Media Criticism

Anyone who has read past entries on Media Critiques is aware that I dislike the current state of polling and the use of polling by the media. Polling experts claim that the numbers they produce on topics ranging from the latest fashions to the popularity of the president can be extrapolated to the entire population. This type of certainty demonstrates a failure by seemingly intelligent pollsters to recognize that polling is a corollary of marketing and not of academia.

The impetus for my latest rage about polling comes from an article in the Columbia Journalism Review discussing a Zogby poll that claims 52% of Americans would support an attack on Iran. Writer Michael Meyer points out a number of faults with the poll including the use of only two choices to respond to a hypothetical (yes, HYPOTHETICAL) completion of nuclear weapons by Iranians in the near future. Meyer fails to point out that Zogby may be the worst of the worst when it comes to polling due to the poor wording of poll questions. I shouldn’t push Zogby polls forward as the king of bad information as every polling company shares a similar stake in my contempt.

I am not only concerned with the appearance of political support for an Iranian war inherent within the Zogby poll. My concern spreads into the 2008 presidential election where it appears that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination without a problem. The ignorance of Washington elites of what real life Americans outside of polling groups feel about the political scene gives polling its power. Polls are a gauge of the perspectives of a few people that allow politicians and executives to proceed with their own initiatives with the thin veil of public support. Polls, like the Bible, can be interpreted in a number of ways. It is time to stop giving public opinion polls such a large role in our lives and show our support for an issue by picking up a phone, putting pen to paper and screaming out loud to people in the Washington echo chamber.

The terms “People’s Party” and “Populism” have changed drastically since the days of silverites and gold bugs in the 1890s. The People’s Party in the United States tried to bring in labor, women’s groups and limited numbers of African Americans into an alliance against moneyed interests that began political rule that continues today. American populists in the 1890s were imperfect and lacked the sophistication of major party activists but desired a political system geared toward the average person.

Today’s great “populists” include racists like Christoph Blocher of the Swiss People’s Party which has grown into the largest political party in Switzerland. Blocher has used language familiar to historians of Central Europe to lash out against immigrants in the hopes of gaining seats in Parliament. The rush of ignorant voters worried about Muslims and the polyglot masses entering the land of chocolate and watches helped push the SVP into a plurality in Swiss government.

Switzerland has always been associated in my mind with political accommodation and reason. The seven seat cabinet that has helped balanced power between the major parties since World War II is beginning to resemble a Klan meeting. Blocher and another represented of the SVP will sit in the cabinet, breaking up the balanced approach taking to Swiss politics for five decades. By no means is Christoph Blocher a facsimile of authoritarian leaders like Adolf Hitler; Switzerland has an insufficient infrastructure and an unwilling populous for institutionalization of hatred. My concern is that Blocher’s victory will help encourage voters in surrounding nations to choose nationalists and right wing nuts.

The Flemish Block in Belgium and the National Front Party in France are only two examples of nationalist parties cloaking racist language behind the veil of populism. The hedge on growing conservatism and nationalism in Poland in the most recent election is diminished when you look at Civic Platform’s policies. Civic Platform was successful in wresting power from the Law and Order Party under the corrupt Kaczynski brothers. While Donald Tusk is a moderate leader that will demand EU involvement and withdrawal from Iraq, Civic Platform and Law and Order are similar in their desire to maintain a conservative domestic government in Poland. In the end, nationalism is pushing past traditional conservatism to take hold of the European public’s imagination.

I understand that the European welfare state has caused certain logistical problems in nations like Belgium and France. The use of foreigners and minorities as scapegoats for economic and social woes is nothing new; in fact, it shows a lack of imagination by popular leaders like Blocher. Every opposition party and minority coalition in Europe needs to rise up and save that this type of narrow-minded, one-dimensional political rhetoric will not stand in the 21st century. European voters should not be duped by nationalists claiming to shut down borders when the European continent is becoming more open than it has ever been. My only hope is that the Swiss people understand that the addition of political power to Christoph Blocher’s portfolio can only equal long term problems before the next parliamentary elections.

This is apparently the connection that Senator Barack Obama wants to make while pushing for the Democratic nomination. In a way, Obama does resemble Kennedy in his relative inexperience and high optimism for the power of Americans to improve their own lot. The Obama campaign has dragged out Ted Sorensen, a 79 year old former speech writer in the Kennedy brain trust, to help the candidate drive him this connection. Sorensen provides an endorsement of Obama’s role as the young, hip candidate among a group of establishment politicians in a way that no other octogenarian can do.

The problem for Obama is that the historical parallel is faulty. The 1960 election that allowed Kennedy to rise to power was tainted with corruption. Richard J. Daley certainly helped Kennedy win Illinois with back room machinations and the nomination of Senator Lyndon Johnson from Texas helped win over conservative voters. If Obama is Kennedy then Hillary Clinton is Johnson without the scowl or the large frame. I find it difficult to believe that Senator Clinton would leave her spot in the Senate to become a vice president to a candidate without her pedigree.

This comparison between Obama and Kennedy also begs the question of how Obama would deal with the war on terror. Kennedy may have used fluffy language about the Peace Corps and Americans giving back for the benefit of their nation, he also escalated conflict with the Soviet Union with involvement in Cuba and Vietnam. Barack Obama needs to be careful about harkening back to history to avoid comparisons during the general election that may be unflattering. The Democrats need to think about substance instead of style to distinguish themselves from the Republicans in 2008 (that is, if the Republicans choose Mitt Romney, the ultimate hair-do).

