Media rigged Obama bipartisanship story

From the morning e-mail ... Media Matters, a watchdog group, shows how the national media created the erroneous public perception that President Obama did too little to promote bipratisanship:

By Jamison Foser

If there was any doubt the media have a badly skewed understanding of bipartisanship -- one in which Democrats can never make enough concessions, and Republicans need not make any -- the reaction to Sen. Judd Gregg's decision not to become commerce secretary should put the matter to rest.

Even before Gregg's announcement, the flaws in the media's fetishization of bipartisanship had been on display for weeks.

When the House passed the stimulus bill, one ABC's news blog led not with an analysis of the legislation's content, but with Obama's purported failure to win a single Republican vote. (Note that the failure of bipartisanship was not portrayed as a bipartisan failing; it was Obama's alone.)

That was typical of reporting in the days before the vote, which was at its most absurd when NBC's Chuck Todd asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs if Obama would veto a bill if it lacked Republican support.

It shouldn't be surprising. Reporters always seem to think it is the Democrats' responsibility to reach out to the Republicans -- and that if Democrats reach across the aisle only to draw back a bloody stump where their hand used to be, it's their fault for not reaching farther.

Just look at the stimulus debate in the House. The Democrats included billions of dollars' worth of tax cuts in order to appeal to Republicans, and they dropped provisions Republicans objected to. The Republicans, on the other hand, offered an alternative that consisted entirely of tax cuts -- which are far less stimulative than spending on unemployment benefits and food stamps.

Now, given all that, you might assume the media would portray House Republicans as intransigent partisans. Instead, they portrayed Obama and the Democrats as insufficiently bipartisan.

That brings us back to Gregg. The conservative Republican senator was Obama's choice for commerce secretary and the third Republican Obama had named to his Cabinet, along with Robert Gates and Ray LaHood.

Gregg's behavior after news first broke that Obama was considering him didn't exactly reflect a desire to put partisan politics aside and work on behalf of the administration he was about to join. First, reports indicated that Gregg agreed to take the job only on the condition that New Hampshire's Democratic governor name a Republican to replace him in the Senate. Then, Gregg announced he would not cast a vote on the stimulus -- the equivalent of voting no.

So maybe it shouldn't have come as a surprise when Gregg abruptly withdrew his name from consideration.

For a moment, it seemed like this might finally make reporters realize that if anyone was failing to embrace bipartisanship, it was the Republicans. After all, Obama asked a conservative GOP senator to become the third Republican Cabinet member -- and after accepting the job and then working against Obama's stimulus bill anyway, the senator then backed out of the job.

It's hard to see that as anything other than Obama reaching out to the GOP, only to have his overture rebuffed. Given that the public strongly disagreed with the media
's assessment that it was Obama who was insufficiently bipartisan in the stimulus negotiations, you'd think reporters would hesitate before again suggesting the president made inadequate efforts at bipartisanship.

But many of them rushed to portray Gregg''s reversal as indicative of a failure by Obama.

A Politico article disclosed that congressional Republicans applauded boisterously when they learned of Gregg's withdrawal. Why were they so excited? Because, Politico explained, Gregg's decision reinforced an emerging GOP case against Obama and the ruling Democratic Party: Strip away the promises of post-partisanship and you'll find the same big-spending party of old, bent on politicizing government to consolidate its hold on power.

Got that? Republicans applauded a Republican decision not to work with Obama because it supposedly reinforced their contention that Obama really didn't care about bipartisanship.

Other reporters found even sillier ways to pretend Gregg's withdrawal said something about Obama's insufficient bipartisanship. Discussing Gregg's withdrawal, Todd claimed that unlike LaHood, Gregg is a real Republican.

So now it isn't enough for Obama to keep his predecessor's Republican defense secretary and to choose a longtime GOP congressman for transportation secretary -- in order to be truly bipartisan, his nominees have to pass a real Republican litmus test.

In the wake of Gregg's reversal, Politico's Ben Smith complained that bipartisan, in the White House definition ... doesn't mean you make friends with the other side, or play nice.

Obama offered Gregg a Cabinet position, which Gregg accepted ... then Gregg decided he didn't want to work with Obama after all, and it's the White House that has a phony definition of bipartisan?

No, it's the media.

