Media Criticism

I am starting a series this week about issues in foreign media that departs drastically from my regular dispatches on the 2008 election. The first part of this series is connected to a recent article in Monocle that discussed RAI in Italy. RAI is a state-owned television network that has been symbolic of questionable integrity and favoritism in Italian media.

Monocle highlighted an exception to RAI’s problematic reportage in the form of reporter Milena Gabanelli. Gabanelli has been working for the last ten years to expose corruption in Italy’s cornerstone industries including fashion and fine dining. The article was succinct but delved into the careerist nature of Italian journalism that makes Gabanelli’s work exceptional.

Gabanelli is only one reporter, however, and Italy is only one nation where the lines blur frequently between truth, opinion and entertainment. Professor Matteo Scanni of Catholic University of Milan states in the Monocle that “…the media is not so much a watchdog as a lapdog�? in Italy. Former prime minister and current candidate for prime minister Silvio Burlesconi owns media outlet Mediaset which embarrasses honest journalists in southern Europe on a daily basis. The fact that Burlesconi has shifted in and out of national politics while holding on tight to his grasp of Italian media demonstrates how bad it can get in terms of media objectivity. Burlesconi has also tried to use political power to thwart RAI and other competitors to Mediaset in a consolidation effort that would cause Bill Gates to blanch.

There are an awful lot of jokes made about Italian politics and media on the world scene. The Onion made a joke about the constant shift of power in the Italian government in one of the spoof paper’s classic “funny but true�? moments. We should not be so quick to jump on Italy for allowing private media outlets like Mediaset and state-run outlets like RAI to rule the day. Our country has a terrible record in terms of media objectivity because we share something with Italian media consumers: we prefer the sound of the sizzle rather than the cause of the sizzle. We need Milena Gabanellis in our journalism school ranks to step up and buck the trend of “me toos�? in the media.

I have written multiple times on the prospects of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg entering the race for the presidency. Bloomberg’s staff has been active in promoting his potential candidate while the billionaire mayor has denied these rumors with some subtle equivocation. It seems that the mayor has made his final decision clear in Thursday’s New York Times.

Bloomberg stated that he would not be a candidate for president in 2008 but that he would offer his support to a candidate who takes an “independent, nonpartisan approach.�? I think that there is something paradoxical about this support. Bloomberg is not running for president because John McCain and Barack Obama appeal to independents. If the nominees were Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee, Bloomberg’s support would be crucial to gathering up independents in a partisan election. I think that the appeal of Obama and McCain to independents won’t help either candidate in this election. Independents already like both candidates as has been proven in the primaries.

It has been discussed constantly that Bloomberg is wealthy enough to run for the presidency. The mayor has to finish out his last term in New York City but I see him angling for a larger role in national politics in the future. Millionaires took positions in the cabinets of Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover in the 1920s to steer the country toward pro-business policies. What if Bloomberg took a position in Obama or McCain’s cabinet to steer the country toward a more “independent, nonpartisan�? environment? If he is not working his way into somebody’s administration, I can see him developing grassroots support for a run in 2012 without bludgeoning people with his money.

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.

It is easy for reporters and politicians to point to polling information while espousing an anti-war stance in dealing with Iraq, Afghanistan and other foreign countries. We have turned “scientific�? polls by media outlets all over the ideological spectrum into gospel truth because we value numbers. It is important for the media to highlight the pulse of the military whenever we speak about the state of our national defenses.

Foreign Policy has conducted a survey of over 3,000 mid- and high-ranked officers from all service branches regarding the state of the U.S. military. I have cited Foreign Policy in past articles because it does a fantastic job of covering international issues from all points on the political spectrum. There are a few findings in the magazine’s U.S. Military Index that I want to highlight in this post that illuminate the direction needed by our next president in leading the Armed Forces.

The first subheader in the U.S. Military Index deals with America’s preparedness for “the next war.�? The results demonstrate the lack of confidence by military officers in Congress and the executive office in directing military might against other nations. The average officer did not see the United States as ascending above an average level of preparedness for combat in Syria, Iran, North Korea and the Taiwan Strait. The lowest rating for military preparedness for officers polled rested in Iran which should give every political leader pause before spewing vitriol.

