by Lance Thompson

The media, except for Fox and talk radio, have been committed Obama supporters since his speech at the 2004 Democrat convention. This is understood by both sides and the public, whose trust in the accuracy of the press has been declining since the early 1970's.

The mainstream media are invested in Obama’s triumph because they like the story–first black presidential candidate beats front-runner Hillary Clinton to become his party’s nominee. The happy ending to the story is Obama winning the election. Their own investment in the outcome causes the media to influence that outcome with their coverage–positive for Obama, negative for McCain. But this bias is not irreversible.

No politician enjoyed better press coverage than Bill Clinton. His campaign was aided immensely by positive coverage. After reports of infidelity prior to the primaries, 60 Minutes gave Bill and Hillary a non-challenging prime time forum to dismiss the charges without either confirming or denying them. This was followed by Clinton’s second-place finish in New Hampshire, behind Democrat Paul Tsongas. But the focus of the media coverage, rather than Clinton’s loss, was his self-described status as "the comeback kid." The media liked the story, and that’s what they emphasized. Few headlines even mentioned Tsongas, the winner of the primary.

Clinton went on to win the nomination and election. His administration received positive coverage, and even when he was forced to pass welfare reform (an issue he campaigned on, but did not act upon) by the new Republican majority in Congress, he was given the credit for "ending welfare as we know it" rather than being blamed for abandoning liberal orthodoxy. The media was firmly behind Clinton.

The Monica Lewinsky scandal changed that. Reports of Clinton’s affair with a White House aide stubbornly continued to surface in alternate media sources. Clinton was forced to confess the affair he had denied when incontrovertible evidence surfaced, and the media sensed the potential for downfall. Investigations, more revelations, and talk of impeachment demonstrated that Clinton was not invincible. The press turned on him, hounding him constantly, covering impeachment proceedings with relish. Clinton avoided removal from office, but he did that without the help of the press.

Why did the press turn on Clinton? Journalists did not all suddenly convert to conservatism. Their personal bias did not abruptly reverse polarity. They sensed a Greek tragedy in the making–popular two-term president destroyed by his own infidelity and dishonesty. Their own support of Clinton was trumped by their need to be on the right side of the story. No journalist wanted to praise Clinton if the mood of the country was shifting toward "kick the bum out." The mainstream media didn’t expose the scandal, but they didn’t want to be defending a guy whose number was up.

The same principle could apply to the Obama campaign. The media’s widespread support for Obama could easily be reversed. Obama has kept a narrow lead in the polls, but his choice of Joe Biden as a running mate didn’t give him much of a boost. He still faces a contentious convention with dissatisfied Hillary supporters. The McCain campaign continues to jab at his weaknesses of character, experience and conviction. The race remains close.

If Obama slips behind, even by a couple of points, the narrative will change. Obama’s meteoric rise to front-runner and nominee will be old news. The fresh story will be that of a nominee who can’t close the deal, who falls off the pace in the final lap, who looks tired in the last round. The media won’t want to be extolling Obama’s virtues if it looks like he won’t be able to win. They will want to be on the right side of the story. They will want to tell Americans why they have doubts, why Obama isn’t all that he seemed in the spring, why McCain actually has a stronger case. The media does not like to be proven wrong by events. And if an event seems inevitable, they would rather say "We told you so" rather than "Who knew?"

So Obama should make the most of his fawning press coverage now. It may be enough to carry him to victory in November. But he should also be aware that his loyal followers in the press could turn into dogged pursuers at the slightest whiff of blood. The difference between media darling and scapegoat is now a couple of percentage points. If Obama slips, the supportive reporters he has relied on may turn out to be the ones who will gleefully document his downfall.