MediaWatch: November 1992

NewsBites: Mandate for What?

Mandate for What? Shortly after midnight eastern time election night, CNN analyst William Schneider reviewed a network exit poll question: "We asked them which would you favor -- 'A government that provides more services but costs less in taxes,' only 37 percent said that, and even though a Democrat was elected today, most voters said they favored a government which would have lower taxes and fewer services." An on-screen graphic showed 55 percent for "Lower Taxes."

Schneider concluded that "the consensus of the Reagan era, for less government, appears not to be entirely gone." The exit poll was completed by Voter Research and Surveys for all the networks, but this answer never got mentioned in the days after the election by ABC, CBS or NBC, nor The New York Times, Washington Post or USA Today.

A Sweeping Mandate? Bill Clinton garnered the lowest popular vote percentage since Woodrow Wilson in 1912. Someone needs to break the news to The Boston Globe's Curtis Wilkie. In a front page "news analysis" the morning after the election, Wilkie exclaimed: "Bill Clinton called for change, but he never dared ask for a mandate as sweeping as the one he received last night. The magnitude of the Democratic triumph was so enormous that it ensures Clinton a strong alliance with Congress and an incentive to move quickly on his domestic programs....Clinton marched to victory in state after state, from New England to the Old Confederacy, across the industrial belt and the Great Plains to California, where the Democrats last won in 1964. He piled up a popular vote nationwide that transcended predictions, while his party strengthened its hold on Congress." In fact, the Republicans gained nine House seats and, depending on a run-off, may break even in the Senate.

Wilkie proceeded with some additional historical revisionism to justify a Clinton mandate: "The repudiation of President Bush was so vast that it is reminiscent of the election 12 years ago that drove another President, Jimmy Carter, from office." Of course, in that three-way race Carter won just six states. Bush won 18. Later, Wilkie asserted: "The overwhelming margin of his election gives Clinton an opportunity to create a new Democratic epoch, in the same way that Lyndon B. Johnson's 44-state majority in 1964 produced a Great Society....It has been a long, barren period for the Democrats, but Clinton is in a position to lead a restoration."

Do the Left Thing. CNN's look at George Bush in its October 25 "Battle to Lead" special was critical of the President's record -- but only when he refused, as reporter Ken Bode put it, to "do the right thing." In other words, only when he refused to take the liberal position.

Bode intoned: "When it comes to questions of race and civil rights, George Bush has a tendency to shift sides. Sometimes he follows a conviction to 'do the right thing.' Other times he seems motivated by politics, what will help win the election." Bode explained: "For two terms as Vice President, Bush watched as Reagan chipped away at civil rights gains: the Voting Rights Act was one target. The courts began to roll back decisions in discrimination cases. The days of aggressive civil rights enforcement were over. Bush never broke publicly with Reagan over his racial policies. But supporters say privately, he pushed the President to take more moderate stands."

Bode also smeared the conservative position on quotas: "David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader, ran for office as a Republican, using themes that sounded very much like George Bush's own words."

Pink Panic. Is "gay-bashing" on the rise in America? Dateline NBC co-host Jane Pauley believes so. She introduced an October 27 piece by declaring: "You're holding your sweethearts hand as you walk down the street. And for that, you're kicked in the face. Why? Because you and your lover are lesbians. Attacks like that, many far more violent, have been reported across the country. Just how far will intolerance go?"

Reporter Deborah Roberts talked to various members of OutWatch, a New York City-based gay activist group, about "gay-bashing" and what is being done to fight it. She lectured that "what is happening is a surge in hate crimes against gay men and lesbians ...Last year there were nearly 600 assaults reported. The vicious assaults -- gay-bashings -- are happening all over the country." On what did Roberts base this? She did not speak to any government or other law enforcement representatives. Three news clippings, detailing assaults on homosexuals were presented as evidence; but they came from three different regions of the country and spanned nearly two years.

Roberts ended up undercutting her story. To illustrate this "surge" in hate-crimes, Roberts convinced two homosexuals to walk up and down a New York City street holding hands. The men were wired for sound and filmed by a hidden camera, but they were approached only by panhandlers. After two hours, the two walked by a group of drunks who did little more than yell a few insults. Even Roberts later acknowledged that in two years of patrolling New York streets, OutWatch has not intervened in a single gay- bashing incident.

Accentuate the Negative. When the government released its figures showing the latest economic growth rate at 2.7 percent, ABC countered with a barrage of naysayers. Peter Jennings opened the October 27 World News Tonight: "[The 2.7 percent rate] is more than economists had projected, but in many cases, less than meets the eye." Reporter Bob Jamieson followed, "The increase in economic growth was driven by a surge in consumer spending. The best news came from spending for big appliances and furniture, which rose by nearly nine percent. But many economists say the report is not proof the economy is taking a sharp turn for the better."

