Mitt Romney and the Media – “Fighting Uphill Battle” Unequivocally Stating the Obvious Negative, or Subliminal Reporting On Mitt Romney the Norm

Romney and Obama - a Tale of Two Ideologies and the Press - image mrmediatraining.com


From Politico: the Headline: “Romney: 'I'm fighting uphill battle' in media” covers the remarks made by Republican Presumptive Presidential Nominee in reference to the type of reporting from what has become known as the “mainstream” media – which is consistently negative, and growing more contentious and sensational by the day.

If one watches the morning news, it is obvious that the President is treated, on the campaign trail, as above the fray, while Romney is consistently vilified – based on remarks or “information” coming from campaign sources. The print press has been relentless, and the blogs that feed the press – even more ridiculous. What the independent sees, however, is a disparity, wondering what those in the media whose obvious support for one candidate over another, is doing – besides alienating at least fifty percent of the electorate – and fueling a greater partisan divide. The fact that Romney has been successful in his career, has been fodder for the media to portray the candidate as an “out-of-touch”, mean-spirited, rich guy – which, when one looks at past presidents from both major political parties, Romney’s “wealth” is sometimes dwarfed by those know by Progressives as coming from the Second Estate – the Robber Barron’s who made their wealth through dubious means, and emerged as the nation’s leaders – the Carnegies, the Rockefellers, the Kennedy’s. When the last Senator Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter in 1980, there was little mention of his off-shore holdings – which is common knowledge in the Bay State. Fast forward to the current contest, and the fact that President Barack Obama is not, decidedly, in the poor-house, but doing quite well in the Millions category – apparently is given a pass. Of course, there is a pass given to this President, not due to the fact of race, or competence, or anything other than a shared ideology – it is a political bent that is fueling the coverage of both Candidates.


The question now remains is the public buying into all of the negatives – it’s quite possible that, unlike the eight years the press hammered away at President George W.Bush, (and sometimes to be fair, deservedly), which was pivotal is allowing John McCain to be painted with the same “Bush” brand, and made it impossible for anyone with an – R – in their resume, to be elected (or re-elected) in 2008. By 2010, something occurred that shocked the media – apparently, this Tea Party thing, and the general public, decided to upend the entire Congress and almost caught the Senate – Now with Romney, there has been a) too much time between Bush and Romney to draw any specific comparison (although they have tried), and b) too little time to do as much damage as they hope. It is a matter of trust, and the trust in the instructions of News, both print and other, is in the tank –and not by half of the nation, but by two thirds or more.

Gallup Polling’s annual “Trust in Institutions” polling from 2011 indicated that merely 28 and 27% of the respondents put their trust into newspapers and televised news. The 2012 poll suggests that the situation has not improve with a 21% suggesting Televised News was trustworthy, and 25% placed their confidence in newspapers.


Gallup is not knows as a politically motivated, rather bi-partisan polling firm, therefore, these numbers should be fairly accurate.


The Headlines:


The Sample of Headlines from Google News alerts regarding Mitt Romney from one alert (an alert may contain one to 10 articles and there are multiple alerts throughout the day) dished up the following:

From the Boston Globe: Romney attacked on Bain Question”

The LA Times: Dick Cheney Hosts Fundraiser for Romney (one must read the article to get the full effect)

The Boston Globe Mitt Romney and his tax returns: Déjà vu?” (Reference to the Obama Campaign requesting Romney release scores of tax returns, which is neither precedented nor unprecedented in the political arena).

Upstate ”Romney gets rocky reception from NAACP”

The Washington Post Mitt Romney’s Cynical Response to NAACP Booing”

New York Daily News: Mitt Romney Uses Old Hilary Clinton Footage to Attack President Barack Obama”

The Dickenson Press: Stinky Economy Plays into Mitt Romney’s Hands”

And on and on and on...

However, if one has a Google Alert set up for the President – one finds the following – far too many mentions to post in one short blog – 99.9% of those in supportive verbiage – rather than any mentions of missteps, such as Solyndra, or Fast and Furious, or the drums of war beating again as the U.S. heads towards the Persian gulf.

It is a divide so obvious and so great, is it any wonder that a) the press has scored so low in Gallup’s polling and b) Romney is raking in contributions, and not, as portrayed in the press, at just those big fundraisers (the President has those as well but they are reported in glowing, rather than “negative” terms) but at the clip of $3.00 to $10.00 per donation, adding up to a net plus in the last reporting to $34,000,000 more than the President managed to amass.


