What my cynical side predicts about the upcoming debates

[shetline]

This really captures a lot of the worries I have about how the so-called liberal media will spin the presidential debates:
From "Monica P.", being quoted in a www.moveleft.com article (http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_09_27_tell_the_media__judge_th e_debates_on_substance_not_style.asp)
Kerry:
If he's serious, they'll say he's glum, gloomy, pessimistic, and uninspiring.
If he's jovial, they'll say he's phony and trying too hard.

Bush:
If he's serious, he's presidential, the wartime commander-in-chief.
If he's jovial, everybody wants to have a beer with him.

Kerry:
If he's forceful, they'll say he's too aggressive, mean, negative, desperate.
If he's calm, they'll say he's weak, unsteady, dull, lacks energy.

Bush:
If he's forceful, he's strong, resolute, unwavering.
If he's calm, he's prepared, on-message, disciplined, reserved.

Kerry:
If he's specific, they'll say he's wonkish, presenting "laundry lists," being overly-intellectual, show-offy, and nobody likes the smart kid.
If he's not specific, they'll say he's vague, criticizing but not offering solutions, not addressing the issues, and nobody knows who he is.

Bush:
If he's specific, he "lays out his plan" and "makes his case."
If he's not specific, he's spanning the issues, giving a global presentation, painting a broad outline of his plans.

Kerry:
If he jokes, they'll say he lacks gravitas, trivializes important issues, doesn't understand troops are in harm's way, nation is at war, disrespects the president, etc.
If he doesn't joke, they'll say he's wooden and needs to lighten up, .

Bush:
If he jokes, he's a man of the people, a regular guy, people relate to him.
If he doesn't joke, he truly cares about the American people and his sincerity resonates with voters in this difficult time.

Added to Monica P.'s list by Eric Jaffa:

Kerry:
If he repeats himself, the media will feign dismay, asking why Kerry kept repeating himself.
If he doesn't repeat himself, the media will say Kerry failed to stay "on-message."

Bush: :
If he repeats himself, the media will praise Bush for staying "on-message." :
If he doesn't repeat himself, the media will praise Bush for showing he can be spontaneous.
The article ends with great suggestion -- E-mailing media pundits with your own personal requests that they try harder to focus on substance instead of style, that the fact-check what the candidates are saying, and call them on it when they don't have their facts straight.

I don't know if it'll do any good, but it sure can't hurt. I feel very cynical about how this will all play out, but I'm still willing to fight to try to make a difference.

Edit: For some reason, the article link above -- which looks fine as I edit this text -- gets mangled by the vB URL tag processing. So here's the link as plain text:

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_09_27_tell_the_media__judge_th e_debates_on_substance_not_style.asp

[rageous]

e-mailing them is a great idea. the worst that can happen is nothing changes.

[Wrong Robot]

Kerry:
If he's forceful, they'll say he's too aggressive, mean, negative, desperate.
If he's calm, they'll say he's weak, unsteady, dull, lacks energy.



Heck why wait till the debates, this has been happening right here for months.

[shetline]

I sent my e-mail out to all of the reporters listed in the article. Here's what I wrote:

I want to make a plea for better media coverage of the upcoming presidential debates.

I want to see an emphasis on the substance of what the candidates say in these debates. I want to see fact checkers checking facts. If a candidate gets something important wrong, I want to hear about, loud and clear and up front, placed well ahead of musings about who seems more relaxed or genial or comfortable, or who has the better tan.

When a candidate evades a question by retreating into barely related talking point, or worse, unrelated talking points, I want to hear commentators comment on this. I want to hear plain and honest assessments in our media coverage of who does a better job answering the important questions.

I want to see that "balance" is understood as applying the same objective standards to both candidates, and not understood as "grading on a curve" based on games of heightened or lower expectations.

I want more than a simple "he said, she said" when campaign spokespersons are interviewed after the debates, doling out their inevitable spin. When these people spin too much and too far, please question them on it. Take them to task. Check their facts. "Balance" is not served simply by providing both sides with equal time for presenting unchallenged propaganda.

