Hillary's Rope Trick Getting A Bum Rap
The American public has a pretty high level of seething contempt for politicians. However, this is easily matched (if not surpassed) by the level of seething contempt the public also holds for journalists and the news media. I mention these two facts because whenever the media inserts itself into a story (or "becomes the story"), they usually are astonished that the public doesn't see them in the quite the sympathetic light they're aiming for. Which brings us, in a roundabout way, to the story of Hillary Clinton's rope trick.
If you haven't heard the story yet, you must not pay much attention to politics or the news in general, because it's been all over the place since last weekend. Hillary Clinton, as presidential candidates are wont to do, participated in a July Fourth parade in a town in an early-primary state. The press was invited to cover the parade. Which they were fully able to do. Instead of Team Hillary positioning groups of the media at static points along the parade route, they even allowed the media to walk in front of Clinton along the parade route. But there was a problem. To keep the journalists and photographers moving, Clinton aides stretched a rope across the street and walked it forward, to prod the journalists to keep up a decent pace. It was, after all, a parade, and nobody likes a parade which repeatedly grinds to a halt.
However reasonable this all sounds, it made for terrible optics. Reporters were "corralled" or "kept away from the candidate" the news stories screamed. The photos show Clinton trying to pay attention to the crowd rather than the media scrum in front of her, but (as far as the media were concerned) Hillary was "roping herself off" or some such nefarious thing.
Now, a photo's worth a thousand words and all of that, and I certainly agree that the pictures were not favorable to Clinton, since they seemed to reinforce the "Hillary has contempt for the public" theme. Look at that photo -- she's an elitist, who thinks she has to be protected from the public! But bad photo-oppery aside, for me the photos only showed what incredible jackasses most political reporters following campaigns truly are.
The most interesting (and most amusing) video clip from the 2016 campaign so far is the one showing the media scrum taking full flight in pursuit of Hillary's "Scooby Van," as it pulled around behind a building she was about to enter. This was, doubtlessly, to get that Pulitzer-winning shot of "Hillary Clinton exits van and enters building." Dozens and dozens of grown men and women running pell-mell to get the most pedestrian of shots only shows the shallow nature of the press scrum itself. And it was precisely that press scrum which was being corralled in last weekend's parade. It wasn't "Clinton roping herself off from the public" -- the public was on the sides of the street, not in front of her. In fact, the rope was there to provide the public with an actual view of (and chance to interact with) Hillary Clinton. Think about it -- if the media hadn't been corralled, they would have (and I say this without a shadow of a doubt) surrounded Clinton and refused to move, and as a direct result the parade would have halted (or, at the very least, been considerably slowed down) and Clinton herself would have been blocked from the view of the public.
The stories the next day (and again I say this without doubt) would have been: "Clinton refused to interact with public during parade" and "Clinton slows small town parade to a halt, upsetting crowd." This is precisely what Team Hillary was trying to avoid. But by doing so, the rope (and the media) became the storyline.
Now, I am no rabid supporter of (or regular apologist for) Hillary Clinton. And I do think the media has a valid point indeed about how Team Clinton manages her press interactions -- she's been an official candidate for months now, and she only this week gave her first sit-down interview with a national media outlet. That's a valid complaint about press access to any presidential candidate. Clinton feeds the frenzy of press scrums (like the one desperately running for a totally banal shot of her) by refusing almost all other casual interactions with the press. If the only shot you can even get is of Hillary walking from a van to a door, then it increases the importance of getting such a shot, in other words. The rope photos seemed, at first glance, to reinforce this theme.
Even with such bad optics, though, Hillary's getting a bum rap. The media were not barred from the event, and they were not relegated to a designated spot along the parade route. Even though dozens of people shouldering television cameras is not a very parade-worthy sight (unless perhaps they broke out into choreographed precision backwards marching), they were still allowed to walk in the middle of the street in front of Hillary Clinton. They had more access then they really deserved, not less. Clinton's aides knew that media scrums follow absolutely no rules of politeness whatsoever, and they tried to avoid delaying the parade for the public. This also allowed Clinton to be clearly seen by the public, and even have a chance to interact with her (shake her hand, yell something rude, whatever). That's why the whole story was a bum rap. It was all about petulant cameramen (and camerawomen) who were denied their sacred opportunity to shove a camera right up Hillary's nostrils, thereby halting the parade and blocking any possible view of her by the spectators. That's precisely what happened, no matter how much the media would like to portray it differently.
