If you watched last night's "constitutional" debate on ABC -- probably the last time we'll ever see Obama and Clinton on stage together for a very long time -- then maybe you saw what I saw: one full hour of inane, popcorn questions about month-old, mindless controversies resurrected at a time when the financial industry is facing systematic collapse, and soldiers are dying, and well, you guys read the news. Yall knows what up out there.

So, I'd like to take a little media theory out for a spin, and see what people have observed over the years...

You'd think that during peaceful and prosperous times, our elections would be filled with less-serious more trivial diversions, and that during heady times, the coverage would be more issues-focused. I don't think there has been an election climate since 1968 that was as tense and ominous as this one, but yet, to my mind this has been one of the most non-issues based election I can remember. This could be a function of selective memory, or the fact that 2 of the 3 remaining candidates are ideologically congruent.

So, here's my questions:

In your liftetime, as the issues facing our nation have become more pressing, how has the media responded? By ratcheting up the investigative issues-based coverage, or by dealing in more politics-as-entertainment type diversions (like Mike Dukakis's tank picture, George Bush calling a reporter an "a-hole," Barack Obama's lapel pin, etc.)?

What elections do you think the general media did a great job covering, which ones do you think were poorly handled?

Compared to other elections, how constructive has this year's primary coverage been?

Times of crisis?

Is the media's job to solve problems? To shine light on problems? To offer people a chance to share their problems?

In your liftetime, as the issues facing our nation have become more pressing, how has the media responded? By ratcheting up the investigative issues-based coverage, or by dealing in more politics-as-entertainment type diversions (like Mike Dukakis's tank picture, George Bush calling a reporter an "a-hole," Barack Obama's lapel pin, etc.)?

What elections do you think the general media did a great job covering, which ones do you think were poorly handled?

Compared to other elections, how constructive has this year's primary coverage been?

The media focuses on what its viewers tell them they want to hear about. Sometimes it is gaffes, sometimes it is issues. In the current climate (the Democratic primary) where the candidates offer very little difference and very little substance, what are they to do? I've heard more about how John McCain doesn't have an economic plan than I have about whatever plan the Democrats allegedly have.

Compared to other election cycles, the media has done exactly the same this year as any other year: lip service to issues and the lion's share on fringe topics like who has had the latest gaffe. Of course, voters vote on likeability more than anything else, so maybe these faux pas are not fringe topics and are really what people want to hear about.

After last night's 22nd debate between Clinton and Obama, I hope I never see them again on the same stage at the same time until the Democratic National Convention.

That debate was utterly, completely and totally worthless. Everyone who watched it is now dumber than they were before they started.

My only question is: When did Rupert Murdoch buy ABC?

What is it about Philadelphia? The city last month hosted one of the most impressive moments of the presidential campaign to date: Barack Obama's forthright speech on race. But last night, the very same venue - the National Constitution Centre - witnessed one of the worst events: the dismal ABC News debate between the Democratic candidates.

The contrast could hardly have been starker. Obama's March 18 speech was sophisticated, honest and, above all, respectful of the intelligence of his audience. Last night's debate - or, more specifically, the performance of its moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos - was by turns superficial and disingenuous.

The trouble started early. Gibson began with an utterly fatuous inquiry about whether each candidate would pledge to ask the other to be their vice-presidential nominee if they won, and agree to accept the veep slot if they lost. Tired questions about the Jeremiah Wright affair and Obama's remarks regarding voters in Midwestern states who "cling" to religion and social issues followed.

About half the time set aside for the debate had elapsed - and seven flimsy or already-exhausted issues had been raised - before the first serious question of the night, about troop withdrawals from Iraq, was asked.

The relentless triviality was only one problem, however. The more serious failing was the willingness of Gibson and Stephanopoulos to volunteer as water-carriers for a conservative attack machine that, fearful of Obama's crossover appeal, is already working overtime to tarnish his reputation.

Stephanopoulos and Gibson deserve every bit of opprobrium being thrown their way. They delivered a noxious blend of smear, innuendo and diversion.

But it looks like the same old political junk food no longer satisfies an electorate hungry for real change. link

Instead the meaningless crap about who "won" the debate, I'm going to point out Obama made one key mistake in the debate. He should have never agreed to a former Clinton staffer like Stephanopoulos as one of the moderators. The game was fixed from the jump with a toady like Stephanopoulos asking the questions.

