Why Small Data and the Trivial Should Be Dismissed as Reason to Dismiss an Important Candidate (The Next to Candidate to Need Us May Be Your Own)No matter whom you support, it's time for media watchers and critics to speak up. If any instance of the presidential race thus far exemplifies what is wrong with the American media-driven election system, it is this.
Bill Clinton, or John Kerry, notwithstanding, we are to believe that, in 2007, an expensive haircut disqualifies a man for president. We never hear about the price of haircuts for Republicans.
Additionally (horrors!), Edwards lives in a big house. So do most of the rest of the candidates, as well as former presidents and vice-presidents. McMansions dot northern Virginia. Should everyone living in one be immediately disqualified from higher office? What about GWB's "ranch," aka estate? Did the "rule" not apply? Nope, it's John Edwards who's bearing the brunt on that one. Few ask why. Instead I hear comments erroneously suggesting that Edwards is "finished." That's the opposite of the truth, as he is still running first in two of the most important early primary states.
It is apparent that John Edwards is being "Deaned." By this I mean a small, insignificant event or thing is magnified and built up so that it takes a life on its own. Then, a worthy man, the only candidate besides Dennis Kucinich who has actually thought, talked, and written about the issues in depth, is dissed and marginalized. In debate after debate, John Edwards has shone. He may have been off his "game" somewhat at the AFL-CIO debate, but still, he has outperformed the two front runners. You'd be hard-pressed to read that in the corporate news.
In the midst of candidates who can't seem to show us that they really do have significant ideas, proposals and judgment, only two of the entire cast of presidential characters and wanna-bes, indicate they have an in-depth grasp that the presidency is a more complex job than PR slickspeak, generalities and feel-good cliches. We are to keep waiting for them to actually hammer out what they might eventually think or say? Meanwhile, they think we should all jump aboard their particular train to possibly nowhere. How can we know if they don't spell it out? They must hope, as happened in the so-called "Dean Scream," that Edwards might fade from the horizon. It's not that simple. The diss machine could just as relentlessly turn on the rest of the pack tomorrow.
[I know some are sick of my mentioning the so-called "Dean Scream." But it's a metaphor for what is wrong with our last two elections. What the media accomplished in their thousands of reruns of the Dean footage (with the 3,000 person actually-screaming crowd engineered out) is a dangerous precedent. A man hoarse from campaigning, tried to lift the morale of his supporters, who had worked tirelessly on his behalf. Witnesses confirmed this. And even Republican (she once worked in the Nixon White House) Diane Sawyer lamented that the media, including her, had been wrong. Nevertheless, the footage turned into a "reason" coupled with other manufactured "reasons" for Deans massive support to drop off a cliff. Throw in some horrendous push poll here and a few ads "equating" Dean to OBL there and you have meltdown of a candidacy. No matter whom you supported that year, you must admit that turn-on-a-dime susceptible voters are at the mercy of relentless unscrupulous media and political manipulators.]
Gore actually won in 2000. A "negative 16,022 votes for Gore in Volusia County, Florida, alone could account for the "loss," but many more votes than that were stolen, including tens of thousands of voters wrongfully and illegally purged from the voter rolls. But the election shouldn't have been close. It was (close) because Gore had been dissed as "wooden," a supposed exaggerator, wearer of brown suits, and on and on. In 2004, we all know how John Kerry was "swift boated."
Here's a new litmus test
Look for the candidate whom the media and front runner are working the hardest to discredit. That is the candidate who is saying something worthwhile, is showing leader-like courage, and has a platform of note.
Populuism scares the "beejeebers" out of corporate lobbyists, and the companies and candidates they represent. However, as I have said before, the candidates are working to be our leaders and they answer to us. It's time some of them figure that out. Edwards and Kucinich already have. Obama is headed in that direction. As for the rest, we must make them accountable -- to us!
Additionally, we must dramatically expand media skepticism among the electorate. Otherwise, it's all window-dressing: empty bumper sticker-sporting and sign waving. As crackerjack investigative reporter, Greg Palast, would say, "What are ya going to do about it?"
Here Are Some Ideas
Folks at RK /work on fact-checking and media watch every day. So, one effective tactic, of course, is to dramatically widen our reach, so more folks to check in here. We could develop an RK logo calling card template, so we can get the website address into the hands of people we meet. The card can toot the horn of RK. Bloggers could print them up at home and hand them out.
Another idea is a stepped-up fact-checker system, targeting a broader range of Democrats. Doing this in each county is very labor intensive. I tried this myself in 2004, at first newslettering rapid response in support of and fact-checking attacks on Dean. Then I sent newsletters defending and promoting John Kerry. The newsletter went through several listservs, ending up at times with thousands of readers. I declined doing a statewide one for one statewide organization by myself because, from my experience with my own, I believed a team effort was needed. Some greater online proficiency than I have is important too.
