Media Criticism

I watched CNN all last night to watch the coverage of the Super Tuesday primaries even after California was called for Hillary Clinton and John McCain. It seemed that the hype around John McCain and the feeling among Democrats that Senator Clinton and Barack Obama would be suitable as the nominee seemed to prevail. Analysts like Gloria Borger, John King and Bill Bennett were satisfied with the analysis that John McCain was on his way to the nomination and the Democrats were girding for a long primary season.

In the hours of coverage that spanned early Tuesday morning through Wednesday evening, I did not hear one reference to the potential for third party candidates. Michael Bloomberg has been working under the radar to get a 50-state petition drive started. Ralph Nader begins yet another campaign for the presidency with an exploratory committee and a desire to raise $10 million. Ron Paul has shown strength among a dedicated but small group of Republicans, Democrats and independents who want a radical change at the top.

I reject wholeheartedly the prevailing wisdom that a McCain/Obama or McCain/Clinton showdown would preclude a candidacy by a strong independent candidate. John McCain is despised by conservatives, Barack Obama will need to reckon with the factors of experience and detailed plans during a regular campaign and Hillary Clinton has the negatives that Republican operatives dream about. If the Republicans choose McCain and the Democratic campaign continues through summer, I see Michael Bloomberg emerging as a viable option because he does not have the taint of a major party.

I also see votes siphoned from several other candidates though at a smaller scale than Bloomberg. A Ralph Nader candidacy can influence voting results in places like Minnesota, Oregon and other places where independents disdain the two-party system. Former Representative Cynthia McKinney is running for the Green Party candidacy and could take some votes from Obama or Clinton in liberal areas. Ron Paul may say that there is a 99% chance that he won’t run as an independent but I could see him bolt the party that he has lambasted throughout the primary season. All of these candidacies need to be accounted for in any analysis of the proceeding months of political talk.

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.

I have to apologize for not posting in the last few days. I wanted to take in the collective experience of the Florida primary and the debates on both sides before posting. I watched the CNN Republican debate in the Ronald Reagan Library with great interest, mostly to see how ugly it would get between John McCain and Mitt Romney. I also tried keeping track of Ronald Reagan references but I ran out of fingers.

I think that John McCain has the same problem in debates as George W. Bush had in 2000 and 2004. Bush smirked and smiled his way through the debates while his opponents earnestly wrote notes and listened attentively. I am not sure if sitting down in front of Reagan’s Air Force One made McCain more prone to smiling at his new momentum but the Arizona senator was smirking his way through the entire debate. I cannot believe that I am siding with Mitt Romney in this debate but I thought he seemed more presidential, for whatever that is worth.

I don’t want to get into my problems with CNN’s debate rules notably the lack of strict time restrictions (check out my next entry on the Democratic debates). My bigger problem was the utter lack of coverage for Governor Mike Huckabee and Representative Ron Paul. The stage was not that big and there were only four candidates to speak with over 90 minutes. I found the fact that Ron Paul got the biggest applause of the night for his anti-war stance to be heartening considering the Republican audience.

I have a lukewarm relationship with Rolling Stone. I hate the fawning reporters who glorify people like Kid Rock, T.I. and other musicians who already have plenty of people sucking up to them. The portions of Rolling Stone that I enjoy have nothing to do with music. I will use the latest issue with a Johnny Depp cover story as an example. I could care less about Sweeney Todd and Depp’s musical acumen but I loved stories on Dr. Drew and Matt Taibbi’s scathing rebuke of the political media.

I will focus my attention on Taibbi’s work in this post. This regular contributor to Rolling Stone has infiltrated the Republican Party as a volunteer for the purpose of exposing the failings of the party at its nadir. His keen eye for politics may seem wasted in Rolling Stone but a magazine aimed at younger readers needs a reporter like Taibbi.

The story I refer to, “Merchants of Trivia,�? takes the media to task for the tone of the political dialogue during the 2008 primary season. I loved Taibbi’s description of the cub reporter who goes from healthy skepticism of the spectacle in American politics to providing advice to talking heads on cable news. His eyewitness report of cameras snapping photos of Obama supporters throwing out T-shirts show gives a view of how ridiculous American politics has become that sounds like it is coming from an outside observer.

If Taibbi worked for MSNBC, The Washington Post or a blog like Politico (which he skewers), his voice would be silenced. I may dislike the music reviews and interviews in Rolling Stone but I will continue to read it because Matt Taibbi and others are keeping an eye on the process of American politics. Fellow skeptics need to check out the regular political reports in Rolling Stone if only to maintain hope that someone cares about reporting instead of dictating a horse race.

