« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Not Looking Good
Face it, there's not much we can do about things like this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080803/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_obama_poll
And I'm not talking about the actual numbers, disturbing as they are. Rather, it's the nature of the coverage that's infuriating me, and there's NOTHING we can do about it.
It's "Horse-Race Only" coverage, and even with this line buried deep in the story, it's gonna move the numbers in McCain's direction all by itself:
"He subsequently ran a television ad that accused Obama of deciding not
to visit wounded U.S. troops because he could not take television
cameras — a claim that appeared to be false."
First off, that line deserves its own headline and story. Secondly, the tone of the story is that "McCain's a fighter and gaining ground." Just look at that ridiculous headline.
This horse-race coverage, as we saw in the primary, includes virtually no substantive discussion of the issues facing the American People, except then there really wan't much difference, policy-wise.
And the wires and the rest of the MSM keep throwing this garbage into the public sphere like they're having a fire sale.
Anyone seen a major news organization talking about whether the reduction in violence in Iraq is really because of the surge? And I mean major, as in fast food, "Oh look at that headline, Mabel!" for-the-masses type of story.
Face it, there is no link to TPM on the Yahoo or MSN homepage. ABC, CBS and the AP have shown very clearly they are on McCain's team. And for every voter watching Jon Stewart or Olbermann, there is probably a dozen watching the networks only.
They don't read the NYT, but sometimes they will click through on an AP story. And we've all seen what passes for news there.
The fix is in.
Comments (27)
Relax, get outside a little. Take a deep breath. And think of ways to outsmart a bought and paid for media.
August 3, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve Fitzsimmons laments that media coverage is mostly about the Horse Race aspect of the campaign, and other than that limited sort of coverage there is little substantive coverage of the important issues. This complaint is, of course, focusing on something true and sad about the media coverage. Unfortunately, this complaint also could be issued against the bulk of posts and comments on TPM as well. Rather than worrying about the horse-race issues or commenting on one aspect or another of the campaigns, wouldn't we be better served to find more discussions of why (or why not) one ought to support Obama? Such discussion shouldn't settle merely on pointing out why McCain is terrible. There ought to be something more to say than merely that a failure to support Obama ill lead to McCain. This devolves into a "better of the evils" argument. It ought to focus on the extent to which Obama actually provides something positive as an alternative (or, alternatively, on the extent to which Obama fails to do so). If the TPM community wants the national political discourse to be elevated, shouldn't that start here with more discussion of substantive issues and less horse-race discussion and less complaints about the unfair nature of political campaigning.
August 3, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if we were serious, we'd be talking Congressional races.
August 3, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alex39 writes that the Congressional races are the more serious ones. But, the Democratic Congress in the past year and a half has shown no inclination to do anything of any importance other than to collaborate with Bush/Cheney on war, torture, and the diminishing of civil liberties. What evidence can one point to that things are better with a Democratic Congress? Again, I suggest that we spend less time worrying about races and more time discussing why we should or shouldn't be supporting any political candidates. If an argument can be made that Obama and the Democratic candidates are better on the issues, then they will become more likely to win. If the only argument is that their Republican opponents are scarier, then the Democrats aren't providing much reason to support them. I find the discussions here (and elsewhere) symptomatic of a deep problem in American electoral politics. This banality in the face of a set of deep crises (economic, as well as ethical) is distressing, to say the least.
August 3, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Out of the Loop,
Don't be distressed. The level of political sophistication here is far higher than you might suppose.
It is the national discourse that is degraded and that is in part because just as it takes two to tango, BOTH sides must be willing to participate in a policy debate, and the Republicans have for many years successfully avoided allowing presidential campaigns to reach that decisive point.
If they do, they lose, and they know it. Modern GOP-style conservatism is manifestly intellectually bankrupt and they have neither theory nor practice to provide any relief to its total failure as a governing philosophy.
So you won't see any real discussion on the real issues of moment...the republicans will simply not allow it, and the bread and circuses media will not push for it.
Of course Obama and the democratic party is on the better side of the issues.
But that doesn't guarantee a win, anymore than a similar advantage for Kerry, or before him, Gore, guaranteed them wins.
