The news media remain the biggest losers in healthcare reform debates. For the most part, mainstream news sources have not provided much analysis of the actual content of healthcare reform.
Not surprisingly, polls continue to show that people disagree with healthcare reform -- until they actually hear what the legislation contains. In fact, a new poll shows that most people believe that, for Republicans and Democrats alike, reform is simply about political battles, rather than policy. The media must accept some responsibility for public ignorance.
Rather than focusing on the substance of reform, the media have instead reported the political dramas related to reform. This has undoubtedly shaped public opinion about the motivations of members of Congress. The public knows less about the merits of healthcare reform than it knows about the rantings of the Tea Party protesters, the conflict between moderate and liberal Democrats, the declining favorability ratings of Congress and the President, Sarah Palin's belief that Obama is a socialist, and Rush Limbaugh's promise to leave the country if reform passes. The media reporting resembles a dressed-up version of the Jerry Springer Show. Well, at least Springer does not pretend to have an interest in anything other than drama.
Today, the headlines show that the media are now focusing on whether the Republicans or the Democrats will lose more politically from healthcare reform. Numerous stories report the obvious fact that the issue could shape the November elections (yay -- more drama!). Other stories examine Nancy Pelosi's favorability ratings. Numerous articles report that states are going to sue over healthcare reform -- without even analyzing the merits of these lawsuits. The legal "battle" is all that matters. The focus of today's news stories reveal that the authors are in fact the biggest losers of all.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Does the Public Read? Sadly, No. . .
A recent CBS-New York Times poll finds that only 6% of Americans believe that the $787 billion stimulus package actually created new jobs. Of course, the poll, echoing other recent surveys, also indicates deep disapproval of Congress, disapproval of President Obama (much less than Congress, however), and widespread anger about the direction of the country.
The low number of Americans who believe in the effectiveness of the stimulus shows that skepticism does not correlate with party affiliation. A wide cross-section of Americans doubt that the stimulus has created jobs.
The public's deep skepticism regarding the success of the stimulus, however, conflicts with most of the published reports by analysts who have studied the effectiveness of the spending package. According to a New York Times article, prestigious economic research firms such IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com estimate that the stimulus package has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs to the economy and that it could ultimately create up to 2.5 million jobs. In addition, the NYT reports that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office "considers these estimates to be conservative."
What Explains the Disconnect?
A number of factors could explain the disconnect between public perception and reality. Although the stimulus has created jobs, unemployment remains very high at 10%. Also, many families are still struggling to pay their expenses.
But these factors, as significant as they are, cannot possibly account for the absolute inaccuracy of public opinion. Unfortunately, I suspect that a lot of the public does not take the time to research issues before forming opinions. Furthermore, while the news media happily report the anger and skepticism of Tea Party participants and other "angry" segments of society, they rarely critically engage the ill-founded claims of these groups.
The blog Outside the Beltway has an even less generous view of voters, contending that:
The low number of Americans who believe in the effectiveness of the stimulus shows that skepticism does not correlate with party affiliation. A wide cross-section of Americans doubt that the stimulus has created jobs.
The public's deep skepticism regarding the success of the stimulus, however, conflicts with most of the published reports by analysts who have studied the effectiveness of the spending package. According to a New York Times article, prestigious economic research firms such IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com estimate that the stimulus package has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs to the economy and that it could ultimately create up to 2.5 million jobs. In addition, the NYT reports that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office "considers these estimates to be conservative."
What Explains the Disconnect?
A number of factors could explain the disconnect between public perception and reality. Although the stimulus has created jobs, unemployment remains very high at 10%. Also, many families are still struggling to pay their expenses.
But these factors, as significant as they are, cannot possibly account for the absolute inaccuracy of public opinion. Unfortunately, I suspect that a lot of the public does not take the time to research issues before forming opinions. Furthermore, while the news media happily report the anger and skepticism of Tea Party participants and other "angry" segments of society, they rarely critically engage the ill-founded claims of these groups.
The blog Outside the Beltway has an even less generous view of voters, contending that:
These sorts of polls are annoying. Most people simply have no basis for making judgments on technical matters like this; indeed, economists can only take a very educated guess. So, asking Joe Public about such matters is not very helpful.I agree that the public, as the data demonstrate, lacks knowledge about basic facts related to the stimulus. Nevertheless, I believe that the public can and should educate itself on important social issues. At the same time, however, the news media has the solemn responsibility to inform voters rather than simply creating and reporting political division. Both camps have failed miserably in terms of public education.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Details and Triangulation: White House Alters Strategy on Healthcare Reform
The White House lost its voice in healthcare debates during August. Now that Obama is back from vacation, media outlets are reporting a shift in his strategy.
After refusing to take a firm stance regarding particular items in the healthcare reform package, President Obama will soon play a more visible role. According to Politico, the President will specify the elements he wants compromise legislation to contain.
Politico also reports, however, that Obama will remain flexible regarding the public plan. According to Politico, Obama's aides say that a successful confrontation with liberals on the public plan option could gain him points with moderates. The battle would also force the Left to choose between no reform and incremental reform.
During the Clinton administration, people on the left described this type of political trap as nasty, evil, awful, pathetic "triangulation." I wonder how they will describe it now, given that many of them viewed Obama as the antidote to "Clinton politics." My guess: Their analysis will involve use of the word "pragmatic."
