Media Criticism

I have been busting the chops of CNN anchors like Campbell Brown and Wolf Blitzer throughout the presidential primary season. Brown is vapid, Blitzer is a terrible debate moderator and the network brings on supporters of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain when thoughtful analysis is needed. CNN lucked into a good debate this evening from Austin, Texas due to the potential problem of a prolonged nominating process for the Democratic Party.

Any network who hosted this debate would have witnessed a heated contest between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Obama has momentum built upon since Super Tuesday while Clinton and her surrogates have made Texas the last line of defense. Anyone who thinks that a loss in Texas means that Senator Clinton will drop out does not understand her desire to reach the White House. I would like to take this sentence to say that I don’t think Clinton should drop out after Texas if she keeps it close in delegates after March 4th. My opinion is probably not the same as the opinions of Democratic operatives desperate to campaign against John McCain.

The words “silly season,�? “plagiarism�? and “experience�? popped up frequently in the Austin debates. Hillary Clinton was flailing desperately at many points in the debate though she was strong early in the debate. Barack Obama seemed to build up steam throughout the debate as the line of questioning got more contentious. I liked Hillary’s promotion of green jobs as part of the stimulus package though her platitudes after the fact mean nothing in the end. The 90 minutes of debate got ugly in some parts and showed Democrats what they have to look forward to if the nominating process goes long.

I think that it is alright to air out these problems in public. The Democratic Party should swing through all 50 states and numerous territories to give every voter the chance to make up their mind. The successes of the Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections need to be confirmed by a presidential candidate that reflects the identity of rank-and-file voters. Democrats may not want a race that goes to the convention but it may be the best way to solidify the party’s strength for the next generation. A little clearing of detritus and old-style thinking caused by public scrutiny can make a party stronger than a party created by blind consensus.

The CNN Democratic debate at the Kodak Theatre last night demonstrated the switch that the major parties have made during the primary season. The tone of the Democrats only two weeks ago was vitriolic especially during the CNN debate at Myrtle Beach. While Wolf Blitzer tried to set a competitive tone by saying that the only rule was that “there are no rules�? (he said it, I swear), Senators Obama and Clinton seem to be setting the tone for the post-primary season.

I think that the two candidates began to realize that they have similar platforms, something that pundits have been saying in recent days. It is true that Obama and Clinton have some differences on getting troops out of Iraq, the details of health care reform as well as the specifics of immigration reform. I think the bile of the South Carolina primary coupled with the exit of John Edwards brought both candidates together. The debate was peppered with expressions of camaraderie, good feeling and agreement in a way that seemed like a discussion at a national convention rather than a true political debate.

The friendliness of the Democratic debates was welcome though it leaves me with little to criticize beyond Wolf Blitzer’s poor moderation. I also disliked the choice of celebrities highlighted in the audience. I realize that Rob Reiner is a significant figure in California politics but I don’t need to see Stevie Wonder, Seth Green or Diane Keaton as I listen to the candidates. The imagery of celebrities and big wigs invited to the debate should be discouraged even if it represents the nature of national politics.

I would like to take a moment to state that I won’t be endorsing a candidate until later in the primary season. I am waiting to read platforms and other information on third party candidates as well as see how the major party primaries shake out. My prior endorsement of John Edwards does not connect me to any candidate the former senator supports so stay tuned.

The Republicans muddied their primary waters last weekend with a Vegas victory for Mitt Romney and a Southern rise for John McCain. The Democratic Party has an equally difficult process in choosing a candidate for the 2008 elections which seems to be a Democratic year. While the Republicans have the problem of multiple candidates who have regional difficulties, the Democrats are torn between the cold pragmatism of experience and the quick-burning light of change.

In recent days, Senators Clinton and Obama have alternated between barb trading and uneasy friendship in various public meetings. The tone of this evening’s debate in Myrtle Beach leaned more heavily to the former especially concerning the pasts of both candidates. Obama pointed out Clinton’s role as a “corporate lawyer�? on the Wal-Mart board in Arkansas while Clinton spent an abundant amount of time pointing out Obama’s “Present�? votes in the Illinois legislature. John Edwards seemed to be more relaxed than the other two which is a certainty achieved through a 4% showing in the Nevada caucuses.

I am not sure what the impact of an individual debate can have on a race considering the full-press coverage on stump speeches by CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN. If the South Carolina debates told us anything about the Democratic field, it is that it will extend well beyond Super Tuesday. I can envision a John McCain-Mitt Romney fight after Super Tuesday in addition to the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton battle that was raging on stage. In both parties, candidates like Mike Huckabee and John Edwards will stay in for awhile to assert their influence. Huckabee can deliver an interesting group of voters to McCain or Romney while Edwards can parlay his delegates for a role in the next administration.

