The Elephant Shit in the Room
Patrick Healy's Sunday NYT front-pager ("For Clintons, Delicate Dance of Married and Public Lives") on the State of the Clinton's Union, heavily edited for just the right balance between rumor and innuendo, has flashed a go signal to the rest of the MSM establishment--take off the gloves, it's party time again in Clintonworld! Among the first to pop up with predictable harrumph is the undisputed Dean of Cluck-Cluck, David Broder, in this WP column delicately headlined "The Shadow of a Marriage" and concluding with the obligatory reference to "the elephant in the room."
Between the Rumor and the Innuendo falls the Shadow.
Broder's heavy-breathing intimation that the Clintons have something to cover up from the journalistic inspectorate was the frame for another classic Broder theme: Senator Clinton is not our kind of people. She's too goddamned smart. Appearing at the National Press Club, Broder writes, she took 45 minutes to "read a wonkish text that covered every aspect of the energy situation, down to and including a description of the 'geologic sequestration' potential for reducing global warming and making better use of coal." This was a "throwback" to the dark days of 1993-94 when she blew health care reform. "She offered her proposal with the same self-assurance that she had brought to the health-care debate -- a tone that suggested that 'if you just listen carefully to all the things I can tell you on the basis of the study I have given this subject, you will know exactly what to do,'" opines Mr. Broder, who is, of course, congenitally averse to know-it-all tones.
Wonkish! Self-assured! Broder sneers at "her disciplined mind" and "rational plan." He's aghast that "At the end of her talk, little time remained for questions, and the first three simply asked for clarification of points in the energy plan."
Forty-five minutes on a policy idea for a U. S. Senator, imagine! Reporters ask questions about it! Quel scandale!
Close students of David Broder's delicate way with the Clintons will recall his memorable observation to Sally Quinn (November 2, 1998, two days before the midterm elections) on the subject of Bill Clinton: "He came in here and he trashed the place, and it's not his place."
Number of times the Good Dean of has criticized President Bush's energy plan, or even mentioned its particulars, since the last election: Zero.
I am no fan of Hillary Clinton's botched 1993-94 health care scheme. But if "the place" is a decent respect for the intelligence of his readers, I know what trashing the place looks like, and who's smearing the elephant shit all over the room.
Comments (62)
I became soured on David Broder probably a lot later than most here, I am guessing. He is a self-confessed fuddy duddy and I wanted to see if he would apply similar standards to his coverage of the Bush Administration, Republican Congress, and Republicans now that they are in power as he did to Bill Clinton and the Dems when they were in power.
He has not. He has not even come close to doing so.
I find his column this morning especially repugnant for its hypocrisy. During the Monica scandals Broder did a great imitation, if he did not really mean it, of someone who would really, really prefer that sex scandals and politicians' private lives be left for the tabloids, where they belong. Oh, and that the sneering tone of journalists does not serve to enhance the reputation of the profession (if that is what it is) with the public.
His column today to my way of thinking was wholly inconsistent with these long standing stances and themes he has written about over the years.
Oh, and you forgot to mention his reference to what she was wearing, which implied that that might have been something we all would have properly paid more attention to.
I've communicated privately, using my name, the same thrust of remarks to Broder so I don't feel this is a cheap shot.
If ever the comment "He came in here and he trashed the place, and it's not his place" applied to any President, it applies--in spades--to George W. Bush. Where's the focus on substance, David? Or is it all about appearances with you?
May 25, 2006 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Broder does deserve credit for bucking the Bush tax cuts in column after column. Not many "centrists" took that line in 2001-03, but he did. Apart from that, however, it's hard to think of anything useful he's done since . . . help me out here . . .
May 25, 2006 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
One irony among many here is that the netroots are just not that into Mrs Clinton (though to be sure she's raised a pile of money). But if she doesn't win the nomination, Broder and people like him will claim that her defeat is a verdict on the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Of course if she wins, that guarantees another election cycle full of Room Raiders-inspired reporting. So I guess you could call it a win-win situation for the MSM.
May 25, 2006 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone have an idea as to why a politician running for reelection to the United States Senate would schedule a press conference for the purpose of reading an omnibus energy plan statement? And in Washington, D.C. to boot?
Reporters have a job to do -- produce lots of entertaining copy to go down comfortably with their readers' morning coffee. A politician who wants the media to stay on message doesn't waste reporters' time with lessons in academic wonkery which haven't a chance of making it past the copy editor's desk.
May 25, 2006 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe she's old-fashioned enough to think she's obliged to propose policies in public forums.
Todd Gitlin
May 25, 2006 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3302
May 25, 2006 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, she's too smart for Broder. He has that right. Important to note the Republican faux populism line again, however, with the usual implication that liberals, by trying to play to people's actual interests, are condescending to them and their feelings. Obviously replying to this rather than pandering in response is going to remain a need. I have my doubts as to whether Senator Clinton can speak from conviction enough to meet that need, but dealing with smears, lies, and manipulation is going to be part of the territory for anyone, alas.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
May 25, 2006 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have a point, Ellen. It may be hoping for too much to think that MSM folks with a powerful microphone might actually take the occasion of this speech by a likely presidential candidate to bone up on the substance of an issue such as energy independence and write about it with a view towards educating and enlightening readers on, say, the interplay between national policy needs and the politics of the issue in Congress.