August 3, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I see little discussion on the pages of TPM of things other than the campaign per se, complaints about mean McCain's unfair campaigning, discussions of polls and how to interpret them, and admonitions that the Republicans are so bad that Obama must be elected to stop the bad Republicans. I see relatively little discussion of why Obama is good and one ought to support him in terms of the issues. So, I don't accept the accuracy of you comment about the presumed high level of political sophistication on these pages. I'd like to see more of the little that does show up here. My point is simple: If we see little discussion here of the policy reasons to support Obama, we haven't much reason to complain when such discussions are absent in the mainstream media. Complaints about the media are symptomatic of the problem that little focus is provided on substantive issues. Is Obama right on issues of war and peace? I have serious doubts. Is Obama right on medical care policies? I have my doubts. Granted, McCain seems far worse, but that isn't a point in Obama's favor, but merely a point against McCain. I'm weary of reading discussion here and elsewhere of the horse race, and I'm weary of reading negative comments about Bush, McCain, etc., as though these were sufficient reasons for the American voter to have positive inclinations towards the Democrats. In fact, the Congressional Democrats have been enablers of the Republicans' appalling rule, and Obama has staked out few positive positions on the crucial issues.
August 3, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
A comment of some things said above by Lux Umbra Del: "Of course Obama and the democratic party is on the better side of the issues.
But that doesn't guarantee a win, anymore than a similar advantage for Kerry, or before him, Gore, guaranteed them wins."
The fact is that the Democratic Congress has voted to fund the wars, to allow unConstitutional spying, to give post-hoc protection to illegal corporate actions, and on and on. The fact also is the Kerry did not provide an anti-war alternative to Bush four years ago. Kerry's argument was that this ill-considered war should be conducted better so that the US can win it. This isn't far different from Obama's position today that we must "win" the war in Afghanistan. Yet I've yet to hear either Kerry (four years ago) or Obama (now) explain exactly what winning either of this misbegotten wars would look like.
So, you claim that it is obvious that the Democrats are on the better side of the issues, but I don't see it as being so obvious.
Again, the disastrously horrible Republican performance does not by itself reveal that the Democrats have the right side of any issue.
August 4, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far at the discussion of policy issues here at Election Central, I think you will find there is a tacit majority consensus here on most policy issues; besides, the raison d'etre of the blog is to discuss "politick'in"
My own meat and potatoes issues are all legal and revolve around the intersection of law and political science. I am disappointed there is not more interest in legal issues here, but again this place is about electioneering so it useless to blame a bicycle for not being a kayak.....
August 4, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Out of the Loop, you pick the worst performances of the Democrats of the last few years and seem to epitomize them as sufficient to globally condemn the party.
There were hundreds of small battles fought in the congress, both chambers during this dictatorial interregnum, on plethoras of issues concerning pay, labor conditions, workplace safety, environmental reporting standards, product safety liability, equitable relief for disasters, fair use standards on federal lands, emolument issues on appointees, and Jeez, I can go on and on. And the democrats were fighting the good fight on most of them. They were trying and are still trying to keep this country both a democracy and a place where unchecked economic power does not rule the roost.
Please allow that to factor into your thinking.
Did you consider that when you posted...?
August 4, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You point to lots of little battles. On the biggest issues of our time--on war and peace, on maintaining Constitutional protections, on the advent of America as a nation of torturers--on these issues the Democrats have been appalling. What weight to you give to the appalling lack of substance of Pelosi, Reid, et al. on these major issues of out time? Are these lots of little battles sufficient when the Democrats have buckled on the big issues?
August 4, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
look at a remark I made on the "Code" thread now playing on those exact topics!
I am baffled by the lack of leadership, and believe a complete turnover is necessary.
I also support extensive and thorough investigations AND prosecutions leading to convictions of all the principle actors in the torture regime.
That those concerns may or may not be shared by the majority here doesn't vex me.
