Press « Eight For 08

Why Must They Suck?

January 14, 2008

No, not the candidates, the coverage. That’s what The Nation’s Christopher Hayes is asking:

I think we can all agree that day-in, day-out campaign coverage often sucks, but the question is why?

There’s a number of reasons, but primarily I think the papers’ entire approach to covering campaigns is hopelessly flawed and puts reporters in a position in which they can’t help but produce trivinalia.

According to Hayes, your typical campaign reporter is too much of an outsider, is traveling in a pack of like-minded outsiders, and is held hostage by the campaign she’s covering to the extent that she develops “either a kind of contempt for the candidate and the campaign or a strange version of stockholm syndrome.” I also agree with Hayes’ observation that the problem isn’t what the candidates cover (the horse race as opposed to the issues), but how they cover it - his main remedies:

1) Rotate reporters. There’s no reason to simply assign a reporter and have them stay with a campaign. It’s not like you need “expertise” to cover a campaign or there’s a steep learning curve.

2) Go more for features and less daily reporting.

3) Assign campaign coverage to beat reporters. When Obama released his tax plan. the article that ran in the TImes about the plan was authored by the Obama beat reporter Jeff Zeleny. Zeleny’s a perfectly good political reporter, and he’s been following Obama since ‘03, when he was writing for the Trib, but there’s no earthly reason to think he’s well-equipped to report on a tax plan. Meanwhile, the Times happens to have on staff the Pulizer-Prize-winning David Cay Johnston, who is unquestionably the single best tax reporter in the country.

Agreed. The importance of #2 comes to light when you’re subjected to cable news coverage of the campaigs (Hayes is really talking about print coverage here). Forget about features vs. daily coverage, the CNNs of the world are absorbed in hourly coverage of the campaigns and the result is garbage 95% of the time. So with this level of competition on the tubes and the proliferation of coverage on the Internets by amateur journalists, the need for the professionals in print to provide well-researched features (read ‘do their job’) is at a premium.

Also, check out Hayes’ interview on NPR’s On The Media.

1 Comment | Press | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Hillary-Frames

January 12, 2008

The theories on Hillary’s comeback in New Hampshire continue to proliferate. While personally I don’t think there’s much to it beyond the fact that the polls happened to reflect how people were feeling on the weekend after Obama’s victory in Iowa and the strength of Hillary’s campaign in New Hampshire over the last eight months is what finally shone through in the end, I do find the following theories interesting:

Hillary played-up the underdog-role to great effect, rallying her supporters and staff in New Hampshire for an unprecedented comeback for a “scrappy underdog” as opposed to a shrewd front-runner [From Washingtonpost.com Factchecker].
Which helped lay the groundwork for the framework of ‘Obama as woman-basher‘ that she intended to illuminate in the NH debate and subsequent stump speeches leading up to the primary.

I highly recommend the latter link [from redstate.org], which brings together these and other theories nicely. But this is just fodder for the junkies - if Hillary was truly able to intentionally craft such frameworks from start to finish I’d be impressed.

An interesting after-math is the latest Media Matters row over Chris Mathews arguably sexist comments against Hillary. Apparently, the MSNBC analysts opposition to the campaign of the only female candidate isn’t just about the candidate but also about females.

But consider the latter debate in the context of the supposed frameworks Hillary was working to develop: Mathews may have actually helped her out.

No Comments » | Clinton, New Iowashire, Press | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

No Comment

January 10, 2008

About a year ago the Boston Globe appeared to be dead ink, but the Beantown flagship is proving vital in its election coverage, particularly the way it’s utilizing web tools. Coverage of its survey on the candidates’ views on executive privilege is the best example of this:

The study is the most comprehensive effort to date to get the candidates to declare in specific terms what checks and balances they would respect, and whether they would reverse the Bush administration’s legacy of expanded presidential powers.

“These are essential questions that all the candidates should answer,” said Illinois Senator Barack Obama in responding to the survey. “The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility - particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this administration.”

The last paragraph was part of Barack Obama’s answer to “Question 12,” which asked, in summary, if the other 11 questions were worth asking and answering. These were questions of presidential powers under the constitution, the validity of signing statements, presidential authority over interrogation techniques, the president’s authority to disregard international treaties, and many other salient issues. Other candidates thoughts on whether these are important questions to answer:

Rudy Giuliani

Giuliani declined to answer this question.

In fact, Mayor Giuliani, Governor Huckabee, and Senator Thompson declined to answer every question.

1 Comment | Foreign Policy, Giuliani, Press | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Agents of Change

January 8, 2008

Hope this doesn’t sway all the New Hampshire voters reading this blog, but three interesting stories on Obama for today:

Howard Kurtz at his best with a link-rich article on praise for Obama from the conservative press.

Great blog post by Ethan Zuckerman on tribe, race, the impact of electing an African American president, and the political conflict in Kenya.

And a CNN article on Obama and Kenya that stumbles into many of the traps of race and tribe that Ethan discusses.

No Comments » | Obama, Press | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Ron Paul Day

December 24, 2007

As an ongoing part of my completely anecdotal media polling, yesterday was Ron Paul Day. Saw him on Meet the Press, CSpan, and Glenn Beck - I think two were previously aired, but hey, I don’t watch much tv, and seeing Glenn Beck actually succeed in a ‘gotcha’ on Ron Paul when he asks the candidate how he plans to pay for anything without taxes was high-comedy.

Like most, I knew two things about Mr. Paul for sure before yesterday: his positions are extreme and his fundraising is speedy. Half-way through yesterday’s media blitz, my view on him hadn’t changed but I was definitely more miffed about where in the hell all his money is coming from. I mean, it’s pretty amazing that so many people with money don’t think our history of liberal internationalism, federal economic institutions, or timely government-backed market corrections have had anything to do with the economic stability that has allowed those same people to accumulate enough money that they can give some of it away to Ron Paul.

But thanks to Ron Paul Day, I have a little better understanding of how this man is pulling it off:

1. Just enough Ross Perot in him - there are clearly plenty of people in Texas with money to support these guys.

2. Endorsements from people who simply want the hype to continue, who don’t really care but aren’t gonna take it anymore, and who actually don’t want him to win but are trying to make a statement.

3. Support from radicals whose positions are just as ridiculous and contradictory as Paul’s.

That’s not to say I’m entirely dismissing the Infowars folks here - it is definitely a problem that so many are so fed-up and disconnected that they’re willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. The rest of the candidates should be trying to communicate with these folks, while Ron Paul will happily do the cutting.

2 Comments | Press, Ron Paul | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Edwards’ Turn

December 19, 2007

At this point in the campaign circuit you get the sense that the press, in all its fair and balanced goodness, is going out of its way to give each candidate their day in the spotlight before January 3. With that spirit of skepticism in mind, I

No Comments » | Edwards, Press | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Lull Before the Who Knows What

December 17, 2007

Not a whole lot of inspiration from the Sunday papers today. You get the sense that the candidates tried to plant a few seeds last week (Huckabee w/ the Mormon-baiting; Hillary camp w/ the drug comments; Bill w/ the “lack of experience” comments) and everyone’s just waiting around to see what sprouts. Will be interested to see if Obama joins in - kind of get the feeling that he’s better off just dancing in the ring instead of throwing punches. Speaking of which - it’s difficult to imagine Mike Huckabee getting through this week without taking a few shots.

The other interesting storyline will continue to be endorsements. McCain and Hillary got the DesMoines Register and word is McCain will get Joe Lieberman as well. This isn’t a huge boost for the Arizona Senator so much as it should serve as a reminder to the media, and perhaps the voters of New Hampshire, that he’s still alive. And something tells me, sadly, that you can’t count out Fred Thompson either. No link, just a gut thing. By this time next week I would hope there’s more than that to go on.

No Comments » | Clinton, Fred Thompson, Huckabee, McCain, Press | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Sinful

December 11, 2007

Instant-classic Stanley Fish column - from his New York Times Blog - includes the Tags: John Milton, Katie Couric, Machiavelli…

Fish is focusing on Katie Couric’s “beyond politics” questions for the candidates as, to be modest, a sign of the downfall of humanity. While Fish’s argument is founded on a great point (and even better philosophical roots):

Why, when the office the candidates seek is a pre-eminently political one, does it make sense to go “beyond politics”? (It is as if you were looking for an office manager and decided to go “beyond organizational skills” by inquiring into the applicants’ tastes in books or music.)

But one has to wonder if it may not hurt to ask Mike Huckabee a question beyond politics, like “Mike, when was the last time you lied or stole?”

Probably wouldn’t get very far with the Huckster, but my point is “beyond politics” does not mean beyond the political and a well crafted question from Couric may enable the media to pressure candidates beyond stock political positions and force them to stumble when they have to answer questions like “do you know anyone who is gay?”

Fish is still brilliant though, read on:

CBS News may be right to rely on an “informal poll” indicating that “come November, policy issues may not rule the day.” The voters may well prefer the candidate who breathes virtue and rectitude to the candidate who demonstrates the kind of knowledge often associated with “policy wonks.”

If that in fact happens, the American electorate will have allied itself with one position in a long-running philosophical quarrel between those who think that the best persons make the best leaders and those who think that the best leader is the one most likely (by virtue of experience and skills) to get the job done.

Do you start with the inner landscape of the individual and project outward to his or her performance in office, or do you leave the inner weather of the candidates’ spiritual and psychological health to their therapists and pastors?

