Media Criticism

In last week’s edition of Newsweek, the magazine’s political reporters highlighted the quaintness of Iowa in relation to its status as the first nominating contest in the nation. While the article is interesting and a bit condescending to the people of Iowa, the graphic entitled “Fixing the System” was particularly interesting. The nascent debate over reforming the primary system in America is highlighted by four distinct plans.

First term Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) wants to break the nation into four regions while maintaining Iowa and New Hampshire as the first nominating contests. These regions would rotate position with successive elections to ensure national balance. Renowned political wonk Larry Sabato wants a purer regional system with four regions picked at random each election year. Sabato’s system includes a provision for two small states to be chosen randomly as the first nominating contests. The American plan offered by political scientist Thomas Gangale would group states by combined congressional districts while the Republican National Committee would allow states to go from first to last based on ascending population level.

These ideas are a good start and every voter needs to push their chosen party, their representatives and their neighbors into action. Iowa and New Hampshire may have a historical role at the beginning of the nominating process for both parties but it is time for a new tradition. I think media outlets would love the idea of rotating primaries, a national primary or something else that would create variety. After all, it is all about the story for reporters and pundits. There would be plenty of stories to be had by speaking to voters in Rhode Island, California or Montana that suddenly are thrust into the role of kingmaker for the first time in the history of the primary.

I think the debate over the primary process hinges on what happens in upcoming months. If candidates like Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani receive their party’s nomination, there will be no furor over the excessive role of money and political legacy in early nominating contests. I guarantee if somebody like Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul or John Edwards is able to wrestle the nomination from frontrunners, organizations like the DLC and the Republican National Committee will be able to push for change because they do not want insurgents to disrupt the system.

I announced my endorsement of Senator John Edwards a few posts back but I want to speak today about Governor Bill Richardson. Richardson is the type of candidate that looks fantastic on paper, a shoo-in for the nomination: former energy secretary, governor of a “purple” state, experience in foreign policy and a platform that is purely Democratic. As Mother Jones reports today, the problem with Richardson’s campaign is that politics is not simply about ideas.

I admit that when I hear Richardson speak in debates, I cringe at the wonkiness of his language. I love his perspectives on the environment, education and college loans. I also like the idea of someone from the West giving a presidential bid a chance. The problem is that Governor Richardson is an ideas candidate not a candidate that evokes happiness, anger and bile at the opposition party in each of his speeches. Richardson is deeply ensconced in Democratic politics and his connections to Bill Clinton and other moderates do not help him in an election where Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and Joe Biden are fighting for votes.

His campaign cannot define itself as an outsider campaign (Edwards, Kucinich), a reform campaign within reason (Obama) or a desire to use new ideas bandied about in Beltway meeting rooms (Biden, Dodd). Governor Richardson projects an idea instead of a charismatic template that voters can apply to other candidates. I would never instruct someone as experienced in politics as Bill Richardson to try to be more charismatic; Bob Dole tried to be more charismatic in 1996 and he got creamed. I would say that Richardson needs to be aggressive in using new media and highlighting the fact that voters can get a Hillary Clinton-plus platform without the baggage.

I live in a “blue” state and a large city (Milwaukee, WI) that is racially diverse and filled with wonderful surprises around most corners. Outside of Milwaukee, there are cities like Green Bay and Madison that have cultural and entertainment offerings to keep people busy for days on end. I love living in a livable city where I can actually go home after a night downtown to an apartment or home with a yard surrounded by green spaces. The problem I encounter is when I see programs on Travel Channel, Food Network and others that focus on the stereotypical visions of Wisconsin: cheese, bratwurst and German heritage.

The Willamette Week has recently struck against condescending attention by national newspapers and television networks. This Oregon-based alternative newspaper has captured my attention with their rating of articles in newspapers like the New York Times ranging from a 1 (purely stereotypical language about Portland) to a 10 (accurate depiction) about Portland’s attractions. Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Austin (TX) and other cities are getting attention for supposed hot spots that are frequented by tourists instead of residents. The Willamette Week article features several examples of condescending, misleading or stereotypical travelogue-style articles from national media sources.

While I appreciate the trend of residents of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington D.C. discovering new places to spend their money, their approach to describing “smaller” cities leaves much to be desired. If I hear one more stupid joke about the Packers or cheese or bratwurst from a Chicago resident, I will just have to tell them that they should go back to their overpopulated city and spend their money on something besides our bed and breakfasts, new stadiums and museums. Too bad that Illinois has few attractions of note outside of Chicago.

This tirade is part concern over media portrayals of states inside the coasts and part concern that more Illinois residents (and a smattering of residents from California and New York) will infiltrate my beautiful city. I think the New York Times should focus on promoting beautification efforts in their own city and allow lowly fly-over state residents like myself to enjoy the Milwaukee Art Museum, the Grohmann Museum, Miller Park and other fantastic places.