CNN has not learned from past debates on the importance of decorum. The temptation to let politicians loose is strong since the public wants answers from these candidates. The problem is that Clinton, Obama and Edwards don’t know their own limits. A politician is like a door-to-door salesman; one foot in the door can lead to an hour of talking. Wolf Blitzer said at the beginning that some of the answers may be less than the time allotted which seemed to get a smirk from all three candidates. We all know that a no-holds barred debate is going to take place no matter what; CNN should at least pretend to practice limits so that the public can criticize the candidates instead of the media for run-on arguments.

National Public Radio held a Democratic radio debate several weeks ago that was unheralded in recent election cycles. NPR bucked the trend of television primacy by allowing all of the Democratic candidates a chance to speak about the issues without bells and whistles. It is no shock that NPR had to cancel a planned Republican debate set for January 16th in South Carolina due to a lack of candidate interest. Republicans feel that the NPR crowd is not their target audience and 90 minutes on stations at the bottom of the dial is a waste of time.

I think both sides are at fault here for the failure to get a public radio debate going. The Republicans are short-sighted in their ambivalence to speaking to the nation via NPR. The idea that public radio is the exclusive purview of liberals and academics is unfair to libertarians, conservatives and independents who want to hear all sides of American politics. Campaign managers should be leaping at the opportunity to get free advertising for their campaign in media markets throughout the United States. The failure of candidates to clear out 90 minutes for a simple debate shows the lack of dynamism in the Republican Party.

National Public Radio does not leave unscathed when assigning blame for the failed debate. NPR editors should have taken the example of previous debates where candidates did not attend by pressing on with the people who were interested in speaking about major issues. The debate should have taken place closer to the January 19th primary to promote a sense of urgency for Republican campaigns. In the end, the Republican Party and NPR are missing out on an opportunity to expand political dialogue beyond current stereotypes of public radio.

Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado was running for president. No, seriously, he was running for the Republican nomination for the past few months. The man who wants to completely shut down American borders and hinged his entire career on immigration issues was trying to win the nomination for the Republican Party in a year when Democrats seem to have an edge. I say he “was�? because Tom Tancredo dropped out of the race today to avoid the embarrassment of finishing behind Alan Keyes in the Iowa caucuses.

In the same way that fellow conservative Sam Brownback left the race a few months back, Tom Tancredo went out quietly. You may not have known about Tancredo’s exit if you weren’t watching CNN at the right time. Tancredo immediately endorsed Mitt Romney for the nomination which was a sign that Romney’s rhetoric on an American First immigration policy was working on one sucker. Unlike Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo had a tangible effect on the Republicans.

The YouTube debate and forums featuring Tom Tancredo focused in part on stemming the tide of illegal immigration. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have been positioning themselves on the right along with Tancredo during the fall to capture the true-blue conservative vote. Tancredo’s ridiculous campaign commercial featuring a hooded terrorist entering a building may have been questionable in its content but brought out discussion of terrorism as an issue of immigration. Candidates will continue to “out-Tancredo�? Tancredo through the primary season to appeal to the primary constituency.

Will Tancredo’s endorsement mean anything for Romney? I think endorsements in general are questionable in their influence. John McCain has been endorsed by the Des Moines Register and Joe Lieberman with his polling numbers behind Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani. Tom Tancredo is not a heavy hitter and his influence in Colorado politics probably won’t help the Republican nominee beyond his district. Tom Tancredo’s candidacy will become a deep footnote in this historic election left for political nerds and historians to analyze in the recesses of a university library.

Most Americans probably didn’t see the Des Moines Register Republican debates this afternoon because they were at work. Since the final date of the Iowa caucuses was not determined until recently, the newspaper and the candidates for the Republicans and the Democrats weren’t able to finalize a date for the debate. The compromise for everyone involved was 1:00pm Central time on a Tuesday. If you haven’t seen clips from the debates yet, you don’t need to worry too much since there was little of substance that came from the debate.

You can blame two factors on the failure to get much out of the Register’s debate: the moderator and the format. Carolyn Washburn, the editor of the Des Moines Register, acted as moderator for a field of candidates including professional presidential candidate Alan Keyes. Washburn alternated between the weaknesses of past moderators like Anderson Cooper and an overly zealous approach to watching the clock when lesser known candidates were speaking. I am not a huge Fred Thompson fan but I loved it when he snapped back at Washburn for asking a question that asked grown men to raise their hands. Senator Thompson should be lauded for challenging this ridiculous trend in political debates. Ideas should be bandied about instead of relegated to silent nods and hand waving.

