Media Criticism

I have been away for the last week for several reasons including burnout from writing for several blogs at the same time. My major reason for taking a week away from Media Criticism was a desire to get perspective on the state of the 2008 presidential race. I know I am not the first person to say the following but I don’t think I have made comments as cynical as the ones in this post.

I was watching coverage on MSNBC, CNN and listening to coverage on NPR of Tuesday’s Pennsylvania Democratic primary over the last week. The daily posts that I submit for this blog and others do not allow me to see the forest for the trees in many cases especially with my hyperactive coverage of the presidential race since last summer. I have to say that it doesn’t matter if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton wins any one of these primaries. It also doesn’t matter which candidate gets the most delegates by the end of the primary process. There will be unseemly machinations and underhanded deeds performed by handlers on both sides during the party’s August convention.

We are all aware of Hillary Clinton’s reputation as a lurker and a political figure who works in shadows and gray hues to achieve her goals. Barack Obama speaks a good game but the fact that his past is relatively unknown compared to Clinton and John McCain creates an aura of invincibility around the candidate. Every politician is a pig at the trough, pushing aside competitors in search of the biggest reserve of slop. The situation would be the same if John McCain was in a pitched battle with one of his Republican competitors. There is no difference in the process of nominating candidates from either party and marginal differences in the policies they would pursue when in office.

I am going to continue analyzing alternative newspapers and media of all types with tomorrow’s post beginning a series on independent radio stations. The political realm seems to dirty and unrewarding to waste time talking about on a daily basis. I think I have reached a point where I have gone from a political junkie to someone who realizes that political junkies are to promoting good policy as fantasy football players are to enjoying individual football games.

I have watched all 20 of the Democratic debates so you can understand my frustration with the course of events. I remember watching the first debate with everyone from Joe Biden to Mike Gravel competing for air time well before anyone would expect the campaign season to start. The entire Democratic field was invited to these events when few people were watching. As the campaign season began to crank up for voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, people began to drop off due to prior commitments and network rules about viability.

Tuesday’s MSNBC debate in Ohio was a fitting conclusion for the long grind of the Democratic primary season. I know that there are other primaries after next Tuesday with Pennsylvania a big fish in Democratic circles. This was my last debate until there are Democratic and Republican nominees because I have reached maximum capacity for rhetoric.

We have heard both candidates put through the grinder with MSNBC covering the presidential election 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (unless a celebrity does something). I don’t know if I can hear Chris Matthews tell another story or make a piss-poor joke. Joe Scaroborough is intolerable as a debate analyst and I won’t get too deep into my disdain for Tim Russert and Brian Williams as moderators. One of the reasons why I won’t be watching more primary debates is the spectacle made of the democratic process made by cable networks.

The main reason that I tire of these debates and hope that this was the last one is that they serve no purpose. Candidates aren’t going to answer questions that are omitted by moderators and the networks aren’t interested in getting down to issues. We fight the same fights constantly in these primary debates including the “who’s tougher�? debates in the Republican primary and the “who can get out of Iraq quickly�? debates in the Democratic primary. The writers are back so I can watch some terrible sitcoms and dramas instead of watching poorly-scripted debates.

We heard all about 527 groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and America Coming Together in the 2004 presidential election. The term “swift boat�? has been used since the despicable attack on Senator John Kerry on his war record. We will hear some more “swift boat�? ads this cycle with Senator John McCain’s Vietnam War record on trial. The only difference is that we will hear these ads from non-profits as well as 527 groups.

Mother Jones had an article on its website today that highlights changes in campaign finance law that will make third-party ads more prominent in the election. The Supreme Court eased the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in June 2007 but the FEC has recently rule that several 527 groups broke these laws. It seems that the federal government continues to be at odds, struggling between the inevitable and permanent pressure of money in politics and token efforts at reform.

We will see non-profit groups all over the political spectrum participate in the slash-and-burn techniques that we have become accustomed to in American politics. I think that Americans need to take on a greater share of responsibility for the effectiveness of these ads. American voters who knew that George W. Bush was an ineffective president were pushed around by Republican operatives using the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as a legal shield for their dirty deeds. The unique nature of the 2008 election means that we will see ugly ads about Barack Obama as a Muslim extremist, Hillary Clinton as an extension of her lightning rod of a husband and John McCain as a hypocrite and a liar. It is up to every voter to bypass ads from groups outside of the campaigns by finding balance among the myriad sources of information. We have no one to blame but ourselves if we are convinced by any of the faulty arguments and half-truths espoused by non-profit groups.

I always enjoy reading a publication’s review of media coverage in the rabid horse race that is the 2008 presidential election. Magazine editors and TV show hosts seem to forget that they are part of the problems they highlight, consciously or subconsciously. The latest bit of analysis on the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton chasm in the Democratic Party comes from The New Republic and demonstrates the problems in media outlets looking inward.

The New Republic blogger Isaac Chotiner quotes a New York Magazine article highlighting various reasons why Obama is crushing Clinton in terms of media coverage. This original premise by Chotiner is faulty because all I have heard is that Obama is “inexperienced�? and Clinton creates vitriolic responses from every media outlet. The MSNBC flap regarding Chelsea as a political call girl and Hillary Clinton as a jilted wife is only one axis in the media’s coverage of the Democratic candidates.

The discussions of meta-narratives in the New York Magazine article as well as Chotiner’s discussion of Clinton’s tactics against Obama leave much to be desired. The idea that the main reason for Clinton’s sagging numbers is that she gives off an “anything for victory�? tone in her campaign is too simplistic. I would imagine that the “change�? versus “experience�? argument would work well in a second-grade classroom and not a national election. Chotiner cites Clinton’s use of Barack Obama’s childhood presidential ambitions found in a kindergarten paper as a sign of faulty tactics. We are still talking about it and Barack Obama hasn’t won the nomination yet so it is too early to say that these tactics are faulty.

I have a theory on why Hillary Clinton won’t win the nomination that has nothing to do with tactics and “meta-narratives.�? Voters are beginning to realize that all of Hillary Clinton’s experiences going back to college have taken place on a parallel path to Bill Clinton’s rise to power. Hillary’s work as First Lady of Arkansas and First Lady of the United States could not have taken place without being married to Bill Clinton. Her victory in 2000 during a Senate election where she faced token competition from Rick Lazio demonstrates that her path to the presidency is one of least resistance. Her resume looks impressive but she has not done it on her own. It is difficult to believe that Bill Clinton’s influence had nothing to do with Hillary getting elected in New York considering the state’s heavily Democratic leanings.

I want to leave a post script here that is designed to head off unfair criticisms of my critique that would make me out to be a Paleolithic sexist. Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, well-spoken and driven woman who would have been successful even if she hadn’t married Bill Clinton. Her knowledge of policy issues and the law are impressive enough to make me consider her victorious in most debates (I have a policy wonk buried deep inside of me). The fact is that we are stuck with the reality we live in which involves her marriage to Bill Clinton and the unshakeable problem of separating personal, professional and political lives.

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.