In your liftetime, as the issues facing our nation have become more pressing, how has the media responded? By ratcheting up the investigative issues-based coverage, or by dealing in more politics-as-entertainment type diversions (like Mike Dukakis's tank picture, George Bush calling a reporter an "a-hole," Barack Obama's lapel pin, etc.)?

I guess this is meant to be about the mainstream media. It's business as usual. I don't really use much mainstream media and have to focus my free time pretty closely. So it's all Internet now. That's getting better.

What elections do you think the general media did a great job covering, which ones do you think were poorly handled?

This one's probably the most covered. Yep, and I don't blame people for getting real sick of it.

Compared to other elections, how constructive has this year's primary coverage been?

Primaries are by nature not very constructive. Wait until after the nominations if you want substance. How can you have constructive activities when its a competition within the party structure? What are you going to do, build the planks of the platform before there's a nominee?

Maybe what's very different this time around is the lack of patience. Maybe that's because more people are paying attention, and maybe that has led to more media coverage. More doesn't necessarily mean better.

I'm having a little trouble interpretting your tone/intent here, and in the interest of avoiding a freshman media studies debate I'll just posit that, for the purposes of this thread, the media's job is to convey information concerning the size, scope, and nature of the problems and developments facing the american people. Insofar as electing one candidate over another is a better "solution," the media's job is to take stock of how a candidate would manage say, foreign policy, the economy, etc.




Already I disagree. Unless you take focus group findings and neilson ratings as gospel -- and only Mark Penn does -- then the media focuses on what is guesses its viewers want to hear about.

In the 2008 election, this means that a whole host of Ivy League grad-school educated upper-middle class journalists are writing aphoristic columns about what Hillary or Obama or John McCain needs to do to relate to the ephemeral "beer drinkin'," "bread and butter," "mainstream" American.
-- as opposed to the oft-maligned chardonnay-sipping, elite upper-income voter.

What is never commented upon is how the heck these wine-tasting yuppie journalists (myself included) have such an intuitive knack for the populist druthers of "middle American" voters-- who they all but stereotype as dimwitted beer-guzzling, bread-munching hicks.



I agree about your characterization of the dem primary as a personality contest of ideologically meme personalities, but this conceals one very important fact: the democratic primary is all but over. The remaining contests will make virtually no dent into Obama's lead of pledged delegates, and the super delegates are paralyzed by the fear of their fired up constituents.

So, effectively, what we're watching here is pure political sport, entertainment, nothing that happens in pennsylvania is of any consequence to the mathematical selection of a democratic nominee. At best, the weeks to come will shape public opinion to the point where the superdels feel comfortable making their pick.



I guess you're right here, but isn't it safe to say that the media determines likeability? I mean, it's not like Barack Obama has traded personalities from the days when he was pampered with embarrassing romantic praise. Somewhere during march, when editors ran out of primaries to assign, the coverage changed, like a stampede of bulls.

Or take John McCain. Last summer, as right wing radio was grinding him into the image of an old traitorous coot, his campaign was likened to a bi-plane crashing to the scorched earth. The candidate himself was cursing out congress people, throwing tantrums in broad public access daylight, and now, suddenly he's Mr. Above The Fray, a regular white male that everybody can call grandpa and get along with. In the New Hampshire debate, Scott Spralding all but called Hillary a crusty witch with his "likability question." And that's just this year: In 2000, the media played with fire, buying the image of George Bush as an ambling, un-ambitious mediocrity while gleefully looping Al Gore's infamous "sigh," as if a sigh is better proof of a candidate's condescension towards poor folks and bad spellers than his economic policy. Or there's Howard Dean's "scream," which by the way, was nothing more than a regular "huzzah" made evil-sounding by a touch of distortion on the microphone, and was then turned into a national radio spot/spoof-- as if speaking into a distorted microphone is proof that one is a satanic maniac.

So the media has all the cards in this likeablility game, and I'll tell you what I think the game is about: Walk through the halls of a major american news paper or television conglomerate, and you'll walk past a lot of successful, yet status-starved jerks, the same kind of people you find in the music industry, or the film industry, or any other coastal media guild where aspirants have to spit down and suck up to gain a yard of field positioning.

Take a bunch of journalists from our hometowns, churn us through an elite education, and spit us out into a major media capital with a salary to show for it, and before you can blow the whistle, you'll have a bunch of Bed, Bath and Beyond cowards like Joe Klein over-compensating by posturing as in-the-know area men with their ear to the middle-american beer-guzzling sod. This is exactly that liberal guilt you conservatives always accuse us of.

One thing about this year's media coverage is that it is a lot more intense. Heck, I've already seen more debates this primary season than I've seen my entire life up until this election cycle.

When you look at the cable news networks, you have one that is clearly pro-Obama (MSNBC) one that is more neutral (CNN) and one that is bashing them both (Fox). Those are generalities, but there is a choice of tone here. I wonder what the ratings look like over the past 3 months...

Yes, the media seems to focus on "non-issues" like Obama's pastor, but there are two factors there. One is the 24 hour news cycle requires something to fill it. Second is the lack of knowledge about Obama. Who is this guy? What does he believe? Who he associates with sheds some light on this subject, one that the public has an absolute right to know more about.

I do agree with you that the primary on the Democratic side has been far more contentious than past elections. I think that has to do with the Clintons and their view that Hillary is owed this. They can't let go and admit that they've probably lost. Of course, the truth is that she hasn't lost yet. She can't win outright, but neither can Obama. Both are currently in a battle over super delegates, which is all that matters now. One candidate could get 65% of the remaining votes and still not clinch. Clinton is trying to convince these super delegates that Obama will be trounced in the general. She is doing it fairly low key in my view, but other may (and will) disagree with that assertion. The media is putting Obama into the fire, as it were, but in order to be President, Obama will need to prove that he can handle the heat of the very hot Presidential kitchen.

I agree with you on the first point, but first a quick word about the second:

Obama, as fresh as he is to politics, is no less an unknown entity than any number of national political figures who, in recent year didn't face any thing close to this kind of scandal-driven biographical scrutiny. Take for example, George W. Bush. Here's a man who affiliated himself with pastors just as controversial as Rev. Wright, a prodigal son who spent his first thirty years wandering in and out of legal trouble -- including two or three D.U.I.'s, dead serious criminal charges that we didn't find out about until days before the general election. Even in 2004, during his re-election, we were still trying to figure out if or how he dodged the draft.

Why?

Because we, the average American, we know George W. Bush, or at least he was an expert at getting us to feel like we did. He was that poor speller who made mischeif in the back of lit class because he couldn't keep up and hadn't read the material; a good-natured and refreshingly plain-witted simpleton who joined a frat the minute his parents dropped him off at Yale. In a competitive society where high-wired parents throw their kids through SAT prep classes and college preparatory programs at increasingly young ages George W. was someone we all felt like we could relate to: an uncompetitive mediocre bub, the kind of guy you knew and could therefore trust.

Obama's problem isn't that there is a lack of knowledge about who he is. The guy has written not one, but two books pontificating about his background, his family life, and how they inform his political views. Two books at age 46. Like "The Boy From Hope" before him, he's told his story at the header of every stump speech he's ever given, and every one of us knows it by heart: born in Hawaii to a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya. Lived in Indonesia. Moved to Chicago. How many of you even know where Hillary Clinton or John McCain were originaly born? (Illinois, Panama Canal Zone). How many of you can name one thing John McCain did before entering politics other than his famed military service story.

The problem is that less than a roomful of Americans actually know somebody like Obama. I know 100 affable but dimwitted guys who I could compare to George Bush, from Will Ferrel on down. Sometimes Hillary Clinton reminds me of my grandma, and her husband always reminds me of Elvis. Yet I don't know very many people with the kind of personality, pedigree, or racial background of Barack Obama. Our cultural minds have not been primed for his emergence. We haven't seen this movie yet.

Secondly, I think the tone of the media is driven by one of the most compelling self-destructions in modern political history: the nasty, ugly fall of the Clinton Empire. It's kind of like when the local news airs gory pictures of a murder or a car wreck -- you don't want to watch, and you hate the stations for airing that stuff, but you can't peel your eyes away. Hillary Clinton has run one of the worst, most mis-calculated primary campaigns in recent history (maybe ever in the modern political era), and it makes for compelling, but pugilistic news. Every lie, every concocted scandal is a compelling sign that another fuse is about to burn out on the Clinton machine. The media lives from Clinton accident to Clinton accident. Like you said, they need something to fill that space.