Whenever the media "become the story," especially when they're trying for sympathy due to their supposed victimhood, they usually come off looking worse than if they had never tried to make it a story in the first place. Sure, being a reporter is tough and all, especially with a candidate who really doesn't like interacting with you and your fellows. But when the camera turns around and shows the press scrum itself, the public usually isn't very sympathetic in response.
Alexandra Pelosi used the experience of being a reporter assigned to cover George W. Bush's first presidential campaign to create a documentary movie about how campaigns were covered (Journeys With George). Many excellent books have been written about being part of the campaign media scrum (two of the best: Fear And Loathing On The Campaign Trail '72 and The Boys On The Bus). Bush, in Pelosi's movie, at one point is caught on a live microphone denigrating a reporter in eyebrow-raising terms, but he then turns the joke on its head by presenting all the reporters with baseball jerseys with "Major League Assholes" written on them.
Hillary Clinton's team hasn't shown such anywhere near such dexterity in press relations, but then Hillary Clinton has faced the national media for a lot longer than George W. Bush had when that movie was made. Where Bush responded with humor, Clinton usually responds with exasperation (at times bordering on contempt) towards the media. That's a valid complaint. But whining about a mild inconvenience for photographers which enabled a better parade experience for the public really isn't that big a deal. No matter how bad the pictures look.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I hadn't heard about this. I'm with you that reporters aren't doing themselves any favors in this story.
Jonathan Allen has a great piece over on Vox you might enjoy about how we shouldn't really be surprised given the rules that the media has for Hillary.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules
I found this Googling the story as I really hadn't heard it. Stupid writer cave!
-David
Much of the media seems to be approaching her candidacy with a "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't" mentality. The more they do it the more I want to defend her and the greater my respect for the fact that she's had the successes she's had because they have all been "in spite of" most media.
I'd like to see her do some Bernie's in some interviews: get the gotcha question and refuse to accept the frame. But Bernie has the luxury of losing, in a way. From my point of view it's got to be Hillary OR Bernie OR who? But not, not, not any one of those republicans. Way too much is riding on this election. I expect she's playing it safe because the stakes for her and the rest of us are so high.
David: saw that article a few days ago - right on the money.
This scandal is so boring that I blacked out while reading about it. Come to think of it, maybe the media should organize a Hillary blackout like they did to Ron Paul. You know, the kind of blackout where they talk about you on every media outlet in the universe, but they trivialize everything. Oh, wait . . .
Hillary needs to work a little harder to get the people on her side. The next time she parades, her goons should use bullwhips to keep those whiny stenographers moving.
Indeed.
I don't understand why there was a problem. Parade organizers get to say who can march in their parade, and they don't have to invite an unlimited number of media personnel. So why wasn't it limited to a few who could credibly promise good behavior during the event? Then no ropes or other hassle would have been required. Or put the photographers on a vehicle driven by someone from either the campaign or the parade.
Jonathan Allen has a great piece over on Vox you might enjoy about how we shouldn't really be surprised given the rules that the media has for Hillary.
The problem with all ya'alls claims about Hillary as the victim are very easy to refute...
One only has to put forth the scenario of putting a '-R' after Hillary's name instead of a '-D' and it would be YA'ALL that would be leading the pack holding the torches and pitchforks..
I am also constrained to point out that if ya'all's ONLY defense of Hillary is, "Well, there's no smoking gun!!"......
That's a pretty sad state of affairs....
Michale
I don't understand why there was a problem. Parade organizers get to say who can march in their parade, and they don't have to invite an unlimited number of media personnel. So why wasn't it limited to a few who could credibly promise good behavior during the event? Then no ropes or other hassle would have been required. Or put the photographers on a vehicle driven by someone from either the campaign or the parade.
Good point, dsws...
There are SOOO many ways the Hillary campaign could have handled it that would be much less damaging in the optics department...
But the campaign chose the WORST possible option, the option that gave the WORST possible optics...
Which leaves us with one of two possibilities..
That TPTB in the Hillary Campaign are playing Quad Tri Dimensional Chess with Machiavellian abandon...
OR
TPTB in the Hillary Campaign are completely tone deaf and have no clue what Middle Class Americans are all about.. That, once they go off script and out into the real world, they fall apart...
I am guessing the latter because Hillary and her Clintonistas just ain't smart enough for the former...
Michale
As to CW's commentary..
I agree....
Yea, it's really much ado about nothing. Nothing more than a case of press whinings...
And...
Yea.. It looks really REALLY bad for the Clinton Campaign.. For those who are inclined to be objective anyways...