The public needs thoughtful, insightful reporting. It needs the vast resources of knowledge of the world at large that our media has access to brought to bear on the stories the media reports. It does not need a media mirror which merely reflects back, and then magnifies, trivial reactions to personal mannerisms and unchallenged spin. The media needs to act like it understands that it plays a pivotal role in choosing the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, and not treat the debates as a shallow popularity contest, as if all that were at stake were American Idol fame, or who gets "voted off the island".
I took the time to make an individual e-mail message for each recipient, rather that sticking a dozen e-mail addresses into a single message.

If anyone can suggest a few more media e-mail addresses we should send messages to, it would be great if you could post them here. (Formatting those addresses like "fred AT foo DOT com", or something like that, so we aren't helping spammers).

[rok]

The public needs thoughtful, insightful reporting.

this is the only thing i disagree with. we already HAVE too many "reporters. we need JOURNALISTS.

p.s. i am just playing semantics here, but it is an important point... that these people need to be reminded that their job, at least ideally, should be more than just a talking-head or a headline ticker, and has a much higher role than they have allowed it to take on. yet balanced with the good sense not to fabricate stories where there aren't any.

oh, and extreme-wing commentators from both sides should be tied up with duct tape over their mouths until after the election.

[THT]

Please don't call them debates. They really are just presidential candidate soundbite sessions. They haven't had any substance since the advent of TV, maybe even radio.

I will simply not watch this year.

[shetline]

Originally posted by THT
Please don't call them debates. They really are just presidential candidate soundbite sessions. They haven't had any substance since the advent of TV, maybe even radio.
Even with what little true debate is left (which isn't much, I agree) there's an opportunity here if the press takes it, an opportunity to question and examine those soundbites in a way which seldom happens.

There's information to be found in these staged events, and an opportunity for good journalism (notice I didn't say "reporting" this time! :) ) to much better serve the public than our media often does, if only the chance is seized.

[crazychester]

I don't know about the rest of the pro-Bush media but I can tell you why Rupert Murdoch is so pro-Bush. Because he thinks, or more likely knows, Bush being re-elected will be beneficial to him. I don't mean that in a vague way. I mean he expects specific considerations from the Bush admin as a result of his support.

A deal has probably been nutted out already. It will be along the lines of "In return for partisan support by the Murdoch media empire, a US government under Bush will <insert something that makes Rupert richer or more powerful>".

He's been doing it in Oz for years.

Email Rupert if it makes you feel better but I'm afraid you'll be wasting your time. Rupert isn't interested in what you think let alone journalistic principle.

[shetline]

Originally posted by crazychester
Email Rupert if it makes you feel better but I'm afraid you'll be wasting your time. Rupert isn't interested in what you think let alone journalistic principle.
No, I'm not even going to bother with Murdoch and Fox. That would indeed be a waste of time.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by shetline
There's information to be found in these staged events, and an opportunity for good journalism (notice I didn't say "reporting" this time! :) ) to much better serve the public than our media often does, if only the chance is seized.

"If only" indeed. But it won't. It will be a Bush love fest.

Kerry cannot possibly "win" these debates even if indeed wins them. Today's GOP controlled press will fall in line and Wolf Blitzer and Judy Woodruff and Britt Hume and Tony Snow will all spend roughly 80% of their screen time making jokes about Kerry's tan.

[Placebo]

I seriously think that unless Cheney is prompting Bush through a microphone wired to the president's ear, Kerry is going to own Bush. Bush is naturally inarticulate.

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by Placebo
I seriously think that unless Cheney is prompting Bush through a microphone wired to the president's ear, Kerry is going to own Bush. Bush is naturally inarticulate.

While this would be the case any day of the year, these "debates" are formatted in such a way that bush has had quite some time to prepare. Granted, he still might step over himself and look like an ass(when doesn't he?) it'll still be far less ownage than were the debates to be a little more impromptu

[johnq]

Originally posted by Placebo
I seriously think that unless Cheney is prompting Bush through a microphone wired to the president's ear, Kerry is going to own Bush. Bush is naturally inarticulate.

It's the spin, stupid.

The debate doesn't matter, it's the spin about the superficial moments. Sighing. Walking over to another's personal space. Sweating. Looking at watch.

Do you not watch FOX News? They are fucking RELENTLESSLY tearing Kerry a new one every 3 seconds, and ~50% of the public eats that crap up.

I get the sense that you guys don't watch Fox? Of COURSE you disagree with it, as do I, but don't you want to see what is going on first hand?

Flip-Flop, Tanning cream, "I voted for it before I voted against it", etc etc. all this shit is being bombarded into homes across the country.

I guarantee Bush will win, and it will be because for the profound stupidity of the American people, the unmitigated gall of FOX news et al.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Placebo
I seriously think that unless Cheney is prompting Bush through a microphone wired to the president's ear, Kerry is going to own Bush. Bush is naturally inarticulate.
You'd hope for this to be true, but then you read things like this:

Before debate, analysts give Bush the edge: President seen as having neutralized Iraq as a liability (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6132832/)
But analysts say Bush has recently neutralized Iraq as a political liability, through campaign ads and stump speeches that have boiled the issue down to a series of scripted messages about strength and optimism.

"It's hard to argue with 'strength is good' and 'are you saying you're not for strength?'," said Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
People who must clearly know how shallow and substanceless such a diversion from the mess in Iraq is are still ready to declare a victory for Bush if they feel he's pulled off this diversion. And far be it from our illustrious commentators, when the debate is over, to point out that there's been a diversion -- no, they'll just be awarding points for the cleverness of the propaganda. "He pulled the wool over their eyes again! Score!"

The media (I think I can generalize here from this MSNBC article) is basically saying "We're going to judge success in the debates based on our opinion of how we think shallow, easily manipulated voters will react. Further, we'll then amplify this effect by declaring and praising success reached by these low standards, and by declaring failure for even the most substantive arguments if we don't think those arguments are 'punchy' and short enough for the stupid voters to understand."

All Bush has to do is stick to his script, and plenty of so-called pundits are gearing up to reward him with a declaration of victory for doing nothing more than that.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by johnq
I guarantee Bush will win, and it will be because for the profound stupidity of the American people, the unmitigated gall of FOX news et al.

What he said.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by shetline
All Bush has to do is stick to his script, and plenty of so-called pundits are gearing up to reward him with a declaration of victory for doing nothing more than that.

:lol: So true. So true.

[johnq]

Originally posted by Northgate
What he said.

I should clarify I mean ~51% of the American voters, or as in the case of 2000, ~49% and some corrupt judges. :D

[THT]

Shetline shouldn't be cynical about the upcoming debates. Why? Because what he is worried about is normal, not unusual. Is it really cynicism when it is the normal state of affairs? It is very much up to Kerry surrogates to win the post-soundbite-session soundbite-session in the political infotainment shows.

It's an uphill battle though. The upcoming presidential candidate soundbite session is perfectly formatted for GWB. The only thing required is the recitation of talking points no matter whether it really answers a question or not. Lies are perfectly ok too. GWB is a master at that. Worse yet, Kerry surrogates and Dem pundits suck on soundbite political infotainment shows. So, it is an uphill battle in both ends of the presidential soundbite sessions.

I advise simply not watching since it provides no substantive value. The event does not help the nation anymore.

[Towel]

Originally posted by THT
I advise simply not watching since it provides no substantive value. The event does not help the nation anymore. As flawed as it is, it's still the longest that most people will ever hear both candidates speak. Assuming there's no color commentary, it's about the only time most people will get to hear a candidate's voice solo for more than 5-seconds at a time. Even 90-second soundbites are better than the 3-second half-clause soundbites heard on the local news, and a few dozen of them in a row are better still.

Yeah, that's sort of like saying eating bugs is better than eating shit, but if that's all you can find, it is. ;) :p

[Northgate]

John Kerry needs to drive home ALL of Bush's policy failures. The republicans are trying to make John Kerry seem bad for SOME OF THE STUPIDEST REASONS on the face of the planet, in order to divert the attention of voters from THE TRUTH, which is:

Bush is responsible for the MEANINGLESS death of over a thousand Americans, and countless Iraqis.

Bush has SERIOUSLY undermined our country's future with financial recklessness that MY GRANDKIDS who aren't even born yet will still be trying to fix years from now.

Bush has declared a cultural war on freedom, from within our own country, in an attempt to force Americans to live by his religious codes.

Bush has NOT been constrained by any of the following: Revulsion of the civilized world, rule of law, human decency, common sense, clear disagreement of HIS OWN subjects.

It's all about Bush: the biggest failure of the last fifty years, IRAQ, his misleading of Americans about Iraq's threat level, his complete ineptitude of the post-war situation, and ultimately the danger he poses. _It's NOT about John Kerry's haircut (which is also evil, but in a different way...)