Media Criticism

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.

National Public Radio held a Democratic radio debate several weeks ago that was unheralded in recent election cycles. NPR bucked the trend of television primacy by allowing all of the Democratic candidates a chance to speak about the issues without bells and whistles. It is no shock that NPR had to cancel a planned Republican debate set for January 16th in South Carolina due to a lack of candidate interest. Republicans feel that the NPR crowd is not their target audience and 90 minutes on stations at the bottom of the dial is a waste of time.

I think both sides are at fault here for the failure to get a public radio debate going. The Republicans are short-sighted in their ambivalence to speaking to the nation via NPR. The idea that public radio is the exclusive purview of liberals and academics is unfair to libertarians, conservatives and independents who want to hear all sides of American politics. Campaign managers should be leaping at the opportunity to get free advertising for their campaign in media markets throughout the United States. The failure of candidates to clear out 90 minutes for a simple debate shows the lack of dynamism in the Republican Party.

National Public Radio does not leave unscathed when assigning blame for the failed debate. NPR editors should have taken the example of previous debates where candidates did not attend by pressing on with the people who were interested in speaking about major issues. The debate should have taken place closer to the January 19th primary to promote a sense of urgency for Republican campaigns. In the end, the Republican Party and NPR are missing out on an opportunity to expand political dialogue beyond current stereotypes of public radio.

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.

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.

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 know that readers of this blog are probably sick of me talking about the primary debates. I also understand that I sound like a broken record when it comes to the failings of the televised debates for both parties. I am here today to say that I have heard the best debate in a long time about the issues and it involved no visual elements whatsoever. National Public Radio and Iowa Public Radio have done what a dozen plus debates have failed to do: get candidates to talk about issues.

There were parts of the Democratic debate on December 4th that were uncomfortable or imperfect. The question about buying Chinese toys for Christmas was a throwaway question and Christopher Dodd seemed to criticize and make light of the question all in one answer. I couldn’t possibly blame NPR for the failings of political dialogue; that blame is best left to commercial media, the parties and the American public. The NPR debate format may not have solved all of the problems with American politics but it gave a game plan for future debates to succeed.

NPR used a few questions from listeners and activists to guide the debate. The candidates present in Iowa for the debate were given room to roam when answering instead of being penned in by the fact that the debate host had to get through dozens of ridiculous questions. The debate was more civil even when Hillary Clinton and John Edwards got into a tiff about the condemnation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard by Congress. I am no Luddite and I enjoy technology but my hope is that we have more radio debates in the future. It is time to stop messing around with all of these crazy debate formats and spend hours on public radio listening to candidates have substantive conversations about the real issues facing America. Down with YouTube, up with old time radio!

I am clearly behind the ball in responding to Wednesday’s CNN/YouTube debate with the Republican presidential candidates. I spent Thursday and Friday taking care of other topics that arose and I felt that a few full viewings of the debates would clear my head. I watched the debate twice in its entirety and feel that this endeavor may have taken a few years off my life. I am just hoping those are the bad years at the end of my life.

CNN got hundreds of YouTube questions and could have chosen a diverse range of topics to cover. The good people at CNN chose to pick questions asking how many guns the candidates own and addressing specific questions to candidates (I am thinking of the Mike Huckabee question about the death penalty). The most egregious error by CNN was focusing almost a third of the time on questions of immigration. My problem is not over the debate on immigration as the issue of guest workers and border security are worthwhile questions. I object to the Tancredo effort on each of the candidates and the tone of the conversation.

My problem with the YouTube debates for both parties is that technology is thought to equal full democracy. In the end, however, a major media outlet like CNN was able to reign in full democracy with its usually cock-eyed filter. Anderson Cooper spoke at the top of the debate about which YouTube videos would NOT be featured in the debate. CNN is guilty of vetting questions in the same way that candidates are guilty of packing their public events with supporters. Accessible democracy through technology should not mean an effort at purposeful mediocrity.

The winners and losers in the CNN/YouTube debate are pretty clear. Media darling Mike Huckabee was thoughtful in his answers in the midst of chaos and CNN got the ratings it so clearly wanted from this debacle. The losers were the American public and supposed frontrunners Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney. I cannot believe I spent this long thinking about this debate but it is part of my job as a media critic.

In last week’s edition of Newsweek, the magazine’s political reporters highlighted the quaintness of Iowa in relation to its status as the first nominating contest in the nation. While the article is interesting and a bit condescending to the people of Iowa, the graphic entitled “Fixing the System�? was particularly interesting. The nascent debate over reforming the primary system in America is highlighted by four distinct plans.

First term Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) wants to break the nation into four regions while maintaining Iowa and New Hampshire as the first nominating contests. These regions would rotate position with successive elections to ensure national balance. Renowned political wonk Larry Sabato wants a purer regional system with four regions picked at random each election year. Sabato’s system includes a provision for two small states to be chosen randomly as the first nominating contests. The American plan offered by political scientist Thomas Gangale would group states by combined congressional districts while the Republican National Committee would allow states to go from first to last based on ascending population level.

These ideas are a good start and every voter needs to push their chosen party, their representatives and their neighbors into action. Iowa and New Hampshire may have a historical role at the beginning of the nominating process for both parties but it is time for a new tradition. I think media outlets would love the idea of rotating primaries, a national primary or something else that would create variety. After all, it is all about the story for reporters and pundits. There would be plenty of stories to be had by speaking to voters in Rhode Island, California or Montana that suddenly are thrust into the role of kingmaker for the first time in the history of the primary.

I think the debate over the primary process hinges on what happens in upcoming months. If candidates like Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani receive their party’s nomination, there will be no furor over the excessive role of money and political legacy in early nominating contests. I guarantee if somebody like Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul or John Edwards is able to wrestle the nomination from frontrunners, organizations like the DLC and the Republican National Committee will be able to push for change because they do not want insurgents to disrupt the system.

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.