What Does This Mean? Possible Political Strategies
I have often wondered whether Obama's snooze period in August was the manifestation of a broader political strategy (rather than bipolar disorder as The Onion satirically reported). There are a few plausible political strategies at play.
Obama could have avoided taking a firm stance earlier in order to avoid the appearance of a bitter defeat if his preferred package did not prevail. Although Obama made specific promises during the presidential campaign, my pet Labrador Retriever has a longer memory than contemporary American voters. Accordingly, he can take new or modified positions during current debates without appearing to betray his campaign promises (at least not to most Americans).
Another possible strategy relates to the first. Obama could have reasonably predicted that the House and Senate would pass wildly different versions of healthcare reform. He could have decided to remain above the fray and return to offer specific guidance only after both versions passed (or were taking shape). Obama could then come across as a conciliator, rather than a divisive partisan.
The only wrinkle in these possible strategy relates to the conservative opposition to and distortion of healthcare reform proposals. Conservatives seized the "debate" (I use the term loosely) over healthcare reform, and their distortions and visibility have eroded some of the President's public support.
Remaining silent during such a gloomy and volatile period is a gutsy move. On the other hand, maybe it was not too risky. Because my pet Labrador Retriever has a longer memory than most voters, a month of agenda-setting by the White House would probably neutralize the recent surge by conservatives. The White House will have the final (i.e., most recent) word in the debate.
Also, never forget that the media outlets view healthcare reform (like most political issues) as a sporting event -- instead of an opportunity for a serious and substantive discourse. So, they will happily fall in line to help construct the White House's "comeback" narrative. I am willing to wager a bet on that one. Whether they were involved from the beginning, I cannot say (and I do not know if I am even that cynical).
After refusing to take a firm stance regarding particular items in the healthcare reform package, President Obama will soon play a more visible role. According to Politico, the President will specify the elements he wants compromise legislation to contain.
Politico also reports, however, that Obama will remain flexible regarding the public plan. According to Politico, Obama's aides say that a successful confrontation with liberals on the public plan option could gain him points with moderates. The battle would also force the Left to choose between no reform and incremental reform.
During the Clinton administration, people on the left described this type of political trap as nasty, evil, awful, pathetic "triangulation." I wonder how they will describe it now, given that many of them viewed Obama as the antidote to "Clinton politics." My guess: Their analysis will involve use of the word "pragmatic."
What Does This Mean? Possible Political Strategies
I have often wondered whether Obama's snooze period in August was the manifestation of a broader political strategy (rather than bipolar disorder as The Onion satirically reported). There are a few plausible political strategies at play.
Obama could have avoided taking a firm stance earlier in order to avoid the appearance of a bitter defeat if his preferred package did not prevail. Although Obama made specific promises during the presidential campaign, my pet Labrador Retriever has a longer memory than contemporary American voters. Accordingly, he can take new or modified positions during current debates without appearing to betray his campaign promises (at least not to most Americans).
Another possible strategy relates to the first. Obama could have reasonably predicted that the House and Senate would pass wildly different versions of healthcare reform. He could have decided to remain above the fray and return to offer specific guidance only after both versions passed (or were taking shape). Obama could then come across as a conciliator, rather than a divisive partisan.
The only wrinkle in these possible strategy relates to the conservative opposition to and distortion of healthcare reform proposals. Conservatives seized the "debate" (I use the term loosely) over healthcare reform, and their distortions and visibility have eroded some of the President's public support.
Remaining silent during such a gloomy and volatile period is a gutsy move. On the other hand, maybe it was not too risky. Because my pet Labrador Retriever has a longer memory than most voters, a month of agenda-setting by the White House would probably neutralize the recent surge by conservatives. The White House will have the final (i.e., most recent) word in the debate.
Also, never forget that the media outlets view healthcare reform (like most political issues) as a sporting event -- instead of an opportunity for a serious and substantive discourse. So, they will happily fall in line to help construct the White House's "comeback" narrative. I am willing to wager a bet on that one. Whether they were involved from the beginning, I cannot say (and I do not know if I am even that cynical).
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Joe Klein Says Glenn Greenwald Is a Heartless "Bully" Who Does Not Praise the Military
Glenn Greenwald has been taking several mainstream media figures to task recently. Joe Klein of Time Magazine made the list after Klein bad-mouthed leftists, including Greenwald, at a "picnic." Apparently, Klein described Greenwald as "evil," a "crazy civil liberties absolutist" and "crazily anti-national security." Amai of NoMoreMisterNiceBlog, a picnic attendee, wrote about the incident. Greenwald then wrote a scathing critique of Klein that apparently quotes various emails that Klein posted to a listserve.
Remarkably, Klein has responded with a pretty bizarre essay. First, Klein describes the person he talked to at the picnic as a "pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald's." Second, Klein condemns Greenwald for not praising the military or Bush's invasive surveillance activities.
We Need More Critical Analysis -- Not "Praise"
If Klein and other journalists had been more critical of United States militarism during the Bush administration, perhaps the country would not have started two unnecessary wars that the public has now come to regret. Even conservative George Will wants the military to give up on Afghanistan, and the public has long discarded the idea that invading Iraq was a good idea. If writers like Greenwald joined mainstream journalists and replaced criticism with praise, the public would lose an important resource.
Are Listserve Postings "Private"?