Michale
Replace rope with a troupe of acrobats? Or mimes carrying plate glass? Same objective, keep the press herd moving, but better optics.
Note to Christie Campaign: Use a steam roller. On message, and the candidate is no longer the heaviest object in the parade.
Seriously, nice digging on this one CW!
Replace rope with a troupe of acrobats? Or mimes carrying plate glass? Same objective, keep the press herd moving, but better optics.
A Jem'Hadar force field gets my vote.. One touch and the reporter is vaporized.. :D
Yes, I have been binge-watching ST:DS9 :D
Michale
Liz,
Here's one just for you....
Despite all that hardship, there is a permanent sunniness about the man {Biden} that wins over even those who don’t share his politics. In a recent interview with the Huffington Post, Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said of Biden, “He’s the nicest person I think I’ve ever met in politics. He is as good a man as God has ever created.”
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/biden-670860-former-joe.html
:D
Michale
Thanks very much for that, Michale. It made my day!
But the campaign chose the WORST possible option,
I doubt it. They'll come up with something even worse next time.
Thanks very much for that, Michale. It made my day!
"One is honored to be of service.."
-Robin Williams, BICENTENNIAL MAN
:D
Michale
dsws,
I doubt it. They'll come up with something even worse next time.
Touche'.. You got me on that one. :D
Michale
akadjian [1] -
Yeah, I saw that Vox piece. A lot of truth to it...
Paula [2] -
I'd like to see her do some Bernie's in some interviews: get the gotcha question and refuse to accept the frame.
Yeah, me too. I love it when politicians directly attack the "conventional wisdom" nonsense from the press, by attacking the very frame of the question itself.
John From Censornati [4] -
Breathe, man, you've got to breathe! Ignore the spin! Take deep breaths!
Heh.
[5] -
Heh. Because bullwhips would provide a less provacative photo, of course...
dsws [7] -
Now there's an idea -- they should have been confined to a float, being pulled along at a steady velocity. I mean, how close do you need to get for a photo of "Hillary walks in a parade"?
Michale [10] -
Holy coincidence, Batman, do we agree on this one? A fake "scandal" ginned up by the media?
I also agree the optics were terrible, but this has the feeling of a "one-day" story, not a campaign theme or anything.
TheStig [11] -
Yeah, a few Republicans were dinged by the media for "slowing down the parade" (including Christie, I believe) which is why I was so confident that the media would have spun the Hillary story so differently if they had indeed been given full access to stop the parade whenever they wanted.
Michale [13] -
Oh, you just know LizM is going to like that one!
:-)
LizM [14] -
Well, there you go!
:-)
-CW
I also agree the optics were terrible, but this has the feeling of a "one-day" story, not a campaign theme or anything.
It already IS a campaign theme...
Hillary's disdain and contempt for the media..
It's not only a campaign theme, it's a HILLARY theme..
And Hillary is going to pay the price.. Because you KNOW that the GOP has a whole litany of scandals just waiting in the wings...
It will be the media that will make the determination as to whether or not the scandals get air time...
Hillary should be bending over backwards to get the media on her side...
Michale
Let me ask ya'all a sincere question...
Does anyone here HONESTLY want Bernie to be the Dem Candidate for POTUS??
Anyone at all??? :D
Michale
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/10/hillary_clinton_is_still_a_bad_liar_127325.html
Hillary's problem is not that she is a liar...
Hillary's problem is that she is a BAD liar...
Michale
Does anyone here HONESTLY want Bernie to be the Dem Candidate for POTUS?
I don't know. Maybe.
He can't possibly rev up the Republican base any more than Hillary does, and he has much more potential to mobilize Democratic votes. He's been in Congress for a reasonable length of time, so he must know his way around inside-the-beltway politics.
If we're going to lose either way, I would rather lose with Bernie than with Hillary. If we're going to win either way, I don't know. I would rather have a president with Bernie's views, if he were equally competent and could work equally well with the far-right (on economic issues) establishment.
However, my guess is that Bernie Sanders is prepared neither to actually run for president, nor to serve as president. I'm guessing he just threw his hat in the ring in order to affect the conversation. That's not the kind of candidate I want.
However, my guess is that Bernie Sanders is prepared neither to actually run for president, nor to serve as president. I'm guessing he just threw his hat in the ring in order to affect the conversation. That's not the kind of candidate I want.
In other words, a vanity candidate...
I see the Bernie campaign as a cautionary tale to the Left..
"Be careful what you wish for..."
Thank you for answering the question honestly...
Michale