Media Criticism

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.

I saw this piece in the New York Times Caucus section this afternoon that indicated that Ron Paul won a straw poll among New York Republicans. Since there hasn’t been a strong Republican since Thomas Dewey was governor in the 1940s, I thought it was strange that the Republican Party even met in the Empire State. As I suspected, Ron Paul’s victory in New York was relatively hollow as a total of 60 Republicans narrowly placed Paul ahead of second place Rudy Giuliani.

I have railed against the use of straw polls in past articles especially when Mitt Romney funded his victory at the venerable Iowa straw poll this summer. Ron Paul’s supporters have been incredibly active on the Internet as well as street corners of city nationwide promoting their candidate. This grassroots campaign should be successful in straw polls in restaurants, convention centers and homes throughout the United States. I know that Ron Paul has been successful in raising a substantial amount of money as well as garnering the support of independents and Democrats but an exhaustive list of straw poll victories means nothing. Paul better win in January 2008 (or December 2007, depending on changes in primary laws) if he has any hope of turning potential into reality.

Straw polls are like any other poll: flawed and misleading. Hillary Clinton’s bloated lead in national polls, Giuliani’s lead in national polls for Republican polls and the diffuse nature of American politics heading into 2008 make statistical analysis impossible. Howard Dean was leading heading into the Iowa caucuses in 2004 and a smear campaign by John Kerry, Richard Gephardt and DLC Democrats helped derail his populist campaign. If Ron Paul gets any more support before the caucuses, expect Mitt Romney to use some of his money to find faults in Paul’s platform. I say enough with straw polls and lets leave the polls to political pundits that need to fill 24 hours of cable news space.

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 people who read this blog are probably sick of me talking about the Democratic debates, the 2008 election and other aspects of politics that are fueled entirely by the media. I even get sick of these diatribes but I think I have given myself the unintentional mission of ending the long primary process once and for all, one blog at a time. To fuel this fire, the awful trio of the Huffington Post, Yahoo! and Slate are putting on a unique debate and a “mashup� tool that allows people to put individual answers together into their own package. Here is a little bit more detail on the debate from the New York Times:

Here’s how it works: Charlie Rose is hooking up by satellite individually from his studio in New York with each of the eight Democratic candidates, who are scattered across the country. He’ll question them each for 12 minutes on three topics _ Iraq, health care and education. There will also be a “wild card� question.

According to all three sponsors, these answers will be available on Friday through each website. The “mashup� tool will also be available to help political and technological nerds the opportunity to get involved in yet another debate.

Marc Lampkin makes a good point in his latest post on the Huffington Post, a liberal blogging website headed by Arianna Huffington. Lampkin discusses the use of the “mashup� tool as a way for people to hear what they want to hear from each candidate. Yahoo!, Slate and the Huffington Post should know better. This is already what the mainstream media does to candidates particularly the minor candidates who only make it on the news when they make a gaffe or do something silly.

If the Internet-using public is indeed tired with politics as usual and poor media coverage for their candidate, they should not resort to the “mashup� tool. Instead, they should search for unabridged audio, video and written transcripts of their speeches to hear what they are saying around the country. Lampkin’s final point is that we will hear more of the same which makes a “mashup� of what Obama, Clinton or even Kucinich or Gravel useless. Let’s stop pretending like high-tech gadgets and tools are really going to improve the process until we are actually ready to change the process in Washington D.C.

The underlying theme of any presidential primary debate depends on who is hosting the candidates. Forums held by the AFL-CIO will probably not deal with the environment while the Logo Network debate probably won’t get too far into the Iraq War. I understand that the good graces of the host make a focused debate a necessity in order to get the best questions from the panel. The Democratic debate held on September 9th on Spanish-language channel Univision may be drawing too fine a line in pleasing constituents with debates that few people watch.