Klein also describes Greenwald as "thoroughly dishonorable" and "hypocritical" for publishing his "private" emails, while condemning Bush's surveillance activities. Posting analysis to a listserve, however, does not involve the same privacy interests as a telephone conservation. Furthermore, disclosure of "personal" commentary by a private citizen certainly does not have the same political or legal implications as the same action by the federal government.
Listserve readers can and often forward commentary to individuals beyond the list. By contrast, people do not expect the government to intercept their personal conversations. And while I am not sure whether I would quote such commentary, I am definitely certain that I would not call someone dishonorable for quoting statements from a listserve. If Klein is so outraged that Greenwald quoted his listserve comments, then governmental invasions of privacy should upset him even more, particularly in light of the fact that the Fourth Amendment binds state and federal governments -- not private citizens like Greenwald. Instead, Klein apparently believes that people who condemn invasions of privacy in the name of national security are extremists. This sounds a little like Rush Limbaugh suddenly favoring the right of privacy only after prosecutors started examining his medical records for signs of illegal prescription drug use.
Thought Question: Is Greenwald "dishonorable" or is Klein is so unhinged by Greenwald that he cannot control his public commentary (verbal and written) regarding Greenwald?
Disclosure: Although I am a huge fan of Greenwald, I am not an "acolyte" of anyone -- certainly not a "pathetic acolyte." I have even criticized Greenwald in a post or two.
UPDATE: Greenwald's other "pathetic acolytes" think Joe Klein's essay is rubbish. See, e.g., Putting the 'Oh No' in 'Oh No He Didn't'. See also -- the comments section to Klein's essay.
Greenwald thinks it's rubbish too: Beltway culture, checks on journalists and secrecy obligations.
Remarkably, Klein has responded with a pretty bizarre essay. First, Klein describes the person he talked to at the picnic as a "pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald's." Second, Klein condemns Greenwald for not praising the military or Bush's invasive surveillance activities.
We Need More Critical Analysis -- Not "Praise"
If Klein and other journalists had been more critical of United States militarism during the Bush administration, perhaps the country would not have started two unnecessary wars that the public has now come to regret. Even conservative George Will wants the military to give up on Afghanistan, and the public has long discarded the idea that invading Iraq was a good idea. If writers like Greenwald joined mainstream journalists and replaced criticism with praise, the public would lose an important resource.
Are Listserve Postings "Private"?
Klein also describes Greenwald as "thoroughly dishonorable" and "hypocritical" for publishing his "private" emails, while condemning Bush's surveillance activities. Posting analysis to a listserve, however, does not involve the same privacy interests as a telephone conservation. Furthermore, disclosure of "personal" commentary by a private citizen certainly does not have the same political or legal implications as the same action by the federal government.
Listserve readers can and often forward commentary to individuals beyond the list. By contrast, people do not expect the government to intercept their personal conversations. And while I am not sure whether I would quote such commentary, I am definitely certain that I would not call someone dishonorable for quoting statements from a listserve. If Klein is so outraged that Greenwald quoted his listserve comments, then governmental invasions of privacy should upset him even more, particularly in light of the fact that the Fourth Amendment binds state and federal governments -- not private citizens like Greenwald. Instead, Klein apparently believes that people who condemn invasions of privacy in the name of national security are extremists. This sounds a little like Rush Limbaugh suddenly favoring the right of privacy only after prosecutors started examining his medical records for signs of illegal prescription drug use.
Thought Question: Is Greenwald "dishonorable" or is Klein is so unhinged by Greenwald that he cannot control his public commentary (verbal and written) regarding Greenwald?
Disclosure: Although I am a huge fan of Greenwald, I am not an "acolyte" of anyone -- certainly not a "pathetic acolyte." I have even criticized Greenwald in a post or two.
UPDATE: Greenwald's other "pathetic acolytes" think Joe Klein's essay is rubbish. See, e.g., Putting the 'Oh No' in 'Oh No He Didn't'. See also -- the comments section to Klein's essay.
Greenwald thinks it's rubbish too: Beltway culture, checks on journalists and secrecy obligations.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Media Gets Low Grade for Coverage of Healthcare Debates
Earlier today, I wrote an essay that criticizes the media's coverage of healthcare reform. Apparently, I am not alone in my criticism. According to a new study released by the Pew Center, 7 in 10 Americans rank the media coverage of healthcare talks as either poor (40%) or fair (32%). Well, now they can become defensive, rather than substantive.
One point: The "debate" has been pretty bad too.
One point: The "debate" has been pretty bad too.
Healthcare "Debates": Ugly, Non-Substantive
During the Democratic primaries and after the presidential election, many commentators argued that President Obama would do a much better job advancing healthcare reform than Hillary Clinton, whose efforts failed miserably in the early 1990s. Many political observers argued that Obama's graceful style and "unifying" approach would guarantee favorable results. Today, with all of the emotional divisions over this issue, that discussion seems very dated.
While Clinton certainly made missteps during her healthcare initiative, I have always believed that if Obama had an easier time, this would happen because nearly two decades after Clinton's failure, the political landscape has changed significantly. Healthcare costs have continued to rise sharply, which has created the incentive for change among businesses and voters. Also, even though Clinton "failed," government sponsored healthcare expanded, in the form of new programs like SCHIP and the expansion of Medicare. Furthermore, even John McCain included healthcare reform in his political platform. Accordingly, passage of some type of reform seemed inevitable.
Nevertheless, I have also doubted much of the hoopla surrounding the supposed "new left" movement in the United States -- purportedly demonstrated by the election of Obama. On many important social issues, the country remains solidly centrist or center-right. Apparently, voters are divided on healthcare. Although many voters want reform, they are have different ideas about how these changes should look.
In Search of Real Debate
The public desperately needs real debate over these issues. The mainstream media, adhering to its obsession with sensationalism -- has offered utterly weak coverage. For some time now, most of the media coverage has primarily monitored public opinion and discord, rather than discussing the implications of various proposals. As usual, theatrics supplant substance.
I believe (and it seems rather obvious) that many members of the corporate media do not want a public plan option (and certainly not a single-payer provision). Their inability to get beyond this disagreement and engage in actual reporting on this subject has been tremendously disappointing. During the Democratic primaries, members of the media bashed Clinton as a policy wonk -- someone with immense knowledge and intellect but who was boring and uninspiring. Being an academic, I actually find facts, knowledge and intelligence inspiring, but apparently, that makes me an oddball.
The healthcare debates could really use a generous dose of facts and analysis. Instead, the nation's leaders are playing games with each other, and many people are engaging in loud and theatrical protests. I certainly believe in freedom of expression, but passionately expressing an idea does not guarantee that the idea has merit or that it contributes to a debate. It is time for real discussion.
While Clinton certainly made missteps during her healthcare initiative, I have always believed that if Obama had an easier time, this would happen because nearly two decades after Clinton's failure, the political landscape has changed significantly. Healthcare costs have continued to rise sharply, which has created the incentive for change among businesses and voters. Also, even though Clinton "failed," government sponsored healthcare expanded, in the form of new programs like SCHIP and the expansion of Medicare. Furthermore, even John McCain included healthcare reform in his political platform. Accordingly, passage of some type of reform seemed inevitable.
Nevertheless, I have also doubted much of the hoopla surrounding the supposed "new left" movement in the United States -- purportedly demonstrated by the election of Obama. On many important social issues, the country remains solidly centrist or center-right. Apparently, voters are divided on healthcare. Although many voters want reform, they are have different ideas about how these changes should look.
In Search of Real Debate
The public desperately needs real debate over these issues. The mainstream media, adhering to its obsession with sensationalism -- has offered utterly weak coverage. For some time now, most of the media coverage has primarily monitored public opinion and discord, rather than discussing the implications of various proposals. As usual, theatrics supplant substance.
I believe (and it seems rather obvious) that many members of the corporate media do not want a public plan option (and certainly not a single-payer provision). Their inability to get beyond this disagreement and engage in actual reporting on this subject has been tremendously disappointing. During the Democratic primaries, members of the media bashed Clinton as a policy wonk -- someone with immense knowledge and intellect but who was boring and uninspiring. Being an academic, I actually find facts, knowledge and intelligence inspiring, but apparently, that makes me an oddball.
The healthcare debates could really use a generous dose of facts and analysis. Instead, the nation's leaders are playing games with each other, and many people are engaging in loud and theatrical protests. I certainly believe in freedom of expression, but passionately expressing an idea does not guarantee that the idea has merit or that it contributes to a debate. It is time for real discussion.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Isn't It Ironic: E.J. Dionne's Column on Politics, the Media and Obama
E.J. Dionne's latest column makes the interesting claim that conservatives Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are "winning" national political debates because the right-leaning media regularly reports conservative criticism of Obama, while failing to give equal airtime to left critiques of the president. Dionne argues that this unbalanced news coverage legitimizes rightwing portrayals of Obama as a leftist, socialist, Maoist, Lenninist, Marxist, terrorist, . . . .[Dionne did not really say all of this, but it sounds familiar for some reason].
I describe Dionne's column as ironic because until recently, Dionne himself was an unwavering fan of President Obama. For over a year, Dionne, along with liberal columnists such as Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, and Eugene Robinson could not find any fault in Obama from a liberal perspective. Meanwhile they heaved loads of critical commentary towards Hillary Clinton and, naturally, John McCain. Now, Dionne criticizes the media for making the same mistake that he and other columnists made in their past coverage of Obama.
I have always doubted and challenged the notion that the news media is liberal. Instead, I believe it is centrist and opportunistic. When Bush was popular, the media bashed Gore and, later, Kerry. When Clinton was popular, the media raked Bush, Sr., Gingrich, Dole, Limbaugh, and the "vast rightwing conspiracy" over the coals. When Reagan was popular, it knocked Carter and Dukakis. While Obama rode (and continues to ride) a wave of popularity, it trashed Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Sarah Palin.
The media follows Nielsen ratings and money -- not ideology. Because unquestioned adoration of Obama has fallen in popularity, the media wants to stir up attention by citing to and covering conservative critiques of the president. It's all about the dollar, Dionne.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
2008's Biggest Losers: The Media
I never thought my opinion of the news media could worsen, but 2008 proved me wrong. This has been one of the worst years for news coverage in recent history. In 2004, media outlets were literally "in the tank" with President Bush on the war. Critics of the war did not receive coverage or they were viciously shamed (think: BBC and Peter Jennings). This year, the media engaged in painfully awful "analysis." Here are some of the worst things, listed in no particular order:
Nipple-Gate: Obama goes topless in Hawaii; causes media meltdown.
