That's What They Do
Obama said today that what happened at the debate last night foreshadowed what the Republican campaign will run on last night. He's right and the challenge to Democrats and especially progressive bloggers is now clear.
Already the Republican spin machine has started generating its ersatz issues. The Democrats are now the party of flagless lapels, angry preachers, and Hyde Park liberals.
It is irrelevant that my side is right about the war, the economy, income inequality, the budget, climate change; it doesn't matter that McCain is wildly wrong in his pronouncements on every single issue important to Americans. Look at the lapels, not at the positions; accuse others of lacking the true religion (check that out with Romney by the way) because that's what leads to solutions for income inequality; and damn everyone by association not with their own ideas and positions but with people they found value in or merely met outside of politics.
While I'm for Obama, don't think for a second this attack machine isn't aiming at Clinton too. For these purposes, her clothes demonstrate that she isn't patriotic (she should have voted not for a flag law or amendment, but a lapel amendment!); she can't possibly meet the religions test Karl Rove will concoct according to his get out the vote strategy because sincere belief is irrelevant (ask Romney about that); and oh yes she too is from Chicago, that spawning ground of liberals. The latter alone should disqualify her but being from New York seals the deal, according to the right.
Helping the spin machine spin, David Brooks disgraces the New York Times by declaring under its aegis that such purely symbolic, meaningless, and inane topics (my words) are really important so that we can see how the candidates react. Two answers: (1) I'd rather see how they react to questions about going to war and fixing the financial crisis; and (2) if we have to be as crazy as Mr. Brooks' thesis, let's make sure out of fairness that we check John McCain's suits, his pastors/preachers/rabbis/and oh yes records of baptism, and finally let's be clear that the distraction machine, perfected by Rove and earlier Atwater, has been turned on by John's orders.
Writing the outline of the attack, Bill Kristol humiliates the Times by trotting out a load of rank canards about Obama. Apparently he gets to operate without editorial control. Maybe someone at the Times could report on his sources. There's a job for an ombudsman.
And even the Times editorials legitimize this descent into madness. Folks, we have an awkward way of selecting the President, but that doesn't mean we all have to lose our heads.
What bloggers need to do is focus now on the madness and not on the Clinton vs Obama counterpoint, which all of us can agree is getting old. What all Democrats need to do is step up as an army of surrogates and defend our candidates for all office, including both Clinton and Obama, and everyone running for mayor or Congress or anything else. It's time for all Democrats to talk about shunning these media hacks (when you see Kristol and Brooks on TV just turn the channel; wrestling is more honest)and blowing the whistle on the media that parrots the contumely. And on every issue Democrats have to fight back with specifics and details and an unrelenting focus on what Americans really care about. Neither Clinton nor Obama can do this by themselves. It will take a whole community to stand up against the attack machine; it is greased and efficient and deeply embedded in the media culture.
It is critical now to save the election for the American people. Now and for at least some time to come neither Clinton or Obama can focus on the right wing slanders and smokescreens and stereotyping. So the rest of us have to do the job for our candidates.
When people are losing their jobs and homes, dwelling on what is on a person's lapel is not just silly, it's cruel. When Americans are dying in Iraq, accusing a candidate of guilt by slight association is not only asinine, it is disrespectful to the office of commander in chief that the candidate is seeking.
Amen.
Thank you so much Mr. Hundt. I've been trying to communicate exactly that, (not very well, unfortunately).
Thanks for being an adult. I'll try to follow your excellent example.
:)
April 17, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to explain this concept and it sort of went by the wayside. I learned how to take a critical look at the media and how they influence what the audience thinks about and not what as opposed to what the thinks
April 18, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what its worth, I sent a scathing but polite e-mail to ABC regarding the gong show put on by Stephanopolis (sic) and Gibson.
Take a cue from Bob Somerby at Daily Howler, go to war with these cretins who call themselves journalists, use names and quotes as Somerby does.
I also think Obama and Hillary should challenge them when they're being interviewed by Russert, Blitzer, Matthews, Rose, etc. When this gang tries to carry water for the Repugs or uses misinformation/disinformation they should be confronted right there on TV.
Today's "journalists" are shallow and slothful, and vast numbers of them would be at home at the National Enquirer. They need to be confronted by the candidates and Democratic voters.
April 18, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if "substance" isn't a canard. It seems that "substance" is trotted out when necessary to dispense with less than stellar debate performance of one candidate or the other. When Hillary was on the ropes her supporters foamed at the mouth about the unfair treatment she was subjected to by the media. Now it is Team Barrack's turn.
We hear time and again how the RNC is going to go after our candidate using Karl Rove's playbook. Yet we go crazy when ABC News grabs pages from the same playbook as part of its debate questions. I actually think we owe them a debt of gratitude for testing the electoral waters. 15-months into this primary, I think the "substantive" issues have been pretty well picked over. In the end, platforms and policies in elections represent only a wish list of policy and legislation that will require compromise and adjustment to the facts on the ground and political structure of the US government. The promise of the candidate, whether in earnest of just pandering, are merely a starting point, not a guarantee.
Electability should be a litmus test. It's the reason the DNC enacted superdelegates in the first place. Would you rather be right, or would you rather get progressive policies and laws, albeit not perfect ones, enacted?
