The Media: It's All About P-P-P-Perceptions

With Hillary Clinton probably down to one last spin on the electoral carousel, the flurry of stories on whether the mainstream media has been tougher on her than on Barack Obama has become a blizzard.

The New York Times reports that:

"As the two Democratic candidates shuttled between Ohio and Texas this week before Tuesday’s potentially decisive nominating contests, questions over whether reporters were giving each candidate an equally fair shake were thrust into the center of the campaign itself. There were already indications that Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates were finding traction in casting the news media as a conflicted umpire, while also prompting some soul-searching among the reporters themselves."

I will grant you that Clinton has more of a record to pick at than Obama, but beyond that the playing field has been pretty level this election cycle.

That is to say that in general the media has been far less curious about where the candidates stand on the issues and far too invested in the horse race, took too long to realize that Obama had caught lightning in a bottle, and has been too obsessed with photographs of Obama in tribal garb and Clinton boo-hooing, to name two of the innumerable story boomlets.

While they may be some professor who as I write this is examining every jot and tittle of media coverage and will publish a paper (probably long after an election) that concludes that there was bias, it comes down to a matter of perception.

If you believe that Obama has been getting a free ride then you're almost certainly a Clinton supporter. If you believe that Clinton has been getting a free ride then you're almost certainly an Obama supporter. And never the twain shall meet.