I said more about your second point than I wanted to, so I'll breeze through your first point. In the way that 1960 was the first election with the television in the race, 2008 was the internet election. Already we've had one candidate, Obama, who has proven himself masterful at using the internet to organize/win caucuses while drawing small-dollar contributions in the process. Without MyBarackObama.com, Hillary Clinton would be in the clear to face John McCain right now.

But Obama clearly doesn't have so much of a pinky's hold on the internet news cycle, a news cycle that is all about screaming headlines and partisan ad hominem knee-slicing. How many of the great stories from this cycle have come from a source like Drudge (i.e. Obama face darkening, Obama in turban) or HuffPo (Obama bitter comments) or user-gem Youtube content (rev. wright, Bosnia).

It's shocking. It's a weird fact of our new political processes that there is no such thing as an independent or moderate behind a computer screen. One of the reasons I like AD is that this is one of the few places where self-convinced partisans have to actually acknowledge the existence of their cross-aisle alternates.

But what's happened in 2008 that did not happen in 2004 is that the news is spreading at a moments notice from those partisan bubbles of rank, ad hominem attacks to the CNN crawl... That I think is the primary distinction between this and all other elections.

This is an election they're going to talk about for many, many years.

I don't believe that any election is covered better or worse than any other. The primary problem here is that Obama didn't handle the flak very well. George Bush got in a fight with Dan Rather in '88 and erased "the wimp factor" forever, not to mention, bolstering his chances of winning the nomination. Obama could've done the same thing and have turned the talbes on Stephanopoulos and Gibson by pointing out how they went after small time "gotcha!" political issues, rather than issues of substance. He could've shaken his fingers at them and called them elitist, media-literali who live in a bubble world divorced from hard working reality. A golden opportunity was missed on his part. It is the job of the media to ask tough questions, there isn't a referee in political life whose job it is, is to keep the politicians immune from attack dog questions, no matter how contrived, inane, or manufactured. If they can't heandle that, then how could they handle being president? Could they handle a phone call at 3 a.m.?

The questions were definitely legitimate. This was the first debate since the Wright scandal broke – same for the “cling” comment. The people have a right to know “who” Obama is (as opposed to who he “tells us” he is) – and theses questions are very legitimate.

As for issues – you mean you wanted them each to have yet another forum to give us their scripted statements – which they did in any case.

How many times can Obama say “change” with little definition or method to accomplish same – before we are all asleep? Same for Hillary.

Yes the left hated this debate because for a change Obama had some tough questions – get over it because it will not go away. If anything his recent “cling to guns and religion” gaff added to the Wright Ayers associations, and his wife’s statements only make the real “Obama” more cloudy in many peoples minds.

In your liftetime, as the issues facing our nation have become more pressing, how has the media responded? By ratcheting up the investigative issues-based coverage, or by dealing in more politics-as-entertainment type diversions (like Mike Dukakis's tank picture, George Bush calling a reporter an "a-hole," Barack Obama's lapel pin, etc.)?

It has become a circus and the antics have little to do with disseminating real information. The problem I have with election coverage drama is that it ampliefies the sillyest of nuances which distract from the issues.

If I was forced to make a generalization or observation of a trend, the media has been increasingly on the payrole of either the government or the pentagon or some corporate sponsor. Nobody just makes a comment for the sake of analysis anymore. When there is a some freedom of thought, the issues are constrained by an overbearing narrative from a dim witted host.

Take the NYT's account of the analysts behind the war for example. Regardless of political affiliation we see the long reach of pentagon and how money distorts true opinion. Follow it back to the source as one reporter has done, what we find is that the media acts as a cartel and clearly has an agenda. Now repeat that for election coverage.

What elections do you think the general media did a great job covering, which ones do you think were poorly handled?

Compared to other elections, how constructive has this year's primary coverage been?
I think it has been slightly more constructive than 2004. I'm saying this because of the diversity displayed from the candidates namely Paul, Gravel, Hagel, and Obama. What this has done is forced the voter to approach an issue from more than one angle. The ability to view an issue from multiple viewpoints has declined in America, whether from purposeful intent or accident, the result is the same, a poorly defined issue.