I support HRC in the primary and live in PA, so I get my vote on Tuesday. I know the odds are not in HRC's favor, and I am preparing for how I will support Obama when he receives the nomination. You see, I want progressive government. I believe HRC can deliver it more effectively than Obama. But I also believe Obama can deliver some measure of progressive government. So when faced with the choice of McCain or Obama, it's a no brainer. Besides, Obama may surprise me and turn out to be really effective (I certainly hope so).
My role after the convention, is to convince PA to go Democrat, because after the delegates are counted, I have a nominee and I am pledged to support that nominee for the good of the country.
Challenging the candidates to prove their electability is pretty important to me; especially knowing McCain and his agenda.
April 18, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Times, as an institution, is longer capable of disgrace. An organization that gives a man (Kristol) who accuses it of treason a permanent gig has transcended the concept.
April 18, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another unfortunate consequence of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which enabled massive and historic media consolidation under the guise of increased benefit to the American people. Of course, we can debate whether narrowing the spectrum of news, fact and opinion available to the electorate is really all that beneficial. It was the day after the Telecom Act was signed into law that the FCC, under Mr. Hundt's chairmanship, gave its final approval of Disney’s acquisition of ABC. It was the second-largest merger in U.S. history and it created the world's largest entertainment company. Cap Cities/ABC owned 8 TV stations, with 225 affiliate stations, the nation’s largest radio network; it published newspapers, magazines, and books, and had ownership stakes in ESPN, Lifetime, A&E networks; and significant international broadcast holdings. Eisner hyped the benefits of corporate "synergies," syndication, and vertical integration, and promised the combined company would "become a vital and dynamic force in the entertainment and media business, reaching family audiences worldwide and providing them with unparalleled news, information and entertainment". He thought ABC would be good for Disney's bottom line. Since that time, Disney has demonstrated a firm commitment to providing the type of programming that apparently supports that bottom line (like debates on flag pins and America hating preachers) instead of the type of programming necessary for a well informed electorate (like substantive debates on torture, Guantanamo, the limits of presidential power, rendition, the fourth amendment, illegal surveillance, national security letters, signing statements, etc...).
Observe the difference between Ted Koppel's Nightline and the Nightline of today and I think you get a good sense of where media consolidation and mega-corporate ownership have taken us. Koppel's Nightline was a program respected for its integrity that ran on ABC for some 25 years. The man is a journalistic powerhouse, holding 41 Emmy Awards and 11 Peabody Awards among many others. The program itself was by all accounts unsensational in its approach to the news, and it regularly won awards right up until Koppel left in 2005. Disney executives made it known that his style of journalism just wasn't bringing in enough money and had tried unsuccessfully to court Letterman into the slot. According to a 2005 article in The New York Times, Disney figured it was losing as much as $100 million a year by not scheduling an entertainment program during his time slot. Since Koppel's departure, Nightline has migrated in that very direction morphing into a faux-news magazine along the lines of 20/20 and Dateline. Dramatic, newsy intro music and graphics, engaging, attractive hosts... with content that often panders to the lowest common denominator audience. Stories about kiddy porn, sex predators and lurid discussions on men who cheat with prostitutes and why their wives stick with them sA quick visit to their website today reveals an abundance of non-news stories to choose from: Cooking for the Pope, Amy Poehler's 'Baby Moma' Drama, and more on the issues of polygamy, teen marriages, and underage sex than I think most people really care to see. This is what passes for journalism in the 21st century.
For those of us who have watched the descent of broadcast journalism into sales-driven sensationalism through the age of big media consolidation, it comes as no surprise when networks like ABC chase the lowest common denominator in their programming, and in their questioning. That after all is where the money's at. Good journalism, civic responsibility, and the kind of profits demanded by a giant like Disney apparently aren't often compatible.
April 18, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post, and maybe it should be on it's own to generate some discussion.
Before you go on blaming Mr. Hundt and the Clintons for the 1996 Tele Act, give this a read:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/05/31/fcc/index.html
I believe the 1996 Telecommunications Act was the worst thing to come out of the Clinton Whitehouse. That said, it could have been much worse, and we have Bill Clinton to thank that it's not.
It was a coup d'etat by Newt Gingritch and the GOP, and that war is far from over. More people need to put pressure on the FCC to prevent them from green-lighting more deregulation.
April 19, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jon Stewart said it best to Tucker Carlson:
Please stop! You're hurting America.
Unfortunately, neither Carlson nor any of the other bloviators who take part in the trivialization of political analysis and the news, even paused to take a breath.
April 20, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. Thank you for speaking on this issue. I don't understand why Obama and Hillary don't challenge these idiots. And not in a nice way either, push back for God's sake.
If Obama wins the nom and does not confront these idiots he is lost. He needs to take lessons from the right on this one. They shut the reporters down whenever the want to and these idiots crawl away with their tails between their legs.
They seem to be pit bulls when they are talking to democrats and when interviewing repubs they turn into pussy cats just licking the faces of the candidate.
If these media monsters could be brought up on treason for the damage they have helped to wrought on this country it would be a fine day.
Somebody please tell the democrats to FIGHT.
April 20, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink