The fallout from CNBC’s Republican debate continues, and it’s confounding the journalistic establishment. At first, it was easy for the media to acknowledge the obvious. Even ThinkProgress, the house organ for the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, published an article calling the debate a “trainwreck.” But as soon as the Republican National Committee announced it was canceling a forthcoming NBC-hosted GOP debate in response to the CNBC moderators’ bias, unprofessionalism, and generally insulting demeanor, the media began circling the wagons.
They started lashing out at the GOP candidates, who were quite justifiably demanding better debates. Their rejoinders are underwhelming. Julia Ioffe of the New York Times Magazine feebly jabbed, “For candidates who so love shouting about freedom, they’re weirdly uncomfortable with the freedom of the press to ask them questions.” Daily Beast reporter Olivia Nuzzi tweeted, “Imagine what any candidate whining about the debates would do to freedom of speech if they were elected president.” More pathetic, though, than these failed gotchas is that Obama was emboldened by his friends in the media to take a swipe of his own. “Let me tell you, if you can’t handle those [debate moderators], then I don’t think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you,” the president said.
We would note, first, that Obama’s own history of whining about the media—in spite of their assistance to him at almost every turn—is too long and varied to recount here. And honestly, given the spectacular and ongoing failures of his foreign policy, is anyone looking to Obama as an authority on how to stand up to Russia and China?
As for the free speech concerns—that journalists would go there beggars belief. Hillary Clinton, as it happens, is running on a platform of overturning and/or correcting the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. That decision, which liberalized campaign finance laws, hinged on whether showing a film criticizing, yes, Hillary Clinton would constitute a campaign finance violation. That’s right, under her preferred legal regime, the government would be able to penalize you for showing a political film. Yet, Hillary Clinton’s own role in the Citizens United case is almost never mentioned, and the media are incapable of conceiving of strict campaign finance proposals as anything more pernicious than a milquetoast good government initiative.
Meanwhile, GOP candidates continue to face absurd interrogations from a biased and hostile media. Earlier this week, Marco Rubio went on ABC’s Good Morning America and fielded a flurry of questions about his personal finances. This kind of query might be thought of as standard for candidates, except for the fact that Rubio’s interrogator has his own personal finance issues. Namely, why George Stephanopoulos gave $75,000 to the personal foundation of the Democratic frontrunner, whose husband used to employ him, and why in spite of all this, the media seem to think such conflicts aren’t enough to disqualify him from reporting on presidential politics.
Also, we know Hillary Clinton is too busy dancing the Nae Nae on daytime talk shows to bother with tough interviews, but isn’t it time the media gave Rubio’s (relatively modest) finances a rest and asked her some questions about the incredibly dodgy speaking deals with various human rights violators that allowed her and her husband to rapidly amass a nine-figure fortune?
However, the media would rather keep making Rubio answer questions about a small-potatoes mortgage and otherwise hyperventilate about massive network news operations being subjected to legitimate criticism.
We’re well past the point of arguing whether media bias is real. Given the ready availability of Internet streaming and other new media formats, the media establishment should ask themselves how much longer the GOP is going to entertain dealing with them, period.
