Stretching credibilty and straining the incredulous

There are quite simply some storylines during this campaign season that defy plausibility.

# Consider the following excerpt from the Nevada Democratic Party about the recent convention in Reno: “Nevada Democrats wrapped up a successful state convention today by voting on a party platform and electing the five Democrats who will represent Nevada in the Electoral College.” [NVDem] If the press release means that “successful” means the state party convention didn’t devolve into the chaos that marked the Republican confab, then the statement might be creditable. However, DeeH’s posts, those from Blue Lyon, and this report from an attendee from Humboldt County – “On Saturday morning, we arrived at Registration promptly at 7 AM and were, once again, turned away because we were “not on the list.” We weren’t on the Delegate list (as we expected to be) nor were we on the Alternate list. Finally, at 8:30 AM, we magically appeared on the “Alternate” list and were able to receive an “Alternate” badge. We could, at least, sit in the Alternates area and observe the convention business. […] That time came and went and we were told the revised time would be 12 Noon instead. But 12 Noon came and went, and it wasn’t until 2:05 PM that we finally received our Delegate credentials,” indicate something rather less than a well organized, effective, convention.

# The McCain campaign didn’t know it was up to its ears in lobbyists before May 15, 2008. Senator McCain’s national finance co-chair just resigned “the latest casualty of a presidential campaign eager to cauterize damage caused by its ties to lobbyists.” [NYT] Thomas Loeffler’s departure brings the total number of top firm lobbyists departing from significant roles in the campaign to five. [WashMon] As Kevin Drum pointed out, the McCain for President organization had to know these people were lobbyists when they were initially hired – no one had to “point it out to them.” Unless, of course, they were hiring people without looking at their resumés; and who would believe that?

# Members of the United States Senate believe that it might be perfectly acceptable to finance the bank bail outs from funds set aside to assist low income renters. Last Thursday GOP and Democratic leaders on the Senate Banking Committee reached a ‘tentative deal’ to assist those who are far behind on mortgage payments by using a portion of the profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “that had been set aside for low income rental housing.” [WaPo] via TPMEC If this is some sort of trial balloon, then it ought to be pointed out that it’s made of pure lead.

# There are serious editors and publishers in the corporate media who are gatekeepers taking their assignments seriously when it comes to columnists making derogatory, shallow, and puerile ‘jokes’ about presidential candidates and party leaders. This statement isn’t the least bit credible in the face of recent comments by Maureen Dowd, Kathleen Parker, Chris Matthews, and Monica Crowley; all of whom have provided solid evidence that their individual senses of humor haven’t progressed much beyond that associated with junior high school locker rooms. [Digby] When my grandmother used to describe people of this ilk as “common,” she didn’t mean it as a compliment.

# Presidential candidate Senator John McCain needs former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee on the campaign trail. As the trite question goes: With friends like these who needs enemies? First Huckabee makes a joke about an assassination attempt on Senator Barack Obama, who was given Secret Service protection early in the campaign because of very plausible threats, and after that gaffe goes on Meet the Press to say he thought Senator McCain singing “Bomb, Bomb, Iran” was funny. [TP]

# Any discussion of Bush Administration corruption is old news. The perversion of the Bush Administration continues to be uncovered, and Government Executive has created a quick interactive (Six Degrees of Scott Bloch) showing the connections between the chief of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and several scandals.

# Average Americans just aren’t capable of understanding all the nuances of the mortgage industry and the subject should be dealt with by experts. Well, perhaps when industry representatives indulge in terminology like “counter-cyclical diversification strategy,” when they actually mean “piling on” a mortgage holder in default, the subject could tend to lose focus. [CreditSlips has additional information on the mortgage servicing hearing in the Senate]

ABC delivered what a network makes money delivering: Political Debates as Info-tainment Game Shows

That must have been one piddling-poor job done last night by ABC’s news folk who put on a ‘debate’ that’s been reviled from nearly every corner except the radical right. Obama supporters call it a ‘hit-piece.’ [HuffPo] [DKos] Clinton supporters, and others, weren’t pleased with the paucity of policy questions. [DKos] No one appears too happy with the tenor and topics of the event. [Benen]

All in all, what we may be watching doesn’t really have that much to do with political campaigns but perhaps more to do with what’s happened to the national networks in terms of political coverage. This dumbing-down isn’t anything new. The National Police Gazette, launched in 1845 offered readers crime stories, tales of the Wild West, racy pictures of prostitutes, strippers, and burlesque entertainers; and, this lasted until the publication drifted in to oblivion in 1982. Today’s gossip magazines aren’t too far removed from the Fan-Mags of the film studio era, and if the National Enquirer can’t entertain us with the truth it is delighted to offer up some incredibly creative writing. What is relatively new is that the national media have invested in the politics of personality and the Police Gazette/National Enquirer mode of journalism, and have done so from three angles.

