I’ve been trying to think of a good way to express my frustration with the media - on both sides and NPR included - making up this “huge divide” between Clinton and McCain supporters. In college I studied both journalism and psychology so I understand the need to try to hold people’s attention, but this has gone way beyond that.

There has been constant coverage of a few Clinton supporters who are upset that she lost - thats understandable - but if you listen to the news you get the impression that these people are eager to go out and support John McCain. McCain’s platform is so far from what Clinton stood for in the primary season that you have to question what these few, but vocal, Clinton supporters wanted out of this election.

Were they voting for an X chromosome instead of the political positions held by Clinton? I really don’t want to think that is the case, but it may well be true for a small group of people. I was keeping count on the NPR coverage that I was able to listen to during my commute and the number of women that were interviewed on this issue outnumbered the men by at least ten to one. And even then, the overwhelming of these Hillary button wearign delegates said that when push comes to shove in November, they will be supporting Obama over McCain.

Eric Alterman wrote a nice column in The Nation that really sums up the problems with the media coverage of this overblown idea of a split within the Democratic Party. He exposes the echo-chamber effect driving this phenomenon as journalists use each other as ’sources’.

The following is a small except of Media Gone Mad. It’s worth reading the entire article if you have time.

…

The dead horse of supposed dead-end Hillary supporters is flogged into a pulp by the authors. They begin on a note that had me hopeful: “Neither Sen. Barack Obama nor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has any possible sane, rational reason for wanting tensions to continue.”

How true–but then the authors take a 180-degree turn toward insanity. Take a look at whom they cite when it comes to evidence of this supposed disunity: other journalists. There’s John F. Harris of The Politico, the AP’s Scott Lindlaw, Susan Page of USA Today, Patrick Healy of the New York Times, Anne Kornblut of the Washington Post, Geoff Earle and Maggie Haberman of the New York Post. Each offers evidence that is either purely editorial and unsourced, or sourced anonymously. For example, Harris: “For the next two days, a convention that belongs to Obama will be dominated by the same two people who dominated the Democratic Party for the last generation and who have come to Denver in much different roles than they wanted”; Page: “Clinton-watching has become the mesmerizing sideshow of the Democratic National Convention that will nominate Barack Obama”; Kornblut: “Obama’s decision to pass her over [for Vice President] remains central to the ongoing story of their strained relationship. It has also contributed to what associates say has been a difficult emotional period for the former first lady in the two months since ending her bid.”

It’s all “associates say,” or “some Clinton delegates,” or “an official familiar with conversations,” or “one adviser.” Can we actually get some names and positions, so that we can judge the (dubious) veracity of a Clinton-Obama war? Mostly, all we have are the mealy-mouthed assertions from other journalists–”Clinton, if sour, is pouting passively,” write Earle and Haberman. That means, Hillary is acting normal, but we’re pretending that maybe she’s mad on the inside.

The only non-journalist voices expressing anything close to a sense of disunity belong to Mary Boergers, a Maryland delegate who wants to cast a vote for Clinton; L. Douglas Wilder, the mayor of Richmond, Virginia (”The question is, are the Clintons ready?”), and Leon Panetta (”Sometimes dealing with the Clintons is like dealing with Brett Favre”). Wilder and Panetta’s comments are somewhat obtuse, and then there’s one delegate. This is what The Note describes as “the rivalry for the ages”?

…

Read the rest at Media Gone Mad