If recent events and trends are any indication, the mainstream media have become saboteurs in the 2008 election. The media are actively seeking to manipulate the flow of information in order to create the ideal electoral situation for what is decidedly a liberal establishment in America.

Recently, the media has seemingly revved up their old templates to apply to this particular race, and they are sabotaging the Republicans, no holds barred. Consider the joke of last week’s CNN/YouTube debate. Anderson Cooper and company defended this unusual debate (and the corresponding Democratic one) as a method by which more “regular Americans” could get their questions answered by the candidates, and, based on the result, it should have occurred to most of the TV audience why debate questions aren’t usually left up to regular Americans. Nevertheless, CNN and Cooper did actually have the ultimate power in choosing the questions from the pool of over 5,000, and what was actually asked should indicate CNN had the intention of defining the issues of debate with a narrow aim to make Republicans look closed-minded and backward.

Harkening back to Howard Dean’s infamous comment in 2004 about campaigning in the South, it would appear to the uninformed observer that the largest issues of the Republican Party are “God, guns and gays,” as indicated by the crop of questions asked by everyone from a country kid wielding a rifle to a Clinton campaign steering committee member. By focusing questions on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which certainly has not been a recent issue in either party, CNN effectively sets the agenda by portraying Republicans as Bible-thumping (literally), homophobic, racist (the Confederate flag? Are we seriously going there?), gun-slinging, angry white men. Important Republican issues that need sorting out during the primaries, like immigration, federal spending and the threat of Islamo-fascism in Iran and elsewhere, were touched upon, but the questions like whether or not the candidates believed every word of the Bible overshadowed the constructive ones about taxes. The candidates responded fine, working well within the confines presented by CNN, but for what was the most-watched debate of this never ending election cycle, the issues that needed fleshing out were disappointingly ignored.

Clearly, CNN wanted to maintain the media’s image of the Republican Party, an image further expounded upon with the sudden rise of former governor Mike Huckabee in the polls, a phenomenon quietly predicated in the recent heavy coverage of the Huckabee campaign by every news outlet. Out of nowhere, the electric-bass playing, exercise-conscious, wisecracking former Baptist minister with no money and no name recognition has gained the lead in Iowa and is polling well nationally. Huckabee himself may attribute this to hard campaigning and a resonating message, but most mindful conservative Republicans should realize the “other man from Hope” offers very little (hope, that is) for advancing the conservative and Republican principles regarding those aforementioned important issues. The media have been curiously complicit in putting Huckabee on a political pedestal, but watch as he falls just as quickly as he ascended. The mainstream media have a stake in advancing a weak Republican candidate under the guise he is strong, because once Huckabee slips (and he invariably will), they will pounce on him at a time that may be too late for the other candidates to recover.

The media’s template for the Republicans is clear: Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, two very electable (to use the irritating jargon) candidates, fight it out while no-name Huckabee rises above the fray for his few weeks of glory. Ron Paul is the weirdo with all that support from the pesky Internets, and Fred Thompson, as the most solidly conservative candidate, is trounced by a media that unfairly characterizes him as lazy and constantly sets him up to fail their own impossible standards. Huckabee will falter and fall by the wayside, having fulfilled his role as the distracter. Voters that flocked to Huckabee will be left to support either Giuliani or Romney only half-heartedly (when they should be supporting Thompson all along), and Republicans will go on to nominate whomever without the gusto needed to defeat the Democratic juggernaut of Hillary Clinton. Every major newspaper editorial, cable news commentator and nightly news anchor will present the situation in the same eerie formula, with comments about Republicans being “disillusioned” or some other buzzword permeating through the industry.

The Republicans, like the Democrats, deserve to use the primary season as a time to iron out issues within the party, figure out their most viable candidate and enter the national race with a sense of purpose and confidence. When the media already predetermines the outcome, Americans of all political stripes lose.

—Mike Warren is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Science and an associate editor for The Vanderbilt Torch.

Submitted by warrenmr on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 15:40.

Did you read my article?

I ask this question not in jest but, based on your response, in all seriousness. If I put anyone on a pedestal, it would probably have been Fred Thompson, who I don't hide as my favorite candidate in the bunch. I am not saying that the fact that Huckabee is a Baptist minister will ruin the Republicans, but that he, as a candidate, is not the man conservatives can trust to advance our agenda. I actually implicitly criticize the media for making the assertion that the ideal Republican candidate is a Baptist minister simply because he is a Baptist minister. My ideal Republican ticket is either Fred Thompson/Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney/Mike Huckabee, but that's for another column. You won't find any Giuliani campaign buttons on me, unless he wins the nomination. I want to thank you for reading my column, and I hope you will pick up the newest issue of the Vanderbilt Torch for some more of my idiocy.

Submitted by warrenmr on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 15:32.

I agree mostly

I speak almost entirely here about the CNN/YouTube debate because of it is the most recent major event, but my analysis applies to much of the media coverage of the election so far. My point was not that the Republican base does not care about issues of religion and gun rights, but that these are not issues that presidential candidates for the Republican party need to talk about. Many conservatives are deeply Christian, but many conservatives are also smart. One question about whether or not the candidates believe every word of the Bible is not indicative of the type of religious questions Republican voters want answered. I didn't even get into the Democrat side of this issue, where I think the media also has an agenda, but I do not deny what you say about this. I simply believe that the media would like to see a specific outcome in this election and will do everything in their power to influence it. I do appreciate you reading my column and taking the time to critique it. Please pick up a copy of the newest issue of the Vanderbilt Torch, on a rack near you!

Submitted by MikeMaio on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 12:50.

Usually when someone makes a

Usually when someone makes a charge about bias in the mainstream media, it reveals more about the biases of the critic than of the media. This column is no exception. For instance, the Democrats have been asked repeatedly about Don't Ask Don't Tell in their debates this year. So if the Republican candidates come across as homophobes, well, then that's their own fault. It is true that, taken as a whole, the YouTube questioners did not provide a very favorable impression of the Republican primary electorate, and it is true that CNN is responsible even for debate questions that it does not come up with. But let's not kid ourselves...there are large portions of the Republican base that care deeply about biblical literalism, the confederate flag, and 2nd Amendment rights. It's a mistake not to allow the possibility that the questions that were asked were somewhat representative of the questions submitted. Moreover, contrary to what you've written, immigration and federal spending were hardly given short shrift in the debate. Large segments of it were devoted to pissing matches about who would be meanest to Mexicans. Look, of course you're right that CNN asked a lot of stupid-ass gotcha questions, and they bear responsibility for that no matter how unenlightened the people who submitted them are. But this is a practice most mainstream TV journalists are guilty of, and they direct their inane questions at Democrats just as much. In a recent debate, for example, Tim Russert asked each of the Dems what their favorite Bible verse was - a question designed to embarrass the candidates rather than inform the electorate. This isn't healthy for democracy, but nor is it a sign of bias in favor of one party.

Submitted by imbalanced on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 10:52.

You obviously have no idea

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. You're putting on a pedestal social liberals and then saying a social conservative will destroy the Republican party. Why don't you just wear your Giuliani campaign button now so everyone else can see it? The media often leans left in their ideology, but the rise of Huckabee has nothing to do with this. Your assertion that a Baptist pastor will ruin the Republicans, and moreover is unelectable, is idiocy at its finest.

Login or Register to leave comments.

COLUMN: Liberal media actively seeks to undermine 2008 elections

Did you read my article?

Did you read my article?

I agree mostly

Usually when someone makes a

You obviously have no idea

Login or Register to leave comments.

Vanderbilt on Twitter

Popular Content