I, for one, would find it valuable to have someone like David Broder fill me in on who stands where on energy independence among key Congressional leaders. Where do the differences and sticking points lie between and within the parties? Why, with so many people talking about this issue, is there so little of note in the way of interesting initiatives coming from Congress? (Warning: this could entail criticism of Republicans in Congress and/or specific criticism about the influence of money in politics.) Or are there actually some very interesting proposals which us citizens just have not heard about?
To give credit where it is due, Broder, more so than most any other MSM heavyweight that I know of, sometimes will write about little-known efforts or actual developments going on in Congress that he believes are praiseworthy and deserving of more media attention. And he, to a greater degree than most members of the opinion class, actually makes it his business to get outside the Beltway and report on developments in the states, in particular. Another point in his favor.
I wish he--or someone else with a powerful megaphone--would inform, if not enlighten, us on this issue. Instead he writes the trash he wrote today.
Hey, a citizen can dream, can't he?
May 25, 2006 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is precisely this type of thinking that is responsible for the present WH occupant...a moronic incompetent idiot who is their kind. Broder can have his people, but not in the WH...as far as I am concerned.
May 25, 2006 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is called "An Inconvenient Truth"..it is called $3.00 gas prices...it is called America needs a realistic energy policy.
May 25, 2006 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes; just an Old-Fashioned Gal.
May 25, 2006 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Ellen's point, above, is spot on.
We all know exactly how the news media works. They use lazy, tired narratives and rewrite the same story over and again.
Candidate Clinton needs to take it upon herself to work the refs and reinvent her narrative (See: Al Gore). If she cannot, then from now until Nov. 08, what we've got is what we'll get.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
May 25, 2006 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you! What a great piece.
This was the quote that did it for me: [Broder suggesting Hillary's tone was one of] "if you just listen carefully to all the things I can tell you on the basis of the study I have given this subject, you will know exactly what to do."
This cuts to the core of why DC is such a cesspool at the moment. Under King George, we have had to make do with "Trust me, I'm the Decider, and we're all doing a heckuva job", and somehow, for the media this is okay. But then Hillary turns up with detailed, well-researched policy ideas, conviction and clarity... and this is something the media are uncomfortable with. And tomorrow the Democrats will be a party with no ideas.
Hunter S Thompson called it the downward spiral of dumbness. I concur.
May 25, 2006 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Broder was lazy and a political columnist without substance.
He should be embarassed to use "lemon-yellow" in any column. Fashion and the political is already covered by the Washington Post's Robin Givhan. Her columns cover Condi's boots in Germany, Cheney's parka at Auschwitz, and so on.
He wants us to listen to his political commentary when he bothers to describe the type of kiss of a married couple. He thinks he advances his credibility by addressing the etiquette of address, i.e., "Bill."
I agree with American Dreamer, Broder was lazy as to various political and governing commentary and analysis. Focus on what the plan means, will it help or not. Focus on its political viability, or not. Focus on her ability to partner and therefore compromise, or not, with her peers. Focus on her ability to do Q&As, or not. As Ellen suggested, focus on her choice of this venue for a policy speech, especially compared with how others unveil policy plans that they want to influence the discussion.
I know nothing more about political column writing than what any other reader knows. But as a column reader I do know where I want to spend my time to get political thinking. Tough to be influential you are politically irrelevant.
May 25, 2006 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Propose a short form and give a link to the Web page with it.
This hard?
May 25, 2006 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the New York Times has decided to scrutinize the marriage of Senator Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton because she may be running for the office of President of the United States, then readers may have to endure the same public marital examination of any potential candidate for that high office. Or is this special attention reserved only for the Clinton's and or women who dare to run for President?
The most frequent rationalization for intruding into the privacy of the Clinton's marriage is the potential for Bill Clinton to become first spouse. Yet one rarely reads about Laura Bush except to report her popularity in the polls, as if that exonerates her from any serious scrutiny. Moreover, we near nothing about how many evenings the Bushes spend together or not and know even less about what lessons Laura Bush has learned from life with George W. Bush in or out of office. Do you think it would be useful to know what drives Laura to remain married to a man whose judgment may have been affected even today by his past history of addictions? After all "he came here and trashed the place [Iraq] and it isn't his place".
May 25, 2006 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a whole damned if you do damned if you don't dynamic here.
Dmeocrats get criticized for not having plans and just being critical of Bush. So now a Dem comes out with a detailed analysis and plans and she gets taken to task for wasting the pundits valuable time...
May 25, 2006 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once upon a time, a lifetime ago, David Broder's name and reputation meant something, something important. Now it means something, something trivial. Guys like Broder and Bob Woodward should retire. Unfortunately there is no one coming along with the guts they had in their youth.
