Defining Presidents

by digby

Jamison Foser makes a good catch:

Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher, today:

Think of the instant analysis after political debates about who “won.” Remember Al Gore’s eye roll? What did that have to with the substance of his answers? But did it say something about his personality? Rightly or wrongly, these incidents often come to define presidents, and I don’t think it is just because of the media coverage.

Given that polls taken immediately after Gore’s debates with Bush found that viewers thought Gore won – and that much of the immediate post-debate media analysis suggested that he had won as well – it’s pretty clear that the media’s obsessive focus on his sighing and other nonsense is precisely the reason why those incidents came to define him. Viewers reacted positively to Gore.

It’s certainly true that the press hostility to Gore is what changed the impression people had of the debates. But that’s only part of the story. Let’s not ever forget how much of their “data” came from their bffs, Barbara Comstock and Tim Griffin (of US Attorney scandal fame) at the RNC oppo-research department:

In the film we see RNC glee as AP accepts their oppo research on a Gore misstatement during the first debate . During their months of filming BBC producers also observed producers for NBC’s Tim Russert among others calling to enquire if the team had any new material. This was apparently normal trading on both sides. RNC researcher Griffin comments in the film: “It’s an amazing thing when you have topline producers and reporters calling you and saying ‘we trust you…. we need your stuff.'” […]
And so – on the night of the first debate – we see a pumped-up Tim Griffin (deputy head of RNC Research) barking orders to his large team of “oppos.” Lehrer tosses Gore the question about him having cast doubt on whether Bush has sufficient experience to lead. Gore demurs and parses his response. Griffin leaps into loud action. Within minutes his team have tracked down an obscure Gore quote buried within the transcript of a lengthy speech. Gotcha! “It directly contradicts what he just said in the debate! He just lied!” crows Griffin. Seconds later Griffin has fed the contradiction to the Associated Press. This is beyond post-debate spin. This is play-by-play impeachment. And incredibly effective.

As Foser says, Fletcher picked a very bad example. And that he also doesn’t seem to understand how these narratives are shaped by shallow reporters being willingly spun by political operatives demonstrates the ongoing problem with the press.