The most interesting subheader in this Index was called “Filling the Ranks.�? We have experienced a decline in young people signing up for the military since going to war with Iraq in spring 2003. Our diminished military forces have led to strains throughout every service while forcing National Guard troops to leave home for the dangerous fronts of Iraq and Afghanistan. The soldiers interviewed by Foreign Policy voted overwhelmingly for allowing foreign permanent residents to serve in the military for full citizenship. There was also strong support for lowering education standards, increasing enlistment bonuses and increasing maximum age restrictions to bolster forces. Multiple solutions will need to be instituted in our enlistment of new soldiers if we want to maintain our warring ways.

Everyone concerned about the state of our armed forces should check out the entire report in Foreign Policy. We need to take a personal stake in the overall state of our military beyond relatives, friends and neighbors overseas. I have little hope that the current crop of U.S. Representatives and Senators will see reason when looking at a report formed from conversations with military officers.

I read an advertisement yesterday saying that Ralph Nader would be going on Meet the Press this morning to discuss his presidential bid. The reason why this ad jumped out at me was that it assumed that Nader may not end up running. I am sure that Tim Russert wouldn’t have Ralph Nader on his show if he was going to say that he would not run for president.

I just finished watching the interview with Mr. Nader and felt as if I had jumped into a time machine and headed back to 2000 and jumped ahead to 2004. Ralph Nader is a great man with a record of accomplishment in consumer protection that is impressive. His organization (Public Citizen) epitomizes the spirit of grassroots politics that has carried forward from the 1960s. I just don’t think that he would make a great president.

My problem with Ralph Nader goes to his presumption that the presidency is the only vehicle for change in the United States. Nader could have built a career as an independent starting with state legislatures and rising up through Congress to build political credibility. His popularity in the 1960s and 1970s could have been used to promote his platform of equality and political reform starting at the lowest levels of government. The 80% of people who Nader stated would vote for an independent candidate in 2008 want someone with the combination of experience, knowledge and the right platform. We aren’t going to vote for someone who wants to jump to the head of the class without having a track record in government.

I dislike the vitriol slung at Ralph Nader since the 2000 election debacle. The election should have never been that close between Al Gore and George W. Bush with Gore’s wooden campaigning one of the reasons why he “lost.�? Nader has every right to run and I respect his persistence in pushing a progressive agenda. I just cannot imagine voting for him at this point because I think there is an element of vanity in his pursuit of the White House. I need proof that other independents will help promote his agenda to clear this perception of Ralph Nader.

I have been busting the chops of CNN anchors like Campbell Brown and Wolf Blitzer throughout the presidential primary season. Brown is vapid, Blitzer is a terrible debate moderator and the network brings on supporters of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain when thoughtful analysis is needed. CNN lucked into a good debate this evening from Austin, Texas due to the potential problem of a prolonged nominating process for the Democratic Party.

Any network who hosted this debate would have witnessed a heated contest between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Obama has momentum built upon since Super Tuesday while Clinton and her surrogates have made Texas the last line of defense. Anyone who thinks that a loss in Texas means that Senator Clinton will drop out does not understand her desire to reach the White House. I would like to take this sentence to say that I don’t think Clinton should drop out after Texas if she keeps it close in delegates after March 4th. My opinion is probably not the same as the opinions of Democratic operatives desperate to campaign against John McCain.

The words “silly season,�? “plagiarism�? and “experience�? popped up frequently in the Austin debates. Hillary Clinton was flailing desperately at many points in the debate though she was strong early in the debate. Barack Obama seemed to build up steam throughout the debate as the line of questioning got more contentious. I liked Hillary’s promotion of green jobs as part of the stimulus package though her platitudes after the fact mean nothing in the end. The 90 minutes of debate got ugly in some parts and showed Democrats what they have to look forward to if the nominating process goes long.

I think that it is alright to air out these problems in public. The Democratic Party should swing through all 50 states and numerous territories to give every voter the chance to make up their mind. The successes of the Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections need to be confirmed by a presidential candidate that reflects the identity of rank-and-file voters. Democrats may not want a race that goes to the convention but it may be the best way to solidify the party’s strength for the next generation. A little clearing of detritus and old-style thinking caused by public scrutiny can make a party stronger than a party created by blind consensus.