Ron Byers
May 25, 2006 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's speech reminded me of why I supported her several years ago. She is exactly the kind of intelligent, articulate person we need for president. Unfortunately, Broder's rant reminds me why I don't support her for president. If nominated we will see nothing about her in the media but such moronic drivel about her marriage, her clothing, her hair style, her shoes, her accent, her sex drive, ad infinitum. No one can win the presidency when faced with that.
Hoppy in Sacramento
May 25, 2006 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remember the phony outrage of David Broder and his Sally Quinn Coctail Party friends from 1998. They were all filled with phony outrage, huffing and puffing and pulling out their hair because the president had lied about his sex life.
Where are these people now? We have a president now who has lied the country into a ruinous war. And yet they have no outrage. The president lies and tens of thousands die as a result and there is no outrage on the part of David Broder and his clique. Instead he wants us to "move on" and not look back or investigate the President's WMD lies.
May 25, 2006 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand, is this concern about "trashing Clinton" simply a partisan support for Hillary as a Presidential candidate in 2008?
As far as I can tell, the Clintons deserve a great deal of trashing both for his actions and hers. He lied to the US public and under oath (the fact that the issue he lied about was irrelevant to anybody is itself irrelevant), as well as "trashing a place that was'nt his" (Yugoslavia), and she supports the war in Iraq and a new one in Iran - thus trashing TWO places that aren't hers.
While I don't support the Republicans (obviously!), the referenced article about the Clintons' relationship didn't appear to me to be much more than an analysis of the obvious fact that the Clinton's situation is unique in that a Presidential candidate is married to a former President.
Is everybody supposed to ignore that oddity completely?
While the article spent some time probing the issue of whether the Clintons have EVER had more than a "marriage of convenience" (the obvious subtext of the article), I think the history of Bill's wandering pretty much answers that question - and did so ten or fifteen years ago, if not before that when he was governor.
If the complaint about the article is that it emphasizes the fact the Bill Clinton spends much of his time away from his wife in the company of other batchelors, well, get used to it. This sort of thing is grist for the political mill and always has been.
I recall a politician who said, "Follow me around and see" - and they did - and he was - and he got screwed. Literally and figuratively.
Now that Bill Clinton is sixty and with a previous heart condition, maybe he's slowed down a bit in that department. But if you think a Presidential candidate married to a guy who screws around is going to get elected in this country without somebody mentioning it, well, that's a serious case of fantasy.
It may be a legitimate complaint that some "pundit" doesn't like the fact that Hillary is a smart, tough bitch (and she is, even I recognize that), but that will also be the case with a lot of the electorate.
To me, the whole thing smacks of one "pundit" dissing another. I suggest it would be more useful to ignore "pundit-speak" on either side and stick to analyzing the policy issues involved. "Dumbing down" to the level of an opposing pundit and spreading "elephant shit" is not useful to anybody, especially the electorate.
It all sounds on a par with Arianna Huffington's obsession with criticizing certain Sunday morning news shows...
Who cares? All that is a sideshow. Criticize the existence of the sideshow if you wish, but don't get involved in it.
May 25, 2006 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
[I already wrote about this at Digby's site. What follows is a revised and extended version of those comments.]
Party time for the media in Clintonworld might seem like a bad thing to those of us who like to stick to the issues. But the party will generate a level of publicity for the Clintons at which the other Democratic and Republican candidates - many of whom would be happy right now if they could only get voters to remember their names - can only gawk from below in frustrated awe.
Whatever is going on here, there is no point ranting and raving about inappropriate media treatments of the Clintons' private lives, and about the supposedly irrelevant nature of their intimacies. This is America. People just are curious about the private lives of certain celebrities, and it is a futile waste of energy wishing that they weren't, or praying for a miraculous cultural revolution that will turn the entire electorate into sober, policy-craving thinkers.
Whether we blame Ken Starr, Bill Clinton himself, the vast right wing conspiracy, Monica Lewinsky, or Henry Hyde, the Clintons' private life was opened up in the 90's to a raging national prurient interest by the Lewinsky scandal and subsequent impeachment, and that permanently piqued curiosity is just not going to go away. Since Hillary is going to run for President, we're just going to have to get used to this sort of thing. I am sure the Clintons, who always know the cultural score, are already thinking about how to exploit public curiosity, not hide from it.
Exhibit One is the Healy article. Despite their supposed lack of cooperation for the article, I wouldn't be surprised if the initial idea for it came from the Clintons themselves, or at least from the Friends of Bill and Hillary that surround them. The New York Times is Hillary's home town newspaper, and this article is unquestionably a boost to her campaign.
The whole point of the article, it seems to me, is to humanize and sentimentalize Hillary within the context of of the widespread public curiosity, puzzlement and skepticism about the Clintons' marriage. The article reaches its denouement with this pathetic tableau:
When they appeared together at a Manhattan fund-raiser in December, the former president said he had sometimes "kicked myself" for encouraging her to run for office. There were times he wished she were not in the Senate so they could travel more, learn more, he said.
When Mrs. Clinton joined him onstage, Mr. Clinton gave her a kiss on the forehead, and then stepped away. Mrs. Clinton appeared a little choked up. Moments later, as she recalled their 30 years of marriage, she looked out into the dimly lighted room to try to find him.