I think that Hispanic voters who are interested in the debates have probably watched the endless hours of debates already conducted across the country. The political correctness that is rife within the Democratic Party was obvious when Senator Dodd and Governor Richardson (who is HISPANIC!) tried to speak Spanish to the chagrin of hosts. Every candidate was required to speak English which was then translated into Spanish for the viewing audience. The difficulty of listening to candidates of any party lay out their talking points for an hour and a half is made more significant when it is filtered several times over.

All of these points lead to one conclusion: the primary season is not too long, just the list of debates. While I have an interest in what candidates have to say on gay marriage or the environment, I don’t want to hear 90 minutes on the topic. I have not decided who I will vote for in my primary and I definitely have not thought about the general election yet. Like most voters, I will make a decision as I approach the ballot box. These debates are focused too much on a particular issue based on questions from single-minded forum moderators and offer nothing that a look at each candidate’s website won’t yield. If the Democrats and Republicans insist on holding similar debates in future election seasons, here are a few suggestions:

1) Let local news stations host the debates, not issue-oriented groups.
2) Space these debates out so that you have no more than one every month.
3) Stay away from the YouTube debate…please!

I always find it troubling when the media participates in raising false hope when an abduction or natural disaster occurs. This has happened with mine troubles out in Colorado and West Virginia over the past few years with talking heads spending hours bandying about conjecture under the guise of keeping hope alive. The disappearance of adventurer Steve Fossett on Monday has led to a week’s worth of stories stating that wreckage was found that was likely linked to Fossett.

The most difficult part of this type of disappearance is that there is no rhyme or reason to it. Steve Fossett has gone around the world in a balloon and a number of other daring feats that make a three hour flight seem routine. The press pushes local police departments and search teams for details in order to glean something newsworthy from their hopeful words. If Steve Fossett is found dead, the media as an institution will be happy because they can eulogize this great man without discussing the series of stories that built up the nation for a fall.

I don’t think this type of information is worth more than a few minutes each day on the news to update the public on the situation. Police crews, state search and rescue crews and family members will conduct their search without the help of the public. In fact, they should be given a wide berth to make their search without interference by the media or prying eyes. Cable networks and news papers are just showing their voyeuristic nature when they cover Steve Fossett’s disappearance endlessly.

I spent a large part of my work day reading the Economist, and I found a fascinating article regarding the reinstitution of the “fairness doctrine” in the media. Key Democrats (and a few Republicans) are advocating a reinstatement of a federal law that provides “ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views.” Basically, it requires radio, TV, and print media to give equal time to blue people and red people. The Economist takes a strong stance against the reenactment of this law, and I agree for the following reasons:

1) Just like the article says, the current system (with fewer restrictions) already provides for free and fair competition; in fact, our current system does so better. With the multitude of resources available–newspapers, radio, television, and the vast number of sources online (including blogs like this one)–people have the ability to choose their sources. Since the media is ultimately a business, what best serves the desire of the people is what will be successful. If we limit what sources can print, we limit the freedom of choice people have in their sources. I don’t have to listen to Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter doesn’t have to listen to Al Franken or NPR. Opinions have their proper place, and they shouldn’t be watered down by politicians looking to quiet negative media.

2) The effects of a law like this don’t take into consideration third-party ideas. Democrats and Republicans would be granted equal time, and as long as these two catch-all parties had their extremely generalized views on the air for the same amount of time, then the provisions of the law would be fulfilled. It is unreasonable to expect that the media will (or can) give airtime to every solution to every problem. For example, there are more than two solutions to the health care crisis facing the United States right now; in the name of efficiency, this doctrine would emphasize two solutions, at best. Therefore, while attempting to expand debate, the law has the potential to do the opposite; our news would (technically) be “fair and balanced”, but it would be limited.

3) Limiting the free press is generally a bad idea. When the government gets to censor the content of the press in any way, we’re a (very) short walk from losing a key right promised in the First Amendment. The right to free press should not be placed on this slippery slope.

Ultimately, we have the right to decide our sources of information. If you want Rush Limbaugh off the air, don’t legislate him into a corner; just don’t listen.

fairness doctrine, media, debate, discussion, Rush Limbaugh, talk radio