August 4, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um....excuse me, it's not that I don't agree with you, because I do, but I think you should be aware that someone else here does not:
Josh Marshall, Jan. 22, 2008, "What We Do"
August 4, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't much care whether you eat sufficient vitamins. That's your problem. But I do care when little consideration is given to the reasons to support a candidacy or not. Ultimately, if one wants to convince people why they should support Obama, you need to explain them and not merely to assert that they exist. A problem with the Obama campaign in general is that it does little of this, and the pages of TPM discussion threads does even less. When I look at the instances when issues are discussion, I find few reasons to be supportive of the candidacy. A whole lot of Americans, apparently, also find little to support. McCain's campaign seems to have a successful point to make when they paint Obama as an empty suit--nice words and delivery but little substance. I find both his campaign and the discussions here play into this perception. Maybe the perception is based on something real that I am trying to point to. So, in the campaign against Hillary, for example, Obama painted himself as the anti-war candidate. Yet, what is there that can convince us that he really is such a candidate? On health care, what exactly is it that makes his position inviting when Americans generally seem to be more favorably inclined toward a single payer system. Fewer platitudes, more substantive argument, please.
August 4, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
When exactly did Obama "paint himself as the anti-war candidate"? That's a pretty vague characterization to extrapolate from his opposition specifically to the Iraq War.
August 4, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. Was just thinking that I should qualify how I agree with you (as I don't on all points you make) so that my other postings on this site don't seem hypocritical.
I disagree with Josh that things didn't change in the 20th and 21st centuries. We have public education now, believe it or not (I believe it, some others like to argue different :-)) there's a lot more literate people in our population now. Many more can handle issues, not all of them still vote based on bread and circuses and chickens in pots (or a turkey at Christmas or because the ward or union boss or priest said so.)
But I do like analyzing horse race once in a while, because I learn about my country's culture that way. I just don't like playing horse race, I think that is either falling prey to manipulation or purposely trying to manipulate, and I hope some day few will.
It's really not a sports game, and there's something very tribal about "torch lit parades," campaign bumper stickers, pom poms, chants, pep rallies, stirring up hatred and loathing for the opponent and love and adoration for the favorite. And I do believe that this globe on a cosmopolitan track and the tribals will eventually end up with the short stick. People need to understand issues, not horse race. The latter is just for fun, like a sports game. If it's "eat your spinach," so be it. The world is more and more parliamentary, which means: those knowing issues will be the "winners." After all, the ruling class always knew the issues, and it was them who were producing the circuses.
August 4, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
A quick fix to your objection would be for you, yourself to select some issue of your own concern and make a thread topic of it.
I would happy (I think) to discuss policy issues with you (or anyone else) but again, I'm not sure that is the purpose of this blog as a whole....
August 4, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have done what you ask on occasion. I've started threads on the war in Afghanistan, for example. I'll do more at times. But on this thread I am pointing out the vast proportion of energy expended on wheel spinning exercises.
August 4, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't say I don't often share your feeling. The banality and the vapidity of a lot of the discourse is baffling, but there are also gems of insight here that could be rightfully showcased nationally.
August 4, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You might like to know that the reason so many of the older members here, including me, objected to the new software system that was installed in February was that it put in a system that promoted "most popular" and blog churn and let pieces that were not echoes of what was being covered on the enormously popular Election Central slip away.
We used to have a tracking system where people could follow threads on a less popular topics over time, forever really. It used to be that If I posted on your thread on Afghanistan a month afterwards, you would know it immediately and everyone else that had partipated on the thread would know it. You could pick up the conversation forever. Things were never lost because they scrolled away. There was no need for one audience to bother or dominate another. The Election Central people could do their own thing and those that wanted to talk at length and over time about Afghanistan or civil rights or religion or political neurology could do their thing.
Most of us gave up begging for getting tracking back, they seem to have put it, once promised, on the back burner, due to success of the site as one oriented to horse race. It's the same sell-out as the Neilsen drive MSM, as far as I am concerned.
I gave up on what some horse race junkies called "whining" about it because I do have some interest in horse race, among many other things. Instead I just use this site for horse race.
But I would still love for TPMCafe to return to being a place to discuss and learn about issues, not just because I love it but because I think it is important for the blogosphere left of center to offer such a forum. If it would go back to the way it was before the software change, it was more like a newspaper: if I wanted horse race, I could go to Election Central. If I wanted to discuss other things, I would go to TPMCafe. As far as I'm concered, the software change did serious damage to a place that actually could have been part of the solution rather than adding to the problem. This is the opinion of many older members, many who left because horse race coverage took over the whole site, others who valiantly argued against the changes many times, like Tom Wright.
