by Lance Thompson

The media, except for Fox and talk radio, have been committed Obama supporters since his speech at the 2004 Democrat convention. This is understood by both sides and the public, whose trust in the accuracy of the press has been declining since the early 1970's.

The mainstream media are invested in Obama’s triumph because they like the story–first black presidential candidate beats front-runner Hillary Clinton to become his party’s nominee. The happy ending to the story is Obama winning the election. Their own investment in the outcome causes the media to influence that outcome with their coverage–positive for Obama, negative for McCain. But this bias is not irreversible.

No politician enjoyed better press coverage than Bill Clinton. His campaign was aided immensely by positive coverage. After reports of infidelity prior to the primaries, 60 Minutes gave Bill and Hillary a non-challenging prime time forum to dismiss the charges without either confirming or denying them. This was followed by Clinton’s second-place finish in New Hampshire, behind Democrat Paul Tsongas. But the focus of the media coverage, rather than Clinton’s loss, was his self-described status as "the comeback kid." The media liked the story, and that’s what they emphasized. Few headlines even mentioned Tsongas, the winner of the primary.

Clinton went on to win the nomination and election. His administration received positive coverage, and even when he was forced to pass welfare reform (an issue he campaigned on, but did not act upon) by the new Republican majority in Congress, he was given the credit for "ending welfare as we know it" rather than being blamed for abandoning liberal orthodoxy. The media was firmly behind Clinton.

The Monica Lewinsky scandal changed that. Reports of Clinton’s affair with a White House aide stubbornly continued to surface in alternate media sources. Clinton was forced to confess the affair he had denied when incontrovertible evidence surfaced, and the media sensed the potential for downfall. Investigations, more revelations, and talk of impeachment demonstrated that Clinton was not invincible. The press turned on him, hounding him constantly, covering impeachment proceedings with relish. Clinton avoided removal from office, but he did that without the help of the press.

Why did the press turn on Clinton? Journalists did not all suddenly convert to conservatism. Their personal bias did not abruptly reverse polarity. They sensed a Greek tragedy in the making–popular two-term president destroyed by his own infidelity and dishonesty. Their own support of Clinton was trumped by their need to be on the right side of the story. No journalist wanted to praise Clinton if the mood of the country was shifting toward "kick the bum out." The mainstream media didn’t expose the scandal, but they didn’t want to be defending a guy whose number was up.

The same principle could apply to the Obama campaign. The media’s widespread support for Obama could easily be reversed. Obama has kept a narrow lead in the polls, but his choice of Joe Biden as a running mate didn’t give him much of a boost. He still faces a contentious convention with dissatisfied Hillary supporters. The McCain campaign continues to jab at his weaknesses of character, experience and conviction. The race remains close.

If Obama slips behind, even by a couple of points, the narrative will change. Obama’s meteoric rise to front-runner and nominee will be old news. The fresh story will be that of a nominee who can’t close the deal, who falls off the pace in the final lap, who looks tired in the last round. The media won’t want to be extolling Obama’s virtues if it looks like he won’t be able to win. They will want to be on the right side of the story. They will want to tell Americans why they have doubts, why Obama isn’t all that he seemed in the spring, why McCain actually has a stronger case. The media does not like to be proven wrong by events. And if an event seems inevitable, they would rather say "We told you so" rather than "Who knew?"

By Lance Thompson

Recently I overheard a neighbor proudly showing his new truck to the guy next door. In response to appropriate appreciation, the new truck owner made this statement: I refuse to participate in the recession.

Slowly, the wisdom of this profound statement sank in. A recession, like any other manifestation of mass hysteria, requires participation to continue. People must have faith in a recession, must contribute to it, must convert others to believe in it. Otherwise, the recession would collapse for lack of support.

How do we know there is a recession in the first place? The media, bearer of all dire tidings, tell us so. It is clear to most Americans, based on a recent poll that rates the media among the least trustworthy of institutions, that those who bring us the news have an agenda. Part of that agenda is to elect Barack Obama. To achieve that end, the media must convince Americans that the economy is in a nosedive, so that we will seek relief from the junior varsity Senator from Illinois.

The media keep the news about rising gas prices, falling home prices, massive layoffs and the weakening dollar in the headlines and on the tops of the newscasts. There is no pessimistic economic indicator that doesn’t rate its own computer graphic, economic victim interview, and concerned look from the news reader.

Falling home prices certainly affect all homeowners. Journalists and commentators point to the phenomenon as proof of a worsening economy. However, when home values were rising just a few years ago, the exact opposite situation, the media were characterizing that as bad news as well. Even though rising home values added billions to the net worth of American homeowners, the media concentrated instead on the diminishing percentage of Americans who could afford the average home–the negative side of rising home values. Likewise, as home values fall, you will not hear reports in the media about the increasing affordability of homes. As prices come down, a larger percentage of the population can afford to buy homes, but this aspect is ignored by recession cheerleaders.

Economists gain access to the media and notoriety by volunteering their views on the coming recession. If you’re an economist with a doom and gloom forecast, you can be booked on a network show faster than an Olympic gold medalist. But The Wall Street Journal recently featured a story about foreign investors from Abu Dhubai buying the Chrysler building. This is a structure whose value is inextricably tied to the value of American commercial real estate. It is not an asset that can be purchased and shipped to the Middle East like some other token of wealth. Buying the Chrysler building is an $800 million bet on the future health of the United States economy. The views of economists are interesting, but none of them are playing with their own money.

High fuel prices impact everyone, but there are benefits to four dollar gas as well. Chrysler is spending almost $2 billion to retool a Detroit plant to build fuel-efficient, car-based SUV’s. It is a major investment in Michigan, which has been losing manufacturing jobs to other states for a generation. Boeing’s fuel-efficient 787 is the best-selling new airliner in history, with airlines around the world clamoring for the gas-sipping jet. High fuel costs have made Americans trade in gas guzzlers for fuel-efficient hybrids, and made American corporations increase their energy efficiency. Those habits will continue.

It’s not all good news, of course. Some people are doing well and some are having a tough time, which is pretty much the way things have always been. Most people’s relationship to the economy is intimate rather than general. The recession is a generalization, and certainly a subjective assessment. Not everybody is out of work, not every home is in foreclosure, not every business is going under–although that’s the way it looks on the news.

From personal observation, I see signs of a very healthy economy. My mother’s real estate office in Sacramento, a city with one of the highest foreclosure rates in the country, has seen business increase dramatically in the last two months. We have friends in Colorado who have added a premium zip-line attraction to their resort, and their business has doubled since last year. My wife, who recruits animators and visual effects artists for movies, has never been busier helping studios hire talented individuals.

There’s no such thing as a recession that affects everyone equally. There are challenges and opportunities in every economic situation. No matter what the media are talking about, people everywhere are starting or running businesses, looking for employment or employees, making investments in their homes, families or businesses. The principles that govern these activities don’t change just because the media says the economic sky is falling.