"I'm so grateful to you, Bill, wherever you are," she said.
How poignant! Given the common stereotype of Hillary as a scheming Machiavel and a loveless harpy, she couldn't pay for a better piece of humanizing publicity. There they stand, Bill and Hillary, chained to their selfless, work-filled careers in government - sacrificing domestic bliss for the public good, for us. And yet their love touchingly endures through the strains of scandal, travel, career commitments, etc., etc., etc.
One is also struck by the Healy's stunning display of telepathic intuition in grasping that as Hillary looked out over the hall, "she recalled their 30 years of marriage". Generally, the inner thoughts of individuals are invisible to onlookers. And the Clintons were supposedly not cooperating on this article, right?
What worries me is that in the interest of "fairness" many of the other candidates will have to be subjected to the same treatment. Get ready for a media barf-fest dedicated to the love lives of Russ Feingold, John McCain and George Allen. Yuck.
May 25, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The MSM don't do policy. Give them a a couple sound-bites, (preferably snarky bon mots or other ad hominem remarks), something to put into rotation on the TV news. Spread them across a few sentences of comfortable simplicity for the print media and voilá, you're in the news.
But 45 minutes of policy? The DC press corps would rather have root canals. Where's the drama? No conflict, no titillation -- no sale!
The Republicans learned long ago how to feed the MSM what the MSM thinks it needs in the never-ending race for ratings.
May 25, 2006 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point is, these pundits in the "liberal" MSM feel free to mock and paint as a figure of fun, any Democratic politician. They do not do the same thing to Republicans. They treat Republicans with much more respect even when they criticize their policies. When is the last time McCain was belittled? Even now, George Bush is spoken of respectfully.
The principal proponent of this view of politics is Bob Somerby in his blog "Daily Howler." He maintains that this is important, that this is the reason the Democrats have been losing elections.
Check out his reactions to Broder's take-down of Hillary Clinton today at www.dailyhowler.com/dh052506.shtml
May 25, 2006 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
People with ideas, ones that might be inclined to introduce change, are often ridiculed and attacked. Energy is an entrenched industry in Washington and has a strong cadre of supporters and you can bet Broder knows a lot of the players. Any change that influences the pocketbooks of these players will be scoffed at.
At present any Democrat that proposes any plan of any sort that addresses issues that are of concern to voters is going to be attacked by partisan members of the MSM. Offering such a proposal in a public forum that expresses ideas and possible change to voters, especially well considered ones, is anathema to the entrenched power base.
Republicans are all too aware of their exposure in the coming elections and are scared to death of what a change in congressional leadership of either house may entail. Energy is a traditional republican constituency and they want no part of dems invading what they perceive as their turf.
Senator Clinton is a lightning rod for all manner of criticism for many reasons. She needs to stake out her policy arguments on energy and many other issues in order to short circuit the republican political machine that will go into full attack mode after this Memorial Day holiday. This is good strategy because it places republicans on the defensive. Taking the initiative on issues is what dems need to do. There isn't much else, apart from Iraq and health care, that is more in the public eye than energy costs.
You can say what you want about Sen Clinton, she isn't afraid. She has thrown down the gauntlet. Broder isn't really in this game. He's just a rowdy fan rooting for one of the teams. We'll see some real fireworks when both teams get their first string on the field. This is just some pregame entertainment during warmups.
Personally, I'd like Sen Clinton to get after the MSM in an effort to try and get them to clean up their sorry act. It's hard enough sorting out all the crooked politicians. Having to keep a scorecard for reporters (the prototype blind referee?) as well is a pain in the ass.
thepeoplechoose
May 25, 2006 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I place the source of unequal media treatment in the hounding by the right wing of any outlet or pundit that dared to question conservative policies. Simply raising the specter of "bias" makes everyone question themselves, but much more on the subject of the complaining side. I guess we need to complain, and loudly.
May 25, 2006 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading the Howler piece reminded me of the praise Broder had for Bush's acceptance speech at the Republican convention in '04. He said Bush's speechwriters ran rings around Kerry's, or something like that. You would have thought from reading Broder that it was the latter day equivalent of the freaking Gettysburg Address.
What I saw in Bush's speech was a bunch of hackneyed drivel dressed up to fool people like Broder into thinking it represented an ambitious 2nd term agenda filled with big and bold new ideas. It worked.
The extraordinary level of deference he's paid to Cheney over the years has been sickening. In Broder's universe, Cheney is a highly credible exemplar of ethical and high-minded public service while people like Howard Dean are dangerous to the future of the country.
Plus, has there *ever* been a proposed US military intervention that he has opposed, or even seriously questioned?
May 25, 2006 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fight-back below the belt
May 25, 2006 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't this covered in a
2000 Bush campaign commercial?
GW Bush:
Fight Back
May 25, 2006 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if that's true - and I don't know Broder so I'm going on your say-so - then why is anybody surprised that he's attacking Clinton?