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.

Before I provide my thoughts on tonight’s MSNBC Democratic debate, I need to point out the injustice of keeping Representative Kucinich out of the event. NBC invited Kucinich ahead of the New Hampshire primary only to rescind the invitation based on an arbitrary change in the network’s rules. I know Kucinich is a pipe dream for diehard liberals but his presence would not have hurt this debate.

The reason why Kucinich would not have harmed the discourse of the MSNBC event was that the three attendees were acting cordial. I know that most Americans yearn for civil discourse that is devoid of the rancor of two-party politics. The three candidates joked, called each other by their first names and seemed to adhere to the wishes of party operatives to save bile for the Republicans. I like the tone though it got in the way of the real purpose of the program which was to DEBATE THE ISSUES.

I have criticized every media outlet who has hosted a debate in this election cycle. NPR got a favorable review for the Democratic forum though failed to get a Republican forum going. MSNBC joins the ranks of Fox News, CNN and ABC in hosting a farce of public debate. The first portion of the debate proved why the mainstream media is incapable of acting as a lens to American society. Just as the candidates are getting past contentious comments about race, Brian Williams and Tim Russert reopen the wounds with questions about the race issue. Racial disparity in education, the military and other aspects of American life are important topics. A comment about who was responsible for civil rights legislation (both MLK and LBJ were responsible, by the way) has led to a firestorm that MSNBC felt the need to fan.

The three candidates did nothing to stand out from one another this evening. Clinton and Obama did a good job of playing the part of uncomfortable politicians trying to maintain a temporary alliance. Edwards stuck to his guns though seemed to be losing some steam as his candidacy seemed an afterthought to the debate moderators. I look forward to the Nevada caucuses for a number of reasons including the relative diversity of the state compared to snow-white Iowa and New Hampshire.

The tightening primary schedule may not seem to be the best approach to picking a candidate but it has created an interesting dynamic in the 2008 election. The five days between Iowa and New Hampshire forced candidates to skip town in Iowa as soon as possible. New Hampshire is getting months of stump speeches, surrogates and commercials in less than a week. Candidates are forced to sling mud in every direction in order to hit at least one target before the primary on Tuesday. I do not envy the good people of the Granite State the task of putting up with this deluge.

Two debates classified under the euphemism “forum�? were held over the weekend. The ABC/WMUR debate featured six Republicans and four Democrats offering their platforms on a national scale. As much as I would like to think that this first forum was for New Hampshire residents, the fact that it was broadcast on ABC speaks to the nationalization of the primary process. I thought that the focus on the axes of conflict including the Obama/Clinton and Huckabee/Romney parings was an interesting byproduct of the contracted primary schedule. The problem was that Charles Gibson was a poor moderator and the questions asked were less than probative.

The less important debate was held on Fox News on Sunday evening. The Fox News forum was held under a shadow of illegitimacy as the New Hampshire Republican Party pulled support due to the censorship of Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter who were not invited. Chris Wallace (I can’t believe I am saying this) was a better moderator than Charles Gibson in getting to the conflicts among the candidates. Mitt Romney mixed the desperation of Hillary Clinton with his attempt at creating a Romney brand name (apparently, he worked in the private sector AND the Olympics). Mike Huckabee bore his teeth more than usual to attack back at Romney while John McCain and Rudy Giuliani seemed content to answer questions without much pressure.

These debates were perfect for political junkies like me who had a tough time getting to sleep this weekend. I don’t think that New Hampshire voters saw a lot to change their minds on Tuesday. I think that the only surprises will at the second and third positions behind primary winners Barack Obama and John McCain. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton will finish closer than the latest polls indicate with Edwards pulling within three to five points in the third spot. Huckabee has recently leaped over Rudy Giuliani with 14% of support in the latest poll. I think that number will go up as Romney’s numbers go down on Tuesday.

I was prepared to leave the post-mortem of the Iowa caucus to my last entry but I have to address one last issue that arose this morning. The New York Times had an entry in its Caucus blog that discussed a connection between caucus-goers for Bill Richardson and the Barack Obama campaign. The blogger spoke about a potential Richardson-Obama pack in individual caucuses to throw Richardson’s votes to Obama after the first ballot as if it were Watergate 2008. I know that these reporters and bloggers are exhausted from all the time they spend in Iowa but this entry seems to show a lack of knowledge about caucuses.

It is time for caucus school, boys and girls. In the Iowa Democratic caucuses, a candidate needs 15% of the vote in an individual caucus to remain viable. There were three candidates in 95% of the caucuses who had a reasonable shot at viability: Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Individuals who were caucusing for Joe Biden, Bill Richardson or Mike Gravel were propositioned by voters of the top three candidates to join their cause. The end result was a lot of horse trading and conversations by non-viable voters who became important to the top three candidates in a close race early in the evening.