The political cheerleaders in the U.S. media may find a backlash – similar to the one in 2010, but more important, a need to replace the ever decreasing readers and viewers who simply cannot stand another issue/broadcast – regardless of the coupons, crossword puzzles, and other “exclusive news”. It has little to do with the internet, or Fox News (often vilified), or the “blogs” (guilty as charged) – if one reads all material, or one watches all network news (and cable news network’s) one sees a definitive difference in reporting on the same event – from the press to MSNBC in the extreme, to Fox offers straight news, with no inflection of opinion, and opinion programming, clearly marked as not news, yet compared to MSNBC, extreme right, to CNN, where there’s a seeming middle ground. CBS, NBC and ABC, both local and national is clearly in sync and clearly invested in the campaign.

Romney, however, is most likely the least surprised at the fact that he will never be friends with the media, and will have little to no fair coverage, nor would any other candidate who may have been the front-runner and the presumptive GOP nominee. It would not have mattered one bit, the treatment would be the same.


This is why, in a short history lesson, the Founders, in letters published in the Federalist Papers, debated heavily over giving the Press certain rights, there was keen opposition mainly due to the possibility that the press might actually try to change or overthrow the government – from the Federalist Papers #84 – written by Alexander Hamilton

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved"? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.3 And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.

To put the essay into perspective, the Bill of Rights was put forth by the State of New York, insisting that the language in totality be included in the framed Constitution. There was a rather heated debate – much of which is available in biographies of Madison, Jay and Hamilton. That said, the questions raised in the past, were not, obviously unfounded. In the end it was included by a vote as well as the need to keep the New York contingent in the fold.


To be certain, the document is timeless and somewhat prophetic – in not the way that the press would cause a revolution, per se, rather in how the press would choose political sides, and a progressive ideology to support and include in their “opinionated straight news”. That is not to say the press is without purpose, nor that the entire body is to be maligned, as there are obviously solid journalists with integrity who will not inflict their personal opinions into an article to make one appear less than perfect, or perhaps use video footage that has been so badly edited, one is immediately caught (Andrea Mitchell, editing Mitt Romney’s on the campaign trail),or consistently being forced to retract incendiary headlines or statements, under threat of law suit (too numerous to mention).





If for example, the media woke up tomorrow, and began to report straight news, and use investigative journalism in reporting for good, or ill, on both candidates, one can bet the house, there would be a renewed subscriber base or viewership – one that had the highest score in Gallup’s trust in institutions polling. That would have a net effect of creating more jobs in journalism and the trickledown effect of an increase in revenue. The aforementioned is, of course, wishful thinking.


Mitt Romney might, in the long run, wish to thank those in the press for being so gung-ho for one political ideology, as only 30% are listening with attention, while the balance are not buying it – like the collective boy who cried wolf, sooner or later, the people will rise up and elect a Republican candidate – just as they did in 2010 and with each negative article or broadcast, as the cash pours into the Romney Campaign, it may represent a return to 2010, at all levels – the only way the press has to prevent this is to treat each candidate – equally.

2012 GOP Update: Palin Wins Praise - LA Times Compares to Obama – Trump Given Credence by Vanity Fair? The Outsiders in the GOP Field –It’s About Time

Nothing drives the establishment press and Beltway pundits (from all political affiliations) about the bend more than someone whom “they” feel is not “up to snuff” attempt to throw a proverbial hat into the ring of political ring as a candidate for higher office – be it a Senator or in this case a run at the Presidency. It is evident, and has been since one Sarah Palin hit the stage in 2008 at the GOP convention as the Vice Presidential Candidate that there was something “not quite right” about Sarah. For starters she didn’t have an “Ivy League” degree, nor was she a “Washington Insider”, she didn’t speak in the manner to which both East and West coast academics were accustomed, rather used language and colloquiums that were more in tune with those whose education and “class” might be suspect to those who consider themselves America’s Elite. The fact that she was a woman and conservative, that was too much to bear – from the right and from the left came barbs from the ludicrous to the just plain crass – and it continues today, with little known professors writing tomes about Palin that are more fiction than fact. Palin is no longer alone in the field of “possible candidates” whom the press and the Beltway are now heavily vested in demeaning for being – themselves. Donald Trump, the real estate mogul, reality television star and well, all around Trump, has also thrown is “I’m considering a run for the Presidency” out into the big pond of politics. Trump is also considered, like Palin, not up to snuff, he’s too…..pick something, from his hair to his shoot from the hip (very Palin by the way), style of answering questions asked straight on with no apologies is pushing Karl Rove and company into a tizzy.

