Sunday, August 15, 2004
I've Got the Pravada Blues, How About You? Part (I can't even count that high)
-- THE MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION IN BOSTON --
.... which I experienced as definitive proof that we live in some circle of media hell that Dante never got around to warning us about.
Even before the convention; on C-Span I'd watch Kerry and Edwards make their way across battleground states to the convention, enthusiastic crowds at every stop, both men relaxed, at ease whether talking and listening in smaller venues to grassroots Americans, or, in one of my favorite American political rites, pressing the flesh, emersed in crowds of fellow citizens who want to shake a hand or say hello or to look into the eyes of a candidate who is asking for their vote.
Then, back at the cable news networks, no matter which one, I would hear all the talking points of the standard narrative agreed upon for months now -- Kerry's a stiff, he's wooden, an automaton, lacks charisma, can't give a decent speech, Democrats chose him for their perception of his electability and feel neither respect nor affection for him, the convention will be all autobiography, all war hero all the time, but how'll Kerry handle that problematic "vote for the war" he now questions. Amazing isn't it, that our media pros all view that vote as more of a problem for Kerry than the actual mess this President has made of Iraq will be for him?
Most egregious example of media awfulness, (I usually avoid the vulgarity of adding a "ness" to an adjective to make it into a noun, but in this case, it seems curioiusly apt) -- CNN, outFoxing Fox. Difficult to pick a favorite vile moment from a display of such riches, but here goes:
A sudden release by the RNC of a photo of Kerry, touring a Nasa facility, dressed in a powder blue "clean" suit, accompanied by a similarly garbed John Glenn, -- you know, that guy who was only the second human being in the history of the world to be strapped, voluntarily, to the end of a rocket and blasted into space, and the first one to orbit the earth, and then to test whether or not his space craft would or would not burn up upon reentry to the earth's atmosphere - that John Glenn..
The RNC had done it again, found another silly photo of a Democratic presidential candidate trying to look strong, as had Michael Dukakis when he doned that military helmet and rode around in that little tank, but looking ridiculous instead. Was it fair game? Did it really have any meaning?
Immediately on the case - Judy Woodruff interrogating Bill Schneider. Hell yes it had meaning. Kerry's failure not to anticipate that this embarrassing photo was a danger to him , (apparently he should have found every copy of the photo and its negative and burned them) was a significant validation of the image of Kerry the photo exposed, Kerry as a dunce of sorts. No mention of whether John Glenn was also to be considered a NASA dunce. Or indeed, whether other Nasa personnel, from astronauts to rocket scientists, who have to don the same suits when entering a "clean" environment are also dunces. Jeff Greenberg was there to chime in, and like his fellow media bozos, incorrectly spun the story as Kerry donning a silly suit ro protect himself. Of course, the exact opposite was true; the suit was required to protect a pristine scientific environment from human, ( all human, not just Kerry) contamination. This photo, we were assured, had legs.
The photo turned out not to have "legs," but the ubiquitous presence of Republican operatives as commentators sure did. The invited response of a Ed Gillispie, for instance, after each major speech, became the basis upon which the Judys and Jeffs and Wolfs and Chrises and Joes and Toms would then offer their own observations, thus making sure that John Kerry's vote "to go to war," and his subsequent inexplicable critique of the war and the occupation, and his "yes" vote for one version of an 87 billion supplemental for Iraq, followed by his inexplicable flip-flopping "no" vote on a different version of that supplemental all had plenty of legs. To our SCLM, it was a puzzlement beyond explanation. Talk about framing the issues. And how about the big three broadcast networks, the three "Cs," AB, NB, and BS? Don't ask. Outrageous non-coverage. Another Reagan mitzva - the unfettering of big media by that silly fairness doctrine.
The only bright light in the convention coverage was the presence of bloggers. I want to thank each and every one of you who went and reported back. Aside from the value of the commentary itself, the fact of your presence was the first hint to most of our media prima donnas that grass-roots American citizens are capable of providing their own commentary on the public life of the nation. It can only be to the good for professional journalists to begin to have the eerie feeling that someone who isn't a member of the club is looking over their shoulders.
To borrow a phrase from Gene Lyons, the presence of bloggers in Boston helped "befog" the gaseous atmosphere produced by all those professional journos. The irony of the NYTimes quoting Thomas McPhail, a professor of media studies who views bloggers as taking direct aim at the professional standards of American journalism isn't lost on Gene.
It’s tempting to ask how closely McPhail has followed the recent history of the newspaper interviewing him. In recent years, the Times has devoted more space apologizing for its own huge blunders than celebrating chic restaurants in SoHo.