Regarding fact-checking, RK has the best fact- checker in the blogosphere, Lowell. His fact-check work for the Webb-for-Senate Website was great. Though fact-checking runs through much of our commentary here, perhaps we could also have a fact-check sector here, or ultimately, over at DEMPAC if possible.
A statewide Progressive e-newsletter would also help. I envision one broader in scope than "Rapid Response Network," which did a great job (BTW), but had usually a one-issue-at-a-time focus. Some weeks, the GOP uses a scattershot approach and if we limit ourselves to defending one issue, we are still behind. Defense and offense on a wide range of issues is crucial. Unless under the auspices of a PAC, it would have to be produced at zero cost, by volunteers. Such a newsletter needs to get in the electronic mailboxes of Democrats across the state (and country?).
In the mean time, challenging trivial disses, inaccuracies, and misplaced emphases will help. Remember, the candidate the media trashes tomorrow may be your own.
As for the rest of it, yeah, its trivial stuff, but if Edwards can't get past it, then how does he expect to lead the country? If a haircut is able to "take down" his candidacy, what does that say about him?
Ditto Obama. I like him. Obama is more the media darling now. But the media giveth and it also taketh away.
Did you read the suggestions I have for better media response all around--for all the candidates? There really are things we can do.
But acting helpless isn't one of the responses we should make.
If you ignore it, rest assured it will turn on your candidate eventually.
After all, it is a lot better to have rich people like Bush who flaunts that he is out there working to make the rich richer, isn't it?
The criticism that you raise is what the media wants to convey: that he is not acting his social class.
Let's think about it: it is saying that no one wealthy can ever champion the poor. It says that any wealthy person who has enough compassion towards people who are poor must have something wrong about him.
As the diary is pointing out, EVERY leading candidate can be the victim of the same kind of attacks since they all spend a huge amount of money on image, many of the are very wealthy, and most of them live in big houses.
The reality is that the masses at this point don't know who is running on the Democratic ticket besides Hillary Clinton. The media is making sure that the first impression of Edwards is bad so that we will not have to debate economic fairness in this country.
Could you plunk down $100k to seek office?
didn't think so.
If rich people were excluded from the cause of fairness, we never would have gotten FDR elected, would never have risen from the Great Depression and would never have fought WWII.
If the rich can't care about the poor, America has no "greatest generation".
Frankly, I have a hard time believing that you can suggest that multimillionaire Hillary, with all her corporate dollars and lobbyist money, can claim the high ground on this. Be for her if you wish. But at least Edwards is not as beholden to vested interests as she.
If he gets out of the nomination race by March he can run for the Senate in NC but, I am not so sure he could even beat Libby Dole.
People on the right argue that the maccaca video alone brought down George Allen, but they're wrong. It totally changed the conversation and other stories of Allen's racism started to surface.
As for his house, remember he's taking on the poverty issue more than any other candidate. I personally think the "Two Americas" theme is very flawed. The criticism writes itself: "If there are Two Americas, I wanna live in his." Plus he made his money as a trial lawyer, which doesn't win him very many fans (especially amongst doctors who should be a solidly Democratic constituency).
Anyways, all of the candidates have to deal with stupid, fake controversies. "Is Obama black enough?" "Is Hillary showing more cleavage?" Or when people said that Hillary took out the 'Rodham' in her name recently, without bringing up that 'George W. Bush' ran for Congress in 1978 as 'George Bush'.
Oh sure some repubthugs will true to make something of it - but those people would never vote for Edwards in the first place. The ad on the you tube debate was priceless. It could be run over and over again in the General and have a great impact.
The biggest thing is - people think he has a smirk. And he kinda does - he squints his eyes when he is trying to absorb the question - kinda like Kaine raises his eyebrows when trying to make a point - totally uncontrollable - but it sticks.
Unless we get an American Gandhi running for office, every single candidate is disqualified to discuss poverty then. Fortunately, practically no one wants to do so, and the one who does becomes the target of a media campaign against him.
And it won't hurt for some of us as individuals to write to editors and to reporters when the egregious trivialization and character assassination efforts become outrageous. Let them know we're watching, ("there they go again"), send the fact checking Media Matters straight to the offending reporters and their bosses, as well as to fellow Democrats. It's a job, but it is time we held their feet to the fire, especially after some of the snotty things the mass media have had to say about bloggers.