If Broder is basically a Republican or a neocon or something, I mean, duh!
So what's with the outrage? Did anybody expect anything different?
May 25, 2006 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the description of Broder below as apparently a Republican, this raises a question.
The MSM is nominally composed of conventional politically oriented human beings. Meaning they aren't anarchists...
Therefore, X percentage are Republican, and X percentage are Democrat. Plus within those X percentages are people of various fine tunings of same.
So are you saying that ALL the so-called "liberals", most of whom are Democrats, presumably, are attacking Clinton, but not Bush?
Somehow I get the impression from your post that you believe MSM pundits are somehow supposed to be "objective" about all this?
What's wrong with this picture?
Or are you complaining that the Republican pundits outnumber the Democrats in the MSM? I seem to recall both sides accusing each other of "owning" the MSM, so I don't know which is correct. I suspect neither are.
I DO suspect that the MSM play one off against the other for THEIR own agenda, i.e., money and influence.
Finally, last I heard, the CIA owned or controlled ALL the MSM - this according to William Casey.
May 25, 2006 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best description I have read put it this way:
The establishment (of which Broder would have the oldest membership number) still pretends they are in a world where every republican is a nice Rockefeller or Eisenhower type.
May 25, 2006 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, call me uber-sensitive or nuts, but I distinctly recall Bob Dole being supposedly painted by the same evil MSM and comedians as a cranky old fart shouting "where's the outrage?" I dare say that if he had been able to get his real persona across, with his excellent sense of humor, maybe made some of those SNL appearances making fun of himself before the election and not after, he would have fared a hell of a lot better running for president.
I pretty much agree with transhuman on this one, a lot of this is much ado about little, the realities of politics for centuries.
Pundits do smear opposition politicians, all the time, nothing new, so do bloggers now. The only difference of which the anti-war activist crowd has not only noticed but has been screaming about is that post 9/11, many journalists have gone easy on criticizing the party in power. That's happened every time the country was threatened. It's not right, and people are right to fight it, but it's not like unexpected, as they are humans. And they mostly work for capitalist organizations where they are supposed to give consumers what they want, be a mirror to some extent. (Public funding leading to other problems.)
As for pundits, I simply can't believe people who read rants every day on blogs expect pundits to be objective! That's not what they do for a living. If they don't rile, they don't get read by all of many "smackdown" fans out there. Sometimes I think from some comments that some seem to expect "the MSM" to be Jimmy Olsen working alongside Superman, truth justice and....
In presidential races where there are more voters encompassing many more people who vote based on "character," you will always get stories like the Clinton marriage story. You cannot avoid that. It's been going on since before "Ma Ma, where's my Pa, gone to the White House, ha ha ha." You will also have opposition pols using them. Much viler stuff, i.e., remember how Bush ops tried to use McCain's black adopted child against him in the South?
The Clinton marriage story is such mild stuff that I myself suspect that Clinton supporters, not opponents, have something to do with it, sort of a pre-emptive. Excuse the conspiracizing, but I've been reading about the political P.R. business in places like The New York Observer for several years now, and I'm cynical. It comes out the same time as the big Gore movie push, including all kinds of Gore for prez buzz, Gore being called the "Un-Hillary" on the cover of New York Magazine, Hillary plans a policy speech, and this Clinton marriage article is just a coincidence? The first quote in the NYTimes story from Leon Panetta? Another from Lanny J. Davis? That was a piece trying to create buzz, the sources probably offered themselves, maybe just to get Hillary on front page of NYTimes in a "human interest" story. No coincidence many complaints about her is that she lacks the "human interest" thing.
Everyone shouldn't forget that Hillary has major savvy media people working for her and she is not going to play victim in that realm; there may be things she does in that vein that are going to look very odd at first.
May 25, 2006 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary can't escape Bill. He ran on thinking about tomorrow and Americans aren't going to want a Hillary campaign thinking about yesterday.
May 25, 2006 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very nice. Please check out my extremely important diary Whip it Out!
May 25, 2006 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps its the jaded stoicism of a journalist who thinks he's seen it all, but Broder's irrelevance appears to be directly proportional to the incompetence and corruption of the party in power. There's little or no outrage. He's most always focused on process -- generally more concerned with some peripheral points, more with the patterns and decorum of politics than with the substance of policies. In the age of Bush, when malfeasance is setting new records, such a narrow focus is wholly disqualifying. It's an abuse of journalistic privilege, and his license should be revoked.
May 26, 2006 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just Broder. With political process coverage we basically get sports reporting:
..... The winning baseball team got 5 hits today, but 3 players were caught stealing. The losing team, a weak combination of raw rookies and aging veterans, committed 3 errors and scratched out just 1 hit. The losing team spent most of the game complaining to the umpire about the calls...
May 26, 2006 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair questions, transhuman.
One of the things I want out of the MSM outlets that publish opinion writers is balance. To my way of thinking that means there should be people writing forthrightly from left of center, right of center, center, and eclectic points of view. I don't think more eclectic (in the sense of not clearly liberal or conservative) writers such as Richard Cohen, Joe Klein and Tom Friedman--and one can add Broder to that list--should be "faulted" for having the views they do. They should not be expected to advocate things they don't believe. The problem here is that, while there are many writing advocacy from a right of center perspective there are far fewer in the major MSM outlets writing from a left of center advocacy point of view.
