Media Narratives

Today's SCOTUS 5/4 decision reminds me that elections have consequences. 

Specifically, that the effects of the 2000 election still linger and will for many years to come... 

Putting aside conservative justices that made today’s Hobby Lobby vote possible (as well as George W. Bush's presidency), there remains a mainstream media practice that quite possibly was the real decider of the 2000 election:  the “journalistic” technique of employing narratives to typecast presidential candidates.

Remember the cast of 2000? 

The Straight-Talking Maverick, John McCain… (recycled in 2008)

The Authentic Texan, George W. Bush… 

And, of course, the out of touch, inauthentic, know-it-all liar, Al Gore. 

Our mainstream media (not Fox), began this “War on Gore,” as Bob Somerby has dubbed it, some 20 months prior to the 2000 election and arguably made the race so close that the SCOTUS had to step in.

Now, 14 years later, another script is being cast. 

For the past two weeks, the same type of poisonous narrative that was created by our press corp about Al Gore is currently being written, but this time not about an actual, announced candidate.

This time it’s forming around a presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton.

She hasn't even announced if she'll run yet, but framing Clinton as too rich/out of touch has already begun in the Washington Post and by people like Diane Sawyer on TV, conveniently ignoring the millions of dollars a year pundits like her make for reading the “news” or giving their opinions on TV.

The hypocrisy is one thing, but for heaven’s sake, there are 29 months before our next presidential election!! 

In fairness, most pundits have played by The Clinton Rules for the last 29 years, so there's that.

But was there really NOTHING of substance Sawyer could have possibly asked the former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State? 

Instead of asking about her troubling speech fees, could Sawyer have asked Clinton about her "Too Small to Fail" campaign that tries to close that 30-35 million word gap that many students from low-income and low literacy backgrounds have by the age of three, a deficit that undoubtedly feeds our academic achievement gaps, not to mention national drop-out rates? 

Or would that not fit the narrative of Clinton being a big, rich phony?

Yes, elections have consequences, but so do these media narratives. 

My question is, in this age of social media, will these caricatures work again?