Like you, I find it curious and revealing how the corporate media pick a candidate to denigrate, and which one it is. Hmmm, maybe the one they know the corporatists have no chance of controlling? Interesting. That would be a good subject for a Daily Kos diary, and for letters to the editor: "Take another look at the candidate who is plainly being trivialized, maybe that is the candidate who has YOUR best interests at heart, and not the interests of your exploiters... there's a reason the big guys don't want you to vote for that candidate" and so on. Hmmm
Personally, I still don't like it, but it's totally different than when they isolate the "scream." Obviously, Dean had to shout in order to be heard over the crowd at the rally. And obviously, Dean's voice was hoarse from campaigning. The problem was that "the scream," when isolated and played over and over again, reinforced a stereotype of Dean as some kind of crazed wild man (which he wasn't, of course). Lesson? Obviously, if you're a candidate, try NOT to play into the stereotypes. But that's easier said than done, in part because once people get an idea into their heads, they tend to fit every new piece of data into that paradigm. Hence, the haircut and John Edwards. The bottom line is that we Democrats need to get better at: a) fighting back against this crap; and b) doing it to THEIR candidates for a change.
As for Edwards, this guy is at his best when people are underestimating him. So come on naysayers!
Gimme a break! I'd stack up his "sanity" and courage to any of those running today. Have you met him, or heard him in person? I have. And what you claim is absurd. The man was more respectful, listened better, and frankly, more Democratic than the "celebrity" Dems who are rushed in to speak and flee in their limos. Frankly the country doesn't deserve him and you don't either if you react this way to CNN and FOX drivel.
BTW, do you have any qualifications to judge sanity? Are you a psychologist? And if you are, is it ethical to evaluate another's sanity long distance?
He's not running and I have no earthly desire to go on super-charged defense of Dean. But seriously, THIS ad-hominum against people that is so disingenuous. If I did this (what you just did) regarding any of the 2008 candidates, you'd say I was losing 2008 for the party.
I also don't quite believe the polls. Clinton is third or lower in the MoveOn and DFA polls I've seen... to be expected perhaps but the DLC had better start paying attention to the deep divides in this party. We're not all going to fall for some handpicked DLC old-schooler again. And I'm sick of watching the DLC congratulate themselves for last November when it happened, really, despite them. I cannot vote for Clinton. I would have a much easier time voting for Obama, but I will do everything I can to push for Edwards.
There... my first post.. and I guess that about covers it! See you next year...
spud
Please elaborate more on the format of the newsletter. :)
:)
Also, what debates are you talking about? I have seen nothing so far that has constituted a debate. Seven candidates on a stage giving one minute responses is really like speed dating. There was no time to delve into any issues and discuss the relative merits and drawbacks of each other's positions on various topics. Nor any real substantive debate on what qualifies them more than the others to be our nominee. I don't see how anyone can say someone won or lost. There is certainly no objective measure of that or of performance for that matter.
I also disagree with your litmus test. First off, litmus tests are for binary results. Since people are not binary, why apply such a test to them? The world isn't all one thing or another. Second, just because a leading candidate, say Candidate A, is paying attention to Candidate B, who challenging their primacy, does not necessarily mean that Candidate B is saying something worthwhile or has a platform of note. There have been plenty of nasty primaries to prove that point. And last on the populism note, I don't think there is a cabal of corporate interests that says let's get this candidate out of the race. And why would they focus on John Edwards in particular?
Finally, if John Edwards is your choice and you want others to pick him too, wouldn't an argument for his candidacy be a better tactic? Complaining about how externalities are keeping him down doesn't seem like a compelling reason to vote for him, IMHO.
2. Must I use quotes around the word "debate" every time to meet your high standards? As a former debater, I am fully aware they were not formal debates, but rather panels. Almost anyone knows the so-called debates aren't really debates. You don't need to persuade me on your "speed dating" analogy.
3. The litmus test was actually there to provoke some thought, not to be a final determinant. However, it is instructive to consider whom is being disposed of by the media and think about why that is. Chances are there is a reason why the media are doing this--and it's likely a reason or issue we might be interested in and concerned about. That's what I meant.
4. This article was not intended to make a case for Edwards, though he has excelled in his thinking and speaking on several important issues. I absolutely don't rely on "debates" to assess all of this (or much at all). But the media purports to. At least Edwards is willing to lay his ideas out there and to shake things up a bit. Clinton and Obama are being so cautious it is frightening.
This article was intended to discuss him as a metaphor for what could happen to any other candidate (and will, no doubt). I urged the importance of having our media watch and rapid response ready. The main problem with what I wrote was that the intro and the example were too long. But you wouldn't have liked the ideas anyway.
5)I haven't decided whom I will support. One day a week ago, while I was working at a Democratic booth offering buttons for Hillary, Obama and Edwards, I tried wearing an Edwards button, "tried it on for size," if you will (yeh I DON'T mean that literally). But I don't feel like I am actually an Edwards supporter yet. I do feel strongly that he is being pummeled by the media.
To a lesser extent, Obama has had some of the same. I will address that, but in a different way. I also didn't need you to tell me to write about Edwards' policies. That's not what this article was about. It was about what to do to get info on OTHER things AND fact-checking out to voters around the media, if necessary. I am already working on something along those lines. But I am not making the case for him because (AGAIN) I haven't decided whom I will vote for.
I would still prefer Gore, but have chalked that one up to wishful thinking. As primaries move earlier and earlier, they one-by-one eliminate any potential for Gore to enter. Reality sets in and it is entirely possible I may not have a candidate I can support (ie make the case for). I will, of course, vote Democratic. As a person without an actual candidate, I instinctively look for inequities. And that's what I'll be looking at.
As to the fact-checking, is that not why campaigns hire staff? If the candidate's campaign cannot do this for themselves, what hope do they have when the kid gloves come off?
2) No, you must not. But to your point about mass media propagating the trivial, giving credence to their assertion that these are substantive discussions that are won or lost plays into that game.
3) I think you would have to still prove intent. I think the mass media focuses on these things because that is what sells and not out of fear of an individual. If people liked thoughtful discussions, ratings and sponsorships for NPR, The News Hour, Bill Moyers, etc... would be through the roof. I don't think this is intentional malice, it is just feeding Americans' short attention span.
4) I don't dislike the ideas. I just wonder whether that is not the function of the party and the candidates. Also, is that not covered by blogs?
5) It would seem to me the counteraction to a trivial discussion would be a substantive discussion. If you want to counteract the focus on the trivial, would you not be better served by a substantive discussion?
1. Implicit in rapid response is something a lot more expansive than fact-checking. Perhaps I had assumed too much in not elaborating on what goes into it. Rapid response gets into circulation issue briefs, important links of the day or week, talking points, and fact-checking. It's sorta like Whipples' Clips "on stereoids." Whipples' clips is an great addition to help us quickly digest the news of the day.
Taking things to the next level is supplementing the news of the day (or week), the coverage of the day (or week) and the mis-and doublespeaks of the day (or week). But the point isn't just to disseminate all of that (that is quite a lot, I think). The point is for recipients to receive what they need to write letters to the editor, op-eds and talk to their friends. It is a whole lot more than fact-checking, but fact-checking is a part of it. And it all starts with paying attention to the media and getting facts straight. We can get some facts through the campaigns. During the Webb race, I checked in at Lowell's fact-checks before I wrote my briefs. But we can and must do our own research as well.
It is also too much for one person (as I learned myself). At times, it took all my spare time for a rather small effort. Also, I am not expert in IT. (Unfortunately, I definitely am one of the world's worst typists as well.)
2. Caring about media coverage and demanding that it carry real news, not the latest personal meltdown of Paris Hilton, Denise Ritchey, Britany Spears, etc., is everyone's business, not just that of staffers of a candidates. It is everyone's busisness that the front section (formerly news) of some papers have been reduced to human interest stories. You can never underestimate the difference drumming up concern can make. And, frankly, if we don't believe the Republicans do that, then we are dreaming. I was told once at the Roanoke Times that their mail is often 2 to 1 slanted Republican. That's our fault.
If you subtract the four main hot-button issues, research shows Americans agree substantially with the Democratic agenda. And so, the question is, what are we going to do about it when the media continues to reflect administration talking points, as CNN, FOX and MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC so often do?
3. The attention spans you appear to justify the diminishment of, or at least are indifferent to, are interactive. Thus demanding more of them is enabling and evolutionary. Our focus and attention can be enhanced. And they are not nearly as limited as you suggest. It is long past time to demand more from our commercial media. Of course, attention spans might actually decline more should we not demand better for what are essentially services we pay for indirectly through product prices.
Media are obliged to educate. But they rarely do, despite their often false claims of coverage "in-depth." Research shows those who consume TV news know no more about political news and current events than if they saw or read nothing. IF the media had actually covered the build up to the Iraq war, and what was actually known before it was launched in March, 2003, the public would not have supported it in such large numbers. It may not have been supported at all. It was not the job of the media to be a Bush cheerleader for war against a county that never attacked us.
Again, media watch is the business of citizenship. And responding to it, as well as finding alternative uses of technology to get our ideas out there, is the only way to get them to pay attention.
4. Finally, we could even take new information to every citizen door-to-door. Campaing ads, too expensive for a campaign to get into all markets, could be shown in others if we show them around via an MP3.
Every digital device is a potential help. Video clips (not coyprighted) could be downloaded to ipods and other devices to show to voters. Power point slide shows could hypothetically be formatted for PDAs and other hand held devices. Any internet-enhanced phone becomes a potential "tool" (I hate the overuse of that term) toward getting our side out there.
Rapid response is a lot more than fact-checking. And rapid response will grow and evolve as technology permits. Rest assured the Republicans are figuring this out. And we need to pay attention as well. Our political lives and our nation depends on it.