With the media rigging the game this thoroughly, it's no wonder Obama's attempts at bipartisanship been met with Republican intransigence.

Foser is executive vice president at Media Matters for America (www.mediamatters.org), a progressive media watchdog, research and information center based in Washington, D.C.

Comments?

Even before Gregg's announcement, the flaws in the media's fetishization of bipartisanship had been on display for weeks.

When the House passed the stimulus bill, one ABC's news blog led not with an analysis of the legislation's content, but with Obama's purported failure to win a single Republican vote. (Note that the failure of bipartisanship was not portrayed as a bipartisan failing; it was Obama's alone.)

That was typical of reporting in the days before the vote, which was at its most absurd when NBC's Chuck Todd asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs if Obama would veto a bill if it lacked Republican support.

It shouldn't be surprising. Reporters always seem to think it is the Democrats' responsibility to reach out to the Republicans -- and that if Democrats reach across the aisle only to draw back a bloody stump where their hand used to be, it's their fault for not reaching farther.

Just look at the stimulus debate in the House. The Democrats included billions of dollars' worth of tax cuts in order to appeal to Republicans, and they dropped provisions Republicans objected to. The Republicans, on the other hand, offered an alternative that consisted entirely of tax cuts -- which are far less stimulative than spending on unemployment benefits and food stamps.

Now, given all that, you might assume the media would portray House Republicans as intransigent partisans. Instead, they portrayed Obama and the Democrats as insufficiently bipartisan.

That brings us back to Gregg. The conservative Republican senator was Obama's choice for commerce secretary and the third Republican Obama had named to his Cabinet, along with Robert Gates and Ray LaHood.

Gregg's behavior after news first broke that Obama was considering him didn't exactly reflect a desire to put partisan politics aside and work on behalf of the administration he was about to join. First, reports indicated that Gregg agreed to take the job only on the condition that New Hampshire's Democratic governor name a Republican to replace him in the Senate. Then, Gregg announced he would not cast a vote on the stimulus -- the equivalent of voting no.

So maybe it shouldn't have come as a surprise when Gregg abruptly withdrew his name from consideration.

For a moment, it seemed like this might finally make reporters realize that if anyone was failing to embrace bipartisanship, it was the Republicans. After all, Obama asked a conservative GOP senator to become the third Republican Cabinet member -- and after accepting the job and then working against Obama's stimulus bill anyway, the senator then backed out of the job.

It's hard to see that as anything other than Obama reaching out to the GOP, only to have his overture rebuffed. Given that the public strongly disagreed with the media
's assessment that it was Obama who was insufficiently bipartisan in the stimulus negotiations, you'd think reporters would hesitate before again suggesting the president made inadequate efforts at bipartisanship.

But many of them rushed to portray Gregg''s reversal as indicative of a failure by Obama.

A Politico article disclosed that congressional Republicans applauded boisterously when they learned of Gregg's withdrawal. Why were they so excited? Because, Politico explained, Gregg's decision reinforced an emerging GOP case against Obama and the ruling Democratic Party: Strip away the promises of post-partisanship and you'll find the same big-spending party of old, bent on politicizing government to consolidate its hold on power.

Got that? Republicans applauded a Republican decision not to work with Obama because it supposedly reinforced their contention that Obama really didn't care about bipartisanship.

Other reporters found even sillier ways to pretend Gregg's withdrawal said something about Obama's insufficient bipartisanship. Discussing Gregg's withdrawal, Todd claimed that unlike LaHood, Gregg is a real Republican.

So now it isn't enough for Obama to keep his predecessor's Republican defense secretary and to choose a longtime GOP congressman for transportation secretary -- in order to be truly bipartisan, his nominees have to pass a real Republican litmus test.

In the wake of Gregg's reversal, Politico's Ben Smith complained that bipartisan, in the White House definition ... doesn't mean you make friends with the other side, or play nice.

Obama offered Gregg a Cabinet position, which Gregg accepted ... then Gregg decided he didn't want to work with Obama after all, and it's the White House that has a phony definition of bipartisan?

No, it's the media.

With the media rigging the game this thoroughly, it's no wonder Obama's attempts at bipartisanship been met with Republican intransigence.

Foser is executive vice president at Media Matters for America (www.mediamatters.org), a progressive media watchdog, research and information center based in Washington, D.C.

Comments?