I have heard so much hullabaloo about Fidel Castro stepping down as leader of Cuba this week that I thought I would give a brief opinion. Most of our opinion in the United States is based on a combination of 50 years of anti-Castro rhetoric along with the understandable anger of Cuban Americans. We do not have reasoned discourse regarding Castro, Communism and Cuba which means we cannot fully understand what the long-time leader’s resignation truly means.

We do not have sufficient critical distance to say that revolution will continue to sweep away Communist elements. Raul Castro has stated that economic controls may be loosened further to help Cubans meet their basic financial needs. We may not be capable of taking Mr. Castro at his word considering that his brother may wield power from behind the scenes and dissent in Cuba may grow as people yearn for greater changes. I think that any implication that the American government can do anything about the course of Cuban politics smacks of politics from the last century.

Cuba was placed under protectorate status by the United States following Spain’s loss to the Americans in the Spanish-American War. We trade the Teller Amendment that stated the course of Cuba belonged to Cubans with the Platt Amendment which gave us Guantanamo Bay and a position in Cuban affairs that would last until Castro took over. The Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations worked hard to get rid of Castro while bringing the world closer to nuclear war than at any other time in American history. We do not have a great track record of helping Cuba revolutionize its affairs.

People need to cool rhetoric about changing Cuban affairs and toppling the Castro family. The implication that we would do anything but deal diplomatically with a dying political family is a sign of Cold War thinking. We will continue our ridiculous embargo of Cuba which seems to contribute to poverty and privation as much as the Castro family’s perverted use of Marxism. Fidel Castro leaving office means that we will talk about Cuba as if it were 1962 all over again which means his resignation means nothing.

I read through an entry from last week on the Columbia Journalism Review website that highlights a point I made last week about the power of the presidency. The presidential candidates promise all manner of vague changes to the federal government but they bypass the problem of passing legislation through Congress. Columbia Journalism Review had an article about the generalizations made by the presidential candidates on local environmental issues during the course of their campaigning.

I suggest that every voter who thinks that candidates like Obama, Clinton and McCain can bring change should read this article. Curtis Brainard outlines local media efforts to draw out responses to environmental issues at a local level from national candidates. Each newspaper started out with good intentions but ended with “round-up�? stories and concessions that the candidates had no specific plans for ecological areas like Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades. While Brainard concludes that a mixture of factors contribute to candidate ambivalence about local environmental issues, I think that the main issue falls in the separation of responsibilities within our government.

The president is the leader of our military forces first and a cog in the checks-and-balances machine; everything else after that is gravy according to the Constitution. There is no need for presidential candidates to lay out individual strategies for each state because that would be a massive overreach for the executive office. The ultimate responsibility for environmental problems lies with governors, state legislatures and members of the U.S. Congress. It is ridiculous to ask presidential candidates to get specific on a local watershed when we should be asking for specifics on conservation and clean fuel programs with a national scope. Journalists and voters need to demand detailed policies from the right people. I wouldn’t be impressed if a candidate like John McCain had a specific plan for the Fox River Valley in Wisconsin; I would be annoyed that he wasn’t thinking about issues within his purview.

I wrote last week about my experience on the partisan side of politics so I thought it would be good to show that I am a non-partisan observer at heart. I spent my entire day immersed in the Wisconsin primary starting with my work at the polls in Franklin, Wisconsin and ending with some result collection in Pewaukee which is a suburb 25 minutes outside of downtown Milwaukee. These experiences offer an interesting view of the electoral process from the inside out.

Wisconsin has relaxed rules on balloting, registration and identification at the polls. I know that some electors in Franklin were surprised that they did not need to show an ID card to check-in at the polls. You can use any identifying document with your current address to register at the polls. These lax rules may give the impression that our polling place was messy, chaotic and unruly. The hard work of people like Sue, Bill, Kurt and Bob helped keep Ken Windl Park humming along efficiently. I left at 5:00pm and we had nearly a third of our electors through the polls with the busiest three hours ahead.

My work as a precinct reporter for Edison Media Research involved traveling out to Pewaukee to pick up optical scan results for both party primaries. This polling place was less-used than the Franklin station but the election inspectors were great at dealing with a late rush of traffic before 8:00pm closing. I had some interesting conversations with voters as the polls were closing about matters more sophisticated than who we voted for. My experience at the polls today was positive from start to finish and I am heartened that my fellow Wisconsinites are willing to take up the responsibilities of democracy just as readily as they accept its fruits.