As if that were not enough, Jennings returned the next night to dampen the good news further: "The President may complain about the news media, but the economic growth figures which he is so pleased about are not that definitive, according to a great many independent economic analysts...The government reports that personal income and consumer spending were up in September, but orders for durable goods, for such long-lasting items such as cars and household appliances, were down for the third straight month. And all over the country, millions of people hardly need any statistics to tell them what is happening."

This Magic Moment. When Magic Johnson joined the National Commission on AIDS the media praised the appointment. But his replacement on the commission, Mary Fisher, wasn't given quite the same welcome. On the October 7 CNN World News, anchor Patrick Greenlaw emphasized complaints about Fisher. "Some groups criticize President Bush's appointment, saying Fisher brings no medical expertise to the panel and was chosen just because she's the daughter of a Republican fundraiser."

Did CNN ever point out Magic Johnson's similar lack of medical expertise or suggest that he was chosen for the Commission just because he was a famous basketball player? Of course not. On the November 11, 1991 World News, anchor Bernard Shaw reported, "Magic Johnson is being suggested for a position on the National Commission on AIDS. Chairwoman June Osborn says someone of his stature would be a wonderful appointment. AIDS activists agree Johnson's high profile will help AIDS education efforts."

Scheer Madness. Los Angeles Times reporter Robert Scheer pounced on Dan Quayle but praised Al Gore after the October 13 vice presidential debate. On CNN's post-debate coverage, Scheer thought "Quayle was a disaster for the Bush ticket, one thing he kept reminding people was that he could be President, and he was a disaster because he was quintessentially Dan Quayle. He was unctuous, and I disagree that he suggested sincerity...If your fear of the federal government is so enormous, and you don't want government to play an active role...then [Quayle] would serve you well as kind of an anti-government, anti-competency impulse. But if this were a competition to run a business, it would seem to me the stockholders would clearly vote for the person who knows what he's talking about, and that's not Dan Quayle."

But Scheer praised Al Gore, saying: "I thought Al Gore, if anything, seemed much more impressive than Bill Clinton, and did seem very presidential, and very well informed. It was the most impressive I've seen Gore yet...He obviously knows what he is talking about most of the time, he's very competent, he thinks clearly, and so forth. I just don't understand how any one could think Dan Quayle is in his league."

Harry Hurls. The normally chummy co-host of CBS This Morning, Harry Smith, didn't miss an opportunity throughout October to rail against Republican campaign strategy. Following the first presidential debate, Smith declared to pundit Fred Barnes: "Clearly, that Red-baiting junk didn't work for the President last night. What's he going to try next?" Apparently, character issues continued to irritate Smith, as he grilled Pat Buchanan on October 19: "Why is it the White House though, has insisted on this sort of campaign to discredit Bill Clinton, which has clearly not worked in the least." He then suggested that "the Bush/Quayle team spent too much time paying attention to the Right, and as they paid too much attention to the Right, they lost the middle." To radio and television talk show host Rush Limbaugh on October 21, Smith again insisted that "none of this Red-baiting, none of this stuff, none of it works."

Did the Democrats receive the same campaign advice from Smith? Hardly. On October 15, Smith simply reversed the question to Clinton/Gore co-chairman Senator Tim Wirth: "The poll lead, if not staying the same, is increasing a little bit. If George Bush comes out like a junkyard dog, the way the Vice-President did two nights ago, what does Clinton do to fight off that kind of attack?"

Sam's Sources. When grillmeister Sam Donaldson interviewed President George Bush and Governor Bill Clinton on ABC's Prime Time Live October 29, Donaldson challenged Bush with some of the Clinton campaign's favorite statistics on health care and Bush's record on federal spending, and Bush said he doubted the numbers.

At show's end, Donaldson did a short wrap-up from his anchor booth: "You'll notice in that portion of our interview with the President, he and I disagreed over certain figures. Later, we double-checked them. On the question of whether Congress spent less money than Mr. Bush asked for, a statement of mine with which the President took issue, we relied on the analysis of the Congressional Budget Office, which says Congress spent less. We also disagreed on my assertion that the President's health plan would leave out 27 million Americans of the 37 million now uninsured. Our figures came from a study of the Bush and Clinton plans by the respected public interest group, Families USA."

Donaldson failed to mention that the CBO is controlled by the Democratic leadership in Congress, and that Families USA is a relentless liberal advocate for greater entitlement spending whose leader, Ron Pollack, has been an outspoken Clinton supporter.

Featured Posts

Bozell Slams Hillary’s Shills in Media: ‘They Are Covering for’ Her

Get the Latest News From CNSNews

Get the Latest Media Analysis on NewsBusters