Media Criticism

I harbor a grudging jealousy with anyone who can write a poem that doesn’t sound like something a teenager wrote for an ex-girlfriend. I know I can put together a string of good sentences but I cannot put the soul of a poem in my commentary. The reason I bring this up is that The New York Times interviewed U.S. poet laureate Charles Simic in the Sunday edition.

I should say Mr. Simic’s official title “Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress,�? a mouthful of words that make the title holder an ambassador for flowery prose. Deborah Solomon’s interview with Charles Simic covers the spectrum of issues from the poet laureate’s accessible poetry to his vote for John Edwards in the New Hampshire primary. I like the issues spanned in this brief interview because few people know what the U.S. poet laureate does on a daily basis. The vague mandate offered by Congress for this position makes the ideal candidate capable of promoting poetry while relating well with the press. Charles Simic seems to fit this bill.

The Times interview points out a fatal flaw in our educational system which is a focus on writing. I don’t mean handwriting which remains a sticking point for many students (I can relate as a left hander who was encouraged to turn rightie by some mean old nuns). The over-scheduling of children leaves no room for imagination, whimsy, mental flexibility or expression of emotions of all types. I hope that Mr. Simic uses what Deborah Solomon refers to as “unusually accessible and plainspoken�? poetry to open doors for artistic endeavors in our schools. As someone who grew up in a family that encouraged expression and went to a school that tried to suppress it, I can tell you that the former is vital for proper development into adulthood.

My intense focus on the presidential race this early in the process has made me feel like other aspects of political media are being neglected. I live in Franklin, Wisconsin, which is a suburb of Milwaukee and there is plenty going on in the area that gets short shrift from the media. Wisconsin’s role as the fountainhead for progressivism in America seems to go unnoticed by local media which prefers to cover American Idol and the Super Bowl (which our Packers aren’t even in!).

While the Milwaukee City Attorney’s office does not carry a high profile, the spring race is developing an acidic tone. I will give credit to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel politics blog for covering this race though it is a critical position in dealing with police corruption, civil rights issues and other legal problems that deserve more attention. The reason why this race is interesting and emblematic of problems in communities across the country is that incumbent Grant Langley agreed to debate challenger Pedro Colon but refused to show up to the first debate this past week. The absence is rife with the symbolism of incumbency.

There are several issues covered by the city’s alternative newspaper, The Shepherd Express ¸ that need pressing attention on a grand scale. This paper’s reporters highlighted the obfuscation by Republican legislators of a bill approved in the State Assembly providing expedited medical assistance to rape victims. Columnist Joel McNally provided a view of the city’s reprehensible approach to corrections facilities with medium-security prisons using guard dogs to intimidate people awaiting trial. These issues show one of the failings of state government which is a consideration of demographics and broad brush strokes instead of the real applications of law.

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.

I have to apologize for not posting in the last few days. I wanted to take in the collective experience of the Florida primary and the debates on both sides before posting. I watched the CNN Republican debate in the Ronald Reagan Library with great interest, mostly to see how ugly it would get between John McCain and Mitt Romney. I also tried keeping track of Ronald Reagan references but I ran out of fingers.

I think that John McCain has the same problem in debates as George W. Bush had in 2000 and 2004. Bush smirked and smiled his way through the debates while his opponents earnestly wrote notes and listened attentively. I am not sure if sitting down in front of Reagan’s Air Force One made McCain more prone to smiling at his new momentum but the Arizona senator was smirking his way through the entire debate. I cannot believe that I am siding with Mitt Romney in this debate but I thought he seemed more presidential, for whatever that is worth.

I don’t want to get into my problems with CNN’s debate rules notably the lack of strict time restrictions (check out my next entry on the Democratic debates). My bigger problem was the utter lack of coverage for Governor Mike Huckabee and Representative Ron Paul. The stage was not that big and there were only four candidates to speak with over 90 minutes. I found the fact that Ron Paul got the biggest applause of the night for his anti-war stance to be heartening considering the Republican audience.

I have a lukewarm relationship with Rolling Stone. I hate the fawning reporters who glorify people like Kid Rock, T.I. and other musicians who already have plenty of people sucking up to them. The portions of Rolling Stone that I enjoy have nothing to do with music. I will use the latest issue with a Johnny Depp cover story as an example. I could care less about Sweeney Todd and Depp’s musical acumen but I loved stories on Dr. Drew and Matt Taibbi’s scathing rebuke of the political media.

I will focus my attention on Taibbi’s work in this post. This regular contributor to Rolling Stone has infiltrated the Republican Party as a volunteer for the purpose of exposing the failings of the party at its nadir. His keen eye for politics may seem wasted in Rolling Stone but a magazine aimed at younger readers needs a reporter like Taibbi.

The story I refer to, “Merchants of Trivia,�? takes the media to task for the tone of the political dialogue during the 2008 primary season. I loved Taibbi’s description of the cub reporter who goes from healthy skepticism of the spectacle in American politics to providing advice to talking heads on cable news. His eyewitness report of cameras snapping photos of Obama supporters throwing out T-shirts show gives a view of how ridiculous American politics has become that sounds like it is coming from an outside observer.

If Taibbi worked for MSNBC, The Washington Post or a blog like Politico (which he skewers), his voice would be silenced. I may dislike the music reviews and interviews in Rolling Stone but I will continue to read it because Matt Taibbi and others are keeping an eye on the process of American politics. Fellow skeptics need to check out the regular political reports in Rolling Stone if only to maintain hope that someone cares about reporting instead of dictating a horse race.

I have to admire the enthusiasm of political activists in the Democratic Party as we approach the 2008 election. The appearance of choice in the Democratic primaries as well as an impending end to eight miserable years under George W. Bush has brought out activists from the wood work. I am undecided on my state’s primary (Wisconsin votes on February 19th) though I will likely throw my vote to John Edwards. The reason why I would go with Edwards even as his campaign is running third in every state is that I need to look at myself in the mirror after the 19th.

Barack Obama’s campaign is extraordinary not because he is an African-American; it is remarkable due to the excitement he has drawn in vague platitudes. I like Barack Obama as an interview subject because he seems to get that typical politicians look wooden in different environments. My problem is that I cannot possibly vote for someone who speaks about hope, change and a new day without much detail. I am going to head off angry emails from Obama supporters by stating that I have read his platform. I am still not convinced that hope can get the job done in changing the structure of power.

Hillary Clinton falls into the DLC-run section of the Democratic Party that I dislike immensely. The two-party system necessitates that each party represent a distinct portion of the political spectrum in its platform. I have a feeling that if Clinton and her Senate cohorts got a hold of a majority of delegate they would eliminate progressive reforms in favor of triangulated policies to appease both sides without pleasing anyone.

I won’t go too far into why I am voting for Edwards except to say that I would rather vote for a losing candidate with the right ideas instead of a winning candidate with faulty ideas and lofty language. A recent story in The Nation highlights the exceptional growth of the Democratic grassroots since Howard Dean became head of the DNC. I think that the Democratic Party needs to appeal to these grassroots which cross into the moderate and liberal portions of the political spectrum.

My greatest hope for this election is that we will see a brokered convention where John Edwards has a few hundred delegates to parlay into a more progressive platform. This hope turns into fear when I realize that all of this will be done in a backroom instead of the convention floor because no one has seen this type of convention in decades. Democratic delegates need to realize that once the first ballot fails to confirm a candidate they can float to other candidates as they please. It is time for the grassroots to use this unique opportunity to assert a return of progressivism to America.

I have grown to appreciate Pat Buchanan as a commentator in recent years. I definitely do not agree with his stance on illegal immigration and super-small government that is incapable of helping out the neediest among us. Buchanan has been an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq and is the surprising voice of reason in many conversations in his role as an MSNBC commentator. The Columbia Journalism Review has an online article regarding Buchanan’s success as the lone fact checker in recent election coverage on MSNBC.

The tiff between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has relied heavily on taking things out of context. Senator Clinton and her vice presidential candidate/husband have done what Republicans have done so successfully over the last decade: pick apart sentences and parse bill language without context. Obama can be accused of increasing the racial aspects of the presidential campaign and occasionally taking pieces of Clinton’s past out of context. While MSNBC host Amy Robach and producers were content to facilitate the perpetuation of unfounded arguments with sound bites, Buchanan’s attempt to place the arguments of both sides into context was a breath of fresh air.

Media consumers across the country are getting tired of “truth squads�? within campaigns as well as “fact check�? sessions on news networks. The words “truth�? and “fact�? mean nothing in national campaigns as candidates frame issues to bend objective information into something palatable to a slim majority. The two solutions to the problem of facts and truth on the campaign trail have their faults. A boycott of networks like MSNBC would be great though there are bits of insight from people like Buchanan in the expanse of garbage spewed by Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson. The other option is to continue the flood of blogs, podcasts and online videos devoted to picking apart individual claims by politicians. I like the idea behind democratizing political fact checking but I am not convinced that the same biases that pervade political campaigns won’t pop up in citizen fact checking.

Writers throughout the years have hoped that their works manage to make it beyond the next generation. As a freelance writer, I hope to create or promote an idea larger than myself that can be taken up by another writer in the future. This driving force leads me to write pages and pages of material everyday. The major issue with allowing my ideas and half-baked notions to reach the digital universe is that anyone can read it. In past generations, a writer could jot down an idea and allow it to sit in a journal because they had not other recourse for promoting their ideas. Professor Viktor Mayer-Schoenberger at Harvard University wants to return to that “useful void.�?

