Media Criticism

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.

Any good politician thinks about their short term prospects especially during an active campaign. If John Kerry had said he was building the Democratic Party for 2008 while running for president in 2004, he would have been creamed at the polls. Many politicians simply fail to realize that their place in politics is to compact the snow that will eventually become a massive snowball. Ron Paul fits into this camp with his grassroots campaign in 2008.

I think that Ron Paul has been receiving enough attention in the press based on the competition in the Republican field. There are plenty of candidates beyond Romney and Giuliani so why should Paul get more attention? The media has only begun to realize that Paul’s campaign is different from that of other candidates in the Republican AND Democratic fields. The problem for Ron Paul is that the media won’t help him in the short term. Ron Paul stories revolve around the shock of the candidate actually beating people financially on a quarterly basis. His aim should be a reform of the Republican Party back to roots laid down by people like Bob Taft in the 1940s: isolationist and libertarian.

His platform is appealing to Americans frustrated with the Bush Administration’s love affair with bureaucracy. Bush is not a traditional Republican but a tinkerer that benefited from a terrible attack on American soil six years ago. Paul would reorganize and decrease the size of government, recommit the country to the gold standard and draw back our influence in the world to reflect concerns over domestic defense. I think the gold standard idea is unrealistic in the modern economy but everything else sounds great to me. The problem is that as much as the American people complain about big government and overreaching presidents they are used to these malformed institutions.

Ron Paul will continue to gain supporters as the Republican debates continue into the primary season. Fred Thompson is a Reagan conservative that fails to realize that the Cold War is over, Mitt Romney is a stuffed suit and Rudy Giuliani is not desirable to a) conservatives, b) religious conservatives and c) libertarians. The problem is that Ron Paul does not fit the ridiculous form that we apply to each president. His frank manner is great to distinguish him in debates but Americans find it difficult to support people that speak common sense to power.

Since a reformed Republican party seems unlikely in the next generation, I am hoping that Ron Paul leaves the Republican Party and takes the mantle of the Libertarian Party in 2008. The major problem for parties like the Libertarian Party is that they get little press. If Paul is able to accomplish anything in the early primaries, he can bolt the party once partisan drones chose their leader. He will have run ads in the early primary states, built a following among independents and gotten his name in every major newspaper for months before the primaries even start. I hope that someone emerges from the Democrats to run as an independent to throw the two-party system into array and show Americans how fundamentally flawed our system is.

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.

The week-long visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York City has drawn the ire of media types throughout the city and the United States. The New York Post used its typical sensationalist language to condemn Ahmadinejad’s visit while the New York Times highlights protests for today’s address at Columbia University. I cannot believe that a weak president whose country is sinking quickly into depression and personally has the eyes of the entire world upon him will leave any significant mark on an American audience.

It is important for Americans to hear Ahmadinejad without the filter of the American and Iranian presses. Without the banners and cheering crowds carefully orchestrated by Iranian handlers, Ahmadinejad will resort to discussing the issues instead of spouting rhetoric. If he expects his call for the destruction of Israel to receive cheers from dignitaries, he will be lucky to walk away with a handful of boos from an otherwise shocked audience.

Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric is nothing unique and New York City residents in specific and Americans in general need to listen attentively to the Iranian president’s words. Iran is experiencing economic issues and the tense glare of world powers over Iran’s foreign policy and weapons manufacturing may help crack Ahmadinejad’s demeanor on hostile turf. Ahmadinejad may be a bad man and a terrible leader but America needs to realize that we have already fought our war in the Middle East. The Republican media machine is not dissimilar from the Iranian media machine and it is important for America to realize that its politics are nearly as reactionary. This week will come and go without incident except for the extraordinary traffic associated with his visit.

I cannot believe I have to talk about O.J. Simpson again. I was in high school physics the day that O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder and to that point, it seemed like all everyone was talking about was O.J. I thought I was done with the Juice but he could not stay away from the police blotter. His off-then-on again book outlining what he would have done if he did kill Nicole Brown and his recent attempt to steal his own sports memorabilia back certainly seem like a fitting end for Mr. Simpson.

I should amend this last statement because it is not an end, just an opportunity to do something else. The Juice may try to break out of prison by getting a tattoo of the prison on his body or contact Leslie Nielsen to try and get another Naked Gun movie filmed in prison. I don’t know what will happen next but it will certainly involve the media hopping on the Juice train until it runs off the rails.

My solution to the O.J. Simpson problem is to send him to another country. I know this is not legal and the global media would make its way back to America if he ever did something wrong. It is worth the effort though as O.J. would get a new start and Americans would get a rest from that 30 seconds on the news detailing his latest caper. I suggest the Low Countries in northern Europe, perhaps Denmark. We could trade O.J. Simpson for one of their former athletes/current criminals.

This question is addressed in a recent editorial in the Columbia Journalism Review that speaks to the issue of traditional newspapers finding revenue on the Internet. The specific example laid out by the editors of this journal was the Washington Post’s scoop of the problems at Walter Reed Hospital and the subsequent failure to pursue additional information by the New York Times. Their argument is that the Times and other competitors should have linked to the Post’s story and conducted their own research to create a richer dialogue.

I couldn’t agree more with the assessment of the Review in terms of newspapers sucking it up and trying to show some class and journalistic curiosity. If newspapers are doomed to fail in print, they might as well fail while doing their jobs. The main issue I gleaned from this editorial is that the future of new media is not exactly bright. Networks like Fox and CNN are shutting down foreign bureaus, cutting budgets and relying on eyewitness information to cover events. There are some things the public is not ideally suited for and one of them is honest journalism.

Think about a nation of peeping toms and amateur reporters who have an agenda that is nearly as insidious as that of corporate media. A neighbor thinking it is their duty to report violence instead of contacting the authorities and a “reporter�? using their blurry camera phone to observe the effects of a hurricane does not sound appealing to me. Citizen journalism is great as a supplement to regular media as history has proven (see: muckrakers in the Progressive Era). It is not a replacement for responsible journalism and we need to find a balance as we phase out print media in the next generation. The New York Times, CNN and Fox will use citizens to cut down budgets under the guise of empowering them to create the news.

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!

In the blur of primary debates, interviews and other coverage associated with the 2008 presidential election, it can be difficult to gauge media bias. I watch most of the Sunday morning shows and try to watch as many hours of news programming during the week as possible. In my experience, I have noticed an effort by most outlets to feign a dispassionate interest in portraying all sides of the election. The Media Research Center seems to disagree.

Fox News reported about the Center’s latest study indicating that there were nearly twice as many stories on Democratic candidates as there were for Republican candidates in the first seven months of this year. The Fox News story was peppered with calls by the Center for an end to this double standard. I think it is interesting that the Media Research Center wants equal time for a group of white conservatives when there is more diversity in the Democratic presidential field.

A successful African American senator, a woman with significant experience in government, a Southern senator turned poverty warrior and a group that covers the full gamut of political perspectives form the Democratic field. If I was a news director and I had to choose time for one side or the other, I would go with the more interesting debate. It is true that both sides should get equal time in the general election. The problem with equality of air time during the primary season is that there are not always two primary races that are interesting to the public. Many people feel that the Democrats have a more compelling fight on their hands considering the extreme unpopularity of President Bush and the Republican Party in general.

My major issue with the Media Research Center’s findings is that private media sources have no compelling reason to give equal time. If Democrats get better ratings than Republicans for MSNBC or CNN, they will follow that lead. We should support public media outlets at the local, state and national level in our search for equity in media coverage for national politics. The Center is howling at the moon in trying to fight a “double standard�? when so many better sources of protest and information have fought the same battle.