The Christian right in the tangible form of the Council for National Policy met over the weekend to discuss the state of the conservative politics in America. Anyone that has followed the Republican presidential debates understands the quandary faced by earnest conservatives. Mitt Romney is a pretty face and loaded financially but the Democratic media machine would certainly use the “flip flop” attack on Romney in a general election (to good effect). Rudy Giuliani’s run for the presidency brings forth the pain of 9/11 and his inexperience in national politics only seems to be overmatched by his moderate leanings.

The Council for National Policy put out a statement indicating their worries about a Giuliani campaign by stating that they may find it necessary to run a third party candidate. Newt Gingrich has recently declined to run for the Republican nomination but he would seem a likely candidate given his recent attacks on partisanship. Other possibilities include Chuck Hagel from Nebraska and Ron Paul from Texas if they feel like Paul’s momentum would have an effect.

In the same way that the movement of liberal Democrats into Ralph Nader’s camp in 2000 threw the election into turmoil, a Christian right candidate outside of the Republican Party in 2008 would certainly give America a Democratic president. The Republican Party would experience a split in its ranks that it has not experienced in a long time (Reagan and Ford in 1976 or even Taft and Roosevelt in 1912 beyond that). If the Republican Party wants to maintain its conservative principles and avoid kowtowing further to the Christian right, they should stand by their principles and nominate someone to lead the Republican Party instead of the American Christian right.

The recent passage of higher funding amounts for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program or SCHIP seems like a slam dunk for both parties. Democrats are able to put another aspect of their 2006 midterm campaign (improving health insurance to the uninsured) to bed and Republicans in the affirmative are able to put aside their stingy reputations for a good case. This bill is akin to a bill that promises computers to poor people or provides holiday decorations for every American. It is a slam dunk in a normal universe.

We do not live in a normal universe, however, and evidence of that comes with a threatened veto by President Bush. His proposal of $30 billion for the program was doubled by Congress in an effort to actually cover a large group of children. President Bush has forgotten that he has spent billions in support of the Iraq War, a missile defense shield, Leave No Child Behind and so many bad programs that waste American dollars. It is tough to become principled when you have been a rogue in a big boy’s suit for the last seven years.

I hope that some Republicans in the House realize that there is a political benefit to this program in 2008. House members are up for re-election every two years which means every step they take is scrutinized by activists. Conservative Republicans may not like increasing federal influence in health care but they do love children based on their pro-life tendencies and they do love to get re-elected. Support of SCHIP would affect their constituents and this bill is not some liberal boondoggle that would hand out morning after pills or free copies of Abbie Hoffman’s Steal This Book. It is time for a few Grinches to open their eyes to better government instead of rigid conservative dogma.

The confrontation between Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush on Tuesday was something that battle rappers and high school debate teams should watch in equal measure. Both presidents gave speeches several hours apart and Bush attended meetings in order to get out of seeing Ahmadinejad’s speech. Bush spoke about the authoritarian and dictatorial governments throughout the world including Cuba, Zimbabwe and a nation that starts with I and ends with ran.

Ahmadinejad was slightly more subtle than George W. Bush which proves that he is a bit of a buffoon in his own right. Anyone should be more subtle than Bush and Ahmadinejad’s speech was something to behold. He describes an occupying force that does not admit defeat, allows thousands of deaths and devalues the independence of other nations. I wonder which occupying force in the Middle East he could be referring to?

The United Nations offers a distinct opportunity for tyrants and democrats alike to speak to a global audience. America has always been hostile to the United Nations because a) it has no muscle and b) arguments going back to Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations indicate a hint of racism underneath political arguments. Americans do not have a right to tell the world who they can hear speak in the United Nations because it is not OUR organization. People can protest all they want but Ahmadinejad spoke, the Cubans left after Bush’s rhetorical attack and representatives from brutal dictatorships took these attacks in stride. While the arguments between Bush and Ahmadinejad were superficial and full of bile, they do show the value of open debate. You can take what you will from that statement but if we want to spread democracy to the world (like Wilson), we need to be prepared for the bruises, cuts and psychological damage associated.

Here’s the scoop: Douglas Alexander, a political ally of new British PM Gordon Brown, gave a speech denouncing a “might makes right” approach to international relations. He stumped multilateralism and peaceful diplomacy as an alternative to war.

Alexander’s comments have stirred up the rumor mill, and many are claiming that his remarks were an understated way of breaking ties with the foreign policy methods of the United States, particularly pertaining to the unpopular conflict in Iraq.

However, this article from the foreign Brisbane Times seemed quite odd to me. The headline–Senior British minister hints at shift in US relations–is essentially an argument that the rest of the article subtly refutes.

This media method follows the pattern of a persuasive tactic. Often, if to argue a point, it is effective to acknowledge and deconstruct the opposite argument. This article’s headline postulates that the relationship between the United States and Britain will change, while the article itself makes the opposite argument; quotation after quotation indicates that Britain has no (outward) intention of altering American-British relations.

There are many reasons this formula may have been intentionally placed in the article. A headline claiming that the United States and Britain may shift their relationship catches the eye (it certainly caught mine), so this may have been a way to bring in readers. If so, it worked. Alternatively, the author may be making a deliberate statement that the media frenzy surrounding Alexander’s comments is unfounded.

There is, of course, the simple possibility that the author attempted to write an objective piece, and his/her opinion shone through the words. Maybe Britain just handled the situation well and flooded the media with the quotations they wanted to see in print.

Reading the news isn’t always as simple as it seems.