THE PAROCHIAL MEDIA
WASHINGTON — Every presidential election involving a Republican victor inevitably is followed by self-flagellation by the media: Gosh, how did we get it wrong this time?
How about every time the media’s guy or gal doesn’t win?
The public has seen it many times in the last 40 years. It is past time for self-examination.
Sure, sure, the models threw the politicos off. The polls were misleading. Republicans did far better than many of the folks who track politics expected.
But the news media’s chief problem is it’s stuck in a bubble. Sitting in the Green Room, I would listen to my colleagues discussing what they had learned on the hustings, thinking: Dropping in a place for a few hours isn’t enough to understand why people think a certain way.
I’ve been watching — and participated in — this charade for close to 35 years. When I drove to Washington in 2003, I told people I was going to be a spy for Bubba. Having observed national reporters parachuting into my home state every four years to conjure their idea of a native, I was annoyed we were being portrayed as ignorant yahoos.
I soon understood that stereotypes of “ignorant rednecks” flourished in no small part because of lazy reporters who sit at the counter at the Lizard’s Thicket, sipping sweet tea and eating gravy biscuits for half a day, before winging back to D.C.
So began my career as a spy — but not for Bubba, as it turned out. My role in Washington was to be a “Southern white woman,” as one MSNBC host once called me. I was embraced by cable-TV producers because I had actually lived among the indigenous peoples and could report on their strange habits, such as going to church on Wednesday night, their attachment to God, guns and the Confederate flag.
At a certain point, I wearied of a question that came up when speaking to groups of people outside my home state: Can you explain South Carolina? South Carolinian politician James L. Petigru’s famous quote after the state seceded from the Union in 1860 — “too small for a republic, but too large for an insane asylum” — had grown stale, so I defaulted to shaking my head. This usually got a big laugh. In truth, it was simply impossible to explain the South’s complexity to people who would never understand because they didn’t really want to.
In 2004, when George W. Bush won a second term, the media were aghast. They didn’t know anyone who had voted for him! What had they missed?
A similar reaction followed President Donald Trump’s near re- election a few weeks ago, prompting journalists to try to understand again how they missed the Republican success in House races. It’s a valuable exercise. We know Joe Biden’s election made perfect sense to most in the Beltway media, as would have Hillary Clinton’s, as did Barack Obama’s, as did Bill Clinton’s. That’s because most of them supported Democrats through undisguised, selective coverage.
Many Americans quit trusting the media long before Trump turned them into enemies of the people, but he recognized the value of calling out “fake news.” It worked to his advantage but not to the country’s. Earnest efforts post-2016 to better understand the American voter were well-intentioned if not nearly enough.
President- elect Joe Biden has promised unifying the country will be a priority of his administration. I trust his intentions, but he can only do so much without media cooperation. I’m not suggesting reporters should relax their watchdog role, but I hope all try to remember whence we came. We’re ink- stained wretches, after all, none more important than the people we’re supposed to serve — readers, television viewers and online followers who expect us to trust them to judge unfiltered facts we present in good faith.
Why wait for New Year’s Day to make a resolution?