« Old-fashioned love songs | Main | Question No. 6a »
February 14, 2006
Question No. 6
My Sunday entry touted Joe Lelyveld’s profile of Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, a possible Republican contender for president, in Sunday’s Times Magazine. In response, a reader suggested that the story might be “yet another example of the mainstream media’s bias towards non-mainstream Republicans.” He asked:
“As an editor, do you think the media is biased towards figures like McCain, Bruce Bartlett and Hagel? Do reporters gravitate towards these politicians because they are skeptics of the Iraq war, or support condoms in Africa, or occasionally oppose Bush? Or is it just that their unpredictable quotes make good copy?”
Through my experience here during seven presidential primary campaigns, I’ve come to think that, in general, candidates get the coverage they deserve. This also applies beyond New Hampshire in presidential races.
I understand what the reader is suggesting, but I don’t buy his premise that journalists operate out of political bias. Rather their decisions on who gets what coverage depend on how accessible, candid and interesting the candidates are. Especially in a grassroots campaign like New Hampshire’s, the media are just that: media. They convey to interested, savvy voters what – and how – the candidates are doing.
The example that might best speak to the reader’s question was the 2000 New Hampshire race between Sen. John McCain and Gov. George W. Bush.
At the time, the definition of “mainstream Republican” was in flux. The Gingrich revolution had petered out, and the party had been out of the White House for nearly eight years. Bush was certainly the establishment candidate – he had all the money. But his positions on the major issues facing the country were mostly unknown.
Bush used the money, in part, to insulate himself from the populace. His campaign events in New Hampshire were staged, infrequent and business-oriented. He did not use New Hampshire’s grassroots tradition to define himself and to meet the public and answer voters’ questions. Nor did he allow much media access.
McCain, meanwhile, rode around New Hampshire on a bus called the Straight Talk Express. He did 114 “town meetings” in which he usually stayed until the last voter's question was answered. He was almost always available to the media and, as advertised, at least seemed to say what he meant and mean what he said.
The media’s coverage of the two candidates had little to do with ideology. Rather it reflected the way they ran their campaigns. Reporters are paid to be perceptive. They know when a candidate is dodging them or delivering canned lines. They like it better when a candidate is available and willing to talk.
Of course, along the campaign trail in New Hampshire you’ll find the gravestones of plenty of straight-talking one-time media sweethearts from both parties who did not become president. These include McCain, Bob Kerrey, latter-day Bob Dole, Bill Bradley, the late Paul Tsongas and the likable Patrick Buchanan.
Now, about Hagel, Lelyveld and 2008.
I don;t know why Lelyveld chose Hagel as a subject, but it might have started with the Nebraska connection. In his memoir, Omaha Blues, Lelyveld writes about his parents’ sending him, at the age of 9, to live with strangers on a Nebraska farm. Hagel’s dirt-poor, knock-around childhood in Nebraska is a riveting segment of the profile.
On politics, Hagel, like Bush, is pro-life, pro-defense and pro-tax cut. I took from the profile that Hagel has three big differences with the president. He had doubts from the outset about the wisdom of invading Iraq. He thinks even a person with strong religious convictions can – and usually should – separate those convictions from his or her public life. And Hagel believes Bush’s big federal programs – No Child Left Behind and the Medicare drug benefit – were mistakes.
Yes, Hagel’s old-fashioned notion of separation of church and state will be a problem with the religious right. But do his positions really put him outside the Republican mainstream? I hope not.
It’s way too early to handicap the next presidential primary, much as I wish the campaign would start tomorrow. Lelyveld’s profile raised the right question at this stage: If McCain runs, will Hagel?
Posted by Mike Pride at February 14, 2006 06:45 PM
Comments
Thank you very much for your in-depth reply. I thought you made several excellent points. However, I still have one nagging question. Do you think the media favors moderate/dissenting Republicans over conservative Democrats? For example, Joe Lieberman rarely seems to enjoy the type of generous coverage that Hagel, McCain, Chafey, et.al regularly receive. When Lieberman crossed party lines recently to support President Bush on a several issues related to the war in Iraq, I didn't see any editorials or profiles championing his brave stand against Harry Reid. President Clinton complains in his autobiography of suffering from a similar phenomenon, especially on welfare reform and deficit reduction. Is there an asymmetry here? Or are conservative Democrats just less enticing subjects than maverick Republicans?
Posted by: Jonah at February 15, 2006 06:34 PM