Media Criticism

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.

The mainstream media spent its Sunday morning discussing the issue of NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams appearing on Saturday Night Live. Williams is a regular guest on NBC’s Late Night with Conan O’Brien and offers a hilarious presence on every show outside of NBC Nightly News where he is appropriately serious. I was watching Reliable Sources on CNN on Sunday morning and I was surprised that Williams’ hosting gig was even an issue. I don’t take news readers, the more appropriate name for anchors, seriously and I think that they are at least one part actor or actress.

My argument can be best made with the case of Katie Couric joining CBS in 2006. Couric replaced venerable newsman Dan Rather and brought a media circus to a position and network viewed largely by an older audience. If Couric were a serious journalist that spoke about the issues, no one would have worried about her shift from NBC to CBS. The problem is that Couric was a news reader and fluff reporter on The Today Show which requires playing to the camera instead of maintaining journalistic integrity. Brian Williams is more serious than Katie Couric but he is certainly a talking head with perfectly coifed hair and a professionalism that Edward Murrow would have appreciated.

The reason why no news anchors have hosted shows like SNL or Mad TV in the past is that there have been few characters as engaging as Brian Williams out of his environment. If Wolf Blitzer, Keith Olbermann or Bill O’Reilly hosted one of these shows, there is no chance I could watch. We need to redefine journalism to appreciate the comedic value of what Brian Williams did on Saturday night. I consider journalism the investigation of events for public dissemination. Once I see Brian Williams and others out in the field, I will begin to question their journalistic integrity.

The terms “People’s Party�? and “Populism�? have changed drastically since the days of silverites and gold bugs in the 1890s. The People’s Party in the United States tried to bring in labor, women’s groups and limited numbers of African Americans into an alliance against moneyed interests that began political rule that continues today. American populists in the 1890s were imperfect and lacked the sophistication of major party activists but desired a political system geared toward the average person.

Today’s great “populists�? include racists like Christoph Blocher of the Swiss People’s Party which has grown into the largest political party in Switzerland. Blocher has used language familiar to historians of Central Europe to lash out against immigrants in the hopes of gaining seats in Parliament. The rush of ignorant voters worried about Muslims and the polyglot masses entering the land of chocolate and watches helped push the SVP into a plurality in Swiss government.

Switzerland has always been associated in my mind with political accommodation and reason. The seven seat cabinet that has helped balanced power between the major parties since World War II is beginning to resemble a Klan meeting. Blocher and another represented of the SVP will sit in the cabinet, breaking up the balanced approach taking to Swiss politics for five decades. By no means is Christoph Blocher a facsimile of authoritarian leaders like Adolf Hitler; Switzerland has an insufficient infrastructure and an unwilling populous for institutionalization of hatred. My concern is that Blocher’s victory will help encourage voters in surrounding nations to choose nationalists and right wing nuts.

The Flemish Block in Belgium and the National Front Party in France are only two examples of nationalist parties cloaking racist language behind the veil of populism. The hedge on growing conservatism and nationalism in Poland in the most recent election is diminished when you look at Civic Platform’s policies. Civic Platform was successful in wresting power from the Law and Order Party under the corrupt Kaczynski brothers. While Donald Tusk is a moderate leader that will demand EU involvement and withdrawal from Iraq, Civic Platform and Law and Order are similar in their desire to maintain a conservative domestic government in Poland. In the end, nationalism is pushing past traditional conservatism to take hold of the European public’s imagination.

I understand that the European welfare state has caused certain logistical problems in nations like Belgium and France. The use of foreigners and minorities as scapegoats for economic and social woes is nothing new; in fact, it shows a lack of imagination by popular leaders like Blocher. Every opposition party and minority coalition in Europe needs to rise up and save that this type of narrow-minded, one-dimensional political rhetoric will not stand in the 21st century. European voters should not be duped by nationalists claiming to shut down borders when the European continent is becoming more open than it has ever been. My only hope is that the Swiss people understand that the addition of political power to Christoph Blocher’s portfolio can only equal long term problems before the next parliamentary elections.

An article in the fall 2007 edition of Dissent, a public affairs magazine, compared and contrasted several books by Democratic candidates to determine their usefulness in determining character. The article by David Greenberg looks at books by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson to cut through the mixture of modesty and self aggrandizing to find the truth. The conclusion in Greenberg’s article seems to be that the problem of ghost writing and help from aides makes it difficult to make heads or tails of a candidate’s claims to political success.

The lone exception to the problem that Greenfield calls “committee writing�? is Bill Richardson. His book Between Worlds along with some background research provide a picture of a candidate that is in love with name dropping, conventions and the pomp and circumstance of major party politics. This would seem to be objectionable to anyone that is tired of politics as usual but the author seems to have a grudging admiration for Richardson’s candor. I could understand this search for a silver lining by Greenberg after reading thousands of pages by people that have spent their lives winnowing speech down to its basic elements.

I have read a few biographies of prominent figures in the past including Colin Powell’s 1996 biography that prompted a draft movement for Powell within the Republican Party. In my experience, I have found few silver linings like David Greenberg has within the pages of Dissent. The one difference between my reading of Powell’s biography and my reading of current candidate books is that there are myriad online and print resources available to check on a politician’s claims.

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.

I have been a fan of fringe candidates since I witnessed Ross Perot’s Quixotic campaign for president in 1992. I was only 12 at the time but I watched Perot’s TV ads and his role in the debates as something interesting. It would take something interesting to get a 12 year old involved in politics especially with a stiff like George H.W. Bush campaigning. Mike Gravel brings the same type of energy to the Democratic primary process for the 2008 election. Unfortunately, the honesty that separates him exposes his weaknesses as a presidential candidate.

The MSNBC debate on Wednesday, September 26 was one of the dozens of debates that will take place between members of the Democratic field. Mike Gravel answered a question regarding problems with his personal finances with a diatribe against credit card companies. I love his anger and enthusiasm in the same way that I enjoy Larry David’s character on Curb Your Enthusiasm. Gravel and David are funny and some small part of me wants to share in their brutally awkward manner but I don’t want to have a conversation with either one of them.

There was little chance of Mike Gravel winning the nomination before Wednesday night but his answer to credit card companies may have sealed his fate. Americans are tired of high debt but many realize that they are stuck due to their own actions. Gravel has been relatively irrelevant in politics since he left the Senate in 1980 and Democrats are looking to strike while the iron is hot in 2008. If Mr. Gravel ever reads this, I would invite him for a beer if he ever comes through Wisconsin but he will not get my vote during the presidential primary (whenever it ends up being).

As the new author of Media Criticism, I thought it would be appropriate to give a quick background on my theory of the media and why critical analysis of the media is necessary. There are three facts about the media which define the way I will analyze it:

1. The media in our country is free. This means that media is not controlled by the government, and that the government does not have the absolute power to suppress stories. This does not mean, however, that the government does not influence the media.

2. The media is biased. Regardless of where one falls on the political spectrum, it is impossible for one to ignore bias in the media. Remember that journalists are human beings, and therefore, the news reported comes through a human filter. There are conservative news sources and liberal news sources; I hope to bash both frequently.

3. The media is business. When discussing the media, many often throw around the phrase “journalistic integrity” which is defined by the so-called “duty of journalists.” This is misleading; in a perfect society, the journalist’s job would be to inform objectively. However, we must remember that a journalist’s first job (in a capitalist country with the a free press) is to sell newspapers.

With that in mind, let’s begin. Thanks for stopping by Media Criticism.