Each of the alternatives has had its powerful champions. In “The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates,” John Milton tells us that when men first felt the need to institute government in order to ensure civil order, they chose one “above the rest” because of “the eminence of his wisdom and integrity.” If only Adam had not fallen, Milton adds, there would have been no necessity to choose anyone, for in the beginning “all men were naturally born free, being the image and resemblance of God himself” and were therefore born “to command not to obey.”

That’s just the trouble, declared his contemporary (and philosophical opposite) Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes agrees that in the abstract all men are equal and equally free, but that means that, left to their own devices, they will prey on one another and produce a general instability that will lead to most lives being “nasty, brutish and short.” Hobbes doesn’t believe in the natural goodness invoked by Milton (“the eminence of his wisdom and integrity”), and so he opts for the artificial solution of granting to one man (called the sovereign) all the rights and powers in the state provided that he secure the property of every man against the depredations of his neighbors and protect the country from its foreign enemies.

The sovereign’s ability to make good on these obligations will have nothing to do with his moral character — “the question of who is the better man,” Hobbes says, “has no place in the condition of mere nature” — and everything to do with his political skills. Hobbes insists that the “worthiness” to lead is different from “the worth or value of a man and also from his merit.” What is important is “a particular power or ability for that wherof he is said to be worthy; which particular ability is usually named fitness or aptitude.” Is he good at the job? — does he have the aptitude? — is a more pertinent question than is he good?

Hobbes was anticipated by Machiavelli, who noted that everyone always proclaims “how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith and to live with integrity and not with craft.”

But, says Machiavelli, everyone is wrong…

No Comments » | Huckabee, Press | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Economist Coverage

December 7, 2007

The Economist has dedicated substantial ink to the campaign recently. A lot of it might be subscription-only, but do try to check it out (and do see what happens when you first try for http://www.theeconomist.com). Some highlights:

I’ve been searching the EightFor08 archives and am devastated that I did not write into these interwebs something I swear I said a month ago: The Economist is going to endorse John McCain and The Wall Street Journal is going to endorse Rudy. Maybe I did and can’t find it, but what is the Internet really good for if you can’t use it to prove yourself right!? Anyway, McCain does get close to an endorsement in this week’s Lexington column:

Mr McCain’s qualifications extend beyond character. Take experience. His range of interests as a senator has been remarkable, extending from immigration to business regulation. He knows as much about foreign affairs and military issues as anybody in public life. Or take judgment. True, he has a reputation as a hothead. But he’s a hothead who cools down. He does not nurse grudges or agonise about vast conspiracies like some of his colleagues in the Senate. He has also been right about some big issues. He was the first senior Republican to criticise George Bush for invading Iraq with too few troops, and the first to call for Donald Rumsfeld’s sacking. He is one of the few Republicans to propose sensible policies on immigration and global warming.

The Leaders section also presents an excellent overview of candidate stances on foreign policy, and provides a scary chart [click to expand]:

The last bar is particularly disconcerting: not even 20% of Republicans believe we’ve benefited from NAFTA?! The Economist (and perhaps I) will let that simmer for a bit and take another blow on free trade that the weekly exposes in a short piece on candidates changing course because of a tighter race in Iowa:

In some recent polls, Mr Obama has actually taken the lead. For the first time, the moving average compiled by Real Clear Politics, a website, now shows both Mr Romney and Mrs Clinton dislodged from the Iowa top spots (see chart).

In response, Mrs Clinton seems to be drifting to the left. In an interview with the Financial Times this week she turned more protectionist than ever, calling the Doha round of international trade talks into question.

Advice to Economist for next week’s campaign coverage: how much will the next US president’s economic policies diverge from what we’d recommend?

No Comments » | Clinton, Foreign Policy, McCain, Press | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Linkus Interuptus

November 27, 2007

Hate to break up this brilliant stretch of holiday cynicism with some truly depressing truths, but these are some solid takes on Huckabee et al.:

I couldn’t agree more with Slate’s Walter Shapiro: Mike Huckabee is a huckster and a foreign policy lightweight.

And this Mark Helperin piece has been blogged about extensively and there’s plenty to argue about in it, but I must say, these two paragraphs are spot-on:

Case in point: Our two most recent presidents, both of whom I covered while they were governors seeking the White House. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are wildly talented politicians. Both claimed two presidential victories, in all four cases arguably as underdogs. Both could skillfully serve as the chief strategist for a presidential campaign.

But their success came not because they convinced the news media (and much of the public) that they would be the best president, but because they dominated the campaign narrative that portrayed them as the best candidate in a world-class political competition. In the end, both men were better presidential candidates than they were presidents.

I would only add to this that with Clinton, we got lucky.

No Comments » | Foreign Policy, Huckabee, Press | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Eight For 08