DanK's thread on it said it better than I can check it out, including the comments, because those are good examples of what we are really dealing with here, one audience dominating, because, after all, it is what most interests the owner of the site and his audience
TPM Café: Now Part of the Problem
By Dan K - May 23, 2008, 2:24AM
Unfortunately for DanK, I think he has it wrong in that he predicts doom for TPM, calling it "mortally sick." It's clear that just the opposite has happened, they are enjoying record numbers, and getting major advertising that other blogs don't get it. And that feeds the ability for Josh to do more on horse race, hire more for horse race coverage, etc. Currently there is no incentive for them to spend the money to go back to offering users a system where they could find smaller audiences that would prefer to discuss issues (a PBS style "public service" coverage) as used to be the case at TPMCafe. I don't know what to do about that, I gave up, so did a lot of other people. I just use it for horse race discussions now. Others who don't like horse race left, stopped posting.
It's a vicious circle, a spiral, because of the software system. This is the same thing that happened to network news when they were told they had to make a profit rather than being supported at a loss by other divisions, majority rules, whether Neilsen ratings or Google analytics ratings. I think it is the very same thing. And if you feel so strongly about it, you should consider, like Dan K, the idea that TPM is truly part of the problem.
I myself see no reason to spend time on a post that the audience that the management prefers will not appreciate, that's just a dumb way to spend one's time. There are comments on most newspaper websites now, that's where I go for non horse race. They don't want us, don't want to give us the tools to post, that's what I see, so I am not going to do it. Spend enough time trying to follow discussions here the way it is, even the popular ones scroll away so fast that they encourage quipping rather than thoughful discussion, it takes a lot of time and effort to keep a thoughtful conversation going just on horse race.
August 4, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lux Umbra Del,
The mistake that I am trying to elucidate is that spinning one's wheels fretting over polls or complaining about the unfairness of politics is not advancing anyone's political goals, except perhaps for the goals of the folk on the "other side". If the folk here want to advance their agenda they need to focus on the agenda and the reasons for it. Otherwise this is not a political site, but a site for psycho-therapy for folk who want the Democrats to win and are feeling frustrated or worried. I'd rather push people toward substantive discussions because only substance can move politics towards real goals rather than feel-good (or feel-bad) bromides. A great fear about the Obama campaign concerns the lack of clarity about what kind of change he represents. He rarely tells us. In the long haul, this is a great weakness of the politics of the campaign and it plays into the hands of the Republicans who claim that Obama is all talk and no walk. An empty shirt who merely mouths the words on a teleprompter. For those who relish the horse-race aspect of it all, this seems to be a winning argument by the McCain side. Shouldn't we demand that the Obama campaign provide more substance? Wouldn't a focus on substance rather than the fluff of the race be politically wiser? Alternatively, is Obama wrong on the issues (as Kerry surely was)? In which case, perhaps the issues need to be covered in fluff if Obama is avoid Kerry's losing fate. But this doesn't convince me to be enthused by the Democrats. Am I getting through to you with this?
August 4, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who are you backing then?
Name a specific issue, and lets see if someone here (or Google) knows what Obama has had to say about it.
August 4, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I raised these points here because this thread was yet another that focuses on unfair campaign coverage. So many others spin around polling results. None of those things will lead to better politics in our country, and God knows our country is in a time of desperate need. Anyway, I've got to get up in the morning to work, and it's late (1:40 am where I am in South America right now), so I'm signing off now. But, I'll be back to continue this discussion another time. Goodnight and be well.
August 4, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
One last thing, since you asked who I am backing. The answer is that I don't really know yet. Clearly McCain is appalling and no thinking person could support McCain unless knowingly supporting death as a general political good. I wouldn't do this. I therefore wish to find substantive arguments that would allow me to support Obama, but I don't really find many. To vote for Nader, for example, is merely a protest vote--a cry in the wilderness. More another time. Goodnight.
August 4, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
and you as well my friend.
August 4, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, something came up and this turned into a sort of drive-by.
First of all, comparing TPM to the Associated Press is a blatantly apples-to-oranges comparison. The same rules do not apply. How is an unpaid blogger speaking to a mostly partisan audience even remotely the same as the largest (?) news-gathering organization in the world?
