Markos Moulitsas: How the media is changing

The ages-old animosity between the political media and Hillary Clinton erupted last week. Political pundit hacks screeched about lack of access to her campaign, complaining about her refusal to pay them much heed. 

There was Jason Horowitz of The New York Times doing his best Rush Limbaugh impersonation, tweeting derisively, “In Iowa, Queen Hillary and the Everyday Americans of the Round Table distribute alms to the clamoring press.” 

{mosads}Or how about The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, lecturing the Clinton campaign pretentiously, “The role of the media in this process is to show voters who these people are, really, and to explain how these people would govern the country if elected. Like the media or not, that’s a very important role — and one that is essential to a functioning democracy.”

That’s the same Cillizza who once admitted, “my job is to assess not the rightness of each argument but to deal in the real world of campaign politics in which perception often (if not always) trumps reality.” Apparently “truth” isn’t an essential component of a functioning democracy, nor “reality.” And Horowitz betrays not just his hatred for “Queen Hillary” but also his cohort’s arrogant hostility toward regular Americans participating in the political process.  

Last week, Clinton indulged the political press following her with a rare question-and-answer session. She was rewarded with questions like, “What makes you so special?” as well as broken-record queries about her emails and Clinton Foundation donations. It took an actual voter to ask her a pertinent, relevant and timely question that day: What was her stand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal? 

To her credit, Clinton hasn’t been shy about taking questions from real people, something that clearly drives her campaign press coterie bonkers, like the one who interrupted a session with voters by shouting at her, “Secretary Clinton, will you take questions from the media as well?” It’s not that she isn’t taking questions, it’s that isn’t taking questions from them. Her (non)answer to the TPP question was more newsworthy than anything any reporter asked her. 

Fact is, the Beltway political media are an anachronism from a bygone era, one in which they were gatekeepers of information, and candidates had no choice but to try and sell their message through that filter. But the traditional media are in a state of decline — in ratings, circulation and influence. 

Today, everyone is media, and candidates no longer need media hacks with questionable agendas to deliver their words. They can now engage directly in two-way interactions with supporters via Twitter, Facebook and myriad other social media outlets. 

Furthermore, our highly partisanized electorate means smart candidates are better off spending their time targeting core base supporters via niche outlets. Republicans have been doing this for ages, camping out at Fox News HQ and cozying up to their talk radio pals. But Democrats are learning that The Washington Post and The New York Times offer little access to core supporters in key battlegrounds. They are much better off spending time talking to local broadcast outlets, Univision, LGBT magazines, black radio, Asian newspapers, Comedy Central and genuinely liberal media outlets. 

As NBC’s Chuck Todd wrote a couple of weeks ago, “No matter what she says, she’s not going to please Republicans and many members of the political press corps.” He’s right. So Clinton might as well treat members of that political press corps the way she should treat Republicans — with a heavy dose of skepticism and scorn. 

Moulitsas is the founder and publisher of Daily Kos.