How the Media, Once Again, Got It Wrong

The journalistic defense on the day after Super Tuesday, when once again media awoke red-faced at its miscalculations, was that the Obama story is just too good a story not to fall for.

That’s why so many pundits and pollsters, experts and analysts gathered in a rush to prediction that he would sweep Clinton aside in California after the anointment by Ted Kennedy. It is the narrative of the ancient, heroic male, according to Boston University Journalism professor Caryl Rivers, writing for Women’s eNews: “Journalists seemed to take without a grain of salt the idea that the torch had been passed directly from JFK to Obama; from one young man to another, and no anti-heroic women in between, thank you.”

When Clinton captured not only California, but Kennedy’s home town, too, it took the sage Tom Brokaw, old enough to know and wise enough to admit it, to confess on MSNBC, “Once again, in all of our conventional and collective wisdom, we were wrong.”

The problem with the media’s conventional wisdom is that it is collectively white and male—and in the new dynamic of this presidential race—archaic. The candidacies of Barack Obama, a black man, and Hillary Clinton, a woman, have exposed mainstream media for its fundamental flaw: it is exclusionary to the point of embarrassment. But not only does it produce the now odd line-up of white men in suits conducting the serious business of “news” in election coverage—with women and people of color sprinkled through to give the appearance of fair play—but it is now clear to viewers and the voting public that the old time players don’t yet know the new rules of the game.

Pollster John Zogby, who had predicted Obama would take Clinton by 13 points in California (she won by 9.6) had this explanation as a tag note to a Huffington Post piece: “About California: Some of you may have noticed our pre-election polling differed from the actual results. It appears that we underestimated Hispanic turnout and overestimated the importance of younger Hispanic voters. We also overestimated turnout among African-American voters.”

Coupled with the usual discounting of what women voters would do, mainstream media –even though it said it was being careful after New Hampshire—crafted the story of a Clinton fall as sure and certain. Salon writer Rebecca Traister called the atmosphere at Clinton’s primary night gathering as “funereal”—“…it felt as though Hillary Clinton was about to get walloped, and as the evening started, her supporters had milled distractedly around the ballroom, projecting not blithe confidence, but a palpable sense that they had come a long way to get what perhaps would be their final look at their candidate.”

They believed the story the media had convinced itself was true.

Without question, the Obama story is compelling—it holds special meaning in my own African-American family. I am proud beyond belief. But the media’s persistence in ignoring the ancient, heroic female narrative belies prejudice—if not ignorance.

On the eve of February 4th, no doubt despairing at the swell of negative punditry all around her, Maya Angelou sent out a “Poem for Hillary”—an elaboration of her poem, “Still, I Rise.”  

This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at


her wits’ end, but she has always risen, always risen, don’t forget she


has always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight

of her friends.

Now that’s a narrative that has all the elements of quest, intrigue—and perhaps heroism. The media just has to accept that the lead character is a woman.