Did Hillary really “win” Texas?

[COMMENTARY]  Were news organizations right to say on Tuesday night that Sen. Hillary Clinton had “won” Texas? Think about it. Votes from the Texas caucus are still being tabulated. As of Thursday, according to The Associated Press, Sen. Barack Obama was ahead with 56 percent to 44 percent in 41 percent of the precinct caucuses.

If Obama winds up with more votes than Clinton in the Texas caucus, enough of a margin so that he ends up with more total Texas delegates than she does, were the mainstream news media correct to say on election night that she had “won” Texas? Wouldn’t it have been more accurate (although maybe less sexy) to phrase it more carefully? For example: “Hillary Clinton tonight received more votes than Obama in the first step of the Texas Two-Step election, the popular vote primary, but it’s too soon to say whether she will get more votes in the second step, the caucus  — and so it’s too soon to say whether she will get more Texas delegates overall than he will. At this point we can’t say who won more delegates in Texas and which way the Texas delegation will vote at the convention.”

Of course, that’s not as much fun as seeing a map turn light blue (or whatever color) for Clinton on the wall in the big network election central headquarters.

Continued -Meanwhile, each side is spinning Texas its way. Clinton’s campaign says it won Texas. As of Sunday, Obama’s campaign Web site has one map showing it won Texas, but another map showing it is not yet clear.

Pretty confusing.

It’s the job of journalists to try to bring about clarity in a situation like this. Many journalists are making it clear as mud, but some are trying to be more precise.

One journalist who has tried to be more cautious and careful is Jake Tapper of ABC News in his blog: “In Texas, Clinton won 1,459,814 votes, or 50.89% while Obama won 1,358,785 or 47.36%. She won 65 delegates in the primary to his 61. We’re still unsure of the final delegate outcome in the Lone Star State because of the subsequent caucus, from which the Texas Democrats have yet to announce a final tally. It is more than possible if not likely that Obama will win more delegates there because of the caucus, but we will not know for quite some time. ‘We got more delegates in both Texas and Nevada,’ Obama spox [spokesperson] Bill Burton [said], referring to the Obama campaign’s projection of delegates in Texas.”

But even if Obama ends up with more total Texas delegates (combined primary and caucus), the damage to the truth has already been done. The public has received the impression that he “lost” Texas. If he later turns out to have won it in the sense of garnering more delegates, it won’t seem as dramatic as it would have on election night.

To be sure, he did fail to win more votes than she did in the First Step of the process, the direct primary vote, and that’s important. But it’s not the whole story.

By simply saying she “won” Texas, the media got it wrong in the sense of misleading the public.

Just as news media got it wrong before the New Hampshire primary by making too many assumptions that Hillary was sure to lose and failing to remind viewers and readers that opinion polls can be wrong.

Why is all this important? Political campaigns are about perceptions. Each side wants to create the impression that it is the winning side. Each side is trying to sway potential voters in the remaining primaries and also win over uncommitted superdelegates. One way of trying to do this is to manipulate public opinion through the news media, getting journalists to frame a story in a way that helps one candidate. But it’s not the job of journalists to help or hurt any candidate. Journalists should serve the public. They should provide the public with the best, most accurate information and then let voters decide. If journalists say one side “won” an election, when the reality is more complex and nuanced, then they are doing the public a disservice.

Bottom line: Journalists need to be more cautious and careful, and report only what is objectively true in the most precise manner possible.

Then the real winner will be the truth.

Tony Collings is a Lecturer in Communication Studies at the University of Michigan and a former CNN Washington correspondent and Newsweek London bureau chief. He is the journalism mentor of Michigan Messenger.

Graphic: Texas postcard at

Comments

• Jambalaya

  Who Won Texas? Professor Collings knows what he’s talking about. He points out the inherent flaws in the pervasive rush-to-judgment climate of a 24-hour news cycle. Keep them honest, to borrow a phrase, and keep up the good work, sir.

• Druk

  Slow counters? Prof. Collings has puts his finger on a major weakness of the media: Reporters are under pressure to rush to the most dramatic conclusion possible. It’s an increasingly competitive game, and truth is the casualty. Everyone sort of knows Texas results are incomplete but people seem to go along with the erroneous headlines. I’m surprised Obama doesn’t make more of the delayed result. He is the one getting hurt by it. I heard James Carville (Hillary’s adviser) last night repeating on CNN “We won Texas and Ohio.” No one corrected him. Another mystery is why it takes so long to come up with the final caucus count. Are the Texans slow counters? Our democracy really isn’t working very well.

• Jambalaya

  Who Won Texas? Professor Collings knows what he's talking about. He points out the inherent flaws in the pervasive rush-to-judgment climate of a 24-hour news cycle. Keep them honest, to borrow a phrase, and keep up the good work, sir.

• Druk

  Slow counters? Prof. Collings has puts his finger on a major weakness of the media: Reporters are under pressure to rush to the most dramatic conclusion possible. It's an increasingly competitive game, and truth is the casualty. Everyone sort of knows Texas results are incomplete but people seem to go along with the erroneous headlines. I'm surprised Obama doesn't make more of the delayed result. He is the one getting hurt by it. I heard James Carville (Hillary's adviser) last night repeating on CNN “We won Texas and Ohio.” No one corrected him. Another mystery is why it takes so long to come up with the final caucus count. Are the Texans slow counters? Our democracy really isn't working very well.

Categories & Tags: Barack Obama | Commentary | Hillary Clinton. Media Monitor | Presidential Election 2008 | Presidential Primary 2008 | TX Presidential Primary |