Media Criticism

I have a distinct memory of former Black Flag lead man Henry Rollins from my teenage years. I was not a punk fan but I remember seeing him on MTV stomping around in black shirts and shorts. The comical image of Rollins I held in my adolescence has been replaced by admiration for the man in my adulthood.

Rollins proves that musicians can be well-read, engaging and thoughtful about the world around them. His visits to the troops throughout the Iraq War (detailed in a July 2007 Mother Jones interview) show the difficult balance between hating an institution and loving the humans within that institution. His commitment to equal rights may be astonishing to mainstream music fans who assume that punk rockers are anarchists, hate mongers and freaks who care little about other people.

The reason why Rollins is an exception to the rule in the music world is his origins. He rose through the punk rock ranks through hard work and a commitment to educating himself. There was no entitlement to wealth and fame within his work as a roadie, delivery driver and indie musician. He did not attend the finest schools in an effort to grease the wheels for a better lot in life. Rollins may have taken a path similar to millions of others in the past that had aspirations for something greater but he also possessed an unrelenting spirit.

Why is Henry Rollins an important figure in the world of independent music and politics? He has bucked multiple trends with his spoken-word albums and tour diaries. Rollins observed and analyzed the human condition and the need for equal rights through experience. His self-made image is matched by substance that is impossible to find in other artists. I may sound like a liberal arts major pining for a simpler life because I have a good life myself.

The fact is that I recognize that the journey made Henry Rollins believe strongly in his personal politics. I agree with Rollins in terms of core beliefs even though we took two different paths. We need to realize that the only divisions in our society are artificial. Record companies, media outlets and political leaders divide our country into separate pens. These pens are opened occasionally to allow groups to struggle for power that cannot be attained. Henry Rollins is trying to break down these pens through music , books and the spoken word.

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 New Hampshire primary is over and the candidates have dispersed quickly to their various last stands. Mitt Romney has scampered to Michigan, John Edwards has gone back to South Carolina and Bill Richardson is heading home with two fourth place finishes. I think there are a number of lessons that can be learned from the shocking primary results for the Democrats and Republicans.

I think that internal polling and exit polling is becoming a dinosaur in modern politics. There were complaints by polling companies that the criticisms of poll results in favor of Barack Obama were unfair because telephone polls take time. My response is that pollsters need to get ahead of the tech game or go home. I don’t feel bad at all for pollsters since they cause more problems than they solve.

New Hampshire proved that John Edwards is going to be in third place permanently in every state. Hillary Clinton will get institutional support, Barack Obama will get “change�? voters and the two will split the rest. I admire the Edwards campaign’s “2 down, 48 to go�? mentality but the Democratic base seems to be mobilizing into the Obama and Clinton camps. Edwards will be left with the role of kingmaker since he is just popular enough to carry some delegates in a tight race if he stays in the race through Super Tuesday.

The success of candidates like Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama as well as the resurgence of John McCain has thrown the logic of an accelerated primary schedule on its ear. I am not a Mitt Romney fan but I don’t think Michigan should be his last stand like it appears to be. I think that Rudy Giuliani’s Super Tuesday strategy may pay off in the current atmosphere. Bill Richardson was right to get out of the race but I don’t think anyone on the Republican side outside of Duncan Hunter should budget before February 5th.

This brings me to my last lesson which is that the media needs to stop declaring things over. Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee were given the nominations by CNN, MSNBC and others by the virtue of the Iowa caucuses. I commend Tom Brokaw and Lou Dobbs for pointing out that the media needs to stop declaring the primaries over with 99% of the voters unrepresented. I know that both parties would like a tidy primary season but there is virtue in slugging it out across the country. The parties can find their identities as they head from New Hampshire to South Carolina, Michigan to Nevada, Florida to California.

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.

I share a common affliction with the mainstream media these days that makes me a bit concerned. I cannot stop thinking, talking about and pondering the potential candidacy of Mayor Michael Bloomberg from New York. I know it is unlikely Bloomberg will get in and that Bloomberg would likely act as a spoiler in a tight presidential race. The possibility still excites my sense of hope in the political system.