There was no conspiracy and an agreement between Richardson and Obama for something like a vice-presidential position would be ridiculous. Every second- and third-tier candidate had a contingency plan for non-viability in caucuses. I have read several places about the Kucinich campaign instructing organizers to promote switches to Barack Obama after the first ballot. The New York Times was making a mountain out of a mole hill regarding any sort of agreement because they failed to note the realities of the Iowa caucus. There are only so many candidates who will get a piece of the viability pie. Whatever one can say about the usefulness of the caucus system, the beauty of a caucus is the ability of voters to convince their colleagues on the fringe to join a singular cause. In the end, the Times was either guilty of not doing their homework or writing a poorly constructed blog entry about a non-issue.

After a year of active campaigning and endless hours spent on my part watching stump speeches, we have finally reached the end of the Iowa caucuses. The lesson I learned from the 2008 Iowa caucuses was that I should have paced my excitement about politics of change. The Iowa caucuses, after all, represent a few hundred thousand individuals who were able to convince one another to side with a few top tier candidates. I have little energy left for New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and beyond.

MSNBC and CNN have assisted in this political fatigue. I turned on MSNBC this morning and there was a caucus ticker with nearly 10 hours left until the first caucuses started. My addiction to coverage of presidential politics led me to watch talking heads like Joe Scarborough, Andrea Mitchell and Chris Matthews speak at length about the same topics for half a day. Aside from siding with Pat Buchanan on his projection of the caucus results, I got little out of this all-day coverage.

There was a beacon of hope in media coverage about the Iowa caucuses. I know dozens of people watch C-SPAN on a daily basis but I have to believe a greater number who were interested in the caucuses watched this evening. The C-SPAN coverage began in earnest at 6:00pm Central time with a live feed of coverage by one of Iowa’s local stations. I watched a bit of the coverage of an Iowa Democratic caucus as well as the straightforward polling process on the Republican side. There weren’t aging commentators telling me what to think like the other networks. If you ever want a raw feed into politics, check out C-SPAN.

My last thought on the Iowa primaries is that these results may not matter by next Tuesday. Mike Huckabee will find it difficult to win in New Hampshire. Barack Obama has done well in New Hampshire but you better believe Clinton and Edwards will be doing a full court press to challenge him at every turn. The mainstream media may think that Obama has the overwhelming momentum and the surprising turn of Huckabee’s campaign make the next few primaries a foregone conclusion. I think that this race goes until February 5th and beyond because the momentum from one primary to the next may seem overwhelming but voters have had eight years of George W. Bush. People in the Super Tuesday states want to kick the tires a bit before they make their selection.

The Columbia Journalism Review has devoted a few Internet articles on hypothetical questions to Senator Barack Obama and former governor Mike Huckabee. These questions are designed to show the weak spots in the primary debates and media coverage while addressing legitimate concerns about each candidate’s statements. I recently read through the questions by CJR for Barack Obama and felt that the questions were ones that needed to be asked to all candidates, not just the front runners.

The first question deals with Obama changing his mind on withdrawal from Iraq. The importance of Iraq cannot be overstated though most voters in Iowa and New Hampshire consider it a given, moving onto other issues. Every candidate except Dennis Kucinich has some inconsistency when it comes to the Iraq War. Why pinpoint Obama aside from the fact that he is surging at the right time? I think every debate should feature questions for candidates from the top tier to the fringe about questionable statements on Iraq, Iran and other foreign policy issues?

There are procedural questions in CJR’s hypothetical press conference with Barack Obama that have probably been asked in Iowa without getting much coverage. The third question deals with arms limitations and the problems of getting a two-thirds majority in the Senate to approve an international treaty. The seventh question deals with voter fraud which is a state issue outside of the purview of the President of the United States. These questions should not be directed at Obama, Huckabee or any of the candidates without being asked to ALL of the candidates. A procedural question on state voter IDs could really help us figure out who knows the Constitution and who assumes that federal power extends to all parts of American life.

I admire CJR for placing their venerable name on this line of questioning. The problem comes when reporters ask questions of this nature and get an answer without much juice. Reporters are concerned about getting material that can stand out to producers who have 24 hours to fill but need to make each piece of news bite-sized for a public unaccustomed to complex answers. If Americans are concerned about getting the full story on each candidate, a review of YouTube and other video websites for unedited film of campaign stops can help circumvent the echo chamber that is the American mainstream media.