The format has been blamed by some pundits for encouraging sound bite responses by all the candidates. You could have any format in a political debate and have it fail miserably. If you give a politician 30 seconds and a microphone, prepare to hear an abbreviation of their stump speech. I like the format’s limitations on direct confrontations since civil discourse often turns into one-upsmanship.

There were a few good things that came out of Tuesday’s debate. Alan Keyes shows what a true 1990s family values conservative looks like and I can’t imagine more than a dozen voters will like the cut of his jib. Mike Huckabee’s frontrunner status finally exposes him to some criticism and critical analysis. I think the winner in this debate was Fred Thompson because he gave off the presidential vibe that many primary voters look for. You should all check back tomorrow for my look at the Democratic debate and a comparison to the management of the debate by the Des Moines Register.

I am clearly behind the ball in responding to Wednesday’s CNN/YouTube debate with the Republican presidential candidates. I spent Thursday and Friday taking care of other topics that arose and I felt that a few full viewings of the debates would clear my head. I watched the debate twice in its entirety and feel that this endeavor may have taken a few years off my life. I am just hoping those are the bad years at the end of my life.

CNN got hundreds of YouTube questions and could have chosen a diverse range of topics to cover. The good people at CNN chose to pick questions asking how many guns the candidates own and addressing specific questions to candidates (I am thinking of the Mike Huckabee question about the death penalty). The most egregious error by CNN was focusing almost a third of the time on questions of immigration. My problem is not over the debate on immigration as the issue of guest workers and border security are worthwhile questions. I object to the Tancredo effort on each of the candidates and the tone of the conversation.

My problem with the YouTube debates for both parties is that technology is thought to equal full democracy. In the end, however, a major media outlet like CNN was able to reign in full democracy with its usually cock-eyed filter. Anderson Cooper spoke at the top of the debate about which YouTube videos would NOT be featured in the debate. CNN is guilty of vetting questions in the same way that candidates are guilty of packing their public events with supporters. Accessible democracy through technology should not mean an effort at purposeful mediocrity.

The winners and losers in the CNN/YouTube debate are pretty clear. Media darling Mike Huckabee was thoughtful in his answers in the midst of chaos and CNN got the ratings it so clearly wanted from this debacle. The losers were the American public and supposed frontrunners Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney. I cannot believe I spent this long thinking about this debate but it is part of my job as a media critic.

CNN’s latest primary debate with the Democratic candidates minus Mike Gravel demonstrates the network’s inability to function in the real world of politics. The location of the debate may have been disorienting as Wolf Blitzer stated that this was the first presidential debate in the state of Nevada. I know the bright lights and glitz of Las Vegas probably caught the eye of Blitzer and his rag tag group of talking heads but CNN’s “best political team in news�? needs to shore up a few major weaknesses.

Blitzer got blown up at several points by the candidates as he tried to play the role of harried debate moderator. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were penned into a melee by questions from the insufferable Campbell Scott and John Roberts, the hair-do of all hair-dos. Obama was able to push Blitzer aside while going after Clinton while Senator Biden and Dennis Kucinich tried to squeeze in some time in front of the CNN cameras. I am convinced that leaving aside the moderator for this debate would have been fine because the boos and cheers of the crowd would have done a better job than Wolf.

I think most media observers would agree that the combination of moderated questions and audience questions (which only look like they are spontaneous) needed to be tinkered. The final question to Hillary Clinton was sexist but it was also an indication of what is wrong with this election. Dennis Kucinich was asked a question about UFOs and Mike Gravel a question about a failed business deal unrelated to his political career in past debates. A woman that was clearly a Bill Richardson supporter got in a birthday wish and a softball question regarding contractors in Iraq. Much like the YouTube debate in the summer, CNN’s efforts at democratic involvement in the debate process needs significant tweaking.

As a side note, I would like to thank CNN for putting on the least objective post-debate show ever. Space alien James Carville joined Anderson Cooper to speak to the success of Hillary Clinton. I had the sound off but I could tell that Carville was singing the praises of Senator Clinton due to his relationship with the Clinton family. I say all of this having already made my decision on a candidate but I know that many Americans aren’t even close to making a decision. CNN is doing a poor service to undecided primary voters by offering up bad questions, disorganized responses and skewed spin room analysis.

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.

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.