I won’t get too deep into my interest in a Bloomberg candidacy. I can sum it up by saying that Bloomberg’s independence from partisan rancor, his substantial resources and frustration with both parties could lead to a historic campaign. A Bloomberg presidential campaign with the help of a nationwide effort at supporting independent candidates could lead to overwhelming support for the financial wizard-cum-politico.

The reason I am writing about Bloomberg today is that I came to the realization over the New Year’s weekend that the mayor cannot win the presidency. The numbers do not add up and the media LOVES the rat race of two-party politics too much to do Bloomberg any favors. The biggest obstacle is the constitutional roadblock to multiparty challenges that is the Electoral College.

We should look at places outside of New York to see how the electoral math does not add up for any third party candidate much less a billionaire with a maverick streak. We can write off Bloomberg in the South with the exception of some votes in Florida where there are plenty of retired New Yorkers. Bloomberg would be able to win some votes in California, Oregon and Washington as well as Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin where independents stand a good chance. The mayor would be able to pull votes in Vermont and New Hampshire but a candidate like Hillary Clinton or John McCain would win the day in those states.

If Michael Bloomberg had joined the rest of the candidates in running an early campaign, I could envision the success of his independent campaign. As it is, the reinforcement of the two party system by months of debates and campaign stops makes a 2008 surprise for Michael Bloomberg impossible.

Barack Obama and John Edwards have engaged in a debate through proxies, press releases and speeches in front of dozens at events in Iowa over 527 advertising. Edwards’ former campaign manager works for a 527 organization that supports union interests and plans on spending hundreds of thousands on advertising for Edwards in Iowa. Obama is claiming that Edwards’ weak attempt at stopping the advertising on his behalf seems to be a weakness in leadership. Edwards has countered that he does not officially support the messages of the 527 ads on his behalf.

I doubt that Barack Obama or any other presidential candidate is above reproach when it comes to 527 advertising. I also think that Edwards could have preempted these criticisms with a phone call to his former campaign manager as soon as the news got out. Neither side has a right to complain, however, as every candidate (save people like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul) seems to support the system that allows 527 ads to exist. No candidate who supports maintaining the status quo and keeping competitive ideas down through complex legislation should complain that 527 ads are fair to one candidate.

The frustrating part of the debate over 527 ads is that they work. I know voters will say that they are sick of politicians bickering but they are influenced by these ads in the same way that they are influenced by consumer advertising. 527 organizations are led by people connected to presidential and Congressional candidates in some substantial way which means that they are familiar with the lexicon of negativity needed to run a successful advertisement. While the Internet allows everyone to see an ad designed for Iowa and New Hampshire, there is an impermanence to these 527 ads that is perfect for candidates in the 21st century. The volume of advertisements on the Web means that a 527 ad criticizing Hillary Clinton will be supplanted within a day by a counterattack with an equal measure of vitriol.

I hate speaking about 527 ads because they are symbolic of fundamental problems with corporate influence, media and American politics in one fell swoop. A campaign advertising law that closed 527 rules permanently and forced candidates to apply their name to all TV, print, radio and Internet ads would ensure transparency in our political process. The 527 issue gets down to the fundamental question of money as free speech but candidates should preempt every 527 ad to meet the free speech standard and save their behinds.

Voters who had not read articles, watched TV ads or heard anything about the candidates for president in 2008 may have thought that Thursday’s Democratic debate was a reunion of old friends. Analysts on CNN spoke about Hillary Clinton’s subtle dig at the hope of Obama and the demands for change by Edwards in a vain attempt at finding a moment of contention. The strict format set forth by the venerable Iowan newspaper seemed to take the bite out of the candidates in their last effort to convince caucus goers of their qualifications.

There were a few great moments in the debate. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton shared a laugh over a verbal gaffe by Edwards. Obama came to the defense of Joe Biden regarding Biden’s past gaffes dealing with racial issues. Bill Richardson made a joke about a New Year’s Resolution to lose weight while Christopher Dodd asked voters to caucus the right way on January 3rd. It is impossible to say that any of these moments elevated the discussion or helped any reasonable voter in Iowa make a final decision.

