The media, ‘Klomentum,’ and the ‘erasure’ of Elizabeth Warren

Yesterday, people voted, their votes were counted, and we got (most of) the results. Normally, that observation would be routine, but it’s already been quite a year. Shortly before midnight, the Associated Press—which gave up on naming a winner in Iowa last week—projected that Bernie Sanders would win the Democratic primary in New Hampshire; as of early this morning, with 87 percent of results in, Sanders was slightly ahead of Pete Buttigieg, who will finish second. Not that everyone had their eyes on the winner. While voting was still underway yesterday, Adrienne Elrod, who was a spokesperson for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, said on MSNBC that the “real thing” she was looking at was “that key third-place finish”; if Amy Klobuchar could snag that, Elrod argued, it would almost “be stronger and more important than a first-place finish for Bernie.” (The remark reminded more than one reporter of Marco Rubio’s third-place “victory” in New Hampshire in 2016.) Klobuchar did, in the end, finish third, and decisively so. “Everyone counted us out—even a week ago,” she told her supporters, victoriously, before waving sarcastically at the news cameras. “Thank you, pundits!” Feeling aggrieved at media coverage is practically obligatory for political candidates. In Klobuchar’s case, it doesn’t really feel justified—not uniformly, at least. On numerous occasions, we’ve seemed keen to count Klobuchar in, even before we saw much evidence that she appeals to voters. “Despite... Continue reading at 'Columbia Journalism Review'

[ Columbia Journalism Review | 2020-02-12 13:10:44 UTC ]
News tagged with: #sacramento bee #radio stations #nieman lab #fairfax

The media, ‘Klomentum,’ and the ‘erasure’ of Elizabeth Warren

Other Publishing stories related to: 'The media, ‘Klomentum,’ and the ‘erasure’ of Elizabeth Warren'

Oxford Media Convention: Trinity Mirror's Sly Bailey on the 'need to educate' Hunt