Obama Girl: Why? Just why? I am stunned that this received any attention at all outside of Youtube, but I guess the corporate media are desperate for money.
Palin Baby Mama Drama: Daily Kos proves its influence by floating a rumor that spread like a virus -- with equally nauseating effects.
Palin Clothing Drama: Since the baby story did not work, let's create another "scandal." And make it sexist too! Yes, that will sell.
Hillary Clinton's alleged tear in New Hampshire: There are so many things I could say about the absolute immaturity and sexism surrounding the reporting of this issue. But I have already done enough.
Clinton Wants Obama assassinated: Poor Keith Olbermann has a stroke, having convinced himself to believe the lie.
Pro-Obama election coverage: Studies by the Pew Center, Rasmussen, the Washington Post, ABC News, and other outlets confirm that most media outlets were rooting heavily for Obama. Interestingly, a lot of Democrats do not want to admit or condemn this. Well, given the disastrous effects of an uncritical media (e.g. Bush's war), I think we need to reject this type of behavior.
Isms: The denial of sexism against Clinton was astonishing. The effort to turn every criticism of Obama into something racist or malicious was equally astonishing. I think racism and sexism explain both processes.
For more on this subject, I encourage readers to check out Glenn Greenwald's blog on Salon.Com. Warning: His sarcasm and cynicism rival my own!
Also, I have written extensively on the subject this year. Enjoy the links provided in the preceding analysis and the ones listed below.
Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:
Oy Vey: Liberals Dominate Media Because They Want to "Change the World," Says WaPo Ombudsman
2 Politico.Com Reporters Concede Media Biased, Blame McCain
ABC News Takes on Issue of Media Bias and Concludes: It Exists
Poll: 55% of Voters Believe Media More Biased Than in Past Elections
Washington Post Proclaims That "Sarah Palin Picks Ferraro as Favorite Vice President." Shocking -- Yes. Truthful -- No.
CNN and CBS Release Highly Misleading Polls Regarding VP Debate
On Low Roads and Hypocrisy: The Media, Sexism and Hillary Clinton
Another Study Proves That 1+1=2, Or That the Media Love Obama, Hate McCain/Palin, and Who's Biden?
Ombudsman Concludes that the Washington Post Was In the Tank!
12 Incredibly Lame News Stories That the Media Reported, Instead of the Impending Doom in Financial Markets
Nipple-Gate: Obama goes topless in Hawaii; causes media meltdown.
Obama Girl: Why? Just why? I am stunned that this received any attention at all outside of Youtube, but I guess the corporate media are desperate for money.
Palin Baby Mama Drama: Daily Kos proves its influence by floating a rumor that spread like a virus -- with equally nauseating effects.
Palin Clothing Drama: Since the baby story did not work, let's create another "scandal." And make it sexist too! Yes, that will sell.
Hillary Clinton's alleged tear in New Hampshire: There are so many things I could say about the absolute immaturity and sexism surrounding the reporting of this issue. But I have already done enough.
Clinton Wants Obama assassinated: Poor Keith Olbermann has a stroke, having convinced himself to believe the lie.
Pro-Obama election coverage: Studies by the Pew Center, Rasmussen, the Washington Post, ABC News, and other outlets confirm that most media outlets were rooting heavily for Obama. Interestingly, a lot of Democrats do not want to admit or condemn this. Well, given the disastrous effects of an uncritical media (e.g. Bush's war), I think we need to reject this type of behavior.
Isms: The denial of sexism against Clinton was astonishing. The effort to turn every criticism of Obama into something racist or malicious was equally astonishing. I think racism and sexism explain both processes.
For more on this subject, I encourage readers to check out Glenn Greenwald's blog on Salon.Com. Warning: His sarcasm and cynicism rival my own!
Also, I have written extensively on the subject this year. Enjoy the links provided in the preceding analysis and the ones listed below.
Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:
Oy Vey: Liberals Dominate Media Because They Want to "Change the World," Says WaPo Ombudsman
2 Politico.Com Reporters Concede Media Biased, Blame McCain
ABC News Takes on Issue of Media Bias and Concludes: It Exists
Poll: 55% of Voters Believe Media More Biased Than in Past Elections
Washington Post Proclaims That "Sarah Palin Picks Ferraro as Favorite Vice President." Shocking -- Yes. Truthful -- No.
CNN and CBS Release Highly Misleading Polls Regarding VP Debate
On Low Roads and Hypocrisy: The Media, Sexism and Hillary Clinton
Another Study Proves That 1+1=2, Or That the Media Love Obama, Hate McCain/Palin, and Who's Biden?
Ombudsman Concludes that the Washington Post Was In the Tank!
12 Incredibly Lame News Stories That the Media Reported, Instead of the Impending Doom in Financial Markets
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
12 Incredibly Lame News Stories That the Media Reported, Instead of the Impending Doom in Financial Markets
Several years ago, economists like Robert Shiller (Yale University) and Nouriel Roubini (New York University) began predicting the demise of the housing bubble and the current credit crisis. Despite the fact that for years noted economists have anticipated the current liquidity crisis, many Americans only recently have discovered terminology such as "subprime loans" and "mortgage-backed securities." I partially blame the media for failing to do their job.