Of all the candidates who might run (and one has to speculate that it is a combination of television contracts as well as the scope of the mess one would have to clean up, among mundane things like a rabid press and Beltway) the aforementioned make the most sense. They are who they are, and refuse to change to appease the press and or academics – which stands them in good stead with the “regular folk” – in other words, the very people who are fed up with the entire “holier than thou” or “smarter than thou” attitude one sees coming from those that truly believe they are just that “special”. The fact that one has a degree from Harvard, Yale, or has spent 30 years in the Senate or as an advisor to whomever, or is the “star” at a certain media house, or better yet the editor, publisher or producer, does not necessarily mean, that common sense is present, nor an ounce of understanding of our nation’s founders intentions. The intent was a citizen’s government, and no citizens were exempt from holding office (unless, of course, they were foreign nationals, and then there are some exceptions as to which offices they may hold). There was no mention of one having to go to Harvard or Berkeley, there was no mention that one must speak a certain English dialect, and one did not have to be part of an “elite” club that told the “masses” what to think.

Simply because the aforementioned candidates resonate with the “regular folk”, the elite are having a hard time wrapping their minds around what life might be like, post-Obama with either Palin or Trump holding the highest office in the land – thus out comes the barbs. One has to hand it them, they being perfect and the rest of us being just…not perfect enough, they make some fine points, while missing the big picture. On Trump especially, they’ve investigated everything from his hair to his serious intent to run, specifically pointing out that NBC media execs are hoping he won’t run, putting on hold their very popular program “Celebrity Apprentice”. That fact becomes “Donald isn’t serious”. What if he is? He sounds about as serious as a heart attack, and as his stock has risen, he has actually appeared to push other competitive minded politico’s (ok one) out into the open – Sarah Palin.

An article in Investors Business Daily headlines “Palin Fresh Breeze in Wisconsin” and goes on to speak to her amazing speech that was given at a Tax Day “Tea Party” rally in Madison Wisconsin this past week, in the editorial she did nothing wrong and everything right – specifically when she called on the union workers rather than on the union bosses who, as one should be well aware, specifically study the art of “labor” at colleges and universities, in order to rack up a higher than average salary in order to “organize labor”. (See course of study at University of Massachusetts). The article compared her to Ronald Reagan, a first, and although IBD is not the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, the fact remains, the article was not written by some anonymous blogger, or a “blog for Palin”. She has struck a very hopeful nerve. The Los Angeles Times went one step further comparing Palin’s Passover Wishes to President’ Obama’s, with, one has to read the article (see link) straight reporting. No kidding.

Enter “The Donald” – who is so well branded, he’s international in scope – Vanity Fair (read that twice) released an article: Despite NBC’s Reported Skepticism Donald Trump May Actually Run for President” They quote NBC executives, (Who better to know the inner workings of Trumps plans than those who stand to lose the most should he walk off the set of the final show and go directly to a press conference and announce he’s running for President?) by saying it’s “Donald being Donald” (Vanity Fair). Then they start go into specifics: as to the reality of a Trump campaign by pointing to who he is interviewing for specific posts for a Presidential Campaign.
From Vanity Fair:

On the other hand, Politico is not so sure this is not just a case of Donald Being Donald. In an article today, Ben “Who?” Smith and Maggie Haberman argue that Trump is “taking very concrete steps toward forming—and announcing—a presidential campaign.” In the past weeks, the Trump Organization C.E.O. has interviewed consultants and potential campaign managers, placed dutiful phone calls to religious gentlemen of outsize importance in Iowa and Florida, and summarily reversed a long-held belief—all behaviors characteristic of someone whose endgame is bigger than Sweeps Week. Plus, now he even has a slogan: Donald Being Donald … For America.

The author even got a swipe in at Politico, as if the blog is well, less than print worthy. The fact that Trumps and his Organization is interviewing (and vetting one can bet the house), campaign mangers and consultants for a run, speaks volumes. One can’t miss the sarcasm of the alleged slogan - that said, it was a fair article.