CNN said that their small group of undecided Democratic voters overwhelmingly chose John Edwards as the winner of the debate. I think the debate is illegitimate in the sense that Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were not given an opportunity to speak while Alan Keyes was able to set up shop in Wednesday’s Republican debate. There were few knockout punches thrown and Democrats seemed to follow Republicans in trying to paint a positive picture while mail pieces and radio ads allow opponents to cut each other up. I am excited to see if the hype around Obama and Huckabee manifest in a victory on January 3rd. Here are three projections for the Iowa caucuses:

1. The nature of the caucuses, namely the viability clause, will ensure that Hillary Clinton won’t win in Iowa. Obama will get the nod from voters with Edwards getting second because few people have Clinton as their second choice.
2. I think that Romney will narrowly win in Iowa though look for a strong second place finish from Mike Huckabee. Huckabee will get some momentum heading into South Carolina (forget New Hampshire) where he will likely win.
3. Ron Paul’s fundraising success will have an effect in New Hampshire but not in Iowa because his small core of supporters in Iowa will be more willing to sit out the vote than team with another campaign to achieve viability in the caucuses.

I hate the crass rhetoric of hawks in America who say that anyone who opposes the president’s war does not support the troops. It is patently absurd to say that I cannot hope that soldiers stay safe and sound overseas while the American government is pulling a Three Stooges act on foreign policy. I despise the war in Iraq but I want every soldier to avoid harm. With this statement in mind, it may be surprising to die-hard hawks that I support Freedom’s Watch in its fight with NBC.

NBC recently refused to run an ad by Freedom’s Watch during the holiday season asking people to continue supporting troops overseas. The reasoning behind NBC’s decision was part of a policy to avoid advertisements authorized by the network that deal with policy issues. There was also a problem of the URL of the Freedom’s Watch website being displayed on the ad (which makes no sense whatsoever as a reason for prohibition). I can understand the butt-covering that NBC executives are using in refusing the Freedom’s Watch ad. The problem is that the idea of money as free speech should actually be allowed to take its course in this case.

My support for the Freedom’s Watch ad is contingent on another ad being run at the same time. This ad would be funded by a group that opposes the war with the exact same amount of time and exposure as the Freedom’s Watch ad. NBC’s refusal to run the ad is certainly going to increase hits on the Freedom’s Watch site which may be more important to the organization’s leaders than running the actual advertisement. I think there is a real opportunity to initiate a standard of networks encouraging both sides to address major policy issues in America.

NBC needs to reconsider its decision as a way to surpass other networks in terms of encouraging discourse. This is an incredibly naïve attempt on my part to apply an unrealistic standard on cold, heartless networks who are more interested in getting shows like Kid Nation on the air than helping out the public. A debate over the politics of the war instead of the black/white debate between hawks who apparently LOVE the war and doves who HATE the troops can increase the viewership of NBC. I just hope that the writer’s strike continues so that NBC will start to consider new ways to draw in new viewers.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave a much anticipated speech on Thursday regarding the role of his Mormonism in a potential Romney White House. Romney gave a well-orchestrated speech that did not delve into the specifics of the Mormon belief system while trying to reassure voters that his beliefs would not influence his decision making. There are a number of reasons his speech on Thursday will be totally irrelevant in the long run, not the least of which is the fact that Romney did not speak about his actual beliefs in any detail.

The fact that Romney did not go into the specifics of Mormonism is not as troubling as Romney’s judgment about his role in the Republican Party. Romney is not an overwhelming favorite nor is he a lone front runner in the primary season. The fact that Mitt Romney felt the need to give this speech presumes a stature in the Republican Party that does not necessarily exist. This speech will be long forgotten if Romney fails in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Romney’s speech did not reveal anything to the American public that they could not have gathered from the primary debates. Romney peppered in references about fighting terrorism and other right wing values that had nothing to do with Mormonism. This speech was just another stump speech without redeeming value for Romney’s campaign, the future of the Republican Party and the status of religion in politics. I only hope that Iowans and Granite State voters are smart enough not to be swayed by the media hype around this speech.

Romney’s JFK moment was just another campaign appearance in a bloated, money-driven campaign by a man who flip-flops more than anyone in politics. I don’t care how significant the media says this speech was; the election coverage hypes everything out of proportion to fill time until actual votes are cast.