Most major media outlets decided to "dumb down" their reporting over the last decade, to the extent that today, their "analysis" is about as valuable a share of AIG stock. Rather than using their vast corporate resources to scrutinize the reckless activities that would later cause this crisis, most media instead chose to obsess over absolute nonsense. Below, I have listed several news stories that received extensive media focus over the last few years, crowding out vital analysis of the risky economic behavior that created today's perilous economic conditions. I wanted to do it as one of those cheesy "top 10" lists, but I could not decide which items to eliminate!
1. Ashlee Simpson lip syncing. So she cannot sing. Why did that make headline news? That's analogous to reporting that we need oxygen in order to live.
2. Nicole Ritchie and Paris Hilton. They are spoiled, anorexic, addicted, extremely wealthy, and socially useless. Next.
3. Scott and Drew Peterson. They share more than a last name and alleged penchant for domestic violence: Both of them have probably paid over a year of Nancy Grace's salary.
4. Obama Girl. I am still bewildered that a bouncy, t-shirt clad young woman could receive so much attention during a presidential campaign -- except from frat boys. This ranks as one of the most shameful popular news items of 2008.
5. Hillary Clinton's so-called "tear" in New Hampshire. I cried too -- longing for Walter Cronkite.
6. Ben and Jen. Who cares?
7. Jen and Brad. Ditto.
8. Brad and Angelino. You get the picture.
9. David Hyde Pierce, Rosie O'Donnell, and Clay Aiken "gay rumors"/"coming out stories." Breaking News: 1+1=2!
10. Britney Spears and Anna Nicole Smith. Blond hair, drugs, money, weight loss, weight gain, endangered offspring, and randomly bizarre behavior. How does this affect me?
11. Reality Show Results. This includes Survivor, American Idol, The Apprentice and all of the others. Who decided that game show results warrant news coverage? Please fire that person! I don't recall seeing The Price Is Right or The Newlywed Show contestants on the news when I was growing up, but maybe I missed something.
12. Janet Jackson's not-even-uncovered nipple. If you can only view "partial-nudity" by capturing a still-shot from a video performance, then it's not worth mentioning, certainly not 1,000,000,000 times. Jackson received more web hits than "9/11" or the "World Trade Center," making "Nipplegate" the most overrated flesh scandal of all time.
What did I leave off the list?
Most major media outlets decided to "dumb down" their reporting over the last decade, to the extent that today, their "analysis" is about as valuable a share of AIG stock. Rather than using their vast corporate resources to scrutinize the reckless activities that would later cause this crisis, most media instead chose to obsess over absolute nonsense. Below, I have listed several news stories that received extensive media focus over the last few years, crowding out vital analysis of the risky economic behavior that created today's perilous economic conditions. I wanted to do it as one of those cheesy "top 10" lists, but I could not decide which items to eliminate!
1. Ashlee Simpson lip syncing. So she cannot sing. Why did that make headline news? That's analogous to reporting that we need oxygen in order to live.
2. Nicole Ritchie and Paris Hilton. They are spoiled, anorexic, addicted, extremely wealthy, and socially useless. Next.
3. Scott and Drew Peterson. They share more than a last name and alleged penchant for domestic violence: Both of them have probably paid over a year of Nancy Grace's salary.
4. Obama Girl. I am still bewildered that a bouncy, t-shirt clad young woman could receive so much attention during a presidential campaign -- except from frat boys. This ranks as one of the most shameful popular news items of 2008.
5. Hillary Clinton's so-called "tear" in New Hampshire. I cried too -- longing for Walter Cronkite.
6. Ben and Jen. Who cares?
7. Jen and Brad. Ditto.
8. Brad and Angelino. You get the picture.
9. David Hyde Pierce, Rosie O'Donnell, and Clay Aiken "gay rumors"/"coming out stories." Breaking News: 1+1=2!
10. Britney Spears and Anna Nicole Smith. Blond hair, drugs, money, weight loss, weight gain, endangered offspring, and randomly bizarre behavior. How does this affect me?
11. Reality Show Results. This includes Survivor, American Idol, The Apprentice and all of the others. Who decided that game show results warrant news coverage? Please fire that person! I don't recall seeing The Price Is Right or The Newlywed Show contestants on the news when I was growing up, but maybe I missed something.
12. Janet Jackson's not-even-uncovered nipple. If you can only view "partial-nudity" by capturing a still-shot from a video performance, then it's not worth mentioning, certainly not 1,000,000,000 times. Jackson received more web hits than "9/11" or the "World Trade Center," making "Nipplegate" the most overrated flesh scandal of all time.
What did I leave off the list?
Friday, October 10, 2008
McCain's Implosion: 7 Reasons Why His Campaign Is in Crisis
As the presidential election day approaches, the race continues to shift to Democrat Barack Obama. Although Obama has almost always led McCain, following the Republican National Convention, the polls shifted significantly to McCain. But the electoral landscape has abruptly changed in recent weeks. There are several factors that explain this transition, some of which McCain can control, others that he cannot. But overall, his campaign seems unable to create traction. Here's why things have gone bad for McCain.
1. Economy
Clearly the economy has had a tremendous -- if not the most -- impact upon his campaign. McCain was leading in the polls until several large financial institutions imploded. After that time, things began to favor Obama. Historically, voters blame incumbents for poor economic conditions, rightfully or wrongfully. And they are clearly blaming McCain and the Republicans for the current state of affairs. I think both parties share the blame for the credit crisis; FactCheck.Org agrees. McCain has not effectively communicated this.
2. Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin has also caused problems for McCain. Although her addition to the ticket initially invigorated McCain's campaign, subsequent poor performances during media interviews and also (probably overdone) negative scrutiny by the media turned her into a liability. Several conservative commentators demanded that McCain remove her from the ticket. Palin, however, was able to alleviate many concerns voters had with her candidacy with a good performance at the Vice Presidential debate. Her favorable numbers improved dramatically. Despite this, concerns linger.
3. Republican Exhaustion
Republican exhaustion can also account for McCain's bad luck. Party dominance is cyclical at the national level. The Republicans have dominated the White House since 1964 -- which started at 44-year stretch with only 16 years in which a Democrat occupied the White House. Obama's change theme works very well with party exhaustion, and McCain has been unable to revitalize interest in Republicans.
4. Forgoing "Experience" Argument
McCain's campaign has also failed to take advantage of a few opportunities to shift the electorate. First, by picking Palin he essentially removed the "experience" theme from his campaign, which gave his campaign a coherent narrative.
5. Failure to Distinguish Himself from Bush
McCain has also failed to show that he is not Bush III and that he is a "maverick." While many members of my party would say that's because he is Bush III, like most things in politics, it's all about a narrative. For example, McCain recently proposed a mortgage plan, which Obama and the media have bashed. But he could have at least used that moment to say that he, unlike Bush and many others in his party, knows that government has a role in helping society. He could have also said that he, unlike Bush, is not afraid to reconsider his opinions about the role of government in society. Instead, his plan lacks a marketing narrative at all. Obama's plans, on the other hand, always do. Aided by the media in large part, he announces a "major policy speech" on any given subject and grabs headlines. I do not agree with Obama that McCain is erratic, but I do believe that without a narrative, voters cannot connect his proposals.
McCain and the Republican leadership could have agreed that he would go after Bush on a few important policy areas on which he has disagreed with Bush (e.g., environmental policy, corporate ethical reform, campaign finance, etc.). Instead, he has been stunningly silent on the details of his "maverickness," which makes the whole them ineffective.
6. Failure to Question Obama, via Biden, on Iraq
Although the economy has for a long time overshadowed the Iraq War in importance to voters, Obama continues to say that McCain exercised bad judgment voting for the war. McCain has responded primarily by arguing that his support of the surge and continued funding of the troops demonstrates that he can win a war (unlike Obama or Bush). But McCain has not emphasized Joe Biden's vote on the war at all, which seems to call into question Obama's war critique. Although Palin accused Biden of waffling on the war during the Vice Presidential debate, when Obama said McCain's war vote reflected poor judgment during the second presidential debate, McCain failed to mention Biden's vote at all, squandering an opportunity to question the sincerity of Obama's war critique.
7. Embedded Media
Finally, the media have made it more difficult for McCain and easier for Obama. I am not saying that the media have thrown the election to Obama. But I am acknowledging that for the most part, coverage favors Obama more. This began during the primaries, and Tina Fey brought the issue to national attention. Keith Olbermann's blood-faced rants, Chris Matthews's "tingly thighs," and the legion of opinion writers in the major papers (e.g., E.J. Dionne, Frank Rich, Dana Milbank, Maureen Dowd, and Eugene Robinson) who churned out weekly pro-Obama essays most likely helped shape public opinion regarding Obama. I am not saying that he does not deserve a great reputation, but that free publicity from authoritative media goes a long way towards constructing a positive image. By contrast, a litany of negative press (from these same influential media sources) can damage a candidate's reputation among voters.
The recent scuffle over McCain's mortgage plan provides a good example of likely media bias. The media have intensely scrutinized the plan -- as they should -- but they have primarily just reported Obama's objections to the plan. More importantly, they have not asked Obama what he would do to fix the problem. During the bailout discussions, the media questioned whether McCain had a plan or a role in the negotiations. The bailout actually authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase individual mortgages, but leaves it to the Secretary to devise a method for valuing the mortgages and assisting homeowners. McCain has at least given us a window into what he would do -- whether this is purely political or otherwise. Obama has not, and the media have not demanded that he do so. I also don't recall the media inquiring about Obama's role in the bailout negotiations.
This is not the first election in which the media have shown a candidate preference. They turned Gore into a laughingstock -- ridiculing him for "gaffes" that upon further examination, weren't gaffes at all. During my youth, they loved Reagan (the "Great Communicator") and bashed Carter on the economy and Iran, although much of the economic peril in the country resulted from factors outside of the control of the president, like the very dramatic (and almost overnight) increase in the price of oil. They never challenged voters on the relevance of Dukakis looking goofy in an Army tank and his ability to govern the nation. And beyond election campaigns, the media were literally "in the tank" with the White House during the Iraq War. If the media can embed themselves with the Bush administration to clamor for access, why wouldn't they do the same during a political campaign?
Can He Do It?
The odds are stacked against McCain at the moment, but some commentators say that he could still pull off a comeback. I am not convinced. I do not see an effective strategy by McCain, and I am not sure what he could do to neutralize the media. Calling them out as biased seems to have made them worse.
1. Economy
Clearly the economy has had a tremendous -- if not the most -- impact upon his campaign. McCain was leading in the polls until several large financial institutions imploded. After that time, things began to favor Obama. Historically, voters blame incumbents for poor economic conditions, rightfully or wrongfully. And they are clearly blaming McCain and the Republicans for the current state of affairs. I think both parties share the blame for the credit crisis; FactCheck.Org agrees. McCain has not effectively communicated this.
2. Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin has also caused problems for McCain. Although her addition to the ticket initially invigorated McCain's campaign, subsequent poor performances during media interviews and also (probably overdone) negative scrutiny by the media turned her into a liability. Several conservative commentators demanded that McCain remove her from the ticket. Palin, however, was able to alleviate many concerns voters had with her candidacy with a good performance at the Vice Presidential debate. Her favorable numbers improved dramatically. Despite this, concerns linger.
3. Republican Exhaustion
Republican exhaustion can also account for McCain's bad luck. Party dominance is cyclical at the national level. The Republicans have dominated the White House since 1964 -- which started at 44-year stretch with only 16 years in which a Democrat occupied the White House. Obama's change theme works very well with party exhaustion, and McCain has been unable to revitalize interest in Republicans.
4. Forgoing "Experience" Argument
McCain's campaign has also failed to take advantage of a few opportunities to shift the electorate. First, by picking Palin he essentially removed the "experience" theme from his campaign, which gave his campaign a coherent narrative.
5. Failure to Distinguish Himself from Bush
McCain has also failed to show that he is not Bush III and that he is a "maverick." While many members of my party would say that's because he is Bush III, like most things in politics, it's all about a narrative. For example, McCain recently proposed a mortgage plan, which Obama and the media have bashed. But he could have at least used that moment to say that he, unlike Bush and many others in his party, knows that government has a role in helping society. He could have also said that he, unlike Bush, is not afraid to reconsider his opinions about the role of government in society. Instead, his plan lacks a marketing narrative at all. Obama's plans, on the other hand, always do. Aided by the media in large part, he announces a "major policy speech" on any given subject and grabs headlines. I do not agree with Obama that McCain is erratic, but I do believe that without a narrative, voters cannot connect his proposals.
McCain and the Republican leadership could have agreed that he would go after Bush on a few important policy areas on which he has disagreed with Bush (e.g., environmental policy, corporate ethical reform, campaign finance, etc.). Instead, he has been stunningly silent on the details of his "maverickness," which makes the whole them ineffective.
6. Failure to Question Obama, via Biden, on Iraq
Although the economy has for a long time overshadowed the Iraq War in importance to voters, Obama continues to say that McCain exercised bad judgment voting for the war. McCain has responded primarily by arguing that his support of the surge and continued funding of the troops demonstrates that he can win a war (unlike Obama or Bush). But McCain has not emphasized Joe Biden's vote on the war at all, which seems to call into question Obama's war critique. Although Palin accused Biden of waffling on the war during the Vice Presidential debate, when Obama said McCain's war vote reflected poor judgment during the second presidential debate, McCain failed to mention Biden's vote at all, squandering an opportunity to question the sincerity of Obama's war critique.
7. Embedded Media
Finally, the media have made it more difficult for McCain and easier for Obama. I am not saying that the media have thrown the election to Obama. But I am acknowledging that for the most part, coverage favors Obama more. This began during the primaries, and Tina Fey brought the issue to national attention. Keith Olbermann's blood-faced rants, Chris Matthews's "tingly thighs," and the legion of opinion writers in the major papers (e.g., E.J. Dionne, Frank Rich, Dana Milbank, Maureen Dowd, and Eugene Robinson) who churned out weekly pro-Obama essays most likely helped shape public opinion regarding Obama. I am not saying that he does not deserve a great reputation, but that free publicity from authoritative media goes a long way towards constructing a positive image. By contrast, a litany of negative press (from these same influential media sources) can damage a candidate's reputation among voters.
The recent scuffle over McCain's mortgage plan provides a good example of likely media bias. The media have intensely scrutinized the plan -- as they should -- but they have primarily just reported Obama's objections to the plan. More importantly, they have not asked Obama what he would do to fix the problem. During the bailout discussions, the media questioned whether McCain had a plan or a role in the negotiations. The bailout actually authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase individual mortgages, but leaves it to the Secretary to devise a method for valuing the mortgages and assisting homeowners. McCain has at least given us a window into what he would do -- whether this is purely political or otherwise. Obama has not, and the media have not demanded that he do so. I also don't recall the media inquiring about Obama's role in the bailout negotiations.
This is not the first election in which the media have shown a candidate preference. They turned Gore into a laughingstock -- ridiculing him for "gaffes" that upon further examination, weren't gaffes at all. During my youth, they loved Reagan (the "Great Communicator") and bashed Carter on the economy and Iran, although much of the economic peril in the country resulted from factors outside of the control of the president, like the very dramatic (and almost overnight) increase in the price of oil. They never challenged voters on the relevance of Dukakis looking goofy in an Army tank and his ability to govern the nation. And beyond election campaigns, the media were literally "in the tank" with the White House during the Iraq War. If the media can embed themselves with the Bush administration to clamor for access, why wouldn't they do the same during a political campaign?
Can He Do It?
The odds are stacked against McCain at the moment, but some commentators say that he could still pull off a comeback. I am not convinced. I do not see an effective strategy by McCain, and I am not sure what he could do to neutralize the media. Calling them out as biased seems to have made them worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)