Dave Johnson at Seeing The Forrest has a two part essay that starts here on the implications of bloggers at the convention. It's a good beginning to a necessary discsussion between bloggers and readers of the left sphere of blogovia, about what we've thus far achieved, and what more we might be able to accomplish. I hesitate to spotlight particular blogs that made the trip to Boston because each made their own particular contributions, but if you happened to miss what the group at The Gadflyer was doing, or at Blogging of the President, or Susan at Suburban Guerrilla, it might be worth your while to take a look back.
Special kudos to Natasha at Pacific Views, in part, because she focused on what are my own interests, less what was happening on stage than what was happening at the periphery, thereby putting to shame the constant complaints of our jaded pundits that when it came to actual reporting, there was no there there.
Nancy Williams came to Boston as a first-time delegate from Ohio's 5th Congressional District. She seemed cheered by her observation that Democrats in Ohio seem to have "discovered farm votes, small towns, and retail politicking."
Williams said there are a lot more liberal Democratic voters among farmers than you might think. They're angry, she asserts, about neglected schools, declining access to healthcare, and the unbalanced budget.
At the convention's Rural Caucus, Williams said family members had learned that of the nation's 250 poorest counties, 240 are rural. And she painted a picture of "dire" rural poverty that sounds like the description of decaying inner cities.* She described an atmosphere of hopelessness and desperation, many towns where the one plant had closed down, and where drug and alcohol problems were rampant.
Williams also said she wanted to see more vigorous enforcement of EPA standards against large factory farms. She said that each county had one, at the encouragement of the county commissioners, and that they weren't properly inspected. She said that the factory farms are "not good neighbors," and that they have the "same pollution rate of a big assembly plant."
edit
During the blogger panel with Senators Durbin and Harkin, I asked them each a question about the impact of factory farms and the support of small farmers. Ezra of Pandagon asked in response what value there was in supporting small farms.
You can read the rest, including Natasha's answer to Ezra's question, here. Or, perhaps you're interested in why Gore didn't win his home state in 2000, and whether Kerry has a chance in Tennessee this time around. Or in a Q & A with Andre Cherny, a current Kerry advisor, formerly a speechwriter for Gore, and Chairman of the 2000 Platform committee. Or a first-hand observation of Bob Novak, literally on the run, complete with picture. All of Natasha's convention coverage can be found under Event Coverage.
There were almost no discussions by the mainstream pundits of the Democratic 2004 Platform, except for Chris Matthews, who appeared to be obssessed by the Iraq plank, which he reduced to a single, endlessly repeated sentence, actually half a sentence: "People can disagree on whether or not we should have invaded Iraq..." Matthews seemed to take a sneering pleasure in what he viewed as the Democrats whimping out on a robust critique of Bush's invasion of Iraq. He seemed to feel that Democrats were more at fault for not stopping the President from invading Iraq than were Republicans. Not to mention the fact that Matthews controlled at a minimum five hours of programing five days a week during the run-up to the war; how often did Chris invite Scott Ritter, surely the most authroritative voice arguing against an invasion of Iraq, on his own program?
What viewers would have had no way of knowing, because, God knows, no one in the SCLM was about to challenge Matthews' characterization of the platform is what that sentence he kept quoting actually says:
People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq, but thismuch is clear: this Administration badly exaggerated its case, particularly with respect to weaponsof mass destruction and the connection between Saddam's government and al Qaeda. This Administration did not build a true international coalition. This Administration disdained theUnited Nations weapons inspection process and rushed to war without exhausting diplomaticalternatives. Ignoring the advice of military leaders, this Administration did not send sufficient forces into Iraq to accomplish the mission. And this Administration went into Iraq without a plan to win the peace.
Nor does the platform whimp out by proposing only a more competent continuation of the Bush policy. For instance:
To win over allies, we must share responsibility with those nations that answer our call, and treat them with respect. We must lead, but we must listen. The rewards of respect are enormous.We must convince NATO to take on a more significant role and contribute additional military forces. As other countries, including Muslim majority countries, contribute troops, the United States will be able to reduce its military presence in Iraq, and we intend to do this when appropriate so that the military support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no longer be seen as the direct continuation of an American military presence. Second, we need to create an international High Commissioner to serve as the senior international representative working with the Iraqi government. This Commissioner should be backed by a newly broadened security coalition and charged with overseeing elections, assisting with drafting a constitution, and coordinating reconstruction. The Commissioner should be highly regarded by the international community, have the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people, and work directly with Iraq's interim government, the new U.S. Ambassador, and the international community.