One of the things I am looking for out of individual opinion writers is good quality analysis. Even the best opinion writers are going to have off days. But to those of us who believe MSM opinion writers have suffered a collapse of quality and credibility in failing to take the measure of the present-day Republican party, Broder might be taken as emblematic.
Walter Lippmann is a tough act for anyone to follow in this regard, granted. Lippmann treasured his insider status and access--but at least he also frequently enlightened his readers with penetrating analysis of current affairs.
I don't mean to lay all this on Broder. He's not responsible for what others write and say. But he is considered the dean of Washington journalists. And it's incumbent upon those of us who are critical of the MSM in some ways to cite particular examples.
This one column taken by itself is no big deal. Agreed. (And, contrary to what you suggested, it has nothing to do with some covert agenda to promote Hillary '08, at least for me. For all I know it could help Hillary more than hurt her, but that has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make.)
But it is illustrative of a number of the criticisms many of us have been trying to make. While he is not alone, Eric Alterman's work over the years has been noteworthy in this regard.
May 26, 2006 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not the way I remember Bob Dole, so I went and read over NYT Op-Ed articles from early 1996 about Bob Dole. They were all respectful! I read op-eds by Lemann, Rosenthal, Bob Herbert, RW Apple, Anthony Lewis, Robert Semple, Frank Rich, Eliz. Kolbert, and even Russell Baker and Maureen Dowd (I could stand to read only a few of Dowd's). Some called him "boring" or "mean" and were very critical of his speeches and policies and campaign, but always respectful -- even Maureen Dowd.
We're not talking about comedians of course, their goal is to parody their material, we all know that and allow for that. We're not talking about attacks from opponents -- that is a different issue entirely.
Rather ... let me quote today's Krugman about Al Gore in 2000. He believes that Gore would be president save for "the determination of some journalists to make him a figure of ridicule" in 2000. At the same time these "pundits" were writing respectfully about George Bush -- exactly the same as they are so overwhelmingly respectful to McCain today.
May 26, 2006 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is, these pundits in the "liberal" MSM feel free to mock and paint as a figure of fun, any Democratic politician. They do not do the same thing to Republicans.
This is the real issue.
This is not about the Clintons. This is about how the media cover GOP politicians vs Dem politicians.
The press fears the GOP. They don't fear Democrats.
There are a number of reasons why they fear the GOP. Concentrated corporate ownership being the #1 reason. If you work for NBC, MSNBC, owned by General Electric, receiving goodies from the Bush regime, Iraq war contracts, you are going to think twice before saying anything nasty about Bush or his wife Laura. Another reason is the fear of being called liberal. The GOP has done a spectacular job of putting the fear of God in journalists with the "liberal media" chant for the last 30 years. Reporters bend over backwards, trashing Dems, fawning over republicans to prove they don't have a liberal bias. Yet another reason is economics. Most "star reporters", the Tim Russerts, Bob Woodwards of Washington are multi millionaires. They are in the top 1% that Gore mentioned so many times. No wonder they hated Gore. And one more reason; the massive Right Wing Noise Machine. Reporters fear being the target of attacks by Rush, FOX, WSJ.
The press knows they can attack Dems with impunity. They also know they will pay a price if they attack a republican president.
May 26, 2006 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, we'd like people to do their jobs.
As for there being more right of center than left of center analyses, this is to be expected since "right of center" implies supporting the power structure while "left of center" implies not supporting the power structure.
And we all know that the media support the power structure - it's the source of THEIR power "to inform" (hah!).
So it's no surprise to me that whoever is in power gets the support - even if the media seem to have to "switch sides" to do it on occasion. And most of the time they don't have to switch because the Republicans represent the REAL power structure more than the Democrats do (not that the Democrats don't try.) So you naturally see more right than left in the media.
I mean, Chomsky couldn't get a mention in the MSM if he shot Jodie Foster. But the same is also true of the Libertarians, who mostly aren't exactly "left."
My point is it's not realistic to expect the media to be "fair and balanced".
As I always say - email me when this happens...
May 26, 2006 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good analogy.
And it might as well be because the "real" politics is taking place in hotel rooms and political offices and banks as the bribes change hands and policies are set by the lobbyists and the politicians they're bribing.
And this is true with both Republican and Democrats - the Republicans are just more crass about how the bribery is done because they currently have the upper hand in power. And the Republicans have more connections with the old time rich and the sort of industries that deal daily in bribery and have for generations - oil companies and the military-industrial complex.
May 26, 2006 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
focused on process -- generally more concerned with some peripheral points, more with the patterns and decorum of politics...
Again, I would argue that class and economics is a factor in this.
