Note to the Media: It's the Republicans, Not "Washington", that Screwed Up America

In his book, The Big Con, Jonathon Chait talks about how the media tries to put a bi-partisan spin on its criticism of politicians, even when the problem that is being discussed is really being caused by just one political party. He points out that this form of journalism favors Republicans because it gives the impression that both parties are equally to blame for the partisan bitterness in Washington. He points out that studies show that the Republican Party has moved much further to the right over the last three decades than the Democratic Party has moved to the left, yet the media often gives the impression that the Democratic Party is as liberal as the Republican Party is conservative.

An example of this tendency is seen in this Febraury 24, 2008 column on crime by David Broder of the Washington Post. He points out that Americans are far more worried about crime than international terrorism, yet most political candidates aren't talking about crime. He then goes on to make the following observation about Federal funding of anti-crime programs:

...The bad news comes from Washington. For exactly a century, since Theodore Roosevelt signed legislation creating what is now the FBI, the federal government has recognized its stake in fighting crime. In the 1990s, with the controversial passage of the Omnibus Crime Act, it pumped billions into hiring, equipping and training police; building prisons; and stiffening sentences. Between 1994, the year that law passed, and 2001, violent crime declined 26 percent and the murder rate fell 34 percent.

But in this decade, Washington has gone into reverse. The report notes that "the Bush administration has cut the major Department of Justice programs by 56 percent from fiscal 2001 to the present." One result is an actual decline in the number of local law enforcement personnel.

Let's see, which political party was in control of the presidency in the late 1990s? That would have been the Democratic Party. Which political party controlled all three branches of government from 1/20/2001 to 1/1/2007? That would be the Republican Party. Yet, while Broder is willing to put responsibility on the Bush Admnistration, he doesn't point out the obvious, which is that the Republican Party, not "Washington", is to blame for the cutbacks in Federal funding for Justice Department programs.

Part of this is the result of the fact that American reporters pride themselves on being "objective". This means that they will strive to be "even-handed" in their reporting even when the facts don't really back up such an approach. Another problem, though, is that too many of them refuse to admit how much the Republicans want to cut back the power of the Federal Government.

Bill Clinton suppsedly told his staff after the Republicans took over Congress in the 1994 mid-term elections that every American election is a debate over the role of government. The Republicans in Washington have one vision of the proper role of government, Democrats have another. Reporters need to acknowledge such differences so that Americans can decide what political party they want controlling government.

Master Narrative of the Bush Presidency

Jay Rosen, who blogs on media matters at Huffington Post, and on his own blog, has an entry on Huffington Post about the missing master narrative of the Bush Administration. That missing master narrative is the effort of the Bush Administration to increase the unchecked power of the presidency. Rosen uses the term "master narrative" to mean the story that drives all other stories. It is a way for the media and its public to make sense of the world around us, a way, if you will, "to connect the dots."

In this case, Rosen says that most political reporters used the master narrative that the Bushies were skilled at politics. The evidence was that Bush had won the 2000 election, although disputed, helped Republicans win the 2002 off-year election, and won re-election in 2004. The theory was that these wins demonstrated the political skill of Bush and Karl Rove.

What such a narrative overlooks, however, is that political campaigns cannot be separated from the political aims of the people conducting the campaigns. It is as if political reporters never asked themselves why exactly did Bush plan to accomplish with his political power. How exactly did he plan to govern? What goals would he try to accomplish with is political power?

Those questions were strangely missing from the media coverage of both the 2000 and the 2004 presidential campaigns. Consequently while Bush would claim a mandate for everything that he tried to do as President, the voters who supposedly gave him this mandate never really was told what he was trying to accomplish as President.

The master narrative suggested by Rosen allows consumers of news to understand what the Bush Administration is trying to accomplish. It explains why he waged a war on the rule of law, why he reacts viscerally to the idea of Congressional oversight, why he feels that it was permissible to start a war using questionable or false evidence, and why he believes that his administration can spy without a warrant on Americans or imprison an American without due process of law. The Bush Presidency is about turning the American presidency into a unchecked instrument for governing.

How Karl Rove Used Washington Media's Desire for "Saviness"

Jay Rosen, a communications professor, had an interesting blog entry on the reaction of political reporters and pundits to Rove's resignation. This is a quote from his entry:

Whereas I believe that the real—and undeclared—ideology of American journalism is savviness, and this is what made the press so vulnerable to the likes of Karl Rove.