If you haven't noticed, a lot of time here is spent "preaching to the choir" as it were. And some of us like that, because we can dispense with the formalities and speak with people that have a similar frame of reference, without starting from scratch.
I generally agree with Josh's post about the horse-race, except that, again, TPM is not the AP. I had another post that discussed the death of newspapers in America and I included a quote from Chris Hedges. He pointed out that most unpaid bloggers do not write news stories or even pick up the phone. And I agree it is a problem.
But that's not what we're doing here. I think it's relevant and interesting to point out that certain national news organizations have a distinct bias for one candidate over another.
In fact, the abdication of their stated mission "objectivity" has put us in this predicament to begin with. And if they had been doing their jobs, fewer people like yourself would be on the fence in this crucial election.
And Josh can point out that the media has always been biased (not so sure I agree), but even if it has, that's PRECISELY why TPM is here. To fine-tune the news, call their bullshit, and sometimes flog a story like the AG mess and lead the way. And there's a big difference between overt and covert bias.
So while TPM might be more heavily into the horse-race, the AP should have another set of priorities, don't you think?
And don't get me wrong, it's not an eat-your-veggies attitude at all. The headlines should be BLARING that McCain has reversed his positions on multiple issues. That he lied about Obama's visit to Afghanistan, that his staff is comprised almost EXCLUSIVELY, it seems, of lobbyists. And on and on. I'm all for emotion, but the only emotion we're getting is McCain's screeching about Obama's fictional playing of the "race card."
One last thing. I think it's fine to be against something. Stopping the Republicans is a good enough cause for me. And frankly, I don't care WHO takes their place. I liked the "Anybody but Bush" signs. Damn right. ANYBODY. As long as they're not a Republican.
The fact is, we've got a fine system of governance that can be pretty self-sustaining, when it is not under attack. So I think it's good to try and stop the people that have shown by their actions that they don't really believe in that system, and would prefer some sort of authoritarian setup. The voter suppression issue ALONE should be enough for anyone who cares about democracy.
Any physician will tell you, you have to stop the bleeding before you can heal the patient.
Sure, I'm FOR a lot of things. But when the house is on fire, I'm AGAINST my family being in it and watching it burn to the ground.
I'm not gonna ask the fireman what kind of renovations he thinks I should do.
(Unfortunately, I feel compelled to point out that that last part was a blatant exaggeration to make a point. Of course I feel Obama is a substantive candidate, and I like where he stands RE: the war, taxes, workers' rights, our relationships around the world, health care, education, etc. Perfect? Far from it. But clearly the one to lead us out of this colossal mess that we are in because of_________(fill in the blank.))
August 4, 2008 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean when you say that you like where Obama stands on war? You like the idea that US forces will remain in Iraq semi-permanently (although on a drawn-down basis)? Or, do you like the part where he seems to be saying that over a 16 month period he will withdraw (a large part of) the troops in Iraq? Or, is it the part where he indicates that Afghanistan is a good war (as opposed to the bad war in Iraq) that we must "win"? Or, is it the part where Obama doesn't provide any specificity about what winning in Afghanistan would be? This is the problem I am trying to point out: our discussions of "substance" lack substance. We don't take the time or effort to state what we mean. Clearly, in the primaries Obama positioned himself as the peace candidate in relation to Hillary. He often pointed out how he spoke against the war in Iraq prior to the US invasion and pointed out how Hillary voted to go to war. Yet, his position consistently has lacked sufficient substance for us to know quite what policies he does advocate in Iraq, and clearly he says he wants to win the good war in Afghanistan, but we don't really know what he thinks makes it a good war and what would constitute winning there. So, your claim that you support him as a substantive candidate fails to let us know what he thinks the substance of his campaign is or what you think the substance of his campaign is. Let's be a bit more demanding of our political leaders and of ourselves.
August 4, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both sides are whining about the media coverage.
But you know, Presidents Clinton and Reagan were masters of setting the talking-points in the media. They could set the national discussion to their advantage pretty much whenever they chose.
I wish Senator Obama and his team would step up and do likewise, because right now the advantage is swinging to McCain and the media is running with all of the GOP talking points.
Step up, Senator Obama! We believe!
August 4, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment