It’s Their Fault

I’d probably work a bit longer on it, but you’ll get the gist…

I’d love to see Katie Couric analyze this one.

Tonight you will be hearing about our candidate’s many strengths, our party’s vision for America, and our plan to win this election. You’ll also be hearing some attacks: on the failure of the incumbent presidency, our opponent’s weaknesses, and the shortcomings of the other party. Today, I’m going to talk to you about something different, but equally if not more important.

Every one of you is touched by the my subject today, as you watch this speech on a TV network or when you read about it tomorrow morning. I’m talking about the media, once the bastion of our democracy, the Fourth Estate - and now something else altogether.

I’m going to read some questions asked of our candidates for the highest office in the land during the debates of the past few months:

“Raise your hand if you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror.”

“Would you pledge to the American people that Iran would not build a nuclear bomb on your watch?”

They were also asked to explain pointless gaffes, meaningless associations; they were quizzed about flag pins, and asked to raise their hands in response to questions about killing Osama Bin Laden.

Now, looking at these questions, when you wonder why campaigns are run with such ignorance of real issues, with so much concentration on minutia, you can’t be surprised. These are the only points the media discusses. They mold their inquiries into presidential candidates to be as shallow as possible, to create moments they can air afterwards, and to create easy-to-remember sound bytes for their figureheads.

No president I want leading my country would be willing to seriously consider these questions, which demand a much more of a complex understanding of the World and the issues at hand than to be rewarded by a yes or no or show of hands. No American should be told by the media through their preoccupations that flag pins have more to do with selecting a president than policy.

There was a long-ago dream of journalism embodied by Edward R. Murrow that the press should relentlessly chase the truth and rise above canned messages. They should deliver not what those in power want you to hear, but what you need to hear. They should portray the election of the leader of the free World not as a horse race but as an open and honest discussion of the relative merits of each candidate.

Instead, the media tells the American people that the brazenness of attacks matters as much as the meat of policy. Instead, the media recycles talking points from both sides no matter how unfair or untrue they are. Instead, the media worries about “exoticness” as if this country hasn’t been defined by its very ability to rise above such petty differences. Because of this very brand of intellectual laziness, the media has allowed the most unqualified president in our nation’s history to be elected - twice.

The inevitable conclusion that I have come to is that the people who talk to you over the papers and airwaves today are not journalists at all. They are entertainers, strivers, and - perhaps most tellingly—employees of large corporations that have more than vested interests in the closeness of and the results of the elections they cover. It is to the point that these days I would trust a politician to tell me the truth more so than a reporter – if that doesn’t tell you something about where the American press is today I don’t know what will.

I may be the first politician to say this but thank goodness for blogs: at least they dig hard for the truth despite the fact that it is often portrayed in a partisan way. Maybe the mainstream media should stop blaming the inattention of the American people for its recent failings in the face of such new media, and start looking at how much the product they are delivering has deteriorated.

So what can we do about it?

Today, I want to ask you to take action against the mainstream press that disrespects every one of you by delivering watered down trivia, highlighting superficial controversies, and distracting you all from the substance - and the significance - of this race for the presidency.

Right now, this is what they think you want.

I know better. I know you desire and deserve more, and you can get more by writing the news outlets you follow, by turning off the TV when reporters aren’t doing their jobs, and by rewarding tough, independent, objective journalism if and when you find it. Just as I have the hope that together we can rise up and make this country a better place; I have the hope that we can rise up and make our calls for a more responsible media heard and obeyed.

Because let me be very clear. There is only one candidate in this election who has a realistic and fair vision for improving this country. There is only one candidate committed to effective, reasonable bipartisan governance. There is only one candidate who was taken real steps towards learning about this country’s problems and how to tackle them, and who has put together a plan that will rise above the partisan differences that the media has had such a strong hand in promoting.

All of you reporters out there, jotting your notes, getting ready to make your instant commentary on this speech, should be ashamed of yourselves for treating the campaign like this is not the case.

I don’t usually post tech recommendations, but these are all pretty cool.

I really like the Biden pick. Though it certainly has its political advantages, it primarily shows me that Obama is a politician who has truly overcome Boomer-style politics. Beyond all the meaningless media speculation and campaigning about “what this pick means” and “symbolizes” in terms of getting Obama elected, what matter to me is that Obama has chosen someone who actually would be a great day-to-day Vice President–and I think this may have been (shockingly) a primary consideration is his decision. Obama even did a good job of explaining his choice as such.

Despite this, it is amazing to me how irrelevant this point–the fitness of a VP to his/her potential job for four years–is to pundits, commentors, and voters of all political stripes. Instead its “how will this sure up this or that constituency,” “how will the right attack this,” “this guy annoys me,” “he has hair plugs,” etc.

Most disappointing is the fact that pro-Obama pundits are coming down on this decision in cynical, Boomer-style ways–bringing up gaffes, personality complaints, and the like. Most annoying is the cringe worthy fact that some say Biden “shows Obama doesn’t really want to change Washington.” That complaint is only true if you look at it in the way a Boomer looks at it–in the most surface level, symbolism-oriented, uninformed ways that cynical Boomer politicians have been trying to program the public to think like for years. The pick was in fact a precise example of overcoming old Boomer style politics: pragmatic, well-informed, consistent with a vision of actually getting things done, and about something other than the scoring of political points. It assumes voters will see past media hype and politics. That’s what Obama / change is about, at least to me.

I just had this terrifying vision…

It would be the height of Boomer style politics.  Totally irrelevant to any kind of policy/ideological coherence, purely ambition driven, the height of cynicism, a disaster to the United States in nearly every way.

…and they would win by a gigantic margin.

The thought that such a grossly cynical ticket would overrun the general election should be enough to scare young people to get out and vote and do whatever else they can to get politically involved.  The Boomer way of thinking still drives this country’s politics, and even if Obama gets elected that fact won’t change any time soon.   But he’s the best hope for getting the wheels in motion before it is too late.

[Read more →]

From Wiki:

Bennett Brauer was played by Chris Farley. In each appearance, Brauer provided commentary for Kevin Nealon’s Weekend Update, vividly describing his poor hygiene, his lack of social grace, and his anger towards the viewers for preferring other photogenic commentators to him. Brauer would make regular use of finger quotes to emphasize every point he made. For example:

Maybe I’m not “the norm”. I’m not “camera friendly”. I don’t “wear clothes that fit me”. I’m not a “heartbreaker”. I haven’t “had sex with a woman”; I don’t know “how that works”. I guess I don’t “fall in line”. I’m not “hygenic”. I don’t “wipe properly”. I lack “style”. I have no “charisma” or “self esteem”. I don’t “own a toothbrush” or “let my scabs heal”. I can’t “reach all the parts of my body”. When I sleep, I “sweat profusely”.

Or, Clinton describing being picked by O:

Maybe I‘m not am “the norm”. I’m not “camera friendly” (okay, don’t need to change that). I don’t “wear clothes that fit me” (ditto). I’m not a “heartbreaker” (this is easy). I haven’t “had sex with a woman” (probably also true); I don’t know “how that running a decent campaign works”. I guess I don’t “fall in line” “balance the ticket”. I’m not “hygenic” “honest”. I don’t “wipe campaign properly nicely“. I lack “style” (see above). I have no “charisma” “hope” for “self esteem” “change”. I don’t “own a toothbrush” “offer anything new” or “let my scabs political vendettas heal”. I can’t “reach all the parts of my body” “reinforce Obama’s most basic messages”.  I’m “even more of a celebrity than Obama.” When I sleep, I “sweat profusely” “dream of elbow dropping my running mate”.

But she would (probably) win.

If you call this magic (thanks to flowing data):

Below find the transcript of an enlightening chat with a reader.

Me: i think there’s a good chance obama has settled on clinton for VP.

Itstheirfault.com Reader: no f—ing way. that would be the WORST move EVER

Me: i don’t know…he could be thinking that the main case against hil was that it fires up the GOP smear machine. now he sees it is already fired up anyway…any further attacks on Clinton will seem gratuitous to everyone and shes better at getting sympathy. plus - easily the biggest polling bounce by far. and finally, it doesn’t lose him any votes; basically, it trades some independent votes for an arguably larger contingent of hil die hards…it makes “celeb” type ads seems rather goofy…and also, if obama picks the staid white guy, mccain can trump him with a woman and conceivably gain tons of feminist votes

Itstheirfault.com Reader: those are all really good points, actually; but do you think it might totally alienate the white working class male?

Me: most of them are mccain supporters anyway. white working class males who support obama are rare, and those who do probably do because they are above the fray in a way…but its def a consideration. it could all blow up. but if the dems sense the potential in this country for a landslide, hil is the only one who will help get it. any other choice and obama could eke out a stressful victory…but hil offers the potential for a blowout: the two most well-known politicians, dem base fired up like crazy, etc.

Itstheirfault.com Reader: yea… that is definitely true. it might even win over some republican ladies

Me: yeah. biden is terrific but the smear machine can arguably do a much better job on him than hil. since nobody knows biden, they can do a slow rollout of all his scandals. with hil, i feel like the dem campaign will just become a large media circus victory parade. it throws the mccain strategy of making the campaign “about Obama” / “about the dem ticket” right back in his face. all of a sudden he’ll be struggling for any attention, and the spectacle itself will make mccain pointing it out in those paris hilton ads seem kind of silly, and only reinforce his image as the nobody.

Itstheirfault.com Reader: but what to do about Bill?

Me: more fuel for the circus. hill/bill choice sends the message that, despite the negative ads, we are making the fame thing a priority and defining it as an advantage. i think it works for our culture.  they just say:  maybe we are “incredibly famous.”  so what?

the only problem is mccain instantly becomes the underdog whereas obama was starting to do well in that role. and i think mccain thrives as the underdog, and independents like that sort of thing as well

Itstheirfault.com Reader: hmmm…you need to zip this all up into a post

Me: okay. whats a movie or culture analogy…

Itstheirfault.com Reader: hm…

bonus points to those who now get the title

A great Economist article.

I think in a couple decades, though, we’ll be saying the endowment effect is obsolete. It seems like only a matter of time: at least when it comes to media, we are moving confidently and happily from “possessing” media (CDs, DVDs, etc.) to having universal access to a sort of shared (Internet) media library–streaming videos, Netflix, etc. And us younger generations are taking to it strongly. This sort of group possession philosophy is one of the defining traits of this generation; to be sure, we still love our things, but I also sense a glimmer of the potential for a possessionless society in our outlook. We want to be mobile and unencumbered…we HATE moving our crap from place to place and use online auctions and craigslist sales as a way of making our “things” more of a community-centric entity than an “us” centered entity.

Let the baby boomer red baiting begin…

Some Google search results:

• “Obama Slams McCain” - 33,900 hits
• “McCain Slams Obama” - 315,000 hits

• “Obama Pummels McCain” - 8
• “McCain Pummels Obama” -247

• “Obama reacts to McCain” - 387
• “McCain reacts to Obama” - 127

• “Obama defends against” - 55
• “McCain defends against” - 4

• “Obama cowers” - 215
• “McCain Cowers” - 19

Sure McCain is running a more attack-oriented campaign, but these are positive attack words - and nobody wants to be pinned with those passive terms. A glimmer of hope after the jump…

[Read more →]

Let’s look at how the Times screws up its portrayal of McCain and Obama every day, in an arena that journalists are supposed to be obsessed with (and that is perhaps more influential than any content): language. It’s the one place where fairness can be judged, and one in which the Times’s susceptibility to talking points and stereotypes is painfully obvious.

Here’s every clause with a candidates name followed by a verb referencing the other candidate (in other words, clauses that give one candidate agency over another), from the first couple pages of most recent articles that mention both McCain and Obama. I skipped an article about Obama’s vacation to be fair to O (he needed it, as you’ll see)–most of the remaining sentences emerged from two articles: one about a McCain attack on Obama, and one about an Obama attack on McCain. Two similar articles, right? Here’s what I found:

McCain [verb] Obama

“McCain Slams Obama”

“McCain opened up a hard-hitting political attack on Senator Barack Obama’s”

“Mr. McCain criticized what he called Mr. Obama’s”

“Mr. McCain raised questions about Mr. Obama’s ability”

“Senator John McCain began a hard-hitting political attack on Senator Barack Obama”

“Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is certain to continue pummeling Mr. Obama”

“Senator John McCain, criticized him”

“Senator John McCain, has seized nearly every opportunity…”

“The McCain campaign criticized Mr. Obama’s record”

Obama [verb] McCain

“Obama Returns Fire on McCain”

“Addressing both his opponent’s charges of weakness and vacillation, and public doubts about his credibility on military matters, Senator Barack Obama on Tuesday told the Veterans of Foreign Wars that he offered not just tough talk but smart answers to national security questions.”

“Mr. Obama struck back with tough language, although his delivery was largely without passion.”

“He paid the obligatory homage to Mr. McCain’s military service and sacrifice as a Vietnam prisoner of war, but then raked him for impugning his motives and patriotism.”

“[Obama] said that he and Mr. McCain were competing”

“Mr. Obama said that he and Mr. McCain had genuine differences”

Notice a trend? For one, McCain gets significantly more (and significantly more pithy) “agency sentences” than Obama. The real story, though, is the verbs themselves. McCain is “slamming,” “hard-hitting,” “pummeling,” and “seizing” while Obama is “saying” and “telling,” and defensively “striking back” and “returning fire.” His attacks are couched in lumpy participial phrases and any lack of passion is pointed out. The Times is clearly much more comfortable giving McCain agency over Obama than giving Obama agency over McCain.

You could counter this by looking into the circumstances of this week, but I doubt that would hold water. I only researched this because I’ve been noticed a trend and wanted to look into it, so I’m inclined to think that this language gap shows a possibly-unconsious narrative that the Times and other MSM outlets can’t shake: McCain is active and tough, and Obama is passive and on his heels. It’s one of those obvious GOP talking point distortions that the MSM should exist to smother. Instead, they unwittingly play right into its hands, communicating it in more subtle and dangerous ways than any more obviously partisan source.

[Read more →]