Savviness! Deep down, that’s what reporters want to believe in and actually do believe in— their own savviness and the savviness of certain others (including operators like Karl Rove.) In politics, they believe, it’s better to be savvy than it is to be honest or correct on the facts. It’s better to be savvy than it is to be just, good, fair, decent, strictly lawful, civilized, sincere or humane.

While politicians and political reporters both love politics, there is a profound difference in the results of that love. When politicians and their helpers engage in politics, the purpose is not to be political, it is to gain power. With power comes the ability to make decisions that affect our society.

Political reporters, however, don't engage in politics at all, at least not in the sense of trying to obtain power. They are like sportswriters in that they are covering an activity that they love, but, like sportswriters, they can't play.

This means that they end up focusing on the part of politics that is concerned with winning elections as opposed to actually exercising power. Hence their love of writing about operators like Rove and their dislike for covering politicians who are actually interested in policy.

Combine those character traits with the fact that most political reporters who work for large corporations like Time, the Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, and others, don't really need government programs that help the average American, and you end up with a media that is just interested in being "savy" and not interested in actual policy. It is relatively easy for an intelligent guy like Karl Rove to manipulate those personalities.

Click on the link in this entry's title to read Professor Rosen's complete blog entry.

Media Out to Get Edwards?

There is an article in the Atlantic Online about why Edwards' haircut got a lot of media attention and Mitt Romney spending $300 of his campaign's money at a spa didn't. Here is the bottom line: a lot of reporters just don't like Edwards.

This is a quote from the article: There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards. We have seen this before. The national political press corps didn't like Al Gore in 2000 and didn't like John Kerry in 2004. This antipathy was one reason why this country has been afflicted with Bubble-Boy Bush for eight years. A reason, by the way, that the mainstream media won't acknowledge.

The reason why national political reporters can afford to engage in such pettiness is that they don't really need the kind of programs that Democrats like Edwards push. They have good jobs with good health care. Their kids don't have to worry about being educated or about serving in the American military. They make a pretty good living. In short, they belong to the part of America that isn't really affected by the idiocy of this administration.

American democracy will be a lot better off when the national political reporters who live inside the Washington Beltway have a lot less power and influence. Hopefully, that day is not far off.

Giuliani's Private Life May Hurt His Chances

Just as the public is anointing Rudy, the Political Transvestite*, the front-runner, the media is starting to look at his messy personal life. His first marriage was a 14 year marriage that got annulled when he apparently realized he was married to his second cousin. At the time of that annulment he was already involved with the woman who became his second wife, by whom he had two children.

That marriage fell apart when he got involved with his third wife. It included such scenes as a judge issuing a temporary restraining order blocking the PT from having his mistress over at Gracie Mansion, the Mayor's residence, while his children and wife were there. When he left the marital residence, he resided with a gay couple and their dog.

Now, he is married for a third time and running for president. His son, Andrew, told the media this past week that he is too busy trying to become a professional golfer to campaign with his father and that he has some problems with his father's new wife. Apparently Andrew and his sis weren't too happy about how Dad trashed Mom during the whole divorce process. This revelation led to Rudy asking the media not to involve his family in this campaign. A wish, by the way that John McCain, who was involved with his heiress second wife during his first marriage, also voiced.

As the AP article linked to in this entry's title shows, that ain't going to happen. The media long ago gave up serious political journalism for political celebrity journalism. Political celebrity journalism means covering politicians like the entertainment media covers movie stars only with poll results. Political celebrity journalists are about to descend on the story of PT's marriages like seagulls on a dead fish at the beach. Which, by the time they get through with Rudy and his Three Wives, will be an apt analogy.
___________________________________________________________________
*We call Giuliani the Political Transvestite because he is pretending to be something he isn't, a social conservative, to get the Republican nomination.

Why Political Journalism Sucks: The Media Focuses on Celebrity

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you will be taken to an interesting article in the online edition of American Prospect magazine. The article raises the question of why Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico isn't getting more coverage. The reason posed by the author is that during the last decade or so political journalists decided that celebrity counted more than political or governing experience. Obama has more celebrity status than Richardson, so does Edwards and Clinton.

It's not just Democratic candidates who are covered more if they are celebrities, it also happens to Republicans. Consider the coverage given to Rudy Guiliani, a former Mayor of New York, the city where most national media companies are headquartered, to that given to Huckabee, the Governor of Arkansas.

It is an interesting theory and a very well written article. Take a minute and check it out.