwise the Washington Post wouldn’t run a front-page expose. A lengthy, front-page “investigative” piece about John Edwards’ home sale was part of the same trend. Take a non-story, put it on the front-page, and it’s a story.
Whitewater practically created the phenomenon. Huge, front-page articles were published, which in turn would create TV and radio interest. No one had a clue about actual wrongdoing, worse yet criminal conduct, but that didn’t stop whispers about a “scandal.” It had to be; the media told us so.
Yesterday’s piece on Obama was practically identical.
As Matt Yglesias explained, “The Times reporter, in short, saw something that did arguably raise questions. He looked into it. He found nothing. Then rather than printing nothing — since, after all, that’s what he found — he instead went to press with a story that ‘raises questions’ — a formulation that simply amounts to a presumption of guilt.”
The rest of the media bought into the same formulation. Indeed, ABC’s The Note blew off the Libby verdict yesterday and ran a 400-word lede about a story that never actually pointed to any misconduct at all. Eventually, The Note reported:
Good sign for Team Obama: They have already put out their, uhm, first response document, ahead of The Note’s deadline.
Bad sign for Team Obama: Whitewater lost money too.
A few hours later, the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza told readers that Obama is “battling allegations of ethical misjudgment.”
He is? Since when? Has anyone, anywhere, offered any proof of any ethical lapses? No, of course not. “Whitewater Journalism” doesn’t require anything of the sort. Obama is “battling allegations” because the NYT ran a baseless story on its front page.
In a prescient post, Digby added:
The major media has never copped to their role in the tabloid sideshow that politics in the 90’s became. They have never copped to their part in elevating Bush to the status of demigod and running beside him like a bunch of eunuchs waving palm fronds during the lead-up to the war. Even today we see them pooh-poohing the significance of a federal trial that exposes them for whores to Republican power.
But it happened and it will happen again. They have learned nothing and feel they have nothing to answer for.
It’s going to be a long campaign, isn’t it.