Info-tainment: Those who bothered to tune into the umpteenth debate (television being a duplicative medium) and found more sound and fury signifying relatively little, might want to recall that these debates are not sponsored by the League of Women Voters, but by the same commercial enterprises that bring us Top Chef, American Idol, and Dancing with the Stars. The audience for any broadcasting isn’t the viewer – the ultimate consumer is the advertiser. Pitting professionals and/or amateurs against each other, or setting up competitors in artificial situations like Survivor, make for good drama, a formula the networks have been following for years. How many advertisers are looking to pay to have commercials aired during a high-minded discussion of topical issues like nuclear energy waste disposal or eastern European diplomatic initiatives? ABC sold ad-time for a ‘show,’ not an exercise in civic policy discussion – and a ‘show’ they delivered.

Hollywood on Parade: Keeping in mind that ABC (and, to be fair, other broadcast networks) is in the business of selling advertising ‘space,’ the questioning devolved into what David Brooks praised as the exploration of evasions, contradictions, and vulnerabilities [NYT] This is precious little more than the tabloids do when describing celebrities who scramble away from cameras after a custody hearing, make a movie about honor and then have a hit and run accident charge, or admit to a substance abuse problem and enter a rehabilitation program. By all accounts the ABC debate program was nothing more, nor less, than the application of tabloid journalism to the political scene. Tabloids sell. Expecting ABC to operate against its own interests (selling ad time) may be a bit naïve. However, we do allow the networks free use of public airwaves and have come to expect that they will indulge us with some content saturated programming in return. That they would deliver such content during prime time might be too much to ask?

The Jessica Savitch-Howie Long Syndrome: If ‘competition shows’ sell ad time, and tabloid reporting is profitable, then it’s not exactly a great leap to find that many broadcast journalists are locked into the Jessica Savitch mold. The cameras loved the former NBC anchor, even if she often appeared not to understand the story she was delivering, or even if she appeared (as on October 3, 1983) to be operating under the influence of something other than the prompter. News directors began hiring more ‘glamor,’ and more ‘talent’ from beyond the narrower sphere of professional journalists and reporters. The latest fad (Did we say that television is a duplicative industry?) is the promotion of various talent with attributes mostly beginning with the word “former.” ABC component ESPN is filled with 'former' (insert sport of choice) commentators, in fact, one could assert that they could barely produce any programming without them. All that the networks appear to demand is that the presenter be reasonably attractive, have some earned credibility in a given specialty (ex-football player/analyst; or, ex-campaign press director/commentator/moderator), and not do or say anything that might drive off real and potential advertisers.

If info-tainment sells commercials, tabloid format journalism is profitable, and talent isn’t required to do much more than exude some credibility based on former employment, then why are we the least bit surprised when a television network proceeds to deliver precisely that kind of programming for which it is best prepared?

Brooks: Kill The Messengers

Even as they try to emulate the popularity and potential of the so-called blogosphere, [TP] the Right Wing pundits can't help but disparage the intelligence of both progressive bloggers and their readers. Think Progress today offers some additional examples.

First, progressive bloggers needn't take columnists like David Brooks' ignorant statements about blogs all that seriously. After all, he's stereotyped all "lefty blogs" into the "childish people posting rants" from lap tops in their parents' basement category, and proceeds from this basic misconception to indulge in the kind of sloppy conflationary logic exemplified in the TP article. This mythology has been around for some time, and pops up occasionally in statements by Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson.

What shouldn't be ignored is the concerted effort by the right wing pundits to equate dissent with demons. This is simply one more facet of the Right Wing Echo Chamber's attempt to characterize all dissent from their proscribed (or perhaps, prescribed) script as "defeatist," "alarmist," and "unpatriotic." Nothing can be more discouraging of democratic ideals, and little can be more harmful to a democracy than the mischaracterization of opponents as unpatriotic and uncivil. This is the point at which Brooks' commentary that "bin Laden sounds like the lefty bloggers" comes perilously close to simplistic demonization, unfortunately, he is not alone.

Nor should the notion that there is no way to win with these people be ignored. If the Right Wing acknowledges that the politically progressive blogosphere is 85%-90% white, 60%-65% male, earning an average $75K income, with 80% to 85% holding four year degrees (40%-50% have advanced degrees) [MYDD] then the next thing we're likely to hear is that the progressives are "elitist," "eggheads," and "out of touch with mainstream America." In short, those who apply the rhetorical techniques commonly associated with the Right Wing Echo Chamber, don't want to engage issues on factual and logical grounds.

The bottom line is that the Right Wing Echo Chamber has almost become a one trick pony. Their staple is the ad hominem attack; i.e. Kill the Messenger. Anyone with even a cursory introduction to logic and rhetoric understands that this is the weakest of all forms of argument.

Does the progressive blogosphere challenge the statistics offered by the Pentagon for sectarian violence in Iraq? The RWEC prefers not to address the research reported in the Washington Post, instead it is far easier to attack those who amplify that article in the blogs, and easier still to revert to the "liberal media" thematic assault. To challenge authority, to insist upon accuracy, integrity, and honesty, is far from un-patriotic and uncivil, it is the cornerstone of civil literacy.

Writers for the Campaign for America's Future, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities find their challengers in the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Liberals will tend to cite the former, conservatives the latter. Both acknowledge, implicitly or explicitly, the bias intrinsic in their sources. Both seek to analyze the rationale and conclusions drawn by their opponents, and offer rebuttals. There's nothing wrong with this, in fact, it's called dialogue. Dialogue is amplified in the blogs, and there's nothing wrong with that either.

There are "wingnuts" and "moonbats" in both camps, liberal and conservative. What ought not to be done is to mistake their periodic assaults on each other for the crux of political discussion: Government policy and its ramifications for our American institutions. What conservative Republican pundits should be doing is challenging the assumptions, data, and conclusions of the liberals and progressives -- not settling for that cheapest form of rhetoric, "Kill The Messenger."

Saturday Fear and Cheer

Immigration: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) gave the President a "do-over" on his Immigration Reform bill, but without any indication that the bill had the cliched snow-ball's chance in the House there weren't enough Republican Senators willing to step up to support the measure. And, there may be a price: "There may be some short-term gain from this,” said Linda Chavez, who served in the Reagan administration and is now chairwoman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative public policy group. “But in the long term, it is disastrous for the Republican Party.” [NYT]

Monkey see, Monkey try...they're still monkeys? Some graduates of the Stanford Review, (those wonderful folks who used to stand in front of lecturer's homes and shout anti-gay slogans) think that TheVanguard will be the answer to MoveOn.org -- but once again the old movement conservative problem rears up: How to organize from the top down? One of the founders thinks he has the answer, "Martin insists, though, that command and control will yield to collaboration once conservatives finally catch on. "It's going to be a wonderful thing," he insists, "and it's going to be good for everybody." [MJ] When, in the history of mankind did "command and control" ever yield to anything, much less collaboration? Or, is Martin's notion that once everyone lockstep marches to their set tune it will be good for them?

The Press Corpse: Ken Silverstein isn't going to endear himself to the Washington Press Corp with his expose on the dubious ethics of K-Street, and thank heavens -- he doesn't want to. [LA Times op-ed] "Chuck Lewis, a former "60 Minutes" producer and founder of the Center for Public Integrity, once told me: "The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable." [LAT]

Muckrakers have never been all that popular, the term itself is pejorative. However, the examples cited in his op-ed piece, and others that come to mind like the Watergate scandals, the Sherman Adams vicuna coat scandal , and the infamous Ford Pinto -- all came from reportage that didn't mind being 'unacceptable.'

While not particularly popular, and often revealing that which the elites would rather not discuss "in polite conversation," muckrakers could, in fact, be the salvation of the American newspaper. What else can the print media do that the broadcasters usually cannot?

The most air time "60 Minutes" in its prime could offer was less than 20 minutes of exposure, on one night out of seven. The current propensity for the 'magazine shows' to offer fluff, celebrity, and crime diminishes their capacity to deliver hard news. The majority of nightly news stories are packaged into small, compact segments, encapsulated into easily digested pieces on TV news. Thus, the best format for investigative reporting was, and continues to be, print. Print can serialize, as in the case of the Washington Post chronicles of poor health care and services for veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, or the machinations of Vice President Dick Cheney, to an extent not particularly serviceable for broadcast media. Print can also provide context in depth not associated with broadcast genre. From a consumer's perspective, print offers an informational format that is conducive to reflection; broadcast is more conducive to reaction. News organizations that use this divergence to their advantage may very well be the ones that remain profitable.

"MessO'Potamia" There was probably a very good reason that the U.S. has been warned about arming some groups [CNN] in Iraq: "While the cooperation has helped quell violence in Anbar province, where tribal leaders turned on the group al Qaida in Iraq late last year, driving the radical Islamists from the province, it was by no means a signal that the sheiks would coordinate future actions with the United States or with Iraq's Shiite-led central government. That's likely to pit stronger Sunni tribes against a weaker central government, and further fragment an already fractured country, experts warn." [McClatchy] And, if they do cooperate, there is no guarantee that the fog of war and the confusion of command won't create unintended casualties and equally unintended consequences: "...villagers in largely-Shia al-Khalis say that those who died (when attacked by U.S. helicopter gunships) had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. They say they were local village guards trying to protect the township from exactly the kind of attack by insurgents the US military says it foiled....Minutes before the attack, they had been co-operating with an Iraqi police unit raiding a suspected insurgent hideout, the villagers said." [BBC] BB to DailyKos

Third string players? Those two erstwhile car bombs (that didn't) in London evidently didn't come from the top tier bomb manufacturers in AQ caves, nor apparently from the insurgent's operations in Baghdad: "Security experts said that neither the bomb materials nor the cellphone triggering device was particularly sophisticated. Nor, said Sajjan M. Gohel, a counterterrorism expert with the Asia-Pacific Foundation, did the attack “seem to be very well planned.” [NYT] Former CIA agent Larry Johnson, sums up the situation: "You know what you call a vehicle with 50 gallons of gas? A Cadillac Escalade. The media meltdown over this incident is simply shameful." [No Quarter] Prediction: The British and Scottish Police will discover a 'ring' of wannabee jihadists who wanted to bring in the Brown government with a bang. [BBC] For his part, Gordon Brown didn't ring the fire bell in his press release: " Let me first of all thank the police, the security services and all the emergency services for the dedicated professionalism that has been shown in responding to the incidents yesterday in London and now today the attack on Glasgow Airport." What's missing that an American reader might expect is the hyperbole of "courage," "patriotism," etc. and instead we find a leader thanking the first responders for their professionalism, without any reference to the July bombings at all.

"The first duty of the government is the security and safety of all the British people, so it is right to raise the level of security at airports and in crowded places in the light of the heightened threat." That's it...just raise the threat level, no "enemy combatants," no warrantless wiretaps, no expansion of MI-5, just "be alert." One should caution that the British concern for privacy and civil liberties is (as might be expected, after all George III was one of theirs) less honed than that in the States.

"I want all British people to be vigilant and I want them to support the police and all the authorities in the difficult decisions that they have to make. I know that the British people will stand together, united, resolute and strong." What? No fear-mongering? No gotta' fight'em there so they won't come here? No calls for additional appropriations for missile defense systems? This quiet call for vigilance sounds quite different from that which a person might expect as a reaction from the Cheney-Bush Administration.
----------
Update: AB 3 Domestic Violence bill left on the cutting room floor during the last session of the Nevada Legislature at Blue Sage Views

Hooray for a little Disarray

The headline reads "Democrats Control the Hill, but not themselves." And the article about speech length limitations at the recent Democratic confab included, "This quaint exercise in Democratic Party discipline lasted about, well, seven minutes." Dana Milbank [WaPo]

Now really, since when is it news that Democrats like to talk? Surely Mr. Milbank's not forgotten those Clintonian Length Speeches which nearly sank The Big Dog's political career before the Scaife Gang tried with their Arkansas Project? Perhaps his high school American History teacher didn't encourage the reading of Wilson's speeches as "exemplars" of international vision -- they were exemplars I suppose, but I remember them better as a perfectly natural version of today's pharmaceutical sleep aids.

I know there are those who find the loaded language uncomfortable when Republicans are described as having an "internal controversy" while Democrats are busy having their "disarrays," and being undisciplined. Somehow, I find myself enjoying good old fashioned Democratic disarray.

Disarray means never having to call someone names because you disagree. Unfortunately, in the Republican Party one can't have a good old speechifying, barn burning, disarray without being told that criticism is a "stab in the back." I prefer being a Democrat -- we are perfectly free to disarray over anything we like -- including time limits for speeches.

Disarray means never having to adopt group think. The popular line from the Republicans is that Democrats don't have "a plan" for Iraq. Not have a plan? We have dozens. Disarray means we can back the Levin Plan, or the Iraq Study Group Plan, or the Murtha Plan, the Feingold Plan, or the Clinton Plan, the Obama Plan, or the Biden Plan -- or some Plan dreamed up in the local diner over chicken fried steak. I do notice that the White House has recognized our disarray and stopped talking about "no plan" and started using the longer phrase "no plan that will assure victory."

Disarray also means never having to toe the Party line, apparently to the continual bafflement of the pundit class which appears far more comfortable with lock step policy promulgations each perfectly repeated from the day's talking points. Never having to toe the Line du Jour requires a bit more effort, that is, Democrats have to learn to compromise -- first with each other and then with the other side. It's good practice. And, for the most part it creates good governance. After all, what's politics supposed to be anyway except the art of the possible in a democracy.

Perhaps it's a function of having Democrats out of power in Congress for so long that's impinging on the media's tolerance for disarray. Or, maybe some members of the media like to have talking points, and predictable pontificating for their columns and articles. However, one has to hold out hope that they'll first come to appreciate and enjoy disarray, then espouse it as one of the features of democracy, and Democrats. Disarray being so much more, well, democratic.

And, you have to admit -- this disarray loving group did, in fact, manage to keep to their time limits for seven whole minutes, and if anyone's been keeping track of these kinds of matters it's probably a record?