The so called "star reporters" are all multi millionaries. They are not effected by govt policy. Bush, Gore, it makes no difference to them who is in power. Tim Russert doesn't go to bed at night worrying about his mortgage, health care, his kids education. He doesn't have family members in the military. Govt policy does not effect him. Except the size of a tax cut. So he can afford to focus and obsess over process, the trivial, Clintons sex lives, Al Gore's earth tones.
The millionaire pundit class is economically removed from ordinary citizens. They don't want to sit through a 45 minute energy speech. They want to amuse and entertain themselves with talk about process and gossip.
This wasn't always the case. Up until 40-50 years ago most pundits and journalists were working class. They made the same salary as teachers and plumbers. It all changed with television.
May 26, 2006 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
transhuman, you wrote: "And we all know that the media support the power structure - it's the source of THEIR power "to inform" (hah!)."
But the Clinton Administration got a very bad press, especially when you look at its record next to the Bush Administration's. Weren't they the power structure when they were in?
If your rejoinder to that is (consistent with what you wrote later in your post) that the "real" power structure is corporate, wealthy and special interest/Republican, then I guess you disagree with those who claim that in their addiction to soliciting money from well-heeled donors, *both* parties have effectively sold out to the monied interests.
Of course, you could try to have it both ways on this by maintaining that the Democrats are just as committed to seeking money from special interests and rich people--only they're much more conflicted and less effective at it than the Republicans are.
Maybe because most of the special interests, and certainly the wealthy, make perfectly rational calculations that Republicans once bought, stay bought and are therefore rock solid in support of their agendas whereas there are some Dems who are a bit squishy on same?
You wrote: "My point is it's not realistic to expect the media to be 'fair and balanced'."
You and I each, still, get to decide which media outlets we'll watch or support. And there is growing interest, it seems to me-- although admittedly it is still nascent--in "media reform" activism, which I think will necessarily have to link up with campaign finance reform to address the underlying issues with any degree of effectiveness. Each of us is, still, free to contribute to that effort should we choose to do so.
May 26, 2006 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the Clinton Administration got a very bad press, especially when you look at its record next to the Bush Administration's. Weren't they the power structure when they were in?
No. When Clintons moved into the WH with Congress under Dem control, they were still "outsiders".
The GOP is in control of the Permanent Government. They have been in control of the Permanent Govermnent for the last 25-30 years. Which means even when Dems win the WH or Congress the GOP still has enormous power.
By Permanent Goverment I mean the courts, the megabucks donors, the think tanks, the press. Administrations come and on but the Permanent Govt stays put and stays in power. They have enormous power and they can make life miserable to an administration they don't like and they did just that with the Clinton administration. The Permanent Govt concocted endless pseudo scandals like Whitewater.
May 26, 2006 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Miri didn't like my writing.
May 26, 2006 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The so called "star reporters" are all multi millionaries. They are not effected by govt policy.
This, I think, is a big difference between the political press in the US and UK. For the most part, London's hacks take public transport. They get treated in NHS hospitals. Their kids go to state-run schools. And they live in a city where, to be honest, politics has to compete with lots of other more interesting pursuits. They know their place.
When do you think Broder and Russert last took the DC Metro?
May 26, 2006 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
With political process coverage we basically get sports reporting:
But, as Matt Taibbi pointed out, you don't get either the deeply informed readership or the incisive questioning of sports journalism. If a politician received the questioning of a major league coach, he/she wouldn't last a week.
May 26, 2006 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember the phony outrage of David Broder and his Sally Quinn Coctail Party friends from 1998.
Oh, I think their outrage was genuine. That's the problem: it's totally misplaced, and centered on their cocktail-weenie world. It's the outrage of someone who complains that the images of war on the TV are a personal downer.
May 26, 2006 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Broder's "pox onb everybody's house" schtick seemed sincere in the 80s. Unfortunately, beyond his "conventional wisdom" canary in a coal mine status, his writing has been useless and uniniteresting for years. We could ask what's up with him & MRs. Broder, except it wouldn't pass the "ecch!" test and I doubt that anyone cares. His "WaPo" chats are interesting only for the level of pomposity he shoews. My guess is that if the Post didn't make royalties from syndicating his column, they would have dropped him long ago. Sadly, this is why they still have Krauthammer and Cohen.
May 26, 2006 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, I have it both ways - both sides are crooked, the Republicans are just better at it because they're more on the side of the rich. The Dem decided to use the poor as their weapon against the Republicans, so they have to at least play at being for the poor - which means they get short(er) shift from the rich.
Neither side is worth a squat. And the MSM play them both for THEIR own agenda.
There's no ONE RIGHT WAY to be STUPID.
May 27, 2006 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too true. I remember a profile of a McCain staffer watching pundits on TV during the 00 primaries, and he clearly thought they were idiots and their "analysis" juvenile.
May 27, 2006 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote: "...what drives Laura..."
Funny choice of words, because, in fact, haven't we also not heard enough about Laura's driving? Specifically, how as a young woman she ran a stop sign and rammed the Jeep her ex-boyfriend was in, killing him? Coincidence? Or Hell hath no fury...?
Was she drunk?
Enquiring minds want to know.