Finally, despite the hue and cry over a late start by the entire field of GOP candidates as well as the polls that show President Obama with an edge over “pick one”, the simple matter is that until 2007, announcements came as late as August, with those announcing later, going on to win the nomination. The trend towards early annulments and campaigns appeared with the 2007 Democrat campaigns, with President Bush ending his second term, the Democrats and Republicans pushed past the norm, and backed the actual debates and announcements up six to nine months eelier than the historical norm. The media and the politico’s apparently had something to gain – ratings for one, and something to write about, for two. Therefore, if Trump decides in June and Palin does as well, and Mike Huckabee throws his hat in the ring in July, it would be the norm for American Politics. Debates were previously held in Octobers of the year prior to the primaries. Let those that care to speculate, speculate (because it is vastly entertaining), and then, when these candidates are ready to announce, and they will do so, one is fairly sure, to the people not the media or ask permission of Karl Rove and Co. (Rove by the way, has downplayed both Palin and Trump, and anyone who does not fit the Rove Standard – mini-chalkboard and all –not that Rove isn’t a smart man, it is that Rove is part of that Beltway Inner Circle – which might prevent him from taking seriously anyone that is not – as in the case of both Trump and Palin – he also thought that Scott Brown in his race against Democrat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts special election to fill a vacant senate seat, way back in 2009, was not terribly competitive, he spoke to the fact that Brown “might come close” this was a week before voters went to the polls – Brown, if one recalls, rode his pickup truck across the blue state, and spoke like – a regular guy.).

The regular guy effect (or gal) – it is something about people who resonate with the voters, and they do say things that, yes on the face of it, might appear outlandish, if one is not used to say a Queens accent or a Midwest transplant Alaskan accent – otherwise, those that are willing to overlook the fact that someone might not have the best degree, silver spoon, or criteria set forth by the elite corps, will most likely vote for the person who will get the job done, and has a track record of getting things done, as does the former Governor of Alaska and as does Donald Trump.
The problem facing American’s Therapists to the Elite at the moment is which syndrome they may have to treat – Palin Derangement and/or Trump Derangement!

Polls: Rasmussen Reports recently released a blistering poll on Trump versus Obama, digging into the vault on Trumps “favorability ratings from May 2007”, and comparing data from early March (before Trump was a twinkle (or thorn) in the eye of the establishment (for lack of a better word). In the scenario of the poll, if one looks at it on face value, the fact that Trump, yet to announce and only in the eye of the press for over one month (while speculation on other candidates has been taking place for six months at least (see Mid-terms in October of 2010 and the official starting point), Trump is merely 15 points behind Obama, who, incidentally does not break 50% of the vote. The final number pre announcement by anyone is Obama 49, Trump 34 – shades of Scott Brown and the Coakley poll produced by the Boston Globe back in January a week prior to the election.

Here’s this opinion – both Palin and Trump add excitement to the race, and a quality of can do attitude that will resonate with the public (and it already does). Both are qualified by virtue of the fact that they have actually run something, other than for office. They are both genuine articles, who relate to the regular guy, they sound just like the regular guy, and there is nothing that a million negative articles, YouTube video’s, toxic blogs, or academics looking to sell 15,000 copies of a bad book can do about it.

When the debates do roll around, if these two qualified and interesting individuals are on the stage, with the rest of the “yet to announce”, it will boost rating through the roof.

The nation will be glued as it needs to know who to vote for in the event this nation does not improve drastically in the next 6 months. By that: increasing and damaging inflation of food and fuel, the fact that the S&P is about to downgrade the US credit rating (which has far reaching consequences, global consequences), wars on three fronts, and the usual or unusual amount of assaults on the homeland by Mother Nature. (The later in reference to the recent devastation in the southern U.S. where the White House has no plans to even do a flyover as of this writing. Whereas one can imaging Palin in with both feet on the ground helping to rebuild (literally), and Trump insuring the that all was well by hiring the right people for the job, and actually showing up.)

It is what America needs now, a President who shows up – A President who isn’t’ so concerned with his chances for reelection that he endangers the economy while on the “stump”, a President who actually relates to the people, and does not lecture them. It is time for the “Joe or Jane American to step up and take the reins, and this is not to say that either Trump or Palin is either average, they are rather exceptional individuals who have the gumption and wherewithal to withstand the assaults made by a group of pantywaists that cannot see past their own importance, and make the tough decisions necessary to run a nation.