The “useful void�? idea was highlighted in GOOD Magazine’s year-ending issue. Professor Mayer-Schoenberger speaks for something called “data ecology�? which allows blog entries, articles and other expressions committed to virtual print to die off at a certain point in the future. This application of the natural process of life and death to the Internet is intriguing as someone who has changed his mind on certain topics but has articles floating out there archiving these old ideas. On the other hand, I like the idea that a reader can look back to something I wrote in college or graduate school and see how my writing has developed in the years since.

The temptation to jump on board with the “useful void�? notion is negated by the bad influence it would have on media. We need to have a permanent record of ideas so that the media can research position papers, blogs and other writings by public officials who are claiming to have done one thing while doing another. I hope that if I ever ran for office or reached a position where the public would care about my writing there would be a virtual record of my ideas to keep me honest. While Professor Mayer-Schoenberger’s idea is interesting for people who want to allow the past to fade away, I think that the “useful void�? would be akin to shuttering libraries because ideas in books by Upton Sinclair, Benton MacKaye and William Buckley are outdated.

The obvious jokes about Fred Thompson’s lethargic campaigning style and his occasional quips (remember when he schooled a moderator about raising hands?) have been made by about a thousand different bloggers today. Thompson’s disappointing finish in South Carolina this past weekend has led the former senator and current actor to leave the race in a blaze of mediocrity. I thought for sure that he would announce his exit on Jimmy Kimmel’s show just as he announced his entrance into the race to Jay Leno.

The parity of the 2008 Republican field is the only reason why Fred Thompson was ever a factor. If Thompson had run in the year 2000 with moderate John McCain and establishment favorite George W. Bush running, he would have run a distant fourth behind Steve Forbes. The effort to turn Thompson into another Ronald Reagan shows the desperation of handlers and advisors within the Republican Party to stave off the inevitable: the Republican Party must cast off its political detritus before rising again. If Thompson would have won the nomination in some act of desperation by primary voters, he would have been handled by anyone in the Democratic field save Mike Gravel.

Talking heads have speculated what Fred Thompson’s exit from the race will mean for the remaining candidates. The speculation that Mike Huckabee is a natural candidate for Thompson’s conservative acolytes may not be accurate. Huckabee has floundered significantly since winning Iowa. I think a majority of the supporters will head to Mitt Romney who is looking like the conservative alternative for Republicans afraid of nominating John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. I don’t think there were enough Thompson supporters to make much of a difference but the vast independent voter who had not been exposed to the Southern gentleman’s subtle charms may swing to Romney in the end.

The Republicans muddied their primary waters last weekend with a Vegas victory for Mitt Romney and a Southern rise for John McCain. The Democratic Party has an equally difficult process in choosing a candidate for the 2008 elections which seems to be a Democratic year. While the Republicans have the problem of multiple candidates who have regional difficulties, the Democrats are torn between the cold pragmatism of experience and the quick-burning light of change.

In recent days, Senators Clinton and Obama have alternated between barb trading and uneasy friendship in various public meetings. The tone of this evening’s debate in Myrtle Beach leaned more heavily to the former especially concerning the pasts of both candidates. Obama pointed out Clinton’s role as a “corporate lawyer�? on the Wal-Mart board in Arkansas while Clinton spent an abundant amount of time pointing out Obama’s “Present�? votes in the Illinois legislature. John Edwards seemed to be more relaxed than the other two which is a certainty achieved through a 4% showing in the Nevada caucuses.

I am not sure what the impact of an individual debate can have on a race considering the full-press coverage on stump speeches by CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN. If the South Carolina debates told us anything about the Democratic field, it is that it will extend well beyond Super Tuesday. I can envision a John McCain-Mitt Romney fight after Super Tuesday in addition to the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton battle that was raging on stage. In both parties, candidates like Mike Huckabee and John Edwards will stay in for awhile to assert their influence. Huckabee can deliver an interesting group of voters to McCain or Romney while Edwards can parlay his delegates for a role in the next administration.

CNN has not learned from past debates on the importance of decorum. The temptation to let politicians loose is strong since the public wants answers from these candidates. The problem is that Clinton, Obama and Edwards don’t know their own limits. A politician is like a door-to-door salesman; one foot in the door can lead to an hour of talking. Wolf Blitzer said at the beginning that some of the answers may be less than the time allotted which seemed to get a smirk from all three candidates. We all know that a no-holds barred debate is going to take place no matter what; CNN should at least pretend to practice limits so that the public can criticize the candidates instead of the media for run-on arguments.