At the same time, U.S. and international policies must take into consideration the best interests of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people desperately need financial and technical assistance that is not swallowed up by bureaucracy and no-bid contracts, but instead goes directly into grassrootsorganizations. They need to see the tangible benefits of reconstruction: jobs, infrastructure, and services. They should also receive the full benefits of their own oil production as quickly as possible, so as to rebuild their country and help themselves as individuals, while also reducing thecosts of security and reconstruction on the American taxpayer and the cost of gasoline to American consumers. And they need to be able to communicate their concerns to international authorities without feeling they are being disrespected in their own country.
It may well be too late for any of these proposals to work, but that is only because the Bush administration has assiduously ignored these exact same observations that have been put forward by Democrat after Democrat, and non-partisan expert after expert.
Watching at home, did you sometimes have the feeling that the big-time pros weren't always paying the closest of attention? The following is courtesy of the great RogerAiles, the non-Fox, who chose to blog on the convention as seen on TV:
Illinois State Senator Barack Obama:
"...And fellow Americans -- Democrats; Republicans; Independents -- I say to you tonight: we have more work to do. ..."
Candy Crowley (to Obama, following speech):
"Who were you trying to reach with your speech tonight?"
Those undecided, swing voters were a much discussed phenomenon at the convention, but not much light was shed upon who they are exactly, or what the hell they find so difficcult about making up their minds, except for C-Span's serendipitously showing a previously aired focus group of undecideds from one of the battleground states (sorry, don't remember which one) that was being run by Peter Hart, an excellent Democratic pollster who conducts his sessions in a decidedly laid back manner. Watching was a depressing experience. Whether the voter leaned toward Kerry or toward Bush, none could articulate exactly why they are undecided, or what they needed either from the candidates, or the political process in order to make up their minds.
They struck me less as undecided than as voters who are disgusted by politics, skeptical of political candidates, and not surprisngly, profoundly alienated from any rich, personal perception of what democratic governance means in their own lives. Despite gentle prodding from Hart, many of the participants had difficulty speaking in the first person; instead, in response to this or that piece of tape of Bush or Kerry, they would offer up third-person critiques, like, "Kerry says good things, but he seems to be saying whatever his audience wants to hear," or "Bush misled us into Iraq, but he is "genuine, "direct," and a "straight-shooter." .
When I tuned back to the convention, it was appallingly clear what had influenced those undecided voters: Is there any cohort of professional Americans who express such contempt for democracy, or who appear to be less knowledgeable about the fundamental American values expressed in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rest of our two hundred plus years of history than the SCLM? Okay, CEO's maybe. But how can it be that even stalwarts of the print media are unembarrassed to appear not to know a thing about how the Senate operates, or how legislation is passed, which is what is required not to understand how and why John Kerry could vote "yes" on one version of an appropriations bill, and "no" on a different one. How can they be so open in their contempt for the minimal standards of fairness and honesty a democratic republic requires of its discourse?. This morning on MTP the panel discussion concluded that Dick Cheney's rhetorical jab at John Kerry's suppossed desire to wage sensitive wars won the Bush campaign the week, despite reminders, mainly perfunctory, from Andrea Mitchell, that both Bush and Cheney had used the word "sensitive" in relation to our terror war. That Cheney was willfully distorting what Kerry had actually said mattered not. More fool Kerry for having gone near that word when he knew the Bush campaign was gunning for him. Sort of like that "clean" suit. What they really mean is that the Bush campaign has come up with a winning knock on Kerry, irrespective of its truth, but the reason it has even a chance at such success, as Bob Somerby endlessly documents, is because the media all stars play along, like the perfect idiots they're so content to pretend to be.
In the end what was so disturbing about watching our SCLM at work reporting on a Democratic National Convention was to see how completely it seems, now, to identify with right-wing Republican attitudes and rhetoric. Democrats are consistently denied the most basic civility. And any position farther left doesn't exist. Republicans are winners, primarily because they know how to proclaim themselves that. Democrats are losers; after all, they believe in democracy, and as President Clinton has remarked, you can't be a small-d democrat and hate democratic governance. More and more, for our SCLM, as for George W. Bush, there are no experts, there is no data, there are no truths, only endless discussions of believing there is only one truth, and what gets said, thought and written need have no relationship to facts, or to any external reality. Political rhetoric is its own construct, to be judged purely by its effectiveness at fooling people into believing it, irrespective of evidence, or their own life experience. There is no such thing as knowledge, no such thing as American history, for that matter. And God forbid if anyone should suggest that what we are talking about here is, in the most classic sense, totalitarian propoganda, of the kind well documented through-out the twentieth century; any such person could only be a tin-foil hat extremist, who is demeaning the centrist dialogue. If only.
The press admires the gamemanship of propoganda. That our democratic republic suffers from their dereliction of duty matters not a whit to them.