I totally agree. I think Pre-Super Tuesday, we had one of the best field of candidates, intellecutally speaking, I can remember in ages. Maybe ever in modern political history. Say what you will about Huckabee, but he brought the contradictions in the republican party to the center stage and all but demanded with the voice of God that the party pay more attention to social issues and blue collar economics than party leaders might prefer. Ron Paul and John Edwards all but accused their respective parties of going wayward. Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton brought race and gender into the debate in what I thought was a constructive manner before the South Carolina dust-up changed everything. And then there was the expertise of Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. I mean, prior to super tuesday this was an amazing contest, and the media had no credit for that. The credit is entirely due to the candidates, and to the internet fanatics who brought Barack Obama and Ron Paul to the limelight.

Naturally, of course, the media wanted to discuss tactics and sportsmanship, not ideas, which is what we look to them to do.


Ted,




Go back and read my earlier post. You're one of a growing chorus that says we don't "know who Obama is." My issue with this is that never can I remember a time when we were so dedicated to "unmasking" a candidate. The biographical investigation of Barack's accomplices absolutely outmatches anything I can remember. I mean, George W. had 3 DUI's -- criminal offenses, life-threatening offenses -- and we didn't find out until late-Octobor november. Bill Clinton had his affairs and his arkansas scandals, but no one ever question the basic assertion that he was who he said he was.

I chalk this up to several factors:

1.) the intensity and high-profile of this primary
2) the fact that Barack is exciting and new to the scene, and therefore newsworthy
3) the fact that we've never had a presumptive nominee come from the black community, and therefore we are just now meeting/creating some of the familiar archetypes (.i.e., the "angry preacher").
4) Hillary Clinton is very good at what she does.
5) like Bill Clinton, he made his biography central to his candidacy

But most of all I chalk it up to the fact that Obama can't hide behind a gloss of familiarity. Very few Americans, black, white, latino, rich, poor, whatever, have ever met someone like Obama. George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan -- you could feel like you knew these people because they all reminded us of people and characters we've seen over and over again in our personal life, in politics, and in the movies. The fact that it took SNL so much longer to find a credible Obama impersonator than it did a Hillary impersonator kind of speaks to that. It's not that we don't "know" Obama. Seriously, I know the guy better than even I want to know him. I could write the guys resume for you right now,

Age 18-20 Attended Occidental College
Age 20-22 Attended Columbia
1983- 1988 worked as a community organizer on the south side of chicago
1988-1992 attended Harvard Law, edited the review.
1992-1996 worked as a civil rights attorney, started lecturing at U Chicago
1997-2002, served as a state senator
2001 - ran unsuccessfully for congress
2004- ran for senate
2008 -ran for president

Christ! I just typed that guy's whole entire resume and I promise you here and now that is not a function of fanaticism. Frankly, that is way more than I want to know. But since July, 2004, the media has been non-stop asking "who is Barack Obama," and I've all but ingested the details from the ether.

I mean, I don't know jack squat about what Hillary has done in her life other than attend yale law, meet and marry bill, and serve as a corporate lawyer on the board of wal-mart, and then as a senator. And she's been around since 1992. I don't know one thing John McCain has done other than he was a fighter pilot, got shot down, stayed in the POW camps for years, and then ran for senate at some point. Guy has been around since 1980 or something, and I still don't know any more about his pre-political life. Cable news has blasted his life to me yet.

I am resolutey certain that the drive to uncover who Barack "really is" has been far more intense than any of the scrutiny launched at his competitors. Some of this has worked to Barack's advantage ("Wow, did you know he has grandparents on the shores of lake victoria!? Wow, did you know he worked as a communtiy organizer?") So, I'm not saying it's an unfair playing ground for him. It tilts in different directions depending on the day. It's a lumpy playing field. But he sure is fighting a different fight than any candidate I can remember.

Finally, on the issue of character: I think these issues of lapel pins and past associations are as good at assessing character as a color blind cop is at enforcing traffic signals. Character is when Barack Obama chums it up with Lester Crown, a maytag board member, during the same week he rants and raves about plant closings in suburban Ohio. That's character. I'd be delighted if the media started talking about character in an even handed fashion. Love it. But "bitter" comments, Hillary's lie about Bosnia -- that's personality politics, and it's a whole nother ball game, so much less central to the question of whether someone is fit for the presidency.