May 27, 2006 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what's Broder's position on the imminent breakup of the Bush marriage. From Media Matters:
Coming soon to The New York Times? Globe reports Bush marriage breakup http://mediamatters.org/items/200605260003
The graphic of the front page of The Globe is wonderful. For some reason I'm not able to post it so it will show up here for you.Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
May 27, 2006 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes ahem! Bush, for one, should ask Terry Francona, Boston Red Sox manager, what it is like to be publicly accountable every day. With full credit to ahem, I have established a new course to give George and other politicians an opportunity:
New Course for Politicians: Effective Managment (1 week)
Course Objective -- Advanced training in accountability, conducting your own press relations and managment during 1 week as the manager of the Boston Red Sox.
Course Description -- You will plan for a game. You will explain your plan in public and behind the clubhouse doors. You will manage the game, adjusting on the fly. After the game you will answer press questions about what went wrong and what you will do to fix it. You will do this for 7 days. If you are very lucky there might be 1 day off. Likely that there will be travel, you may even need a passport (i.e., team in Toronto).
Your cohorts during this week will be a Front Office staff who will engage you in intelligence, analysis and strategy discussions and expect timely decisions; a team of 25 (speaking English and Spanish!); 15-50 reporters from New England and afar; and a fan base that believes it is their God-given right to challenge you while you buy your morning coffee.
Reading List covers -- Boston's baseball history; decorum in Boston and Fenway Park (or lack thereof); smart baseball as defined by Bill James and peers. (Note: in baseball Bill James and peers wrote/write gospels in the baseball Bible. This source material has been turned into popular prose by authors such as Michael Lewis in the book Moneyball.)
Course Evaluation -- I will be happy to grade performance, as long as I get a weeks worth of game tickets. I know of at least 2 other Cafe members (Libertine and Greg Anrig) who as Red Sox fans might also agree act as evaluators in exchange for tickets. Anyone else?
This above is fantasy so I will return to a reality where hope springs eternal. As a grown up child this evening I will watch some future Red Sox players on a field of their dreams.
May 27, 2006 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"That's not the way I remember Bob Dole"
Glad you brought that up, because the descriptions of him did not fit my memory either. What passed for a sense of humor always struck me as a caustic, hostile, mean-spiritedness which was couched behind simple-minded jokes. He never said anything that I took to be well-reasoned or mature.
I do recall a story he told about when he first came to office. He thought it would be a neat thing to have a Juice Machine with Dole Pineapple Juice in it. He asked one of his aides to contact the Dole Company to find out about the possiblity. When they responded by sending him a catalogue with machines and a PRICE LIST (Of all the nerve!! They actually expected him to PAY for it!! A S-E-N-A-T-O-R!) he was insulted and dropped it.
This is a trivial example but it stayed with me because it is that kind of entitlement that we are seeing come home to roost over & over with our elected officials. It is how they can go off to Scotland and get freebies from lobbyists and justify it because they are so deserving in their own minds.
OK, I wandered a little. But anyway, Bob Dole is not a nice guy, and he would have been a terrible president. Not as bad as George, but then who could?
Jan Knaus
May 27, 2006 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
he's only the dean because he has lived too long.
for decades, he has been the elsworth toohey of the washington press corps[e].
May 27, 2006 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the full citation for the Media Matters for America post referenced above:
Here is the link to MMfA's graphics file of Globe cover. I believe it will load in a directly in a browser.
May 27, 2006 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
...he's only the dean because he has lived too long.
And Kevin Drum gets up every day and tells his mirror 'Broder can't live forever.
There is always a Dean, the same way there's always a King of England. The succession is a litte neater with the throne, but the idea's the sams.
As for Broder's occasional 'pox on both your houses' outbursts, they're simply the grown-up version of Bill Maher and others 'I'm so ironically detatched, I have to be sutured together for each episode' schtick.
Patria est ubicumque est bene. Their 'homeland' is wherever they can turn a buck. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations
May 27, 2006 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Hillary Clinton's ELECTION was a verdict on the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
May 28, 2006 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Todd Gitlin's spanking of Bodacious Dave Broder is a welcome one. I would also turn readers' attention to a column published Wednesday by Philadelphia Daily News political writer Will Bunch (http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/003451.html) that not only disses "the increasingly irrelevant" Broder, but also examines NYT's circumspect front page treatment of Patrick Healy's original article.
May 28, 2006 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your broader point. It is right on. But I wish to suggest another version of Hunter's point:
It seems that the republican party has perfected what I would call the, "upward spiral of dumbness." Put an Ah-gee-shucks, I'm-just-like-you kind of guy on the ticket, backed by a Rove-esq attack machine and dumbed-down MSM hacks like Broder. One only has to look at Reagan, Dubya, and California's "Terminator" to see this fine Republican lineage.
If Broder were to take up substantive compare and contrast coverage of policy proposals the balance sheet would be all too clear. Instead, Broder helps "fill" the "news" cycle with what I equate to the inert ingredients in dog food. It tends to make the dog feel good but has no nutritional value.... you're just paying for shit.
___________________________________________________________
“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
May 29, 2006 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink