The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently posted a video on YouTube asking people to try to capture Republicans on camera in compromising situations.
“The next time a Republican has a 'Macaca Moment,' will you be there to capture it? The power to hold Republicans accountable for their lies, distortions, and attacks belongs to you. Keep an eye on your local newspaper and your Member of Congress' web site to see when they are having their next public event. Don't forget to bring your camera!”
This is all becoming rather ridiculous. Let’s get past the fact that it isn’t smart to throw stones if you live in a glass house. But are all these “I-report, you-report, we all-report” videos changing politics as we know it? CNN uses I-Report, a way to allow viewers to submit their own videos and stories on the promise that they may make it onto the CNN airwaves. MSNBC and FOX News both have similar programs. Some media analysts and experts say that this is new media, where viral video sets the terms of the debate. It only takes one viral video to dominate the 24-cable news cycle for the day.
Sure, it's easy to score political points by sending out an army of activists hell-bent on catching candidates in an unflattering situation. Gaffe-prone politicians favor the odds that someone armed with a video camera will be there the next time a senator has a macaca moment. But as this study shows, the public is growing impatient with the media's focus on the horserace and 'gotcha' journalism at the expense of issue coverage.
It must be weird to be Carl Bernstein. You're a celebrity journalist, but you're second to Bob Woodward. Not a bad gig, especially after getting a U.S. president to resign. Then what's going on here?
Newspapers are devoting fewer resources to issues of importance such as the Iraq war and potential abuses of the U.S. Constitution, the former
Washington Post reporter told students at the Brunswick School on Thursday (emphasis mine).
How did his book tour take him to Brunswick School? Does anyone know the science of figuring out where to go on book tours? Because one look at this list, and I'm clueless how it gets done. But I'm guessing that if Bernstein lives in New York, he's got a relative who attends. But isn't it weird to have him speak to a college preparatory high school about... the problems in the media? Why not talk about how to read a newspaper?
"The problems we have in news and journalism are about us not doing our job well enough," Bernstein said. "The ideal of providing the best available version of the truth is being affected by the dominance of a journalistic culture that has less and less to do with reality and context."
Should I be concerned with the fact that most high schoolers will have no idea what he's talking about? This isn't Charlie Rose.
Bernstein, 63, said he believes an "idiot culture" is partly to blame for the dysfunction of political life in the United States.
"You can't separate the appetites and demands of the people themselves and what they are given," he said. "The blame simply can't all be put at the feet of those who present news."
The more I hear this caterwauling about how media has changed for the worse, the more suspicious I become of the critique. People have always wanted more blood and sex in their news. When news was first on television, it was a snooze-fest, offered as a public service (and treated like one). Ratings went up when newscasters got serious. Higher ratings and more subscriptions mean more revenue.
So what's Bernstein's beef with paying the rent?
For Sale: 10 acre, 4 bdrm with BTFL view, large cave, but no weed Posted by J.P. Freire November 2 at 9:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
I don't know if you caught that little tidbit though: A gigantic property that included an extensive cave filled to the brim with potgrowing equipment is going up for auction. But guess who is the beneficiary of the auction?
The drug task force.
Most drug task forces receive money from seizures of drug dealer property. They auction it off to enable them to go after more drugs. That means, if they get a lot of money for this, they'll only get that much more of a budget to go after drug dealers. Oh-kay.
Unfortunately, much of that weed is going to get set on fire. And that's too bad, since it could be used for, er, higher purposes. Like medicinal marijuana.
Phillip Alden, a writer living in Redwood City, Calif., told me that marijuana was a godsend for him in dealing with the effects of AIDS. He said it eased excruciating pains in his fingertips, controlled nausea and enabled him to avoid the wasting syndrome that afflicts AIDS patients who are unable to eat enough food.
But the federal government doesn't really care, Phillip. See, because marijuana is a gateway drug. Forget about becoming dead from AIDS. You could become a coke-head!
On the same theme, Drew Carey drew cocked eyebrows for his participation in the new Reason.TV project, particularly his stance on marijuana. The new host for The Price Is Right appears in a series of 20 documentaries, each explaining libertarian solutions to common problems in layman's terms. The AP covered Carey's involvement, but didn't cover much of his message -- an unfortunate side-effect of having a celebrity on-board. At least it's publicity.
Remember Ralph Nader? He's not running for president (so far), but he's raging mad about what happened last time:
The Democratic Party is going after anyone who presents a credible challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters," Nader said in a statement. "This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and voters. Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices, and a more open and competitive democracy."
Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the DNC tried to bankrupt Nader's campaign by suing to keep him off the ballot in 18 states. It also suggests the DNC sent Kerry supporters to crash a Nader petition drive in Portland, Ore., in June 2004, preventing him from collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot.
Isn't it ironic that the man who spent his entire career suing companies for bad products is now suing politicians for bad politics? Maybe that's not ironic. Maybe it's just cute. But he gets a star for consistency. One thing I wonder: Do Democrats look at Nader and say, "That would be the ideal candidate for me, but he just would never get elected?" I remember thinking of him as the "principled" candidate, but that doesn't mean I found his principles correct. It reminds me of Ron Paul, in a way.
But is it possible for Paul to become, well, that much of a movement figure? Libertarians have always loved him, but his popularity comes from virulent anti-war activists who would never appreciate Paul's constitutionalist approach to politics. Nader, on the other hand, never spread in his appeal -- those who want to draft Nader for '08 are hardly much evolved from those who wanted him to run in '92.
Once upon a time, James Fallows wrote a mighty Atlantic cover story called "Why Americans Hate the Media". In it, he argued (persuasively) that the American media focuses mainly on the game of politics -- who's winning, candidates' strategies, and superficial analysis -- that really only interests the political and media elites themselves. He might as well have predicted that Americans would begin tuning out en masse and finding alternative outlets that, in turn, would reinforce their existing worldviews.
A few days ago, the Project for Excellence in Journalism released a new report on the coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign showing fairly conclusively that not much has changed since Fallows wrote his piece in 1996:
In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found.
All of these findings seem to be at sharp variance with what the public says it wants from campaign reporting. A new poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted for this report finds that about eight-in-ten of Americans say they want more coverage of the candidates’ stances on issues, and majorities want more on the record and personal background, and backing of the candidates, more about lesser-known candidates and more about debates.
The methodology is worth a glance, but it encompasses every major print, TV and radio news outlet -- and some minor ones too. Coverage is judged by a team of independent content analysts whose ratings have high intercoder reliability.
So, out of the candidates the media chooses to focus on, who's getting the kid gloves and who's feeling the press assault?
Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.
Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.
Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.)
And now, back to your regularly scheduled campaign commentary!
The "brains" surrounding Hillary Clinton didn't make any friends last week at Conde Nast when they balked on a firm, longstanding commitment to let the candidate pose for Vogue, while the astute Julia Reed hung ten waiting to write about her and photog Annie Leibovitz had her cameras at the ready for nothing. Handlers for the senator suddenly decided Vogue would be "too elitist" and Hillary might come off as "too glamorous." Hmmm, after those hideous Al Gore-type pantsuits, like the one she wore at her 60th birthday fund-raiser, I think Mrs. Clinton could use a touch of glamour. Elitists vote too, you know.
Wait -- she's rejecting an offer to participate in a tightly controlled, media-constructed glamour boost? Is that your final answer, Hillary?
Much has been written about the Clinton propaganda machine and, more recently, the Obama PR coup running up to yesterday's MSNBC debate. With all the hype you'd think John Edwards' spinmeisters are holed up in a podunk shopping center in North Carolina somewhere.
Actually, they are. And when an enterprising student in the University of North Carolina journalism school pursued a hard-hitting video report on the choice of that apparently affluent location to house The Man From Poverty's campaign, she witnessed the full wrath of his public relations operation:
[Professor C. A.] Tuggle said they threatened to cut off access to Edwards for UNC student reporters and other student groups if the piece aired.
"My gosh, what are they thinking?" Tuggle said. "They're spending this much time and effort on a student newscast that has about 2,000 viewers? They're turning a molehill into a mountain."
Behold the ruthless Edwards campaign. Ready to root out negative press, no matter how trivial or banal. No dicking around with glossy effluvia -- like men's fashion magazines.
Spain's a great place to vacation, even for terrorists. Remember the 2004 train bombings in Madrid? Via the AP:
That's right. The bombers are actually getting convicted, but STILL getting off easy. Spanish law precludes anyone from spending more than 40 years in jail. However, it wasn't required by law that the Spanish vote out their tough-on-terrorism government right after the bombing. Unfortunatley, the impulse of the Spanish is, these days, more weak-handed than the French -- who would have ever predicted that?
And just a thought: Isn't it ironic that the convicted were radicalized while in jail in Morroco? Does that mean that now they have 40 years to recruit in-country?
Lesson to terrorists? Bomb away. And don't bother killing yourselves doing it. Spain will remain vigilant, however, in the face of the fascists who are already dead.
This weekend Timespiece was a PR coup. Getting a national newspaper to cover your candidates' decision to be stronger? Usually reporters don't go for that sort of thing. They prefer solid actions, so that when they tell their editors they have an article to write, they can say, "And he's done this, this, and this to prove it." In fact, Obama's PR group did a fantastic job of getting something that's not really big news into the mainstream. Look at this video from Reuters made available by The Wall Street Journal:
But his performance last night was hardly the fighting wonder campaign officials promised. Instead, Chris Dodd was far more successful in his swings, as was Edwards. My theory is twofold: Obama's claim to "get tough on Clinton" is an empty promise meant to get the press to attribute any harsher words he *might* speak to the "newer tougher Obama" so they can praise him for how strong he is. And that he's happy to use Edwards as his attack dog -- so he can remain "strong-ish" while not "dirty."
But boy oh boy, would it be great if he went dirty.
Q: Brian Williams, I'm curious, when can we expect the first commercial break during this MSNBC presidential debate?
A:We have built two or three rather short breaks into tonight’s program, this two-hour debate tonight. And we’re going to choose to take the first of them right now, mostly so everyone can take a breath, on this hot stage, on this otherwise cool night in Philadelphia. We will continue with our debate, from the campus of Drexel University in Philadelphia, right after this.
Q: Hot? As in Dennis Kucinich's wife?
A:This is what happens late at night in a hot room.
